FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-25-2009, 10:24 PM   #31
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
[
So to a degree, I am agreeing with you, that The Gospels (as we now have them) were not as Justin knew them, but were extensively reworked, edited and interpolated by latter church writers.
Well, if you agree with me, there there is some degree of mutual agreement.

It is my posion that Justin Martyr did not write about any author named Matthew, Mark, Luke or John as authors of any Gospels, nor did he write about Paul, Peter, James, John or Jude as any writers of letters.

It would appear to me that the canonised NT was either fabricated, re-worked, edited, and interpolated after the writings of Justin Martyr.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
I have spent much too much time on this subject, if we cannot reach a mutual agreement, then we will just have to resign to the fact that the subject of the existence of this book is one thing that we honestly disagree on.
I can support my position with existing informant and won't resign from presenting facts because of any dis-agreement.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 03-26-2009, 08:40 AM   #32
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
So to a degree, I am agreeing with you, that The Gospels (as we now have them) were not as Justin knew them, but were extensively reworked, edited and interpolated by latter church writers.
Well, if you agree with me, there there is some degree of mutual agreement.

It is my posion that Justin Martyr did not write about any author named Matthew, Mark, Luke or John as authors of any Gospels, nor did he write about Paul, Peter, James, John or Jude as any writers of letters.
I agree -in a general way- with this, as it quite obvious that Justin did not employ, or credit most of these names within his writings.

Yet his overall themes, doctrines, and theology comport almost exactly with the contents of the known gospels.
Consider these passages from his Dialogue With Trypho
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Martyr
CHAPTER CIII
"Then what is next said in the Psalm--'For trouble is near, for there is none to help me. Many calves have compassed me; fat bulls have beset me round. They opened their mouth upon me as a ravening and roaring lion. All my bones are poured out and dispersed like water,'--was likewise a prediction of the events which happened to Him. For on that night when some of your nation, who had been sent by the Pharisees and Scribes, and teachers, came upon Him from the Mount of Olives, those whom Scripture called butting and prematurely destructive calves surrounded Him. And the expression, 'Fat bulls have beset me round,' He spoke beforehand of those who acted similarly to the calves, when He was led before your teachers. And the Scripture described them as bulls, since we know that bulls are authors of calves' existence. As therefore the bulls are the begetters of the calves, so your teachers were the cause why their children went out to the Mount of Olives to take Him and bring Him to them. And the expression, 'For there is none to help,' is also indicative of what took place. For there was not even a single man to assist Him as an innocent person.

And the expression, 'They opened their mouth upon me like a roaring lion,' designates him who was then king of the Jews, and was called Herod, a successor of the Herod who, when Christ was born, slew all the infants in Bethlehem born about the same time, because he imagined that amongst them He would assuredly be of whom the Magi from Arabia had spoken; for he was ignorant of the will of Him that is stronger than all, how He had commanded Joseph and Mary to take the Child and depart into Egypt, and there to remain until a revelation should again be made to them to return into their own country. And there they did remain until Herod, who slew the infants in Bethlehem, was dead, and Archelaus had succeeded him. And he died before Christ came to the dispensation on the cross which was given Him by His Father.

And when Herod succeeded Archelaus, having received the authority which had been allotted to him, Pilate sent to him by way of compliment Jesus bound; and God foreknowing that this would happen, had thus spoken: 'And they brought Him to the Assyrian, a present to the king.' Or He meant the devil by the lion roaring against Him: whom Moses calls the serpent, but in Job and Zechariah he is called the devil, and by Jesus is addressed as Satan, showing that a compounded name was acquired by him from the deeds which he performed. For 'Sata' in the Jewish and Syrian tongue means apostate; and 'Nas' is the word from which he is called by interpretation the serpent, i.e., according to the interpretation of the Hebrew term, from both of which there arises the single word Satanas.

For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, 'Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,' is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, 'Worship me;' and Christ answered him, 'Get thee behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.' For as he had deceived Adam, so he hoped that he might contrive some mischief against Christ also. Moreover, the statement, 'All my bones are poured out and dispersed like water; my heart has become like wax, melting in the midst of my belly,' was a prediction of that which happened to Him on that night when men came out against Him to the Mount of Olives to seize Him.

For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass:' His heart and also His bones trembling; His heart being like wax melting in His belly: in order that we may perceive that the Father wished His Son really to undergo such sufferings for our sakes, and may not say that He, being the Son of God, did not feel what was happening to Him and inflicted on Him.
Further, the expression, 'My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue has cleaved to my throat,' was a prediction, as I previously remarked, of that silence, when He who convicted all your teachers of being unwise returned no answer at all.
His prose is densely packed, with subsequent expositions being built successively upon the preceding information- in other words, what could you identify here as being a latter interpolation, and extract from this chapter for example, to "restore" it to a "genuine" text of Justin?
(The question is rhetorical, please -do not- attempt to disassemble Justin's writings within this thread)

The underlined and bolded portion just above, although Justin does not specifically name names, is an obvious and intentional contradiction to the "Gospel of Peter" ("Memoir of Peter") with its Docetist version of the crucifixion that suggests Jesus did not actually suffer, or feel any pain.
(another "gospel"-"memoir" that Justin does not name but is familiar enough with to refute its version of the Crucifixion)

Notice also that Justin employs the familiar "Matthew" infancy story, complete with the Herod and the fictional "Massacre of the Innocents", the Magi, Joseph and Mary, and the flight into Egypt, this hardly allows for the story to have been created any latter than the time of Justin's writing.

And while he does not name John as the author of a Gospel, ("Memoir"), his logos theology and reasoning appears to have came from there, or conversely the Gospel of John may have been fashioned from Justin's writings- which would still place the doctrine presented in "John", as being presented in Justin before 150 CE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
It would appear to me that the canonised NT was either fabricated, re-worked, edited, and interpolated after the writings of Justin Martyr.
There is an echo in here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
I have spent much too much time on this subject, if we cannot reach a mutual agreement, then we will just have to resign to the fact that the subject of the existence of this book is one thing that we honestly disagree on.
I can support my position with existing informant and won't resign from presenting facts because of any dis-agreement.
Good, so long as you present these "facts" in an unbiased fashion, one that acknowledges that your views and interpretations are not the only ones.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 03-26-2009, 10:53 PM   #33
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

Well, if you agree with me, there there is some degree of mutual agreement.

It is my posion that Justin Martyr did not write about any author named Matthew, Mark, Luke or John as authors of any Gospels, nor did he write about Paul, Peter, James, John or Jude as any writers of letters.
I agree -in a general way- with this, as it quite obvious that Justin did not employ, or credit most of these names within his writings.

Yet his overall themes, doctrines, and theology comport almost exactly with the contents of the known gospels.
Consider these passages from his Dialogue With Trypho
CHAPTER CIII
Quote:
"Then what is next said in the PSALM--'For trouble is near, for there is none to help me......
Do you now see that Justin Martyr is very specific and identifies where he quotes from.

Justin quoted PSALM. Amost always he consistently made it known to the reader the name of sources with respect to scripture.

So when Justin repeatedly mentions the memoirs of the apostles that is the name of the source.

Now, look at the same chapter, CIII, the number of authors balloons. It is not only the apostles it has increased to those who followed the apostles. Justin, it would appear, does not know how many persons actually put the memoirs together.

Quote:
For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass:....
The memoirs may have been a single compilation of a collective work of numerous unknown authors similar to the Diatessaron by Tatian.

Justin Martyr, unlike other writers, actually named the source of almost all the passages he quoted.

For example, Justin identified Isaiah by name over 75 times as the author of certain passages.

He identified by name Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Malachi, Hezekiah, Daniel, Micah, Job, Psalm and other writers or writings by name, even at times giving the actual chapter of some writings where he quoted from, like the 49th, 46th and 98th Psalm.

But, Justin wrote about the memoirs of the apostles as if he did not know any specific writers called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

Now, even if there are passages in the memoirs similar to the gospels as we have them today, that in no way can be construed to mean that he had a gospel of a known specific author or that all the information, like genealogies and Luke's conception story was already included in the memoirs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874

I can support my position with existing informant and won't resign from presenting facts because of any dis-agreement.
Good, so long as you present these "facts" in an unbiased fashion, one that acknowledges that your views and interpretations are not the only ones.

Why do you imply that you are not biased or do not have a biased fashion?

Everyone does, unless you don't realise it.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 03-27-2009, 10:30 AM   #34
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
I agree -in a general way- with this, as it quite obvious that Justin did not employ, or credit most of these names within his writings.

Yet his overall themes, doctrines, and theology comport almost exactly with the contents of the known gospels.
Consider these passages from his Dialogue With Trypho
CHAPTER CIII


Do you now see that Justin Martyr is very specific and identifies where he quotes from.

Justin quoted PSALM. Amost always he consistently made it known to the reader the name of sources with respect to scripture.

So when Justin repeatedly mentions the memoirs of the apostles that is the name of the source.

Now, look at the same chapter, CIII, the number of authors balloons. It is not only the apostles it has increased to those who followed the apostles. Justin, it would appear, does not know how many persons actually put the memoirs together.



The memoirs may have been a single compilation of a collective work of numerous unknown authors similar to the Diatessaron by Tatian.

Justin Martyr, unlike other writers, actually named the source of almost all the passages he quoted.

For example, Justin identified Isaiah by name over 75 times as the author of certain passages.

He identified by name Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Malachi, Hezekiah, Daniel, Micah, Job, Psalm and other writers or writings by name, even at times giving the actual chapter of some writings where he quoted from, like the 49th, 46th and 98th Psalm.

But, Justin wrote about the memoirs of the apostles as if he did not know any specific writers called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.
I already addressed this;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshsbazzar
4. Justin's not mentioning any specific names for the "memoirs" that were being read appears to be evidence that these anonymous writings had not yet at that time been assigned the traditional names that the latter church came to ascribed to them.
If they were not yet known by these names, there would be no reason to expect Justin to employ the name titles that would only become familiar in a latter church.
This does not preclude that the documents themselves were substantially the same documents as what latter became known by their present well known names, as quotations by Justin from them also indicates.
Without any well known individual "names" for these early Gospel texts, "the memoirs" would simply be Justin's "catch-all" phrase for these books that at that time, still had no other well recognised titles.
I have clearly acknowledged that Justin did NOT know the Gospels by the names of any specific writers called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin
"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them;
"Apostles (plural)...... memoirs (plural)...... "by them, (plural) which are called "Gospels", (plural).....delivered unto us (plural) what was enjoined upon them" (plural)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin
"For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them,"
"For in the memoirs ............by His apostles.....and those who followed them"

".... the memoirs (plural).........by His apostles (plural)....... and those that followed them" (plurals)

Which at the end also tells us that -these memoirs also included additional writings NOT written by the apostles-, but also those memoirs that were written by
-"those that followed them"
This being so, Justin was correct by not referring to the entire collection of NT writings as being "Gospels".

The Apostles memoirs "are called Gospels", as Justin correctly relates in First Apology LXVI.
The other memoirs were the writings of "those that followed them" and were -not- the Gospels, but other NT writings pertaining to the Gospel.
(note, no plural employed)

This fact precludes the memoirs mentioned by Justin from just being a simple rearrangement and "harmony" of the Gospels" similar to Tatian's Diatessaron.
It also indicates that he was referring to separate and distinctive texts, and not a single composition.
The writings of other early church Fathers, also are clear that The NT was composed of two distinct types of texts, The Gospels and The Writings.


Before you object, No, without any clear reference being made by Justin to any of "Paul's" writings, or to the "Acts of the Apostles", they cannot be included by fiat-
I believe these to have been composed latter than Justin Martyr, we can determine by Justin's account that they were not known to him, thus unlikely to have been known to the church at large.
The greatest likelihood being that they simply did not exist at that time, and are indeed the fabrications of latter church writers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Now, even if there are passages in the memoirs similar to the gospels as we have them today, that in no way can be construed to mean that he had a gospel of a known specific author or that all the information, like genealogies and Luke's conception story was already included in the memoirs.
I agree on this, as there is evidence that the Gospels underwent some level of tampering and revision by the latter church, but that does not remove the fact that the evidence clearly indicates that the narrative stories themselves existed from a time prior to Justin.

As I pointed out, Justin appears very informed with regard to the Infancy narrative as it is presented in our present text called "Matthew", and that he builds his apologia upon it in an inextricable manner that makes it clear that it is original to, and essential to, both his argument and to the text.

Simply removing or dismissing those names that the latter church applied to so as to identify the various versions of the story, does not remove the fact that those narrative stories in substantially their present known forms were already well known, being preached, and expounded upon as early as the beginning of the first century.

Citing Justin does not do as much to discredit Christianity, as it does to establish that Christianity in all of its essential details, was present and active circa 100-165 CE.
-edited to add-(To overturn this, would require accepting mountainmans theory that Justin, all of his writings, and all of the writings of the other church Fathers were all fabricated by Eusebius and Co. sometime after 300 CE, very few real scholars are willing to do so.
If you wish to make cake here, provide some irrefutable proof that Justin's "First Apology" and the "Dialogue with Trypho" was actually fabricated by the Christian church writers centuries after their claimed dating. Good luck)

To believers it makes little difference if the latter church "made up" the names for the authors, it is the STORY after all, that they are believing in, and it doesn't matter to them, who is doing the telling of it.
Even conflicting accounts or details do not get in the way of those who are determined to believe.
They believed it in Justin's day, even when there were no Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John names applied.

Justin has a well developed theology and a great range of knowledge that is hardly likely to have been arrived at by the efforts of any single individual, he is drawing upon a storehouse of Biblical reasoning's that indicates where many unknown believers had went before. He didn't just dream up all of these observations and complex arguments on his own, he heard or read many of them, and expounded and added to what he had already heard or read.
Justin did not invent "Jesus Christ" or "Christianity", much less any latter church.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874

Good, so long as you present these "facts" in an unbiased fashion, one that acknowledges that your views and interpretations are not the only ones.
Why do you imply that you are not biased or do not have a biased fashion?
Everyone does, unless you don't realise it.
Of course I am biased, you do not however, know what my biases consist of, and often mistake them for being "Christian" biases, which they most definately are not.
In this case you had repeatedly extracted the phrase "the memoirs" from Justin's writings as your "fact", while conveniently omitting the context, and those explanations that he also gave that clarified what he meant by the phrase "the memoirs", being "The Gospels" of the apostles, and the writings "of those that followed them".
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 03-27-2009, 11:28 AM   #35
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post

This fact precludes the memoirs mentioned by Justin from just being a simple rearrangement and "harmony" of the Gospels" similar to Tatian's Diatessaron.
You simply cannot show that Justin did not have a single book with many versions of the Jesus story similar to Diatessaron.

The Diatessaron is , in effect, a book containing what appears to be memoirs of Jesus.

Now, it is claimed that Tatian was a disciple of Justin.

You have repeatedly asked me to produce the memoirs of the apostles, why do you now think that you know the composition of such a writing?
aa5874 is offline  
Old 03-27-2009, 12:12 PM   #36
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post

This fact precludes the memoirs mentioned by Justin from just being a simple rearrangement and "harmony" of the Gospels" similar to Tatian's Diatessaron.
You simply cannot show that Justin did not have a single book with many versions of the Jesus story similar to Diatessaron.
You simply cannot show that Justin DID have a single book with many versions of the Jesus story similar to the Diatessaron.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
The Diatessaron is , in effect, a book containing what appears to be memoirs of Jesus.
We have the Diatessaron, we know what the contents are.
You have failed and/or refused to produce your imaginary Book The Memoirs of the Apostles, so a comparison between a text we have, and one that does not exist cannot be done and has no validity.

My interpretation of Justin's catch-phrase "memoirs of the apostles" admits to separate and individual documents, and his individual quotations are to be compared with those found within texts that actually exist, or are attested to by other sources.
You attempt to present that it is possible to compare something to nothing, and that based upon this "comparision", conclusions can be inferred or drawn.
To that I say Bull.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Now, it is claimed that Tatian was a disciple of Justin.

You have repeatedly asked me to produce the memoirs of the apostles, why do you now think that you know the composition of such a writing?
Justin tells us what writings he is referring to; "The Gospels" of the apostles, and the writings of ..."those that followed them".
So I am certain of what writings Justin was referring to, and his quotations and employment of those works makes it clear which known documents he was endorsing.
I don't need any imaginary and unattested book to construct or defend a faulty presupposed theory.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 03-27-2009, 01:11 PM   #37
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

You simply cannot show that Justin did not have a single book with many versions of the Jesus story similar to Diatessaron.
You simply cannot show that Justin DID have a single book with many versions of the Jesus story similar to the Diatessaron.
I have not claimed that Justin had a single book, your are the one who claimed he did not have a single book.

You cannot prove such a thing. You cannot tell me what the actual composition of the memoirs except for the passages that were written by Justin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
This fact precludes the memoirs mentioned by Justin from just being a simple rearrangement and "harmony" of the Gospels" similar to Tatian's Diatessaron.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
We have the Diatessaron, we know what the contents are.
You have failed and/or refused to produce your imaginary Book The Memoirs of the Apostles, so a comparison between a text we have, and one that does not exist cannot be done and has no validity.
So, why have you done a comparision with the imaginary book and the Diatessaron when you know it is invalid.

This what you posted, "This fact precludes the memoirs mentioned by Justin from just being a simple rearrangement and "harmony" of the Gospels" similar to Tatian's Diatessaron.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
My interpretation of Justin's catch-phrase "memoirs of the apostles" admits to separate and individual documents, and his individual quotations are to be compared with those found within texts that actually exist, or are attested to by other sources.
You attempt to present that it is possible to compare something to nothing, and that based upon this "comparision", conclusions can be inferred or drawn.
To that I say Bull.
Well, you must be referring to your own imaginary comparison of the imaginary book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Now, it is claimed that Tatian was a disciple of Justin.

You have repeatedly asked me to produce the memoirs of the apostles, why do you now think that you know the composition of such a writing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
Justin tells us what writings he is referring to; "The Gospels" of the apostles, and the writings of ..."those that followed them".
So I am certain of what writings Justin was referring to, and his quotations and employment of those works makes it clear which known documents he was endorsing.
I don't need any imaginary and unattested book to construct or defend a faulty presupposed theory.
Really? So the memoirs of the apostles are not imaginary after all?

Please, produce Justin's "Gospels" of the apostles, you must certainly know what it contained and the authors.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 03-27-2009, 04:55 PM   #38
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

The Diatessaron of Tatian is harmony of The Gospels, it does not include the writings- "of those that followed them" which Justin tells us were among the memoirs that he was employing.
This indicates that the memoirs used by Justin contained material not found within the Diatessaron, or the Gospels, but never mind.

Obviously, neither of us have exactly whatever writing(s) it was that Justin was relying upon.

Hell, for the sake of argument, I'll even give in, and concede -for a while-, that your flying pink unicorn really existed. (I do however intend to return to those unanswered and unchallenged points latter)

OK, you got the floor, here are a few questions to start you off.
What is it that you think the existence of a single Book called "The Memoirs of The Apostles", rather than multiple documents proves?

Do you think this means that the entire Christian church was limited to only one single NT book, "The Memoirs" of Justin?
And that that one single book contained every NT writing accepted by the then present Christian church?
And that no other NT writings could have ever been produced before, or have co-existed with it?
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 03-27-2009, 09:31 PM   #39
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Let me make my position clear.

Justin Martyr was a meticulous writer. He identified almost all passages of the authors by name.

He identified possibly all the 12 prophets by name and mentioned numerous OT characters like Moses, and David.

He mentioned the prophet Isaiah over 70 times alone and passages found in the writings of Isaiah.

Justin Martyr did not write about any person called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as any author of Gospels. He did not write about any letter writers called Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude. He did not write about Acts of the Apostles or any author called Luke who is claimed to have written Acts of the Apostles.

Justin specifically mentioned one single author of a REVELATION called John.

Now, in the Church History by Eusebius, the gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John should have been already written and known long before Justin.

The letters from Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude should been well known in the churches all over the Roman Empire long before Justin.

Acts of the Apostles should have been written and well known all over the region and in the churches.

Yet, Justin Martyr wrote not one thing about these characters in defense for Jesus. He wrote nothing about the conversion of Paul, the persecution that Paul suffered or not a single word about the martyrdom of Peter or Paul, the first bishop of Rome and super-evangelist.

It would appear to me that Justin Martyr was not aware of any named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, or any of the letters to the churches.

Justin Martyr has actually presented another history of Jesus believers.

The history from Eusebius is known to be filled with BLATANT fiction and forgery.

And I cannot find any such things, fiction and forgery, in Justin. I will pursue or investigate the history as presented by Justin Martyr, perhaps Justin Martyr is credible.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 03-27-2009, 10:50 PM   #40
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 5,187
Default

So far, I’ve found this discussion fascinating and instructive to read. Thanks a lot for your effort.
Just this nagging question, then:
What are the “MANY” stories/memoirs Luke refers to right in his “Introduction”, verse one?
Surely, if “he” wrote his gospel post-Apostolic Fathers, MANY of those “apocryphal” gospels, Acts and Revelations were already in circulation by the time of Justin.
Is it perhaps possible that Justin had seen some of those “many” and didn’t consider them “canonical” in any way, not deserving mentioning by each particular name [if there was such a name/title], but generally as "memoirs" [a title he himself invented]?
Julio is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:00 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.