Sheshbazzar

Least anyone think we are in disagreement, the context of my statement was in reference to what Justin writes in 'Dialogue with Trypho' where no particular reading audience is indicated, and which I had referrenced in Post #34 above.

Duvduv

The Justin texts are evidence of NOTHING. They are found in a single manuscript from several hundred years ago that no longer exists. There is no reason to assume, OR EVIDENCE, that these texts were ever written in the 2nd century by Justin or by anyone else in the second century. They are also poorly written, the Dialogue is a Monologue, and the texts have many glaring claims for which which there is not evidence or even a context from the alleged second century backdrop.

Sheshbazzar

Interesting statement.

So you are suggesting that all of Justin Martyr's writings originated with a single manuscript that was forged only 'several hundred years ago' ?

Whom do you think would have produced such a forgery? To what purpose?

'Several hundred years ago' just when and where and by whom would that be?

Whodunit ?

How do you explain the referrences to Justin and his writings cited in the other early Christian writings ?

When would they have been inserted? in the last 'several hundred years' ?

I'll be most interested in hearing your theories and explanations. Perhaps it ought to be the subject of another thread.

Duvduv

It cannot be taken at face value, Shesh. It may have been written in the Middle Ages, it may have been a composite of several texts, including earlier and later ones, or texts from Christians with texts from non-Christians. Who knows? There certainly is no evidence in the world that they were actually written in the second century.

And as I have mentioned repeatedly, this author tells his readers about his Old Man who told him about the Christ, but says not a word about the background, authority or even NAME of this Old Man. Nothing, zippo. And of course the text tells us nothing about WHERE the Christians were, who "Justin's" colleagues were, or his predecessors, or even how HE got to know about all the aspects of the Christ. No named communities, nothing. And supposedly the author was appealing to the emperor on behalf of the poor bedraggled suffering Christians.

And these texts are held up as great evidence for 2nd century Christianity because the church says so. It's just as useless as the Pliny document "discovered" by Giacondo. And as useless as all the certain claims (from faith) about Marcion and his texts and followers, for which no actual evidence exists except in the claims of the church.

Sheshbazzar

You are going to need to do a bit better than that Duvduv.

Please address the fact that Eusebius's 'Historia Ecclesiastica' Church History, Book IV in chapters 8-18 repeatedly cites and praises Justin and provides many quotes from Justin's writings.

For your review of the matter, -there is far too much to post it here- I offer this.

Please examine it before seriously suggesting that all of this Eusebian material on Justin's writings was inserted into the text of Historia Ecclesiastica following 'the finding of a single manuscript from several hundred years ago' .

WHAT several hundred years ago? Give us an approximate DATE as to when you believe Justin Martyr's 'First Apology' and 'Dialogue with Trypho' was forged.

The content of Historia Ecclesiastica and knowledge of Eusebius's material on Justin has been around and discussed by theologians for a lot more than 'several hundred years'.

aa5874

Your claim is continuously in error. Manuscripts with stories of Jesus have been found and dated to the 2nd century which support the writings of Justin Martyr.

How many times must I show that there are recovered NT manuscripts with stories of Jesus and dated to the time of Justin Martyr?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Why do you persist in making blatant erroneous claims? Why?

gurugeorge

Justin Martyr is a problem in general, since he doesn't mention gospels which, according to scholarly inquiry, must have already been written. wtf does "memoirs of the Apostles" actually mean??? It sounds like he's only vaguely heard of the gospels - or he could have been writing at a stage when they weren't fully formed. But that seems to go against a lot of scholarly weight of dating. His Christianity doesn't look much like what one would expect given scholarly reconstruction of events.

What to do with him? I dunno, he seems like he's ignorant; he was probably ignorant about a lot of things. As to addressing the emperor and all that, he might just have been a blowhard whose writings had zero chance of reaching the ears of any emperor.

I think aa is putting far too much weight on him. JM is really the lynch-pin of his whole argument. It seems like an odd text to take as foundational and judge all other texts in terms of.

I appreciate the line of inquiry of pushing forward the date of inception of Christianity, but like Doherty, I'm more interested in what can be hypothesized using largely the orthodox datings.

Duvduv

Shesh, the point is that it has no reliability for evidence to establish anything in the second century. And we don't have a tracking of the publishing or printing of works attributed to a guy named Eusebius for every dotted i and crossed t, when they were actually written, or an original manuscript for Eusebius either, unless you simply rely on the claims of the church itself.

Heck, if "Eusebius" was so smart and convinced of a second century Justin, why didn't he bother to clear up the mysteries related to the second century reflected in the Justin writings? The "references" to Justin are very wishy-washy and don't tell you much.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm

Chapter 12. The Apology of Justin addressed to Antoninus.
To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrian Antoninus Pius Cæsar Augustus, and to Verissimus his son, the philosopher, and to Lucius the philosopher, own son of Cæsar and adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred senate and to the whole Roman people, I, Justin, son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, Syria, present this address and petition in behalf of those men of every nation who are unjustly hated and persecuted, I myself being one of them. And the same emperor having learned also from other brethren in Asia of the injuries of all kinds which they were suffering from the inhabitants of the province, thought it proper to address the following ordinance to the Common Assembly of Asia.

aa5874

Your post is most alarming. You do not understand what "Memoirs" means? I am at a loss that Justin becomes a problem because you have no idea what "Memoirs of the Apostles" means.

We can easily use a dictionary to find out what "Memoirs" and "Apostles" mean.

Plus, Justin did give some idea of what was written in the Memoirs of the Apostles called Gospels.

Surely you should have an idea what the Gospel story of Jesus is.

Justin's First Apology Justin Martyr's Memoirs of the Apostles contain stories about Jesus that are compatible with the Gospels found in the Jesus cult Canon.

Now, what Scholarly dating are you talking about? What Scholarly dating have weight?

The writings attributed to Justin are extremely significant.

Many Jesus cult writers acknowledged Justin Martyr even his contemporary Tatian.

The writings attributed to Justin show a Big Black Hole of 100 years for the Jesus cult c 30 CE--130 CE

Justin Martyr did not account for Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline letters, the Pauline Churches and the Pauline revealed gospel from the resurrected Jesus.

After the ascension of Jesus, Justin Martyr wrote nothing of the activities of the characters in Acts like Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Titus, and Paul.

Again, I have not ever put all my argument on the writings of Justin Martyr yet you continue to spread the propaganda.

Please, stop the propaganda IMMEDIATELY.

I repeat, there is an abundance of sources that support the argument that the Pauline letters are forgeries or historically bogus.

This is a partial list.

1. The short version of gMark.

2. The writings attributed to Philo.

3. The writings attributed to Josephus.

4. The writings attributed to Tacitus.

5. The writings attributed to Suetonius.

6. The writings attributed to Aristides.

7. The writings attributed to Minucius Felix.

8. The writings attributed to Irenaeus.

9. The writings attributed to Origen.

10. The writings attributed to Hippolytus.

11. The writings attributed to Arnobius

12. The writings attributed to Julian the Emperor.

13. The writings attributed to Ephraim the Syrian.

14. The writings attributed to Macarius Magnes.

15. The writings called the Muratarion Canon.

16. The writings called the Donation of Constantine.

17. The writings attributed to Eusebius.

18. The writings attributed to Optatus.

19. The writings attributed to Rufinus.

20. The writings attributed to Jerome.

21. The writings attributed to Chrysostom.

22. The writings attributed to Alexander of Hippo.

Doherty hardly uses orthodox datings and chronology and even argues that some letters of Paul that are considered authentic are really later interpolated versions and that Jesus was never known to be on earth by the Jesus cult.

Orthodox dating and chronology place Jesus on earth in the time of Pilate and that Jesus was crucified on earth after a trial before the Sanhedrin and the very same procurator.

Duvduv

AA, try to explain why "Justin" simply lumps together at his early stage all 4 gospel stories without even addressing the fact that they are not the same or part of one set of "memoirs" but contain contradictory stories and information. Presumably he is misrepresenting the information in the first place, even if the writer was writing before the gospels were finalized. The four gospels are not simply memoirs, but often very different and contradictory stories. So either the author was referring to a nascent source of stories that had not yet been finalized in the form of four gospels, or was referring to a different source from which the gospels drew on later.