Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 05-20-2008, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

IF

Justin Martyr said the apostles wrote the memoirs

THEN

Justin Martyr thought he knew who wrote the memoirs.

Which word is causing trouble? apostles, wrote, or memoirs? Which of these are you mistaking for the word anonymous, or un-named, or I do not know?

I should have written, "Justin did not mention the NAMES of the authors of the memoirs of the apostles."

And the probabilIty that Justin did not know the NAMES of the authors is increased when Justin quoted passages found ONLY in gMark and GLuke but claimed these passags were from the memoirs of the apostles.

Now, according to Eusebius in "Church History", the authors called Mark and Luke were NOT apostles.

So, I hope you see the problem. Justin quoted passages from gMark and gLuke as passages written by apostles but Mark and Luke were NOT apostles.

It is reasonable to claim Justin did not know the names of the apostles who wrote the memoirs and further that Justin did not know that persons who were NOT apostles also had passages in the memoirs of the apostles.

ah, I see what now what you are getting at! I do see your point but I do not see the problem. the NT does not have that rigid of a definition of an apostle. In a strict sense, you would refer to the 12 as the apostles but in a broader sense it is used to include many church leaders. Paul for example referred to himself as an apostle and had the blessing of the 12 but was not an original eyewitness. there is no indication that Apostle, in this sense meant only the 12.

it is not that technical of a term. it is a greek word that means delegate.

~steve

djrafikie · 05-20-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by djrafikie

erm.. punctuation, not present in much of the torah, or latin vulgates.
added later..
we all accept it can change meanings, right?
it was all added much later.

yes, of course.

Well, if someone accepts that argument (ie - that punctuation alters meaning) then they must also accept that the meanings of many things in the bible are distorted.

And thats before you even get into the debatable stuff, because we know absolutely that there was no punctuation as we understand it in any of the older texts.

aa5874 · 05-20-2008, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I should have written, "Justin did not mention the NAMES of the authors of the memoirs of the apostles."

And the probabilIty that Justin did not know the NAMES of the authors is increased when Justin quoted passages found ONLY in gMark and GLuke but claimed these passags were from the memoirs of the apostles.

Now, according to Eusebius in "Church History", the authors called Mark and Luke were NOT apostles.

So, I hope you see the problem. Justin quoted passages from gMark and gLuke as passages written by apostles but Mark and Luke were NOT apostles.

It is reasonable to claim Justin did not know the names of the apostles who wrote the memoirs and further that Justin did not know that persons who were NOT apostles also had passages in the memoirs of the apostles.

ah, I see what now what you are getting at! I do see your point but I do not see the problem. the NT does not have that rigid of a definition of an apostle. In a strict sense, you would refer to the 12 as the apostles but in a broader sense it is used to include many church leaders. Paul for example referred to himself as an apostle and had the blessing of the 12 but was not an original eyewitness. there is no indication that Apostle, in this sense meant only the 12.

it is not that technical of a term. it is a greek word that means delegate.

~steve

But, nowhere in the NT did Mark and Luke call themselves apostles. And nowhere in the NT did anyone claim Mark and Luke wrote any Gospels.Also, no author of the Gospel ever claimed that their name were either Mark or Luke.

There is no indication that Justin Martyr ever heard of these characters, Mark and Luke, in all of his extant writings.

sschlichter · 05-20-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djrafikie

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

yes, of course.

Well, if someone accepts that argument (ie - that punctuation alters meaning) then they must also accept that the meanings of many things in the bible are distorted.

And thats before you even get into the debatable stuff, because we know absolutely that there was no punctuation as we understand it in any of the older texts.

I accept the fact that there was no punctuation, I did not accept an argument that a language with less punctuation cannot convey meaning.

sschlichter · 05-20-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

ah, I see what now what you are getting at! I do see your point but I do not see the problem. the NT does not have that rigid of a definition of an apostle. In a strict sense, you would refer to the 12 as the apostles but in a broader sense it is used to include many church leaders. Paul for example referred to himself as an apostle and had the blessing of the 12 but was not an original eyewitness. there is no indication that Apostle, in this sense meant only the 12.

it is not that technical of a term. it is a greek word that means delegate.

~steve

But, nowhere in the NT did Mark and Luke call themselves apostles. And nowhere in the NT did anyone claim Mark and Luke wrote any Gospels.Also, no author of the Gospel ever claimed that their name were either Mark or Luke.

There is no indication that Justin Martyr ever heard of these characters, Mark and Luke, in all of his extant writings.

Well, who do you suggest he thought the apostles were? He is reading the memoirs of the apostles, claims they were written by the apostles and they list the names of the 12. Why, in the purpose of what he was writing, would he need to clarify the difference. Why do we?

There is also no indication that the sky was blue from Justin Martyr. It lacks relevance.

We do not need Justin Martyr. There is plenty of internal evidence for the authorship of Luke, and both Mark and Luke is quoted and attributed authorship by others before Justin Martyr. Ignatius (and Papias) both quote Mark, "the disciple and interpreter of Peter".

If that doesn't do it for you, then there are two other gospels with the same credentials, all the epistles (also quoted early and frequently). All consistent, all historically verifiable.

What other ancient text enjoys anything close to that? (please answer this time)

~Steve

aa5874 · 05-21-2008, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, nowhere in the NT did Mark and Luke call themselves apostles. And nowhere in the NT did anyone claim Mark and Luke wrote any Gospels.Also, no author of the Gospel ever claimed that their name were either Mark or Luke.

There is no indication that Justin Martyr ever heard of these characters, Mark and Luke, in all of his extant writings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Well, who do you suggest he thought the apostles were? He is reading the memoirs of the apostles, claims they were written by the apostles and they list the names of the 12. Why, in the purpose of what he was writing, would he need to clarify the difference. Why do we?

So, according to you then, it was not only Matthew and John who wrote the memoirs, it was all twelve apostles, or a combination of Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon Zelotes, Judas the brother of James and Matthias who could have written the memoirs.

Or, perhaps, in addition to the twelve apostles, any other person who called themself an apostle, since as you stated earlier the name apostle is not confined to the 12 named apostles of Jesus and would include Mark, Luke, "Paul" or any other unknown person.

Now, based on your reasoning, I would think that Justin Martyr did not know who wrote the memoirs of the apostles, since it could be any number of unknown person.

sschlichter · 05-21-2008, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, nowhere in the NT did Mark and Luke call themselves apostles. And nowhere in the NT did anyone claim Mark and Luke wrote any Gospels.Also, no author of the Gospel ever claimed that their name were either Mark or Luke.

There is no indication that Justin Martyr ever heard of these characters, Mark and Luke, in all of his extant writings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Well, who do you suggest he thought the apostles were? He is reading the memoirs of the apostles, claims they were written by the apostles and they list the names of the 12. Why, in the purpose of what he was writing, would he need to clarify the difference. Why do we?

So, according to you then, it was not only Matthew and John who wrote the memoirs, it was all twelve apostles, or a combination of Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon Zelotes, Judas the brother of James and Matthias who could have written the memoirs.

Or, perhaps, in addition to the twelve apostles, any other person who called themself an apostle, since as you stated earlier the name apostle is not confined to the 12 named apostles of Jesus and would include Mark, Luke, "Paul" or any other unknown person.

Now, based on your reasoning, I would think that Justin Martyr did not know who wrote the memoirs of the apostles, since it could be any number of unknown person.

Who hosts this forum?

Roger Pearse · 05-21-2008, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Well, who do you suggest he thought the apostles were? He is reading the memoirs of the apostles, claims they were written by the apostles and they list the names of the 12. Why, in the purpose of what he was writing, would he need to clarify the difference. Why do we?

There is also no indication that the sky was blue from Justin Martyr. It lacks relevance.

We do not need Justin Martyr. There is plenty of internal evidence for the authorship of Luke, and both Mark and Luke is quoted and attributed authorship by others before Justin Martyr. Ignatius (and Papias) both quote Mark, "the disciple and interpreter of Peter".

If that doesn't do it for you, then there are two other gospels with the same credentials, all the epistles (also quoted early and frequently). All consistent, all historically verifiable.

Agreed. The objection seems very strange to me. "Justin doesn't name the authors when addressing a message 'please do not kill me' to the pagans so that proves that they didn't have authors"??

All the best,

Roger Pearse

sschlichter · 05-21-2008, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Well, who do you suggest he thought the apostles were? He is reading the memoirs of the apostles, claims they were written by the apostles and they list the names of the 12. Why, in the purpose of what he was writing, would he need to clarify the difference. Why do we?

There is also no indication that the sky was blue from Justin Martyr. It lacks relevance.

We do not need Justin Martyr. There is plenty of internal evidence for the authorship of Luke, and both Mark and Luke is quoted and attributed authorship by others before Justin Martyr. Ignatius (and Papias) both quote Mark, "the disciple and interpreter of Peter".

If that doesn't do it for you, then there are two other gospels with the same credentials, all the epistles (also quoted early and frequently). All consistent, all historically verifiable.

Agreed. The objection seems very strange to me. "Justin doesn't name the authors when addressing a message 'please do not kill me' to the pagans so that proves that they didn't have authors"??

All the best,

Roger Pearse

judging by his moniker, it did not work.

~Steve

Roger Pearse · 05-21-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Agreed. The objection seems very strange to me. "Justin doesn't name the authors when addressing a message 'please do not kill me' to the pagans so that proves that they didn't have authors"??

judging by his moniker, it did not work.

As I recall, he was denounced to the authorities for being a Christian by the philosopher Crescens, whom he had convicted of being ignorant.

I'm not sure what the ancient source for that is; but I think that there are genuine Acta for Justin's trial extant. I don't know if they're online, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.