Peter Kirby

I was responding to the statement that Justin omitted the passion narrative.

Why?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

I've demonstrated in the past on this board that Justin knew Matthew and Luke or a prepared harmony. I'll do it again:

Justin Martyr wrote in ca. 150. ad.

In Studying the Synoptics Sanders and Davies outlined this passage

Do NOT FEAR THOSE [who] kill you and AFTER THESE THINGS are not able TO DO ANYTHING, but FEAR THE ONE who AFTER KILLING [you] is able TO CAST both soul and body INTO GEHENNA

Justin, Apology 1.19.7; Matt. 10.28; Luke 12.4-5)

The text formatting is that way because in an english translation its not easy to see this. But here are the agreements and disagreements:

Justin (agrees with)
not fear those = Matt and Luke
kill you = neither
after these things = luke
are not able = Matthew
to do anything = Luke
but = Matthew
fear= matt and Luke
the one after killing = Luke
is able = matthew
to cast = luke
both soul and body = matthew
into = Luke
Gehenna = Matthew and Luke

Sanders and Davies went on to say this:

"If Justin had our Gospels before him, he was very careful to alternate words in copying from Matthew and Luke, taking 'after these things' from Luke, 'are are not able' from Matthew, and so on. There are two more likely explanations. One is that he quoted fro memory and naturally conflated two similar passages. The other is that he had not our gospels but a collection of sayings which itself depended on them: that he used a prepared harmony."

Vinnie

Evangelion

Go hard, Vinnie.

Evangelion

Toto -

I have found F. F. Bruce particularly helpful in this regard. (See here.)

Mr Kirby's own Website is another excellent source of information concerning the NT mss. Indeed, I would rank it among the best of its kind.

I see no evidence here that the Eucharist is being presented as a celebration of the incarnation. Yes, we have a passing reference to it, but that's about all.

You'll need something a lot stronger than this.

Nonsense. There is plenty of evidence, the authenticity of which is hotly debated.

Alas, I see no justification for such a claim. Thus far, Leidner's entire case appears to consist of little more than bald assertions.

Not particularly impressive.

Toto

I should have been clearer.

Leidner claims that the earlier versions of Jesus' death only involved his being killed by the Jews, with a few details of the crucifixion supplied from Scripture. The fully developed story of the PN, with the Last Supper, the betrayal by "Judas", the Roman soldiers, the trial before the Sanhedrin or the Roman governors, the mockery scene, etc. are all a later fiction. He is, of course, framing the argument this way to argue that these details are therefore false, because they arose late, and because they can be traced to literary antecedents in Philo.

Why did Christians forge documents? Probably because they could. I am not ready to defend this here, (and I am waiting for the Tertullian hypothesis to be developed more on the JM list) but I think that you have to allow for the possibility that any document from the 2nd century has been improved by later Christian copyists.

Toto

I agree with that, but I don't find a lot of material on that website that supports the reliability of the gospels.

I have never sat down and read Bruce through completely, but I have seen his work dissected and criticized, in this forum and by scholars that I respect.

You raise a heavy burden of proof when you don't want to believe something.

Perhaps I should have said there is not a lot of solid, convincing evidence. Witness the variations that Christians have come up with.

Well, you are limited here by what I have been able to summarize or type, so it might look like bald assertions. Leidner fleshes the arguments out in his book with extensive quotes and arguments.

It is a book that ought to be online. Leidner has apparently self-published it, but is not promoting it widely, so I don't think that his motives are commercial. The book lacks an index and the footnotes are difficult to locate.

Vinnie

Is it settled that Justin knew Matthew and Luke? JM contains one explicit reference to GMark as well. Those interested in further info on JM's use of the synoptic Gospels can see Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels. Section 5.2 is entitled 'The Gospel Quotations of Justin Martyr' (pp. 360-402). Like I said, this is common knowledge in the field.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Actually I shouldn't say Justin knew GM and GL, rather, Justin is dependent upon GM and GL (directly or indirectly) in numerous instances.

Vinnie

Evangelion

IOW, it is hopelessly amteurish. Thanks for warning me.

I am aware that Leidner was a patent attorney. Wow. I'll bet that came in handy for his textual criticism.

Not.

GakuseiDon

Sorry, Toto, but unfortunately Freke and Gandy have shown that the Passion and crucifixion were based on a play by Euriphrades (sp?) about the god Dionysus, around 3rd century BCE.

Given that it predates Philo, using "Christ-myth logic", we can only assume that Philo's work on Flaccus was copied from that play.

Also, I believe that the Passion was based on a play by a minor Roman nobleman called Ovid, writing in the 1st century BCE. There were lots of similarities there, as well. Philo obviously copied from there.

Not to mention, according to Talmud writings, Jesus's crucifixion was based on a sorceror called Yeshu ben Stada, which included a hanging on a holiday, and jeering and abuse by onlookers. As this was about 80 BCE (I think), Philo obviously copied from there as well.


Actually, some speculate that it was Jesus who was on the grassy knoll when Kennedy passed by...

Here is the story of Flaccus by Philo: [link]http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book36.html[/link]