aa5874

I consider that the stories about Jesus in the short gMark to PREDATE the stories about Jesus in the Memoirs of the Apostles as found in the writings of Justin Martyr.

There are far more events and details of events found in the Memoirs that Match the Later Gospels of gMatthew, and gLuke.

1. In the Memoirs of the Apostles there is a birth narrative--See Matthew 1 and Luke 1

2. In the Memoirs of the Apostles it is claimed Jesus was born in Bethlehem--See Matthew 2.1 and Luke 2

3. In the Memoirs of the Apostles it is claimed the Magi visited the baby Jesus and gave gifts of Myrrh, Frankincense and Gold--See also Matthew 2.11

4. In the Memoirs of the Apostles it is claimed when Christ was born, Herod slew all the infants in Bethlehem---See also Matthew 2.16

5. In the Memoirs of the Apostles it is claimed Joseph and Mary took the Child and departed into Egypt--See also Matthew 2.14

6. In the Memoirs of the Apostles it is claimed Jesus was born at the Taxing of Cyrenius--See also Luke 2.2

6. In the Memoirs of the Apostles it is claimed Jesus said 'Get thee behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve--See also Matthew 4.10

7. In the Memoirs of the Apostles it is claimed Jesus said 'Unless your righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven--See also Matthew 5.20

8. In the Memoirs of the Apostles it is claimed Peter recognised Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God --See also Matthew 16.16

9. In the Memoirs of the Apostles it claimed Jesus' sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying--See also Luke 22.44

10. In the Memoirs of the Apostles it is claimed Jesus called himself the Son of God--See also Matthew 27.43

11. In the Memoirs of the Apostles it is claimed Jesus said, 'Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit--See also Luke 23.46

12. In the Memoirs of the Apostles it is claimed the Jews said that the disciples stole the body of Jesus--See Matthew 28.13

13. In the Memoirs of the Apostles it is claimed Jesus Ascended--See also Luke 28.51

14. In the Memoirs of the Apostles it is claimed the Apostles preached about Jesus in Jerusalem after the Ascension--See also Acts 2.

jakejonesiv

Dear aa5874,

Thank you for your reply. Yes, it is quite obvious that Justin mentions no Pauline epistles.

Did Justin Martyr have a copy of short gMark as you call it, or was that somewhere else at the time?

Jake

aa5874

I can only tell you what Justin wrote.

Justin wrote about the Memoirs of the Apostles which contained stories of Jesus that were LATER than those in the short gMark and appears to include events found in EACH of the FOUR Canonised Gospels.

We know that Justin's Memoirs ALSO contained stories of Jesus found ONLY in gMark.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho ONLY in gMark it is claimed the Sons od Zebedee were called the Sons of Thunder.

Mark 3Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles appears to be the earliest version of the so-called Diatessaron which it is claimed that Tatian, a disciple of Justin, had in his possession.

Eusebius' Church History 4.29 There is very little doubt that Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles did contain stories about Jesus that are found in EACH Gospel.

1. Only in gMatthew and the Memoirs--- The killing of the Innocent and the Magi.

2. Only in gLuke and the Memoirs--the Tax of Cyrenius, and that Jesus sweats Blood when he prayed before his arrest.

3. Only in Mark and the Memoirs--The Sons of Zebedee were called the Son of Thunder.

4. Only in gJohn and the Memoirs--Jesus was the Logos and became Man.

The Memoirs of the Apostles was far advanced of the short gMark and was most likely composed at a later time.

James The Least

I guess that's one of the biggest questions in this whole thing. Did the writers set out to intentionally deceive? Or did their immediate circle and audience know that they were writing in a genre, sacred narrative, whose purpose was to use historical-seeming events in order to teach higher spiritual "truths"?

aa5874

It is not logical that Known Fiction would be used to teach "higher spiritual truth". How likely is it for a potential convert to have known the stories of Jesus were non-historical and still accept them as the truth??

The start of the Jesus cult must have or was most likely based on deception.

John 14:6 KJV Jesus never said such a thing in the earliest stories.

James The Least

Hope this doesn't repeat too much what others might have said.

Let's try this ...

"Luke-Acts-Pauline Epistles" was originally conceived as a two part book by the Marcionites, entitled "Evagelion-Apostolikon." It purported to tell the "history" of the Christian movement from it's supposed beginning up until the cataclysmic events of the 60s, when ALL of the apostles were martyred or mysteriously disappeared.

Paul had not been part of the myth that Mark and Matthew's circles had crafted. He had to be invented by the Marcionites in order to justify their authority and ideology. Marcion conceived of the idea of apostles writing philosophical letters explaining the meaning of the religion to churches that didn't exist. Mark and Matthew's circles had never thought of this.

So there is some truth (accidentally) in the "high context culture" theory regarding the silence of the historic Jesus in Paul's letters. Marcion didn't repeat himself in the Apostolikon because you were supposed to read it as a supplement to the Evangelion. The "high context" was the same book, not the same culture.

Marcion was deliberately vague about people, places, and events in the Apostolikon because he was writing in the early 100s but wanted his readers to think the letters dated from the 30s and 40s. Occasionally he slipped up and wrote anachronisms like, "God's wrath has come upon the Jews at last."

This vagueness backfired when the Catholics acquired a copy of the Apostolikon and used it to preach against Marcion. They then re-wrote "Acts" to harmonize Paul and Peter, whereas Marcion's version showed them in conflict, or didn't include Peter at all. They then claimed that their "Luke-Acts-Pauline Epistles" were the originals and Marcion had ripped them off. And they started writing letters of their own.

Too far fetched?

aa5874

Your post is totally unsubstantiated. Not even the fiction stories fabricated attributed to Tertullian support your claims about Marcion.

Up to 150 CE there is no corroboration that Marcion wrote anything.

Justin Martyr was a contemporary of Marcion and merely claimed Marcion preached another God and another son--but never said he wrote any books.

All writings attributed to Church writers that claimed Marcion mutilated the Pauline letters are historically bogus.

Duvduv

All the talk about "Marcion" and Marcionites is so far fetched, and is so surprising when it comes from academics who otherwise would always be demanding empirical evidence for everything.

It's far fetched and useless because there is NOT A SHRED of evidence or remnant of a single thing purported to have been written by either Marcion or Marcionites. Nothing. Nada. Zip. ALL there is are the claims of the "indisputable" church writers and apologists. Doesn't that mean something?

The personage known as Justin supposedly lived in the same town and time as Marcion, and the works attributed to Justin say virtually nothing about Marcion, which is HIGHLY strange given the proximity they are said to have had.

I mean, really, even Justin does not identify a single text attributed to Marcion or his followers, who academics claim had some kind of Pauline epistles and gospels. But let's not let that get in the way of all fun in trying to recreate an existence that has not been proven at all.

While we're at it, shall we remember that the writings attributed to "Justin" are from only one SINGLE manuscript from several hundred years ago? Not to mention all the internal problems in the Justin texts which we have discussed repeatedly.

I think it is time for academia to give up on "Marcion" and "Justin" in their constant attempt at reconstructing a 2nd century Christianity.

jakejonesiv

The oldest extant dated church inscription is Marcionite.


The Marcionites rivaled the Catholics in most areas of the Roman Empire, and outnumbered them in many in the mid second century CE. Justin, who lived at the same time as Marcion, wrote that his teachings were universal
throughout the empire, "Marcion ... has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies." Yet even Justin admitted that Marcion was a Christian. "All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians." Apology 1.58.

Jake

jakejonesiv

No, not too far fetched, you are beginning to ask the right questions. Just rememeber that Marcion did not have Acts or the Pastoral Epistles.

Jake