Sheshbazzar

Rylands P52 fragment of the Gospel that came to be named 'John' dated c 117-150 CE is pretty good evidence that the Gospel stories were pretty well established in the early 2nd century, with most scholars accepting that 'John' was the last of the received Gospels to be composed.
So there is pretty good evidence that Christian writings and Christianity did exist in the early 2nd century.

In view of that, it is not incredible that a Greek philosopher would have been an early convert,
(also allowing for the possibility that the church was attracted to his writings on the Logos, and simply 'adopted' him and his writings and expanded upon them -with or without his knowledge or consent.
The church even proclaimed Plato and other pre-Christian Greek philosophers as being unofficial Christians because of their philosophical writings on the nature of the Logos.
Cribbing and claiming relatively unknown Justin as one of there own would have been small potatoes.)

Like many other things, with evolving technology there are many many more archaeological discoveries yet to be made, and ancient documents yet to be reassembled and analyzed, and little reason for anyone without a faith driven agenda to at this point become dogmatic.

We can reach some tentative hypothesis's based upon presently available evidence and knowledge, but all rational persons are well advised to keep an open mind, never knowing what tomorrow may yet uncover.
That is the impartial and scientific approach to dealing with this ancient material.
Atheists do not need to make a religion, with rigid religiously held dogmatic conclusions out of their studies. Leave that methodology to the religionists.
Science is about expanding ones knowledge, day by day, and step by step, not about shutting down the possibility of learning anything that might cause one to change a present view, opinion, or hypothesis.

None of us knows everything, and only the most foolish of men think that they do.

Duvduv

There is often a tendency to grasp at claims or interpretations without ever spending the necessary effort to examine the overall context and content of a text in relation to the world in which it was supposed to have existed, in this case for example, among Jews and even in ancient Palestine. An assessment of a scrap of parchment will hardly do to establish a worldview based on that, but people very often do it, don't they?

So one should ask things like WHERE did the authors of the gospels get that information? HOW did they know x, y or z, and WHY did they misunderstand x, y or z, living allegedly in an environment of access to Jewish ideas and Jews.

WHY is there not a single traditional Jewish source that says anything about the existence of the NT religion at the dawn of the second century in Palestine or anywhere else? Why are there hardly any details from the church sources themselves about the ostensible existence of Christianity in the second century? Why?

The answer is easy, because it DID NOT exist in the first or second century, despite the best efforts of examining this or that scrap of parchment or believing fervently in the claim of this or that text identified with the later church and its biases with no corroboration at all, even by mutually antagonistic groups.

Sheshbazzar

My view? Because the Christian religion did not originate in Palestine, and the NT texts were not written by Jews.
They were the products of synagogue attending gentiles of Antioch and of Alexandria, not of Jerusalem.
fabricating a gentile form of the Jewish religion that would allow their continued uncircumcision while also elevating them from their second-class status.

Most traditional Jewish sources would have remained quite unaware of these writings, passed around among a clannish, secretive, and pagan superstition riddled gentile cult that was minuscule and virtually unrecognized before 200 CE. (look how long it took Justin to encounter it circa 130 CE)
And even if they had came to any Jewish attention, traditional Judaism that dealt with religious matters was insular and inward turning regarding their religion (still are), these foreign produced, foreign language, ignorant, and anti-Jewish religion propaganda writings would not have been approvable for reading, discussion, or commentary by any respectable Jew.

Rylands P52 is hardly the only NT remnant that has been dated to the early second century.
Christianity existed, only not in Jerusalem or Palestine or among traditional Jews (in any significant numbers)



.

aa5874

Justin did no such thing.

Justin knew nothing at all of Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

If Justin knew of Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John he would have identified them by their authors.

Justin only knew of the 12 Illiterate Apostles found in the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Justin's FFirst Apology XXXIX Again, it must be repeated.

The first source, "Against Heresies", to claim there were gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was AFTER, at least 30 years AFTER Justin Martyr.

And even more devastating, the claims made in "Against Heresies" about the authorship, date of authorship and chronology of authorship of the four Gospels have been REJECTED by virtually all Scholars.

It is "Against Heresies" that has supplied us with bogus information about the Four Gospels. There probably was no gospels actually known to be composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in any century.

The Four Gospels in the Canon are prime examples of false atrribution or blatant forgeries.

Duvduv

Even if Christianity did not emerge in Palestine, wherever it did emerge the Jews would have known about it. Now here you have Mr. Justin appealing to his emperor for mercy on his people and he does not even bother to tell that emperor anything that would help the emperor assist him. No mention of any leaders. No mention of any communities. No geographic locations. No colleagues. Nothing. Even in relation to the favorite bogeyman Marcion, there is nothing about his teachings, texts, followers, etc.

This is because the authors of the Justin texts clearly did not want to get too specific about the second century despite the fact that specificity would have helped Justin's case. It was just some writing for impression's sake, including to place the new religion as succeeding the failed and lost Judaism. And for whose sake? The class of literati who had to follow and propagate the Regime religion.

As I mentioned before, the Eusebius text itself does a poor job of promoting evidence from the erstwhile historical Justin. But then again, Eusebius promotes the historical Jesus and Paul too, so it's the same difference.

aa5874

People do not do such a thing. Why do you consistently make blatant erroneous claims?

Sheshbazzar

That is because Justin's writings are propaganda polemic. Who they were addressed to was irrelevant, as the named parties were not the intended audience.
Likely they never even saw these appeals.
People post 'open letters to Obama', they do not expect Obama to ever read what they wrote ....but they want everyone else to.

I agree that they deliberately did not want to get too specific, but not because of the time of the writing, but because the sect, if it revealed its location(s) and names of is leaders, at that early juncture, could have been wiped out in a day.
All they were doing with these writings, was playing an early version of 'Westboro Baptist mouth', a few religious wackos making a lot of noise to draw attention to their peculiar religious beliefs, as a means to reach and solicit new members.

The introductory to Justin's 'First Apology' is just a 'door opener' composed to make it sound like an important political plea for the rights of a large segment of the populace that is being treated unjustly. It is as phony as a $3 bill.
Christianity of that time did not constitute even .001% of the population.
The work was composed solely to disseminate 'Justin's' philosophical religious drivel on the Logos, and promote the 'Christian' religious fiction to the gullible.

Eusebius was under heavy constraints, from whom he worked for, the wrath of the Orthodox, and also from the doctrinal attacks by powerful adversaries within the church that were doing best to bring him down.
Justin needed to be acknowledged for the sake of church history, but Eusebius had to be extremely careful of what he included in his mentions of Justin, particularly anything that his enemies could use to trump up charges of heresy. Naturally he would do a 'poor job of promoting' 'Saint' Justin or his heretical writings.

Eusebius reports what his contemporary church believed, and the church traditions that were current.
He identifies himself as a 'Christian'. It is not at all strange that he would promote Christian beliefs.

But in all truth, I believe Eusebius was better educated than that, and was delivering what was required of him ....and very likely personally believed very little of it.
...but liked the pay, the status,

...and staying alive to see another day.

aa5874

How can you say that Christianity at the time did not constitute even .001% of the population" without a shred of actual evidence?

You have NO idea whatsoever of the amount of people who called themselves Christians and the actual population

You seem not to understand that Justin did make it clear that there were many persons who were called Christians, even the followers of Simon Magus, Menander, Basilides, Saturnilus, Valentinus, the Marcians and Marcion.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho There were many called Christians in the time of Justin but many of them did not believe the Jesus story of Justin.

Many Christians believed Marcion alone knew the truth and Laughed at Justin--

[u]Justin's First Apology [u]
Justin's First Apology XXVI

Sheshbazzar

OK aa, 99.99% of the population was Christian.

Scholars who have studied the matter have given estimates.... but oh well what the hell.

And how 'many' Christians would that be aa?

Many? how many is many in your book aa? a dozen? a hundred? a thousand? ten thousand? a million?

Do you really think, in light of the paucity of archaeological evidence, the almost total lack of any non-apologetic testimony to the existence of these Christians, the total lack of any accounting of these 'many' Christians in preserved public records from the period, That there were 'many' Christians circa 130-150 CE?

So 'many' Christians around that you couldn't walk ten feet without falling over one?

.....so damn 'many' of these Christians carrying on pubic battles that the well educated and literate Justin knew nothing of them until he met an old man on the seashore???

Do you have any idea of what the words "religious propaganda" mean aa?

Do you comprehend that propoaganda can be used to plant false information?
to set up phantom adversaries, and fabricated political situations, and 'enemies' to be used as foils against which to wage imaginary battles via ones literature to further one own propaganda agendas?

Guess the idea never occurred to you.

But it sure as hell did to the religious and political writers of the ancient world.

aa5874

Which population and which Christians?

One Scholar or two? Esitmates based on guessing??
I write what is found in writings attributed to Justin. I do not guess.

Many person believed Marcion--See First Apology.

Almost all of Samaria and other nations worshiped Simon Magus as a God--See First Apology.

Justin did not say that not even .001% of the poupulation were Christians.

Come on!! I have no book with estimates. You should have the book. Tell me the number of Christians!! You say Scholars did the estimate.

This is Justin writing about some of the many Christians--almost all of Samaria worshiped Simon as a God.

Jusin's First Apology Well, it is your post that resembles propaganda because you have failed to provide the number of Christians and the population in the time of Justin.

Where did you get your percentages from if Justin wrote propaganda?

Please, I am just trying to tell you that you should refrain from making claims about the percentages of Christians in the time of Justin if you think he wrote propaganda.