Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie
At any rate, it seems that Justin’s comment excludes anything but at least four gospels. No less than four can be implied by the two groups -–the memoirs of those who followed Jesus (memoirs is plural) and of those who followed them (again plural).
The four-fold gospel might be traceable back to the middle of the second century. When coupled with Irenaeus, Tatian's Harmony and the Muratonian fragment, granted a second century date, this seems likely to begin with.
Though the question of Justin and John would still need to be addressed and Justin didn't seem to value the gospels for their individuality. He may have wanted to combine them into one true Gospel, as did Tatian.
Vinnie
|
JW:
Superior Skeptic Neil Godfree has already done the legos work tracing Justin's references to different Gospels:
Justin Martyr's Gospel Narrative
It should be clear that Justin was familiar with:
1) "Mark"
2) "Matthew"
3) "Luke"
4) Proto-evangelium of James
5) Gospel of Peter
He probably was not familiar with Canonical "John" as the % of references to unique material that has higher Christological value in "John" is significantly lower than %s for the others (this is known as "Methodology" Vinnie). "John" looks like it was originally Gnostic and converted to orthodox so it may have existed in some form in Justin's time but he did not consider it authoritative. Also, the Gospel of Peter is more evidence against Papias referring to "Mark" as the Gospel of Peter was authoritative before "Mark" was named and would not have been named "Peter" by anyone who thought Peter was behind "Mark".
Joseph |
"Not familiar with" is a non sequitur since failure to cite a work does not indicate lack of knowledge of it. A better conclusion might be that based upon Justin's extant writings he probably did not know GJohn or probably did not consider it very important since he uses other written sources instead. All it takes is one really solid example to demonstrate dependence (whether direct or indirect) so the % argument does not necessarily work. At any rate, I think there are a few potentials but no clear smoking guns. I favor the second since, in my view, GJohn was probably around for half a century when Justin wrote and apparently had travelled to Egypt (Ryland's fragment) sometime in the first half of the second century.
As far as that site goes, I think a better can be made on the basis of silence for the non-historicity of the twelve than the non-existence of Judas, whom I deem very probable. If you take the twelve as being non-historical then GPeter which, if viewed independent from the canonicals, does not need to place Judas as a member of the twelve to betray Jesus. In fact, it would make more sense if Judas were being created to not place him into the category of "one specially chosen by Jesus in a symbolic eneactment of the restoration of the twleve tribes of Israel). Mark would be the one who did this.
I don't think GPeter is any evidence against Papias's connection to GMark. The Gospel of Peter is attributed to Peter, not his interpreter Mark (See the last verse). GPeter is expected, a Gospel being attributed directly to Peter. GMark is the anomaly.
And if GPet is independent of GMark there is no necessary reason to find the dual connection to Peter troubling unless they come from the same decade and location. Then the competing traditions, at the same time and in the same place becomes an issue.
08-07-2009, 07:41 PM
