aa5874

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.

I can support my position with existing informant and won't resign from presenting facts because of any dis-agreement.

Sheshbazzar

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
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.

There is an echo in here

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.

aa5874

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.

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.


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

Everyone does, unless you don't realise it.

Sheshbazzar

I already addressed this;
I have clearly acknowledged that Justin did NOT know the Gospels by the names of any specific writers called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

"Apostles (plural)...... memoirs (plural)...... "by them, (plural) which are called "Gospels", (plural).....delivered unto us (plural) what was enjoined upon them" (plural)
"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.
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.


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".

aa5874

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?

Sheshbazzar

You simply cannot show that Justin DID have a single book with many versions of the Jesus story similar to the Diatessaron.
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.
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.

aa5874

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.

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.


Well, you must be referring to your own imaginary comparison of the imaginary book.
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.

Sheshbazzar

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?

aa5874

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.

Julio

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]?