FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-08-2013, 12:41 PM   #131
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2-J View Post
If Justin Martyr was using the Gospels as we now know them, or a synoptic harmony, why did he assert that Jesus was born in a cave?

Quote:
But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him.
(Justin. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXVIII).
Justin may be dependent on the Protoevangelium of James (which is almost certainly dependent on canonical Matthew amd Luke.)
Quote:
And he [Jospeh] found a cave there, and led her [Mary] into it; and leaving his two sons beside her, he went out to seek a widwife in the district of Bethlehem. ..
Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 05-08-2013, 12:48 PM   #132
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2-J View Post
If Justin Martyr was using the Gospels as we now know them, or a synoptic harmony, why did he assert that Jesus was born in a cave?

Quote:
But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him.
(Justin. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXVIII).
Justin may be dependent on the Protoevangelium of James (which is almost certainly dependent on canonical Matthew amd Luke.)
Quote:
And he [Jospeh] found a cave there, and led her [Mary] into it; and leaving his two sons beside her, he went out to seek a widwife in the district of Bethlehem. ..
Andrew Criddle
The Protoevangelium of James is a forgery or falsely attributed to James and was written AFTER Justin was probably dead.

No supposed early Jesus cult writers used or acknowledged the Protoevangelium of James.

And further, there is no writer of antiquity before Justin who claimed James wrote anything in the 1st century.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-08-2013, 12:54 PM   #133
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurugeorge View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post

Hi George

see my reply to Sheshbazzar. I'll just add that at least in the later church Mark and Luke were seen as apostolic by proxy. Mark as preserving the memoirs of Peter (very old tradition) and Luke as representing Paul's version of the Gospel message (probably rather later idea).

Andrew Criddle
As per Shesh's reply to yours, I don't see how you can be so firm that it's the gospels as we know them that JM was familiar with, just because a few lines and concepts are shared. I mean, already with the synoptics there are theories about other materials incorporated.
My point is that Justin's material isn't confined to plausible early Gospel tradition, it does not resemble say Mark plus 'Q'. Justin knows of material that is first found in the later synoptic writings. I gave some examples but there are several more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurugeorge View Post
Re. apostles, I'm sure that was a later tradition, once the synoptics were firmly established and settled, but in JM's day?

Sorry, I still feel you're being a bit "previous"
On the point about memoirs of the Apostles Justin clarifies what he means in Dialogue with Trypho chapter 103
Quote:
For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass:'
Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 05-08-2013, 01:05 PM   #134
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

We know that there was a story of Jesus born in a cave as stated by Justin.

Justin cave birth story of Jesus is corroborated by Origen in "Against Celsus"
Origen's Against Celsus 1.51
Quote:
With respect to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, if any one desires, after the prophecy of Micah and after the history recorded in the Gospels by the disciples of Jesus, to have additional evidence from other sources, let him know that, in conformity with the narrative in the Gospel regarding His birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes. And this sight is greatly talked of in surrounding places, even among the enemies of the faith, it being said that in this cave was born that Jesus who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians....
Up to the time of Origen or up to the time when "Against Celsus" was composed or at least the mid 3rd century there was a story that Jesus was born in a CAVE in the Gospels of the Disciples.

By the way, the Memoirs of the Apostles was called GOSPELS according to Justin which is compatible with Origen's Gospels of the Disciples.

Justin's First Apology LXVI
Quote:
.... For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them...
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-08-2013, 01:05 PM   #135
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post

Justin may be dependent on the Protoevangelium of James (which is almost certainly dependent on canonical Matthew amd Luke.)

Andrew Criddle
The Protoevangelium of James is a forgery or falsely attributed to James and was written AFTER Justin was probably dead.

No supposed early Jesus cult writers used or acknowledged the Protoevangelium of James.

And further, there is no writer of antiquity before Justin who claimed James wrote anything in the 1st century.
The Protoevangelium of James is typically dated 150 CE or a little earlier. The Dialogue with Trypho in the form published by Justin probably dates from 155-160. Justin could have used the Protoevangelium, although I agree the timescale is a bit tight.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 05-08-2013, 01:57 PM   #136
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2-J View Post
If Justin Martyr was using the Gospels as we now know them, or a synoptic harmony, why did he assert that Jesus was born in a cave?

Quote:
But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him.
(Justin. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXVIII).
The cave image is needed to show the 'beyond theology' aspect of rebirth in this event, of which the ox and the mule are in evidence as passified Adam and Eve in the mind of the man there called Joseph.

The manger stands for born 'out of tradition' and thus Nazareth as Nazarite-by-nature that is missing in Matthew where he was called 'out of Egypt' who made a short pit-stop in Nazareth so he could be called a Nazorean, but really was not, and hence the manger was missing in Matthew.

Just read it and see this sequence of event. Then add that when the Magi finally arrived Joseph was not even home to receive, which then is why I hold that Simon Magus did not even know that there was a race to run, as Paul claim he had finished that we call purgatory today, and of which crucifixion is the end (that is done by so called Christians today).

The star of Bethlehem is equivalent of the light seen within that shines upon the child as per Plato's Sophists 267D, cf. also 218C, for which the shepherds as eidolons (insights) gone in dis-array come to understand why they were out of order when Joseph was searching for meaning in life. Following this , and while dividing, bisecting, bifurcating by glows from glow to glow (= from shepherd to shepherd taking turns herding sheep in the middle of a midwinter night), looking to find yet another glow that caused them to be shiners for him, he found not yet another glow but the genus of him as the matter itself there now called Christ as the son with the halo shining on him (if I dare may present that image to you). This would be what transfiguration is all about that did not just scorch his hair as in the example of Moses but transformed the actual face of the man.

So there was no baby with diapers to change but the rebirth was real and that is why the infancy is real and the manger is there only to last for 10 days so that the New can take hold in between (is New Year for us). Note here that the shepherds looked in and understood, that so for Luke was his Magi event (Pasternak is big in Zhivago on this).

Short lines here are that reason returned in the mind of Joseph before the new could take hold, or he had one eye asquint towards this event, or got zapped by an evangelist on a one night stand without faith in the heart, etc. some more, but none of that really matters here now where the stable is the topic instead of a fancy hotel room instead.

And then only Caspar came from Arabia, I think, but that does not matter much either, although he needs to join up with them en-route so that reason will prevail in the end (or a nut-house will be destiny for him).

More important is to identify Mary as parthenos in this rebirth event as the neutron surrounding the pragma (nucleus) wherein life first was conceived to be reborn here now via Elizabeth in Luke tracing his lineage back past all the ancients past Adam to God, while John goes back to Gen.1 to also come full circle there.

Bottom line, the 4 gospels are not synoptic but contrary in pairs.
Chili is offline  
Old 05-08-2013, 04:17 PM   #137
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Meaning that when challenging Judaism and the Jews the author of the Dialogue focused on the alleged fulfillment of specifically JEWISH prophecies in the advent of Jesus, ........

leaving out mention of Paul would fit here also since the teachings of Paul had nothing directly to do with fulfillment of Tanakh prophecies through Jesus.
......In any event, there remains no evidence at all that the Justin texts were written in the second century,
The author of Dialog, identified as Justin, focused on quite a few things other than the advent, relating to Jewish beliefs and practices, such as this;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialogue With Trypho The Jew


CHAPTER XVI -- CIRCUMCISION GIVEN AS A SIGN, THAT THE JEWS MIGHT BE DRIVEN AWAY FOR THEIR EVIL DEEDS DONE TO CHRIST AND THE CHRISTIANS.

"And God himself proclaimed by Moses, speaking thus: 'And circumcise the hardness of your hearts, and no longer stiffen the neck.
For the Lord your God is both Lord of lords, and a great, mighty, and terrible God, who regardeth not persons, and taketh not rewards.'
And in Leviticus: 'Because they have transgressed against Me, and despised Me, and because they have walked contrary to Me,
I also walked contrary to them, and I shall cut them off in the land of their enemies. Then shall their uncircumcised heart be turned.'

For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a sign; that you may be separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem.'
For you are not recognised among the rest of men by any other mark than your fleshly circumcision. For none of you, I suppose, will venture to say that God neither did nor does foresee the events, which are future, nor fore-ordained his deserts for each one.
Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him; and now you reject those who hope in Him, and in Him who sent Him--God the Almighty and Maker of all things--cursing in your synagogues those that believe on Christ.
For you have not the power to lay hands upon us, on account of those who now have the mastery. But as often as you could, you did so. Wherefore God, by Isaiah, calls to you, saying, 'Behold how the righteous man perished, and no one regards it. For the righteous man is taken away from before iniquity. His grave shall be in peace, he is taken away from the midst. Draw near hither, ye lawless children, seed of the adulterers, and children of the whore. Against whom have you sported yourselves, and against whom have you opened the mouth, and against whom have you loosened the tongue?'

~

CHAPTER XVIII -- CHRISTIANS WOULD OBSERVE THE LAW, IF THEY DID NOT KNOW WHY IT WAS INSTITUTED.

"For since you have read, O Trypho, as you yourself admitted, the doctrines taught by our Saviour, I do not think that I have done foolishly in adding some short utterances of His to the prophetic statements.

Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this layer, and be circumcised with the true circumcision. For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts,
If we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you, _namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts.

For if we patiently endure all things contrived against us by wicked men and demons, so that even amid cruelties unutterable, death and torments, we pray for mercy to those who inflict such things upon us, and do not wish to give the least retort to any one, even as the new Lawgiver commanded us:
How is it then, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us,--I speak of fleshly circumcision, and Sabbaths, and feasts?

CHAPTER XIX -- CIRCUMCISION UNKNOWN BEFORE ABRAHAM. THE LAW WAS GIVEN BY MOSES ON ACCOUNT OF THE HARDNESS OF THEIR HEARTS.

"It is this about which we are at a loss, and with reason, because, while you endure such things,
you do not observe ALL the other customs which we are now discussing." (Deut 6:25, 15:5, 27:26,

"This circumcision is not, however, necessary for all men, but for you alone, in order that, as I have already said, you may suffer these things which you now justly suffer.
Nor do we receive that useless baptism of cisterns, for it has nothing to do with this baptism of life. Wherefore also God has announced that you have forsaken Him, the living fountain, and digged for your selves broken cisterns which can hold no water.
Even you, who are the circumcised according to the flesh, have need of our circumcision; but we, having the latter, do not require the former.
For if it were necessary, as you suppose, God would not have made Adam uncircumcised, would not have had respect to the gifts of Abel when, being uncircumcised, he offered sacrifice and would not have been pleased with the uncircumcision of Enoch, who was not found, because God had translated him. Lot, being uncircumcised, was saved from Sodom
, the angels themselves and the Lord sending him out.
Noah was the beginning of our race; yet, uncircumcised, along with his children he went into the ark.
Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, was uncircumcised; to whom also Abraham the first who received circumcision after the flesh, gave tithes,
and he blessed him: after whose order God declared, by the mouth of David, that He would establish the everlasting priest.
Therefore to you alone this circumcision was necessary, in order that the people may be no people, and the nation no nation; as also Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, declares. .....

~

CHAPTER XXXIII -- THE OPINION OF THE JEWS REGARDING THE LAW DOES AN INJURY TO GOD.

"But if we do not admit this, we shall be liable to fall into foolish opinions, as if it were not the same God who existed in the times of Enoch and all the rest, who neither were circumcised after the flesh, nor observed Sabbaths, nor any other rites, seeing that Moses enjoined such observances; or that God has not wished each race of mankind continually to perform the same righteous actions: to admit which, seems to be ridiculous and absurd.
Therefore we must confess that He, who is ever the same, has commanded these and such like institutions on account of sinful men, and we must declare Him to be benevolent, foreknowing, needing nothing, righteous and good.
But if this be not so, tell me, sir, what you think of those matters which we are investigating." And when no one responded: "Wherefore, Trypho, I will proclaim to you, and to those who wish to become proselytes, the divine message which I heard from that man.
Do you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no Sabbaths?
Remain as you were born. For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or Of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts and sacrifices, before Moses; No more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham.
For when Abraham himself was in un-circumcision, he was justified and blessed by reason of the faith which he reposed in God, as the Scripture tells.
Moreover, the Scriptures and the facts themselves compel us to admit that He received circumcision for a sign, and not for righteousness. So that it was justly recorded concerning the people, that the soul which shall not be circumcised on the eighth day shall be cut off from his family. And, furthermore, the inability of the female sex to receive fleshly circumcision, proves that this circumcision has been given for a sign, and not for a work of righteousness.

For God has given likewise to women the ability to observe all things which are righteous and virtuous; but we see that the bodily form of the male has been made different from the bodily form of the female; yet we know that neither of them is righteous or unrighteous merely for this cause, (circumcision) but [is considered righteous] by reason of piety and righteousness.

CHAPTER XXIV -- THE CHRISTIANS' CIRCUMCISION FAR MORE EXCELLENT.

"Now, sirs," I said, "it is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain mysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess, and which was promulgated by God through these rites.
But lest I appear now to diverge to other subjects, understand what I say: the blood of that circumcision is obsolete, and we trust in the blood of salvation; there is now another covenant, and another law has gone forth from Zion.
Jesus Christ circumcises all who will--as was declared above--with knives of stone; that they may be a righteous nation, a people keeping faith, holding to the truth, and maintaining peace.
Come then with me, all who fear God, who wish to see the good of Jerusalem.
Come, let us go to the light of the Lord; for He has liberated His people, the house of Jacob.
Come, all nations; let us gather ourselves together at Jerusalem, no longer plagued by war for the sins of her people. 'For I was manifest to them that sought Me not; I was found of them that asked not for Me;'
He exclaims by Isaiah: 'I said, Behold Me', unto nations which were not called by My name. I have spread out My hands all the day unto a disobedient and gainsaying people, which walked in a way that was not good, but after their own sins. It is a people that rovoketh Me to my face.'

~

And Trypho remarked, "What is this you say? that none of us shall inherit anything on the holy mountain of God?"

CHAPTER XXVI -- NO SALVATION TO THE JEWS EXCEPT THROUGH CHRIST.

And I replied, "I do not say so; but those who have persecuted and do persecute Christ, if they do not repent, shall not inherit anything on the holy mountain.
But the Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and have repented of the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who are descended from Jacob, even although they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts. Assuredly they shall receive the holy inheritance of God. .........

~

CHAPTER XXVII -- WHY GOD TAUGHT THE SAME THINGS BY THE PROPHETS AS BY MOSES

.......But you are a people hard-hearted and without understanding, both blind and lame, children in whom is no faith,
as He Himself says, honouring Him only with your lips, far from Him in your hearts, teaching doctrines that are your own and not His.

For, tell me, did God wish the priests to sin when they offer the sacrifices on the Sabbaths? or those to sin, who are circumcised and do circumcise on the Sabbaths; since He commands that on the eighth day--even though it happen to be a Sabbath--those who are born shall be always circumcised?
or could not the infants be operated upon (circumcised) one day previous or one day subsequent to the Sabbath, if He knew that it is a sinful act upon the Sabbaths?
Or why did He not teach those--who are called righteous and pleasing to Him, who lived before Moses and Abraham, who were not circumcised in their foreskin, and observed no Sabbaths--to keep these institutions?
"

CHAPTER XXVIII -- TRUE RIGHTEOUSNESS IS OBTAINED BY CHRIST.

And Trypho replied, "We heard you adducing this consideration a little ago, and we have given it attention: for, to tell the truth, it is worthy of attention; and that answer which pleases most--namely, that so it seemed good to Him--does not satisfy me. For this is ever the shift to which those have recourse who are unable to answer the question."

Then I said, "Since I bring from the Scriptures and the facts themselves both the proofs and the inculcation of them, do not delay or hesitate to put faith in me, although I am an uncircumcised man; so short a time is left you in which to become proselytes.
If Christ's coming shall have anticipated you, in vain you will repent, in vain you will weep; for He will not hear yon. 'Break up your fallow ground,' Jeremiah has cried to the people, 'and sow not among thorns. Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and circumcise the foreskin of your heart.' Do not sow, therefore, among thorns, and in untilled ground, whence you can have no fruit. Know Christ; and behold the fallow ground, good, good and fat, is in your hearts.
'For, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will visit all them that are circumcised in their foreskins; Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the sons of Moab. For all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in their hearts.'
Do you see how that God does not mean this circumcision which is given for a sign? For it is of no use to the Egyptians, or the sons of Moab, or the sons of Edom. But though a man be a Scythian or a Persian, if he has the knowledge of God and of His Christ, and keeps the everlasting righteous decrees, he is circumcised with the good and useful circumcision, and is a friend of God
, and God rejoices in his gifts and offerings.
But I will lay before you, my friends, the very words of God, when He said to the people by Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, 'I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord; and I shall not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for from the rising of the sun unto its setting My name shall be glorified among the Gentiles; and in every place a sacrifice is offered unto My name, even a pure sacrifice: for My name is honoured among the Gentiles, saith the Lord; but ye profane it.'
And by David He said, 'A people whom I have not known, served Me; at the hearing of the ear they obeyed Me.'

CHAPTER XXIX -- CHRIST IS USELESS TO THOSE WHO OBSERVE THE LAW.

....
"Let us glorify God, all nations gathered together; for He has also visited us. Let us glorify Him by the King of glory, by the Lord of hosts.
For He has been gracious towards the Gentiles also; and our sacrifices He esteems more grateful than yours.

What need, then, have I of circumcision, who have been witnessed to by God?

What need have I of that other baptism, who have been baptized with the Holy Spirit?

I think that while I mention this, I would persuade even those who are possessed of scanty intelligence.

For these words have neither been prepared by me, nor embellished by the art of man; but David sung them, Isaiah preached them, Zechariah proclaimed them, and Moses wrote them.
Are you acquainted with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures, or rather not yours, but ours. For we believe them; but you, though you read them, do not catch the spirit that is in them. Be not offended at, or reproach us with, the bodily uncircumcision with which God has created us; and think it not strange that we drink hot water on the Sabbaths, since God directs the government of the universe on this day equally as on all others; and the priests, as on other days, so on this, are ordered to offer sacrifices; and there are so many righteous men who have performed none of these legal ceremonies, and yet are witnessed to by God Himself.
~
Of course Justin said much more. But here we dealing with the subject of Justin's knowledge of 'Paul' and of 'Paul's' Epistles which are (supposedly) from the 1st century and the very foundational texts of Christian practice of not observing the practice of circumcision, and before this exposition from Justin there would have been no greater authority.
__IF 'Paul' or 'Paul's' well known 'Gospel TO THE UNCIRCUMCISION' had in fact existed.

But here we have Justin engaging in protracted argument against the practice of circumcision without ever once referring to 'Paul', 'Paul's' ministy', or to a single verse of 'Paul's' writing on circumcision.

This introduces a terrific anomaly, because according to the Church, and the NTs 'Pauline' Epistles', this uncircumcision gospel was 'Paul's Gospel', expressely committed to him 'The Apostle of The Uncircumcision', and which through 'Paul' and his companions missionary travels and preaching, had already been taught in all of the Gentile churches for over a hundred years, with these churches passing 'Paul's Epistles' around for public readings.
Justin's church would have been as familar with 'Paul's Epistles' as establishing their practices in this regard, as any Christian church of today.

If Justin had been aware of 'Paul's' Epistles' there is no concievable reason for him not to have cited them in support of his arguments in this long expostion, because after all 'Paul', (if he existed, and was known, as is claimed in Acts and the 'Paulines') would have been the best known and most authorative figure in that early gentile Christian church, second only to Jesus Christ himself. (as he is to this day)

Justin did not know of 'Acts, 'Paul', or any 'Pauline Epistles'.

All of these texts with 'Paul' in them were invented and forged after Justin wrote.

The 'Pauline Epistles' say less than Justin about circumcision, because whoever forged the Pauline epistles knew Justin's argument, and knew that his audience already knew Justin's argument, so saw no need to expound so extensively upon what they already had heard from Justin.

The evidence indicates that Justin's texts were written in the second century.
and before 'Acts' and the 'Pauline Epistles' were forged.



.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-08-2013, 04:59 PM   #138
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post

Justin may be dependent on the Protoevangelium of James (which is almost certainly dependent on canonical Matthew amd Luke.)

Andrew Criddle
The Protoevangelium of James is a forgery or falsely attributed to James and was written AFTER Justin was probably dead.

No supposed early Jesus cult writers used or acknowledged the Protoevangelium of James.

And further, there is no writer of antiquity before Justin who claimed James wrote anything in the 1st century.
The Protoevangelium of James is typically dated 150 CE or a little earlier. The Dialogue with Trypho in the form published by Justin probably dates from 155-160. Justin could have used the Protoevangelium, although I agree the timescale is a bit tight.

Andrew Criddle
Again, The Protoevangelium of James has NOT, I repeat, has NOT been dated by Paleography or Carbon dated to the 2nd century.

The earliest manuscript is from the 3rd or 4th century.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_...ript_tradition

Quote:
... The earliest known manuscript of the text, a papyrus dating to the third or early 4th century, was found in 1958; it is kept in the Bodmer Library, Geneva (Papyrus Bodmer 5). Of the surviving Greek manuscripts, the fullest text is a 10th century codex in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris (Paris 1454)....
You have not addressed the fact that the Protoevangelium of James was unknown and is a forgery or falsely attributed to James who did not even exist.

It has no historical value except that it is a documented fraud.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-08-2013, 06:00 PM   #139
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

AA, notice that "Justin" invokes Tanakh sources in a way as to attempt to show that circumcision is not necessary. This is done only briefly in the epistles. Mr. Justin repeatedly invokes the Tanakh to show the fulfillment of the will of God in Jesus. He invokes King David and Jeremiah, and is focused on the prophets, not on any new revelation aside from the mere advent of Jesus.

He is speaking to the JEWS ostensibly, and wants to show that their own sources predict and confirm Jesus. He doesn't get sidelined with discussions of who had the true teaching of Jesus (Paul, or anyone else). But it may not indicate at all that the author was unaware of Paulism, especially given the possibility of its authorship in the 4th century.......
Duvduv is offline  
Old 05-08-2013, 07:34 PM   #140
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Not much chance of authorship in the 4th century, as what is in Justin does not jive with nor support some very critical 4th century Christian faith claims.
If these Justin writings had been penned in the 4th century, the writer would have been hunted down for heresy, and every copy sought out for destruction.
Who in the 4th century church would wish to commit suicide by forging a text that contained statements and views not endorsed by the Orthodox church?

The Orthodox church would not have produced a forged text whose content so disagreed with or betrayed their precious Doctrine of consubstantiality, and showed no indications at all of the all important Doctrine of Apostolic succession, the very foundation of the Orthodox Church's claim to hold Apostolic authority.
There would have been nothing for them to gain in such, only fodder for their adversaries.

Not only would they not have produced any such text, they would not have preserved such a text, unless it had the pedigree of being a long established and counted as authentic part of their past, historically supported by attestation in the writings of many church fathers.
They kept it because they had little choice, as the church had been lauding and quoting Justin for over 150 years in establishing the claims of their religion.

The internal evidence of Justin's works indicate an early authorship at a time where 'Acts', the 'Pauline Epistles,' and Orthodox developed Doctrines were as yet unknown.



.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:08 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.