Forgeries and additions in the bible..

[AtheistVirus]

Where can I find a list of solidly proven forgeries and additions in the bible?

By additions I mean intentional deceit by scribers/translaters to fit the story or certain elements of the context.

[Equinox]

No such clear list exists due to the fact that a forger would not sign it "this was forged", and even if he did, a later Christian scribe could remove it during copying.

However, a good start is to read Ehrman's "misquoting Jesus". For some short and easy answers, the books of 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are nearly universally (other than fundys) known to be not written by paul (forged), and the story about the adulterer in John (chap 8) is similar.

Plus, the large number of variations between our manuscripts show forgery, since many have added details (compare the KVJ and the NIV, for instance - such as Acts 8:37, John in the story about the healing at the pool, etc.).

That's a start. There is of course a lot more.

Equinox

[Toto]

Your question implies that there was an original Bible that was later corrupted, but there are those who classify the entire Bible as an intentional deceit, written for ulterior motives; and there are undoubtedly many additions that were done in good faith and not for the purposes of deceit.

But you might want to start with Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus (http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=books&id=947)"

In the Historical Section of the II Library, you will find works like Wheless' Forgery in Christianity (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/) and Ingersoll's Some Mistakes of Moses (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/some_mistakes_of_moses.html), but you should not use anything from the Historical Library uncritically, as it does not reflect subsequent research.

[XKV8R]

ehrman's 'misquoting jesus' is essentially an update of his professor's book. see bruce m. metzger's "the text of the new testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration[/URL]"

[XKV8R]

my fav intentional corruption is the johannine comma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum) (although the wiki article is not the best. it makes it sound like the comma is ancient. it is not. it is a medieval addition attempting to give some specific biblical support to the doctrine of the trinity.

[AtheistVirus]

Very interesting stuff...but what about list of contradictions and absurdities in the bible as they are, so without any external interpretation.

And since I'm on this I'm also looking for a list of catholic church individuals high up in the hierarchy trough-out history who made any kind of embarrassing statements/behaviors/policies from today's standpoint, also practices themselves to be viewed in that way.

[simongc]

Very interesting stuff...but what about list of contradictions and absurdities in the bible as they are, so without any external interpretation.

And since I'm on this I'm also looking for a list of catholic church individuals high up in the hierarchy trough-out history who made any kind of embarrassing statements/behaviors/policies from today's standpoint, also practices themselves to be viewed in that way.

i am sure there are some very interesting comments on record regarding the behavior of church officials in Canada Ireland Australia as well as Archdiocese of Boston and Los Angeles ++ before everyone became aware of the real situation that prevailed over 150 odd years

[aa5874]

Your question implies that there was an original Bible that was later corrupted, but there are those who classify the entire Bible as an intentional deceit, written for ulterior motives; and there are undoubtedly many additions that were done in good faith and not for the purposes of deceit.

Can you give me an example of an addition in the Bible that was done undoubtedly in good faith and not for the purpose of deceit?

[Toto]

Your question implies that there was an original Bible that was later corrupted, but there are those who classify the entire Bible as an intentional deceit, written for ulterior motives; and there are undoubtedly many additions that were done in good faith and not for the purposes of deceit.

Can you give me an example of an addition in the Bible that was done undoubtedly in good faith and not for the purpose of deceit?

The parable of the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus tells the mob that is about to stone her to let him who has so sin cast the first stone, is generally considered to not be original to the text. But I wouldn't call the person who added it "deceitful." I think his or her motives were generally good.

[dog-on]

Can you give me an example of an addition in the Bible that was done undoubtedly in good faith and not for the purpose of deceit?

The parable of the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus tells the mob that is about to stone her to let him who has so sin cast the first stone, is generally considered to not be original to the text. But I wouldn't call the person who added it "deceitful." I think his or her motives were generally good.

It's a nice story, but the fact that it was added to a work that is touted to be "actual history", can be nothing less than deceitful.

[2-J]

It's a nice story, but the fact that it was added to a work that is touted to be "actual history", can be nothing less than deceitful.

Unless the person who added it believed that it too was actual history. http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=241430 is an interesting thread on that passage and its origin. Some Christians claim the passage is a "genuine anecdote of Jesus, originating from the apostolic circle" (to quote Roger Pearse on there).

[dog-on]

It's a nice story, but the fact that it was added to a work that is touted to be "actual history", can be nothing less than deceitful.

Unless the person who added it believed that it too was actual history. http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=241430 is an interesting thread on that passage and its origin. Some Christians claim the passage is a "genuine anecdote of Jesus, originating from the apostolic circle" (to quote Roger Pearse on there).


Regardless, adding to a text and not specifically saying that the addition has been done, is deceitful.

Now, if you want to change the common meaning of the word deceitful...

[2-J]

In this day and age it would be, but would it have been back then? I don't know. Consider the fact that the gospel writers, as far as is known, don't even identify themselves in the text (the names added later, etc).

[dog-on]

In this day and age it would be, but would it have been back then? I don't know. Consider the fact that the gospel writers, as far as is known, don't even identify themselves in the text (the names added later, etc).

Ummm... deceitful?

Once again, I believe so, unless you want to change the meaning of the word deceitful.

Some people have a problem admitting this, but that doesn't change the simply fact that there is rampant deception everywhere one looks in the Holy books...

If you feel better, you can say good deception or bad deception, but it is deception, none the less.

[simongc]

Where can I find a list of solidly proven forgeries and additions in the bible?

By additions I mean intentional deceit by scribers/translaters to fit the story or certain elements of the context.
If over 4500 years some smart aleck street cred couldn't fudge the books then old Fagan would have a coronary

[-Jay-]

In this day and age it would be, but would it have been back then? I don't know. Consider the fact that the gospel writers, as far as is known, don't even identify themselves in the text (the names added later, etc).

Ummm... deceitful?

Once again, I believe so, unless you want to change the meaning of the word deceitful.

Some people have a problem admitting this, but that doesn't change the simply fact that there is rampant deception everywhere one looks in the Holy books...

If you feel better, you can say good deception or bad deception, but it is deception, none the less.

You sometimes see the term "pious fraud" used in situations like this - i.e. deceptions by well-intentioned individuals. (Of course, this requires us to attempt to discern the intentions of writers that may only have given us a handful of words to work with...)

To the OP - googling the term "biblical contradictions" will get you all sorts of information with as much or as little interpretation as you want.

regards,

NinJay

[2-J]

Ummm... deceitful?

Once again, I believe so, unless you want to change the meaning of the word deceitful.

Some people have a problem admitting this, but that doesn't change the simply fact that there is rampant deception everywhere one looks in the Holy books...

If you feel better, you can say good deception or bad deception, but it is deception, none the less.

The person who inserted the text took part in a deception only if the intended audience assumed the text was the product of one person. It's not controversial to assume that the scholarly standards of the time with respect to a text like this were not high in the first place. Maybe in the very early days there was no legitimate expectation that the written christian works were composed by one author (the fact that the gospels don't include the names, don't include any citations, and that (probably) Matthew and Luke plaigarise Mark, might support this).

Pious fraud is, of course, another option.

[dog-on]

Ummm... deceitful?

Once again, I believe so, unless you want to change the meaning of the word deceitful.

Some people have a problem admitting this, but that doesn't change the simply fact that there is rampant deception everywhere one looks in the Holy books...

If you feel better, you can say good deception or bad deception, but it is deception, none the less.

The person who inserted the text took part in a deception only if the intended audience assumed the text was the product of one person. It's not controversial to assume that the scholarly standards of the time with respect to a text like this were not high in the first place. Maybe in the very early days there was no legitimate expectation that the written christian works were composed by one author (the fact that the gospels don't include the names, don't include any citations, and that (probably) Matthew and Luke plaigarise Mark, might support this).

Pious fraud is, of course, another option.


Not sure that Ireneaus would support you in this...

Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on his breast [John 13:25;21:20], himself produced his gospel, when he was living in Ephesus in Asia.

[aa5874]

Can you give me an example of an addition in the Bible that was done undoubtedly in good faith and not for the purpose of deceit?

The parable of the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus tells the mob that is about to stone her to let him who has so sin cast the first stone, is generally considered to not be original to the text. But I wouldn't call the person who added it "deceitful." I think his or her motives were generally good.

You have not established that the parable was added undoubtedly in good faith. You just gave an opinion based on your imagination.

Once you have established that the parable was added later, then deception should be an obvious reason, since whoever added it most likely wanted the reader to think that Jesus did really say the things in the parable.

It is deceptive to claim Jesus spoke a parable when he did not.

[2-J]

Not sure that Ireneaus would support you in this...
Yes, well, I prefer to be supported by modern scholarship than Irenaeus.;)

[2-J]

whoever added it most likely wanted the reader to think that Jesus did really say the things in the parable.

But maybe the person who inserted the text believed Jesus really did say that.

Also, maybe Jesus did in fact say the things in parable.

[dog-on]

Not sure that Ireneaus would support you in this...
Yes, well, I prefer to be supported by modern scholarship than Irenaeus.;)


Sure, but that is not what I reponded to...

[2-J]

Well, Irenaus is quite a bit later than the time of composition of the gospels according to most datings, there's some evidence the gospels weren't even referred to by name at first. and NB the importance or even pre-eminence of the oral tradition.

[dog-on]

Well, Irenaus is quite a bit later than the time of composition of the gospels according to most datings, there's some evidence the gospels weren't even referred to by name at first. and NB the importance or even pre-eminence of the oral tradition.

An unsupported asumption, on your part, imo.

Show me the first recorded mention of the Gospels, if it wasn't Ireneaus.

Thanks.

[aa5874]

whoever added it most likely wanted the reader to think that Jesus did really say the things in the parable.

But maybe the person who inserted the text believed Jesus really did say that.

Also, maybe Jesus did in fact say the things in parable.

But can you prove or show, UNDOUBTEDLY, that a person inserted the text, the person really believed the text was true or that Jesus did say those words?

[Roger Pearse]

Well, Irenaus is quite a bit later than the time of composition of the gospels according to most datings...


We ought to recall that he did know personally Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle John.


.. there's some evidence the gospels weren't even referred to by name at first


I know this gets said; but this evidence never seems to appear and (to the best of my knowledge) does not exist.


.... and NB the importance or even pre-eminence of the oral tradition.

Very much so, and Papias says so explicitly. This position becomes comprehensible to us once we remember that the apostle John was still alive in 100AD, and consequently that there were rather a lot of people being able to ask an apostle first hand rather than relying on written accounts.

Similarly his disciple Polycarp was alive and preaching in Rome in 150 AD, and was able to give the heretic Marcion the finger based on first-hand knowledge of what the apostle would have said and thought.

We tend to forget that the literary sources that have reached us are but a tiny proportion of what existed then. The majority of second century Christian literature exists only because of an accident in the 10th century.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[andrewcriddle]

But can you prove or show, UNDOUBTEDLY, that a person inserted the text, the person really believed the text was true or that Jesus did say those words?

But can you prove or show, UNDOUBTEDLY, that a person inserted the text, the person really believed the text was not true or that Jesus did not say those words?

Andrew Criddle

[aa5874]

But can you prove or show, UNDOUBTEDLY, that a person inserted the text, the person really believed the text was true or that Jesus did say those words?

But can you prove or show, UNDOUBTEDLY, that a person inserted the text, the person really believed the text was not true or that Jesus did not say those words?

Andrew Criddle

I did not ever suggest I could do such a thing.

A poster claimed that a certain parable was an example of an addition that was UNDOUBTEDLY done in good faith.

I suggested that the addition of the parable was most likely added to decieve the readers into thinking Jesus actually said those words.

[RUmike]

If I remember correctly, the story of the woman taken in adultery is found in early manuscripts in the margins, and then later in the text of the gospel itself. It would seem reasonable then, if not likely, that later scribes simply thought the text of the margin belonged in the actual text of the story, and placed it there upon copying it. Neither step (adding to the margin or moving from the margin to the story) seems likely of deceit.

[Minimalist]

Neither step (adding to the margin or moving from the margin to the story) seems likely of deceit.


Really? Why not?

A copyist should copy. Editors edit. Why would "god" need an editor?

[Roger Pearse]

Neither step (adding to the margin or moving from the margin to the story) seems likely of deceit.

Really? Why not?


I'm not sure that I understand. Why would anyone suppose that scribbling in the margin of a book was intended forgery? Is that what we do, if we add a note to a book? Surely not!

Ancient books were all hand-copied. If a copyist forgot a sentence, he wrote it in the margin. A later copyist would restore it to its place. Thus marginal glosses find their way into texts.


A copyist should copy. Editors edit. Why would "god" need an editor?

I'm afraid that this makes rather a lot of assumptions, many of them theological. Perhaps you would lay them out openly and the evidence for each can be decided.

Whatever their content, books are books.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[djrafikie]

The bible appears to have been written by a number of different people..
Some bits certainly look to have been inserted some time after the virtual completion of a chapter of it, due to the jarring difference in writing style.

But overall, as it was written and added to over such a long period, and seems to have sortof "evolved" as that happened, at what point do additions stop being part of the writing process, and become forged extras?

The fact that it was written by so many different people seems to mean that no part could neccesarily be called "forgery", unless you start from the viewpoint that it was all dictated by one person/being (god).. if nothing else the content and changes in style do prove that this is certainly NOT true.

[Minimalist]

Whatever their content, books are books.



Precisely, written by men, not gods.

You prefer to think that such "margin notes" are innocent. I wonder if the copyist's supervisor thought that a particular point needed a little reinforcing.

Both points of view are speculative.

[Roger Pearse]

The bible appears to have been written by a number of different people.

Some bits certainly look to have been inserted some time after the virtual completion of a chapter of it, due to the jarring difference in writing style.

But overall, as it was written and added to over such a long period, and seems to have sortof "evolved" as that happened, at what point do additions stop being part of the writing process, and become forged extras?


These are good points, and become more so when we recall that we are not in the age of print, but of hand-written books; not in the age of the type-written manuscript sent to a publisher, but in the age of dictation and revision ad hoc with copies being taken at any stage of the process.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Ben C Smith]

These are good points, and become more so when we recall that we are not in the age of print, but of hand-written books; not in the age of the type-written manuscript sent to a publisher, but in the age of dictation and revision ad hoc with copies being taken at any stage of the process.

It is my current understanding that some textual variants in some texts are demonstrably due to different editions published by the same author; would you say that is correct?

Ben.

[djrafikie]

These are good points, and become more so when we recall that we are not in the age of print, but of hand-written books; not in the age of the type-written manuscript sent to a publisher, but in the age of dictation and revision ad hoc with copies being taken at any stage of the process.

It is my current understanding that some textual variants in some texts are demonstrably due to different editions published by the same author; would you say that is correct?

Ben.

Well, it would take a sloppy author indeed to re-repeat the same information in several confilicting ways, in the same book, on the basis that all are supposedly accurate.

More of a jilly cooper novel than a william shakespere methinks..

Quite aside from that, I have studied the monks scriptuary works from lindasfarne C700ad in great depth. Their methods were faulty, and they had no standardised spellings. It is also apparent reading some of The Venerable Beades works that the novices working in the sanctum were copying purely from sight, and could either not read at all, or very little.

Incidentally, the Lindasfarne Gospels are very significant because they represent the first consistent applications of Majura and Minora (Capital and lower case letters), and the , yeah, the ,
Lingually they are as prescious as gold, scripturally they are very revealing.

[Roger Pearse]

These are good points, and become more so when we recall that we are not in the age of print, but of hand-written books; not in the age of the type-written manuscript sent to a publisher, but in the age of dictation and revision ad hoc with copies being taken at any stage of the process.

It is my current understanding that some textual variants in some texts are demonstrably due to different editions published by the same author; would you say that is correct?


I believe so, although it is sometimes hard to be sure.

I believe that the Life of St. Columba by St. Adomnan is such an example. Basically Adomnan collected anecdotes of Columba for years, and expanded the work as he did so. Copies were taken at all stages, and some of the earlier versions still exist.

Tertullian certainly recast some of his works; his Ad Nationes was refined into the Apologeticum, but this has two variant traditions, reflected in a long passage in a now lost manuscript from Fulda in chapter 19 which is not present in the standard recension, but where both seem to be authorial.

No doubt there are others.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Roger Pearse]

Quite aside from that, I have studied the monks scriptuary works from lindasfarne C700ad in great depth. Their methods were faulty, and they had no standardised spellings. It is also apparent reading some of The Venerable Beades works that the novices working in the sanctum were copying purely from sight, and could either not read at all, or very little.


Can you give us more information on this? Certainly some 7th century manuscripts are drawn, not written. Where does Bede refer to this?


Incidentally, the Lindasfarne Gospels are very significant because they represent the first consistent applications of Majura and Minora (Capital and lower case letters), and the , yeah, the ,


Interesting -- do you have a source for this?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[djrafikie]

Quite aside from that, I have studied the monks scriptuary works from lindasfarne C700ad in great depth. Their methods were faulty, and they had no standardised spellings. It is also apparent reading some of The Venerable Beades works that the novices working in the sanctum were copying purely from sight, and could either not read at all, or very little.


Can you give us more information on this? Certainly some 7th century manuscripts are drawn, not written. Where does Bede refer to this?



Incidentally, the Lindasfarne Gospels are very significant because they represent the first consistent applications of Majura and Minora (Capital and lower case letters), and the , yeah, the ,


Interesting -- do you have a source for this?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Uhu, read them???

Bede does not refer to it, you work it out really easily by reading early works attributed to him.. all by different scribes you see.

By the way, the lindisfare gospels are not just "some" early manuscripts, I think they are THE ONLY surviving manuscripts of their type from that period of british history.



For reference, and for anyone who is intersted, I'll bung a few links in, the illustrations are breathtakingly intricate, and gorgeous, the colours are vivid as hell despite their age.

Do take a peek..

http://www.lindisfarne.org.uk/gospels/index.htm << some really good colour images

http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/lindisfarne/learningseminar4.html# <<< click on the little images and they enlarge, too ogle and drool over, gotta love the british library.



The refernce to Bede is due to the fact that he worked at the Jarrow monastery (692AD) and also on some occasions at the Lindasfarne monastery, at the same time of the writing of the gospels by Eadfrith in Lindasafrne. He certainly had an effect on their production, and this is easily seen when you compare the later sections of the Gospels with his work from the time. As bede more or less designed our current methods of recording date and time we can absolutely rely on those dates, in a way your really couldn't have hoped to with previous works. After all Eadfrith and Bede certainly has a few late night discussions about this over a few tankards of house ale.
They were the two powerhouses of monastic artworks at the time, their works were, Even then, priceless, and affordable only by the church and a very very select and wealthy few.

In reference to the punctuation and capitalisation, I wrote a paper on it for my eng lit and lang degree, and I can't find any source online (yeah, I used books, I'm virtually a cavewoman) which I would consider sufficiently clear, academic, unreligiously orientated, or not just a bunch of faf about how damn pretty they look.


I'll see if I can copy and paste something out of our university online library, but I'm not sure if it will let me :(

As I said, the best think to do is dig out a fairly full set of images online, and then just compare them to latin vulgate texts from the same period. All the extra dots, commas, and very modern looking paragraphing, sticks out as recognisable straight away, and the other more traditionally latin clerical works look like a big unbroken block of tiny, sloping, cramped writing.
It was a bit of a revelation for the english language, and the "way" of thinking and writing the jarrow and lindasfrane monks applied to written english style stuck like glue and is almost the template for our modern writing practices.

*gasp*
I am really into my early manuscript studies, as you can see.
I'll shut up now.

[Iasion]

Greetings,


I know this gets said; but this evidence never seems to appear and (to the best of my knowledge) does not exist.

Rubbish Roger,
you've seen me post the evidence several times :



The Epistle of the Apostles, 140-150CE :

The BOOK which Jesus Christ revealed unto his disciples: and how that Jesus Christ revealed the book for the company (college) of the apostles, the disciples of Jesus Christ, even the book which is for all men. Simon and Cerinthus, the false apostles, concerning whom it is written that no man shall cleave unto them, for there is in them deceit wherewith they bring men to destruction. (The book hath been written) that ye may be not flinch nor be troubled, and depart not from the word of the Gospel which ye have heard. Like as we heard it, we keep it in remembrance and have written it for the whole world.

This is obviously referring to a written Gospel, but gives no author's names.


Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE :

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This is obvious evidence of a written work which is specifically named "The Gospel" - but no name is given.

Furthermore, Aristides says this SINGULAR un-named Gospel was fairly NEW in the period 138-161 - clear evidence of the lateness of the Gospels, and the lateness of late naming.



Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE :

Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels...


Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 150-160CE, 3 references :

Ch. 100 : For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'

This is all clear and obvious evidence of written works called Gospels - but no names given, even though Justin explicitly tells us what they were named ("which are called Gospels".) If Justin knew of any author's names he would CERTAINLY have given them.



The Acts of Peter, 150-200CE :

And Peter entered into the dining-hall and saw that the Gospel was being read, and he rolled up the book[/b] and said: Ye men that believe and hope in Christ, learn in what manner the holy Scripture of our Lord ought to be declared: whereof we by his grace wrote that which we could receive, though yet it appear unto you feeble, yet according to our power, even that which can be endured to be borne by (or instilled into) human flesh.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no author's name is given.



The Treatise on the Resurrection, 170-200CE, 1 reference :

What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no author's name is given.



Hegesippus Fragments, c. 170CE :

With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no author's name is given.


There are many more references than these - the first few dozens of referencss to the Gospels are as UN-NAMED works.

The evidence is clear,
the Gospels were originally un-named.



Iasion

[2-J]

Thanks Iasion. I am very much an amateur and have only read a few books on this subject, but that was the impression I got too.

[andrewcriddle]

The Epistle of the Apostles, 140-150CE :

The BOOK which Jesus Christ revealed unto his disciples: and how that Jesus Christ revealed the book for the company (college) of the apostles, the disciples of Jesus Christ, even the book which is for all men. Simon and Cerinthus, the false apostles, concerning whom it is written that no man shall cleave unto them, for there is in them deceit wherewith they bring men to destruction. (The book hath been written) that ye may be not flinch nor be troubled, and depart not from the word of the Gospel which ye have heard. Like as we heard it, we keep it in remembrance and have written it for the whole world.

This is obviously referring to a written Gospel, but gives no author's names.


I'm pretty sure this is referring to the Epistle of the Apostles itself. Which although really written 150 CE or later, claims to be a book written by the apostles themselves, in order to defend orthodoxy against heresy.


Apology of Aristides, 138-161CE :

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This is obvious evidence of a written work which is specifically named "The Gospel" - but no name is given.

Furthermore, Aristides says this SINGULAR un-named Gospel was fairly NEW in the period 138-161 - clear evidence of the lateness of the Gospels, and the lateness of late naming.



Justin Martyr's 1st Apology, 150-160CE :

Ch. 66 : For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels...


Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 150-160CE, 3 references :

Ch. 100 : For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'

This is all clear and obvious evidence of written works called Gospels - but no names given, even though Justin explicitly tells us what they were named ("which are called Gospels".) If Justin knew of any author's names he would CERTAINLY have given them.



The Acts of Peter, 150-200CE :

And Peter entered into the dining-hall and saw that the Gospel was being read, and he rolled up the book[/b] and said: Ye men that believe and hope in Christ, learn in what manner the holy Scripture of our Lord ought to be declared: whereof we by his grace wrote that which we could receive, though yet it appear unto you feeble, yet according to our power, even that which can be endured to be borne by (or instilled into) human flesh.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no author's name is given.



The Treatise on the Resurrection, 170-200CE, 1 reference :

What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no author's name is given.



Hegesippus Fragments, c. 170CE :

With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.

This is obvious evidence of a written Gospel - but no author's name is given.


There are many more references than these - the first few dozens of referencss to the Gospels are as UN-NAMED works.

The evidence is clear,
the Gospels were originally un-named.



Iasion

These passages raise somewhat different issues but I'll make a
general point. References here to "the Gospel" singular are IMO references, not to a single specific document, but to the good news about the life death and resurrection of Jesus written down in various forms. IE what matters is the common central narrative rather than whether it is in the version we call Matthew or in that we call Mark or in some harmony of what we call the synoptics or............Hence to refer to "the Gospel" as the Gospel of X is to distract from the claim that it is one and the same message, whichever written version one is using.

Andrew Criddle

[sschlichter]

Well, Irenaus is quite a bit later than the time of composition of the gospels according to most datings, there's some evidence the gospels weren't even referred to by name at first. and NB the importance or even pre-eminence of the oral tradition.

An unsupported asumption, on your part, imo.

Show me the first recorded mention of the Gospels, if it wasn't Ireneaus.

Thanks.

All of these quote from the synoptic gospels and many epistles. or admittedly, you could say quotes from oral tradition but Polycarp references Pauls letter sent to the Philippians. I beleive they are quotes.

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (disciple of John)
Letters of Ignatius (115)
Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (95)

~Steve

[aa5874]

The evidence is clear,
the Gospels were originally un-named.



Iasion

And, it is also intersting to note that Justin Martyr gave details of a typical Sunday Church meeting, in the middle of the 2nd century, where he mentioned that these anonymous "memoirs of the apostles called Gospels" were used throughout the cities and country-side.

First Apology LXVII by Justin Martyr: And on the day called Sunday, all who live in the cities or in the country gather together to one one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writing of the prophets are read as long as time permits;....

So, there must have been numerous copies of the un-named Gospels in the middle of the 2nd century during Justin's time.

[aa5874]

I'm pretty sure this is referring to the Epistle of the Apostles itself. Which although really written 150 CE or later, claims to be a book written by the apostles themselves, in order to defend orthodoxy against heresy.

Don't you need some sort of corroborative support to be "pretty sure" of your claims.


These passages raise somewhat different issues but I'll make a
general point. References here to "the Gospel" singular are IMO references, not to a single specific document, but to the good news about the life death and resurrection of Jesus written down in various forms. IE what matters is the common central narrative rather than whether it is in the version we call Matthew or in that we call Mark or in some harmony of what we call the synoptics or............Hence to refer to "the Gospel" as the Gospel of X is to distract from the claim that it is one and the same message, whichever written version one is using.

Andrew Criddle

So are you claiming that it was a distraction to name the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John if they actually wrote these Gospels?

Justin Martyr, without any apparent distraction of the Gospel message, referred to the prophets of the OT by name and mentioned the writings of these prophets in First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho.

He mentioned Isaiah, Jeremiah, Moses, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Malachi, Hosea, Noah, Elijah, Micah and Daniel in order to re-inforce the message of the Gospel.

I would think that a writing would appear more authentic if the author is named rather than anonymous. And perhaps Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius thought the same thing.

Your "distraction claim" is extremekly weak.

[djrafikie]

It's not a particularly weak argument.
The problem is that you are working from the assumption that
a) it's says (for instance) john wrote it, therefore john wrote it.

We know from other religious/bibilically based texts that various scribes contributed to books, a tiny piece at a time, their copy accuracy wasn't that great.

b) Everyone seems to be neglecting a really huge issue, the earlier versions of the texts were pretty much utterly devoid of punctuation, even if the words are the not that different the content can be seen in a very different light with punctuation added.

see the following amusing example.

The devil is, me, I am not.

The devil is me! I am! (not).

The devil is me I am not.

we haven't even gone into the issues surround interpretation from various languages into other languages here.. and there are a few really obvious issues straight away.

[dog-on]

An unsupported asumption, on your part, imo.

Show me the first recorded mention of the Gospels, if it wasn't Ireneaus.

Thanks.

All of these quote from the synoptic gospels and many epistles. or admittedly, you could say quotes from oral tradition but Polycarp references Pauls letter sent to the Philippians. I beleive they are quotes.

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (disciple of John)
Letters of Ignatius (115)
Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (95)

~Steve

There are significant issues with these works.

[sschlichter]

The evidence is clear,
the Gospels were originally un-named.



Iasion

And, it is also intersting to note that Justin Martyr gave details of a typical Sunday Church meeting, in the middle of the 2nd century, where he mentioned that these anonymous "memoirs of the apostles called Gospels" were used throughout the cities and country-side.

First Apology LXVII by Justin Martyr: And on the day called Sunday, all who live in the cities or in the country gather together to one one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writing of the prophets are read as long as time permits;....

So, there must have been numerous copies of the un-named Gospels in the middle of the 2nd century during Justin's time.

well, I have not read it outside of your quote so I may be speaking out of ignorance (which does not seem to be stopping me) but it appears that you added the word anonymous. Justin Martyr seems to be attributing the memoirs to the apostles in the same manner he is attributing the writings to the prophets. Why do you consider this anonymous?

~Steve

[Roger Pearse]

And, it is also intersting to note that Justin Martyr gave details of a typical Sunday Church meeting, in the middle of the 2nd century, where he mentioned that these anonymous "memoirs of the apostles called Gospels" were used throughout the cities and country-side.

First Apology LXVII by Justin Martyr:

So, there must have been numerous copies of the un-named Gospels in the middle of the 2nd century during Justin's time.

well, I have not read it outside of your quote so I may be speaking out of ignorance (which does not seem to be stopping me) but it appears that you added the word anonymous. Justin Martyr seems to be attributing the memoirs to the apostles in the same manner he is attributing the writings to the prophets. Why do you consider this anonymous?

~Steve

Your point is correct; I'm afraid Iasion's remarks are distinctly tendentious. Likewise Justin does not name the apostles either -- presumably, on the same logic, they were anonymous too? :)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[sschlichter]

I'm pretty sure this is referring to the Epistle of the Apostles itself. Which although really written 150 CE or later, claims to be a book written by the apostles themselves, in order to defend orthodoxy against heresy.

Don't you need some sort of corroborative support to be "pretty sure" of your claims.


These passages raise somewhat different issues but I'll make a
general point. References here to "the Gospel" singular are IMO references, not to a single specific document, but to the good news about the life death and resurrection of Jesus written down in various forms. IE what matters is the common central narrative rather than whether it is in the version we call Matthew or in that we call Mark or in some harmony of what we call the synoptics or............Hence to refer to "the Gospel" as the Gospel of X is to distract from the claim that it is one and the same message, whichever written version one is using.

Andrew Criddle

So are you claiming that it was a distraction to name the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John if they actually wrote these Gospels?

Justin Martyr, without any apparent distraction of the Gospel message, referred to the prophets of the OT by name and mentioned the writings of these prophets in First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho.

He mentioned Isaiah, Jeremiah, Moses, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Malachi, Hosea, Noah, Elijah, Micah and Daniel in order to re-inforce the message of the Gospel.

I would think that a writing would appear more authentic if the author is named rather than anonymous. And perhaps Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius thought the same thing.

Your "distraction claim" is extremekly weak.

Couldn't it also speak to being un-necessary because it was common knowledge. We are only 150 - 50 years after. Perhaps, it was common knowledge. The writings of the prophets would have been less familiar to the gentile church. There are many things we do not need to clarify in this dicussion because we both know them to be true. this void is not that telling.

~Steve

[Roger Pearse]

"It is also apparent reading some of The Venerable Beades works that the novices working in the sanctum were copying purely from sight, and could either not read at all, or very little."

Can you give us more information on this? ... Where does Bede refer to this?


Uhu, read them???

Bede does not refer to it, you work it out really easily by reading early works attributed to him.. all by different scribes you see.


I'm having difficulty with what you write, because of the way that you're writing it, but am very interested in this.

So you don't mean Bede's *works*, as such, but rather manuscripts containing his works? (am I right?) You don't seem to be a manuscripts scholar, so I'm wondering what your source is for this



<Modern use of capitalisation first recorded in Lindisfarne gospels>

Interesting -- do you have a source for this?


By the way, the lindisfare gospels are not just "some" early manuscripts, I think they are THE ONLY surviving manuscripts of their type from that period of british history.


Surely there must be a fair number of insular manuscripts of that period?


For reference, and for anyone who is intersted, I'll bung a few links in, the illustrations are breathtakingly intricate, and gorgeous, the colours are vivid as hell despite their age.

Do take a peek..

http://www.lindisfarne.org.uk/gospels/index.htm << some really good colour images

http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/lindisfarne/learningseminar4.html# <<< click on the little images and they enlarge, too ogle and drool over, gotta love the british library.


What we want, tho, is images of all the pages online. Something like this:

http://www.tertullian.org/manuscripts_apologeticum/oxon_balliol_79.htm


In reference to the punctuation and capitalisation, I wrote a paper on it for my eng lit and lang degree, and I can't find any source online (yeah, I used books, I'm virtually a cavewoman) which I would consider sufficiently clear, academic, unreligiously orientated, or not just a bunch of faf about how damn pretty they look.


I know exactly what you mean. Stuff on mss studies online is very variable. If you can find any sources which you used, that would be helpful.


I'll see if I can copy and paste something out of our university online library, but I'm not sure if it will let me :(


Thanks.


As I said, the best think to do is dig out a fairly full set of images online, and then just compare them to latin vulgate texts from the same period. All the extra dots, commas, and very modern looking paragraphing, sticks out as recognisable straight away, and the other more traditionally latin clerical works look like a big unbroken block of tiny, sloping, cramped writing.


Sorry, I am a little unclear. "A fairly full set of images"... of what? "Latin vulgate texts" -- what have you in mind?


I am really into my early manuscript studies, as you can see.


I'm rather interested myself, actually. Good to meet someone else who is.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[djrafikie]

Bede gave speeches and held masses, together with self written liturgy, some of which has been transcribed by others from memory, and some he wrote himself (although the chances are that in fact he dictated them to a room containing several scribes so he could quickly produce a number of copies.
Quickly is relative here, it probably still took an awfully long time by our standards.
Jarrow monastery is quite famous for pioneering new methods of making copy like this, previously a monk would produce a scriptural work more in the style of eadfrith, where it was a work of religious devotion worked on by (mostly) only one person.

Sorry if my previous post made hard reading, I was a little under the influence!

If I tried to explain what I mean by "latin vulgate" texts I would be here all day, as it is a rather meaty subject, so I will lazily let this wikipedia article do it for me. It pretty good.
I'm sure you know more or less what the term means Roger, but for others who don't, here it is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

I chose Vulgate texts as an example partially because they exemplify the most cutting edge scholarly works of the time, and partly because they are very often translations, many of which aren't quite as accurate as they should have been, but many of which have passed into common use.

I really should cut my nails, they make typing on this laptop a rather dicey buisness!


RE - The lindisfarne gospels being pretty much the only surviving work "of their type", there are other manuscripts from this period, but this particular work contains many elements which were taken foward into day to day use, and some of them were pioneering.

It's quality, state of preservation, and quality of work, also make it priceless as well as of intense interest to scriptural scholars (which, as you pointed out, I am not quite, I'm more of a general english lit bod.)

[aa5874]

And, it is also intersting to note that Justin Martyr gave details of a typical Sunday Church meeting, in the middle of the 2nd century, where he mentioned that these anonymous "memoirs of the apostles called Gospels" were used throughout the cities and country-side.

First Apology LXVII by Justin Martyr:

So, there must have been numerous copies of the un-named Gospels in the middle of the 2nd century during Justin's time.

well, I have not read it outside of your quote so I may be speaking out of ignorance (which does not seem to be stopping me) but it appears that you added the word anonymous. Justin Martyr seems to be attributing the memoirs to the apostles in the same manner he is attributing the writings to the prophets. Why do you consider this anonymous?

~Steve

But Justin did name many of the prophets and quoted from the books of the OT with their names.

Justin mentioned the following prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Elijah, Micah, Daniel, Hosea, Zephaniah, Elisha, Amos and Hezekiah.

And the word "anonymous is synonymous with the word "un-named" with respect to authorship.

Justin did NOT say that apostles named Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote any Gospels, all he noted was that he was aware of or had in his possession memoirs of the apostles called Gospels and quoted many passages from the memoirs.

By the way, you can read Justin Martyr's writings at www.earlychristianwritings.com

[andrewcriddle]

I'm pretty sure this is referring to the Epistle of the Apostles itself. Which although really written 150 CE or later, claims to be a book written by the apostles themselves, in order to defend orthodoxy against heresy.

Don't you need some sort of corroborative support to be "pretty sure" of your claims.

It's pretty obvious IMO

Section 1 goes on about something written by the apostles collectively to defend the Gospel against Simon and Cerinthus .
Section 7 onwards denounces Cerinthus and Simon and continues with what the authors have written to concerning the truth about Jesus Christ.
Section 1, and immediately following, is clearly providing an introduction to what comes later in the letter.

These passages raise somewhat different issues but I'll make a
general point. References here to "the Gospel" singular are IMO references, not to a single specific document, but to the good news about the life death and resurrection of Jesus written down in various forms. IE what matters is the common central narrative rather than whether it is in the version we call Matthew or in that we call Mark or in some harmony of what we call the synoptics or............Hence to refer to "the Gospel" as the Gospel of X is to distract from the claim that it is one and the same message, whichever written version one is using.

Andrew Criddle

So are you claiming that it was a distraction to name the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John if they actually wrote these Gospels?

Justin Martyr, without any apparent distraction of the Gospel message, referred to the prophets of the OT by name and mentioned the writings of these prophets in First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho.

He mentioned Isaiah, Jeremiah, Moses, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Malachi, Hosea, Noah, Elijah, Micah and Daniel in order to re-inforce the message of the Gospel.

I would think that a writing would appear more authentic if the author is named rather than anonymous. And perhaps Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius thought the same thing.

Your "distraction claim" is extremekly weak.

The OT books are ancient sacred texts, the NT books are (at this stage) witnesses to sacred words and deeds more than sacred texts as such. As they cease to be witnesses to recent events and become ancient sacred texts like the OT their authorship will become more important.

Andrew Criddle

[sschlichter]

All of these quote from the synoptic gospels and many epistles. or admittedly, you could say quotes from oral tradition but Polycarp references Pauls letter sent to the Philippians. I beleive they are quotes.

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (disciple of John)
Letters of Ignatius (115)
Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (95)

~Steve

There are significant issues with these works.

well, I have to admit I am a little suspicious that the most significant issue is that they answer your question.

[aa5874]

The OT books are ancient sacred texts, the NT books are (at this stage) witnesses to sacred words and deeds more than sacred texts as such. As they cease to be witnesses to recent events and become ancient sacred texts like the OT their authorship will become more important.

Andrew Criddle

Again, you have provided another weak, dubious and highly speculative explanation for the authorship of the Gospel.

The NT books were witnesses to the sacred words of Mary and the angel Gabriel about the conception of Jesus?

The NT books were witnesses to the resurrection and ascension of Jesus?

The NT books were witnesses to the conversion of Saul, when he was blinded by a bright light?

I am pretty sure the NT books were NOT witnesses to those deeds, since those deeds are pretty near impossible.

[sschlichter]

well, I have not read it outside of your quote so I may be speaking out of ignorance (which does not seem to be stopping me) but it appears that you added the word anonymous. Justin Martyr seems to be attributing the memoirs to the apostles in the same manner he is attributing the writings to the prophets. Why do you consider this anonymous?

~Steve

But Justin did name many of the prophets and quoted from the books of the OT with their names.

Justin mentioned the following prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Elijah, Micah, Daniel, Hosea, Zephaniah, Elisha, Amos and Hezekiah.

And the word "anonymous is synonymous with the word "un-named" with respect to authorship.

Justin did NOT say that apostles named Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote any Gospels, all he noted was that he was aware of or had in his possession memoirs of the apostles called Gospels and quoted many passages from the memoirs.

By the way, you can read Justin Martyr's writings at www.earlychristianwritings.com

well, anonymous is the same as un-named. However, you are the one using the word, not Justin Martyr. he does not say anonymous or un-named.

he says...

For the Apostles, in the memoirs composed by them which are called Gospels, have delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.

It does not surprise me at all that he treats references to the Old Testament differently. His audience would have understood that Judaism had a book and the references make perfect sense. Wouldn't you treat a reference to a textbook differently than you would a letter from a guy you used to work for. It still seems clear that he is claiming that the Apostles wrote the memoirs in question and when he quotes them, we recognize them as the gospel of Matthew.

~Steve

[aa5874]

But Justin did name many of the prophets and quoted from the books of the OT with their names.

Justin mentioned the following prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Elijah, Micah, Daniel, Hosea, Zephaniah, Elisha, Amos and Hezekiah.

And the word "anonymous is synonymous with the word "un-named" with respect to authorship.

Justin did NOT say that apostles named Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote any Gospels, all he noted was that he was aware of or had in his possession memoirs of the apostles called Gospels and quoted many passages from the memoirs.

By the way, you can read Justin Martyr's writings at www.earlychristianwritings.com

well, anonymous is the same as un-named. However, you are the one using the word, not Justin Martyr. he does not say anonymous or un-named.

he says...

For the Apostles, in the memoirs composed by them which are called Gospels, have delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.

It does not surprise me at all that he treats references to the Old Testament differently. His audience would have understood that Judaism had a book and the references make perfect sense. Wouldn't you treat a reference to a textbook differently than you would a letter from a guy you used to work for. It still seems clear that he is claiming that the Apostles wrote the memoirs in question and when he quotes them, we recognize them as the gospel of Matthew.

~Steve

Why would Irenaeus and Tertullian who wrote in the 2nd century, also, mention all the names of the Gospel writers, the Acts of Apostles, the name of the author of the letters to the seven churches and mention the names of the prophets of the OT, weren't these writers writing to the same audience?

Why did Justin mention an apostle called John who wrote a "revelation" and never mentioned that the apostle John also wrote one of the Gospels.

Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr: And further there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem....

So, it appears that it was likely Justin would have mentioned that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote the memoirs of the apostles if they were already named as authors.

And further, the memoirs of the apostles, as stated by Justin also contain passages that are found only in gMark and gLuke.

[sschlichter]

well, anonymous is the same as un-named. However, you are the one using the word, not Justin Martyr. he does not say anonymous or un-named.

he says...

For the Apostles, in the memoirs composed by them which are called Gospels, have delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.

It does not surprise me at all that he treats references to the Old Testament differently. His audience would have understood that Judaism had a book and the references make perfect sense. Wouldn't you treat a reference to a textbook differently than you would a letter from a guy you used to work for. It still seems clear that he is claiming that the Apostles wrote the memoirs in question and when he quotes them, we recognize them as the gospel of Matthew.

~Steve

Why would Irenaeus and Tertullian who wrote in the 2nd century, also, mention all the names of the Gospel writers, the Acts of Apostles, the name of the author of the letters to the seven churches and mention the names of the prophets of the OT, weren't these writers writing to the same audience?

Why did Justin mention an apostle called John who wrote a "revelation" and never mentioned that the apostle John also wrote one of the Gospels.

Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr: And further there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem....

So, it appears that it was likely Justin would have mentioned that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote the memoirs of the apostles if they were already named as authors.

And further, the memoirs of the apostles, as stated by Justin also contain passages that are found only in gMark and gLuke.

Justin Martyrs audience was Emporer Titus. He was an apologist petitioning for legal protection for Christians being persecuted. It certainly would have been convenient if he would have named them by name, but he named them by group and quoting them so it is clear to me that he was was referring to them. I suspected other than Matt was quoted but was not certain. thanks for letting me know.

~Steve

[andrewcriddle]

The OT books are ancient sacred texts, the NT books are (at this stage) witnesses to sacred words and deeds more than sacred texts as such. As they cease to be witnesses to recent events and become ancient sacred texts like the OT their authorship will become more important.

Andrew Criddle

Again, you have provided another weak, dubious and highly speculative explanation for the authorship of the Gospel.

The NT books were witnesses to the sacred words of Mary and the angel Gabriel about the conception of Jesus?

The NT books were witnesses to the resurrection and ascension of Jesus?

The NT books were witnesses to the conversion of Saul, when he was blinded by a bright light?

I am pretty sure the NT books were NOT witnesses to those deeds, since those deeds are pretty near impossible.

I thought my OP was clear but I will spell it out .

The OT books are regarded as ancient sacred texts, the NT books are (at this stage) regarded as witnesses to sacred words and deeds more than sacred texts as such. As they cease to be regarded as witnesses to recent events and become regarded as ancient sacred texts like the OT their authorship will become more important.

Andrew Criddle

[aa5874]

Again, you have provided another weak, dubious and highly speculative explanation for the authorship of the Gospel.

The NT books were witnesses to the sacred words of Mary and the angel Gabriel about the conception of Jesus?

The NT books were witnesses to the resurrection and ascension of Jesus?

The NT books were witnesses to the conversion of Saul, when he was blinded by a bright light?

I am pretty sure the NT books were NOT witnesses to those deeds, since those deeds are pretty near impossible.

I thought my OP was clear but I will spell it out .

The OT books are regarded as ancient sacred texts, the NT books are (at this stage) regarded as witnesses to sacred words and deeds more than sacred texts as such. As they cease to be regarded as witnesses to recent events and become regarded as ancient sacred texts like the OT their authorship will become more important.

Andrew Criddle

You have just merely repeated the same baseless hypothesis.

You have not established that the NT books were regarded as witnesses to words and deeds more than sacred texts.

Justin referred to the memoirs of the apostles one hundred and fifty (150) years after the so-called birth of Jesus, Irenaeus referred to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John about twenty-five (25) years later.

There is not even any information available to determine when the memoirs of the apostles were written. Justin already stated that the memoirs were written by the apostles, giving their names at least once, could not be regarded as a distraction, when Justin had given the name of John, an apostle of Jesus, who wrote a 'revelation"

How can you show that Justin did consider the memoirs less sacred than the OT texts?

Again, your explanation is extremely dubious and is in fact without merit ,whatsoever.

[andrewcriddle]

There is not even any information available to determine when the memoirs of the apostles were written. Justin already stated that the memoirs were written by the apostles, giving their names at least once, could not be regarded as a distraction, when Justin had given the name of John, an apostle of Jesus, who wrote a 'revelation"

IF one is talking about a special vision/revelation given to someone it is obviously relevant to say who had the vision. It is not as obviously relevant, when dealing with what you regard as witnesses of recent events, to make clear exactly whose written version of events you are using.
Even today one may say that something has been in the News without specifying exactly which article with which byline one is talking about.

How can you show that Justin did consider the memoirs less sacred than the OT texts?


The phrase APOMNHMONEUMATA TWN APOSTOLWN the "memoirs of the apostles" or the apostles notes/jottings, would be an unusual way of referring to sacred texts. Also, the way in which Justin (probably) and his pupil Tatian (certainly) preferred a harmony of the Gospels to the originals, indicates a greater interest in the events described in the texts, than in the texts themselves.

Andrew Criddle

[aa5874]

There is not even any information available to determine when the memoirs of the apostles were written. Justin already stated that the memoirs were written by the apostles, giving their names at least once, could not be regarded as a distraction, when Justin had given the name of John, an apostle of Jesus, who wrote a 'revelation"

IF one is talking about a special vision/revelation given to someone it is obviously relevant to say who had the vision. It is not as obviously relevant, when dealing with what you regard as witnesses of recent events, to make clear exactly whose written version of events you are using.
Even today one may say that something has been in the News without specifying exactly which article with which byline one is talking about.

You are not making much sense.

Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" and Tertullian in "Against Marcion", during the very 2nd century, mentioned there were gospels that were named after Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and it should be obvious to you that it is most likely that Irenaeus and Tertullian either saw or was aware that the words Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written on their texts as the authors.

It should also be obvious to you that it is most likely that the texts which Justin called the Gospels did not have the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John written on them, since when he quoted passages from gMark and gLuke, it would be erroneous and misleading to say that Mark and Luke were apostles.

Mark and Luke were not apostles yet Justin quoted passages from "memoirs of the apostles" that are only found in gMark and gLuke.



How can you show that Justin did consider the memoirs less sacred than the OT texts?


The phrase APOMNHMONEUMATA TWN APOSTOLWN the "memoirs of the apostles" or the apostles notes/jottings, would be an unusual way of referring to sacred texts. Also, the way in which Justin (probably) and his pupil Tatian (certainly) preferred a harmony of the Gospels to the originals, indicates a greater interest in the events described in the texts, than in the texts themselves.

Andrew Criddle

Again, this all unsubstantiated meritless speculation not based on any facts at all.

Based on Justin Martyr "First Apology", "the memoirs of the apostles" were regarded as sacred, these memoirs were read every Sunday at the Churches in the cities and the country.

No mention of Mark or Luke who were not apostles.

First Apology LXVII ...And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits, then when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things....

Justin Martyr's First Apology contradicts you.

The memoirs of the apostles were indeed very sacred according to Justin and may have been the only sacred source outside of the OT, at least during Justin's time, since he never mentioned the Acts of the Apostles, the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, the epistles to seven the Churches and "Paul".

[Minimalist]

Justin Martyrs audience was Emporer Titus.


Um, actually it was Antoninus Pius who reigned from 138-161....much later than Titus. Perhaps that was when xtianity really got going?

[andrewcriddle]

Again, this all unsubstantiated meritless speculation not based on any facts at all.

Based on Justin Martyr "First Apology", "the memoirs of the apostles" were regarded as sacred, these memoirs were read every Sunday at the Churches in the cities and the country.

No mention of Mark or Luke who were not apostles.

First Apology LXVII ...And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits, then when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things....

Justin Martyr's First Apology contradicts you.

The memoirs of the apostles were indeed very sacred according to Justin and may have been the only sacred source outside of the OT, at least during Justin's time, since he never mentioned the Acts of the Apostles, the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, the epistles to seven the Churches and "Paul".

The memoirs of the apostles were dealing with sacred things, that is why they were read in church. That is not the same as being a sacred text, strict sense.

The accounts of the martyrs were read in church, they dealt with a subject very precious to the early church, but they were not sacred texts in the strict sense, (for example they were highly subject to rewriting).

Andrew Criddle

[aa5874]

The memoirs of the apostles were dealing with sacred things, that is why they were read in church. That is not the same as being a sacred text, strict sense.

Sacred texts are a sacred things in any strict sense.


The memoirs of the apostles dealt with sacred things called the SACRED WORDS of the HOLY THING called the Son of the God of the Jews.

First Apology by Justin Martyr....we find it recorded in the memoirs of the apostles that He is the Son of God...

The accounts of the martyrs were read in church, they dealt with a subject very precious to the early church, but they were not sacred texts in the strict sense, (for example they were highly subject to rewriting).

Andrew Criddle

Let's not get distracted from the fact that the memoirs of the apostles contained the sacred words of the Son of God of the Jews

Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr For when Christ was giving up his Spirit on the cross, He said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, as I have learned from the memoirs.

[andrewcriddle]

Let's not get distracted from the fact that the memoirs of the apostles contained the sacred words of the Son of God of the Jews

Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr For when Christ was giving up his Spirit on the cross, He said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, as I have learned from the memoirs.

I entirely agree that the words of Jesus Christ found in the memoirs of the apostles are sacred to Justin.

I may not have been making myself clear.

I entirely agree that the memoirs of the apostles contain what Justin regards as sacred material. What I am questioning is whether the memoirs of the apostles are in themselves sacred texts. IE does Justin value them mainly as a source of information about what Jesus said and did or does he also value and regard as authoritative the way in which these texts interpret their material.

If as is IMO true, Justin is only really interested in the memoirs of the apostles as a source of information about Jesus; then the identity of the person who wrote down a particular piece of material is much less important than if the written text is regarded as inspired and sacred in its own right.

Andrew Criddle

[djrafikie]

If the bible is comprised of inspired and sacred texts, and god is apparently working in our world, right now, why do we not continue to see equally inspired and worshipped texts?
Whats the point in having a pope if people don't worship his writings on a par with any of the other biblical writers (which they don't. some have fleeting popularity, but aren't revered in the same way).
Whats the point in having a priest if his works don't command the same respect? Are their musings "less holy" or is it just easier to respect the babblings of strangers of they are no longer alive to shatter the illusion?
/rant.

Do you actually worship god?
Or a book?

[sschlichter]

Justin Martyrs audience was Emporer Titus.


Um, actually it was Antoninus Pius who reigned from 138-161....much later than Titus. Perhaps that was when xtianity really got going?

oops, my bad, doesn't change the answer to the question.

[djrafikie]

erm.. punctuation, not present in much of the torah, or latin vulgates.
added later..
we all accept it can change meanings, right?
it was all added much later.

[aa5874]

[QUOTE=aa5874;5344435]
Let's not get distracted from the fact that the memoirs of the apostles contained the sacred words of the Son of God of the Jews

I entirely agree that the words of Jesus Christ found in the memoirs of the apostles are sacred to Justin.

I may not have been making myself clear.

I entirely agree that the memoirs of the apostles contain what Justin regards as sacred material. What I am questioning is whether the memoirs of the apostles are in themselves sacred texts. IE does Justin value them mainly as a source of information about what Jesus said and did or does he also value and regard as authoritative the way in which these texts interpret their material.

If as is IMO true, Justin is only really interested in the memoirs of the apostles as a source of information about Jesus; then the identity of the person who wrote down a particular piece of material is much less important than if the written text is regarded as inspired and sacred in its own right.

Andrew Criddle

You are very clear. All you seem to have done is to ignore the facts and then speculate.

Justin, as I have pointed out, mentioned Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Micah, Hezekiah, Moses and other prophets of the sacred scriptures of the OT.

It is reasonable to expect that Justin would have mentioned the names of the authors of the Gospels if the names were available for at least 100 years before.

[Ben C Smith]

It is reasonable to expect that Justin would have mentioned the names of the authors of the Gospels if the names were available for at least 100 years before.

At least 100 years before Justin? When do you think Justin was writing? When do you think the gospels were written?

Ben.

[sschlichter]

erm.. punctuation, not present in much of the torah, or latin vulgates.
added later..
we all accept it can change meanings, right?
it was all added much later.

yes, of course.

[aa5874]

It is reasonable to expect that Justin would have mentioned the names of the authors of the Gospels if the names were available for at least 100 years before.

At least 100 years before Justin? When do you think Justin was writing? When do you think the gospels were written?

Ben.

The so-called Christians claimed that an apostle of Jesus, named Matthew, wrote the gospel of Matthew, and sometime after a disciple of Peter, named Mark, wrote the gospel of Mark while Philo of Alexandria was alive.

Philo of Alexandria is considered to have lived upto or about the middle of the 1st century.

In the writings of Justin Martyr, he mentioned that Jesus was born 150 years from the time he was writing, this timeline would put Justin's writings somewhere around the middle of the 2nd century.

So based on the writings of the so-called Christians, the Gospels were written at least 100 years before Justin's writings.

And according to one so-called Christian, the apostle Peter know these things are TRUE.

[Ben C Smith]

The so-called Christians claimed that an apostle of Jesus, named Matthew, wrote the gospel of Matthew, and sometime after a disciple of Peter, named Mark, wrote the gospel of Mark while Philo of Alexandria was alive.

I did not ask you when certain Christians thought the gospels were written. I asked you when you thought the gospels were written. Dare I ask it again? Or are you going to give me the runaround?

Ben.

[sschlichter]

[QUOTE=andrewcriddle;5344650]

You are very clear. All you seem to have done is to ignore the facts and then speculate.

Justin, as I have pointed out, mentioned Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Micah, Hezekiah, Moses and other prophets of the sacred scriptures of the OT.

It is reasonable to expect that Justin would have mentioned the names of the authors of the Gospels if the names were available for at least 100 years before.

You have had numerous responses to this.

Yes, he referred to older books by name as the reference would have been an effective way to communicate because the existence of these OT books were common knowledge to his audience. If Micah was written yesterday, it would have been less likely to be quoted, especially in the case of Justin. He was not writing to the church, he was an apologist. the church copied and distributed the gospels but that does not mean they emailed a copy to the Emporer (forgot which one again).

This does not mean that he did not know who wrote it, it may mean 1) that his audience did not know who they were or it could mean 2) that the apostles was a common term by then and everyone knew who they were. I am sure it could mean other things. You have selected the one possibility and assumed it is the only possibility because it fits your presupposition.

In this you have a lot of work to do, because the words and deeds of Christ from the apostles and the witnesses is quite clear from the gospels, the epistles, Justin Martyr, Papias, Clement, Polycarp, Ireneaus, Barnabas, Tertullian, ... between these men (and I am sure others) and early fragments of the NT, you can re-assemble all you need to be able to verify what the witnesses say they witnessed. No lack of punctuation or later manipulations are going to change that. Of course you do not beleive them but it is willful ignorance to claim they do not believe themselves.

What is the point in saying that Justin Martyr did not know which apostle wrote which gospel when he is quoting from all 3 in question. Is the crux of your argument that no one put a header on them? We have his quotes. 25% of the NT is OT quotes. If you are arguing that someone later changed the gospels then check it against the OT quotes, early fragments, his writing, and these other early writings. You could nearly re-construct the entire NT which you do not need to do because of the 4000 ancient greek manuscripts, 8000 latin, and 1000 of others (coptic, Syriac, Ethiopic, etc.). They travelled all over the known world. It is too historically invasive to make the claim you are making.

[aa5874]

This does not mean that he did not know who wrote it, it may mean 1) that his audience did not know who they were or it could mean 2) that the apostles was a common term by then and everyone knew who they were. I am sure it could mean other things. You have selected the one possibility and assumed it is the only possibility because it fits your presupposition.

You just wrote, "I am sure it could mean other things."

Yes, it could also mean Justin did know who wrote the memoirs.

You have a lot of work to do.

[sschlichter]

This does not mean that he did not know who wrote it, it may mean 1) that his audience did not know who they were or it could mean 2) that the apostles was a common term by then and everyone knew who they were. I am sure it could mean other things. You have selected the one possibility and assumed it is the only possibility because it fits your presupposition.

You just wrote, "I am sure it could mean other things."

Yes, it could also mean Justin did know who wrote the memoirs.

You have a lot of work to do.


IF
Justin Martyr said the apostles wrote the memoirs
THEN
Justin Martyr thought he knew who wrote the memoirs.

Which word is causing trouble? apostles, wrote, or memoirs? Which of these are you mistaking for the word anonymous, or un-named, or I do not know?

[aa5874]

You just wrote, "I am sure it could mean other things."

Yes, it could also mean Justin did know who wrote the memoirs.

You have a lot of work to do.


IF
Justin Martyr said the apostles wrote the memoirs
THEN
Justin Martyr thought he knew who wrote the memoirs.

Which word is causing trouble? apostles, wrote, or memoirs? Which of these are you mistaking for the word anonymous, or un-named, or I do not know?

I should have written, "Justin did not mention the NAMES of the authors of the memoirs of the apostles."

And the probabilIty that Justin did not know the NAMES of the authors is increased when Justin quoted passages found ONLY in gMark and GLuke but claimed these passags were from the memoirs of the apostles.

Now, according to Eusebius in "Church History", the authors called Mark and Luke were NOT apostles.

So, I hope you see the problem. Justin quoted passages from gMark and gLuke as passages written by apostles but Mark and Luke were NOT apostles.

It is reasonable to claim Justin did not know the names of the apostles who wrote the memoirs and further that Justin did not know that persons who were NOT apostles also had passages in the memoirs of the apostles.

[Ben C Smith]

So, I hope you see the problem. Justin quoted passages from gMark and gLuke as passages written by apostles but Mark and Luke were NOT apostles.

In your view, did Justin know that the memoirs were composed both by apostles and by followers of the apostles? Or was it strictly apostles for him, IYO?

Ben.

[sschlichter]

IF
Justin Martyr said the apostles wrote the memoirs
THEN
Justin Martyr thought he knew who wrote the memoirs.

Which word is causing trouble? apostles, wrote, or memoirs? Which of these are you mistaking for the word anonymous, or un-named, or I do not know?

I should have written, "Justin did not mention the NAMES of the authors of the memoirs of the apostles."

And the probabilIty that Justin did not know the NAMES of the authors is increased when Justin quoted passages found ONLY in gMark and GLuke but claimed these passags were from the memoirs of the apostles.

Now, according to Eusebius in "Church History", the authors called Mark and Luke were NOT apostles.

So, I hope you see the problem. Justin quoted passages from gMark and gLuke as passages written by apostles but Mark and Luke were NOT apostles.

It is reasonable to claim Justin did not know the names of the apostles who wrote the memoirs and further that Justin did not know that persons who were NOT apostles also had passages in the memoirs of the apostles.

ah, I see what now what you are getting at! I do see your point but I do not see the problem. the NT does not have that rigid of a definition of an apostle. In a strict sense, you would refer to the 12 as the apostles but in a broader sense it is used to include many church leaders. Paul for example referred to himself as an apostle and had the blessing of the 12 but was not an original eyewitness. there is no indication that Apostle, in this sense meant only the 12.

it is not that technical of a term. it is a greek word that means delegate.

~steve

[djrafikie]

erm.. punctuation, not present in much of the torah, or latin vulgates.
added later..
we all accept it can change meanings, right?
it was all added much later.

yes, of course.

Well, if someone accepts that argument (ie - that punctuation alters meaning) then they must also accept that the meanings of many things in the bible are distorted.

And thats before you even get into the debatable stuff, because we know absolutely that there was no punctuation as we understand it in any of the older texts.

[aa5874]

I should have written, "Justin did not mention the NAMES of the authors of the memoirs of the apostles."

And the probabilIty that Justin did not know the NAMES of the authors is increased when Justin quoted passages found ONLY in gMark and GLuke but claimed these passags were from the memoirs of the apostles.

Now, according to Eusebius in "Church History", the authors called Mark and Luke were NOT apostles.

So, I hope you see the problem. Justin quoted passages from gMark and gLuke as passages written by apostles but Mark and Luke were NOT apostles.

It is reasonable to claim Justin did not know the names of the apostles who wrote the memoirs and further that Justin did not know that persons who were NOT apostles also had passages in the memoirs of the apostles.

ah, I see what now what you are getting at! I do see your point but I do not see the problem. the NT does not have that rigid of a definition of an apostle. In a strict sense, you would refer to the 12 as the apostles but in a broader sense it is used to include many church leaders. Paul for example referred to himself as an apostle and had the blessing of the 12 but was not an original eyewitness. there is no indication that Apostle, in this sense meant only the 12.

it is not that technical of a term. it is a greek word that means delegate.

~steve

But, nowhere in the NT did Mark and Luke call themselves apostles. And nowhere in the NT did anyone claim Mark and Luke wrote any Gospels.Also, no author of the Gospel ever claimed that their name were either Mark or Luke.

There is no indication that Justin Martyr ever heard of these characters, Mark and Luke, in all of his extant writings.

[sschlichter]

yes, of course.

Well, if someone accepts that argument (ie - that punctuation alters meaning) then they must also accept that the meanings of many things in the bible are distorted.

And thats before you even get into the debatable stuff, because we know absolutely that there was no punctuation as we understand it in any of the older texts.

I accept the fact that there was no punctuation, I did not accept an argument that a language with less punctuation cannot convey meaning.

[sschlichter]

ah, I see what now what you are getting at! I do see your point but I do not see the problem. the NT does not have that rigid of a definition of an apostle. In a strict sense, you would refer to the 12 as the apostles but in a broader sense it is used to include many church leaders. Paul for example referred to himself as an apostle and had the blessing of the 12 but was not an original eyewitness. there is no indication that Apostle, in this sense meant only the 12.

it is not that technical of a term. it is a greek word that means delegate.

~steve

But, nowhere in the NT did Mark and Luke call themselves apostles. And nowhere in the NT did anyone claim Mark and Luke wrote any Gospels.Also, no author of the Gospel ever claimed that their name were either Mark or Luke.

There is no indication that Justin Martyr ever heard of these characters, Mark and Luke, in all of his extant writings.

Well, who do you suggest he thought the apostles were? He is reading the memoirs of the apostles, claims they were written by the apostles and they list the names of the 12. Why, in the purpose of what he was writing, would he need to clarify the difference. Why do we?

There is also no indication that the sky was blue from Justin Martyr. It lacks relevance.

We do not need Justin Martyr. There is plenty of internal evidence for the authorship of Luke, and both Mark and Luke is quoted and attributed authorship by others before Justin Martyr. Ignatius (and Papias) both quote Mark, "the disciple and interpreter of Peter".

If that doesn't do it for you, then there are two other gospels with the same credentials, all the epistles (also quoted early and frequently). All consistent, all historically verifiable.

What other ancient text enjoys anything close to that? (please answer this time)


~Steve

[aa5874]

But, nowhere in the NT did Mark and Luke call themselves apostles. And nowhere in the NT did anyone claim Mark and Luke wrote any Gospels.Also, no author of the Gospel ever claimed that their name were either Mark or Luke.

There is no indication that Justin Martyr ever heard of these characters, Mark and Luke, in all of his extant writings.

Well, who do you suggest he thought the apostles were? He is reading the memoirs of the apostles, claims they were written by the apostles and they list the names of the 12. Why, in the purpose of what he was writing, would he need to clarify the difference. Why do we?

So, according to you then, it was not only Matthew and John who wrote the memoirs, it was all twelve apostles, or a combination of Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon Zelotes, Judas the brother of James and Matthias who could have written the memoirs.

Or, perhaps, in addition to the twelve apostles, any other person who called themself an apostle, since as you stated earlier the name apostle is not confined to the 12 named apostles of Jesus and would include Mark, Luke, "Paul" or any other unknown person.

Now, based on your reasoning, I would think that Justin Martyr did not know who wrote the memoirs of the apostles, since it could be any number of unknown person.

[sschlichter]

But, nowhere in the NT did Mark and Luke call themselves apostles. And nowhere in the NT did anyone claim Mark and Luke wrote any Gospels.Also, no author of the Gospel ever claimed that their name were either Mark or Luke.

There is no indication that Justin Martyr ever heard of these characters, Mark and Luke, in all of his extant writings.

Well, who do you suggest he thought the apostles were? He is reading the memoirs of the apostles, claims they were written by the apostles and they list the names of the 12. Why, in the purpose of what he was writing, would he need to clarify the difference. Why do we?

So, according to you then, it was not only Matthew and John who wrote the memoirs, it was all twelve apostles, or a combination of Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon Zelotes, Judas the brother of James and Matthias who could have written the memoirs.

Or, perhaps, in addition to the twelve apostles, any other person who called themself an apostle, since as you stated earlier the name apostle is not confined to the 12 named apostles of Jesus and would include Mark, Luke, "Paul" or any other unknown person.

Now, based on your reasoning, I would think that Justin Martyr did not know who wrote the memoirs of the apostles, since it could be any number of unknown person.

Who hosts this forum?

[Roger Pearse]

Well, who do you suggest he thought the apostles were? He is reading the memoirs of the apostles, claims they were written by the apostles and they list the names of the 12. Why, in the purpose of what he was writing, would he need to clarify the difference. Why do we?

There is also no indication that the sky was blue from Justin Martyr. It lacks relevance.

We do not need Justin Martyr. There is plenty of internal evidence for the authorship of Luke, and both Mark and Luke is quoted and attributed authorship by others before Justin Martyr. Ignatius (and Papias) both quote Mark, "the disciple and interpreter of Peter".

If that doesn't do it for you, then there are two other gospels with the same credentials, all the epistles (also quoted early and frequently). All consistent, all historically verifiable.


Agreed. The objection seems very strange to me. "Justin doesn't name the authors when addressing a message 'please do not kill me' to the pagans so that proves that they didn't have authors"??

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[sschlichter]

Well, who do you suggest he thought the apostles were? He is reading the memoirs of the apostles, claims they were written by the apostles and they list the names of the 12. Why, in the purpose of what he was writing, would he need to clarify the difference. Why do we?

There is also no indication that the sky was blue from Justin Martyr. It lacks relevance.

We do not need Justin Martyr. There is plenty of internal evidence for the authorship of Luke, and both Mark and Luke is quoted and attributed authorship by others before Justin Martyr. Ignatius (and Papias) both quote Mark, "the disciple and interpreter of Peter".

If that doesn't do it for you, then there are two other gospels with the same credentials, all the epistles (also quoted early and frequently). All consistent, all historically verifiable.


Agreed. The objection seems very strange to me. "Justin doesn't name the authors when addressing a message 'please do not kill me' to the pagans so that proves that they didn't have authors"??

All the best,

Roger Pearse

:) judging by his moniker, it did not work.

~Steve

[Roger Pearse]

Agreed. The objection seems very strange to me. "Justin doesn't name the authors when addressing a message 'please do not kill me' to the pagans so that proves that they didn't have authors"??


:) judging by his moniker, it did not work.


As I recall, he was denounced to the authorities for being a Christian by the philosopher Crescens, whom he had convicted of being ignorant.

I'm not sure what the ancient source for that is; but I think that there are genuine Acta for Justin's trial extant. I don't know if they're online, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Toto]

1911 Enc. Brit. (http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Justin_Martyr)But we know, from the undoubtedly genuine Acta SS Justini et sociorum, that Justin suffered the death of a martyr under the prefect Rusticus between 163 and 167.

"Undoubtedly genuine" sounds a bit overly confident.

[andrewcriddle]

:) judging by his moniker, it did not work.


As I recall, he was denounced to the authorities for being a Christian by the philosopher Crescens, whom he had convicted of being ignorant.

I'm not sure what the ancient source for that is; but I think that there are genuine Acta for Justin's trial extant. I don't know if they're online, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Hi Roger

A version of the Acta for Justin's trial is on your website http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-54.htm#P6089_1353518

The Acta are found in three forms I discuss which is original at http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2008/04/martyrdom-of-justin-and-infinity-of-god.html
Justin predicts denunciation by Crescens in chapter 3 of his second apology
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-47.htm#P3966_758753

Andrew Criddle

[aa5874]

So, according to you then, it was not only Matthew and John who wrote the memoirs, it was all twelve apostles, or a combination of Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon Zelotes, Judas the brother of James and Matthias who could have written the memoirs.

Or, perhaps, in addition to the twelve apostles, any other person who called themself an apostle, since as you stated earlier the name apostle is not confined to the 12 named apostles of Jesus and would include Mark, Luke, "Paul" or any other unknown person.

Now, based on your reasoning, I would think that Justin Martyr did not know who wrote the memoirs of the apostles, since it could be any number of unknown person.

Who hosts this forum?

The hosts . If I knew the names of the hosts, I would tell you.

[aa5874]

The objection seems very strange to me. "Justin doesn't name the authors when addressing a message 'please do not kill me' to the pagans so that proves that they didn't have authors"??

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Your post is a bit odd and is not logical.

You may not have read some of the posts on the thread.

No poster have made any claims that because Justin does not name the apostles that the memoirs of the apostles have no authors.

[sschlichter]

Who hosts this forum?

The hosts . If I knew the names of the hosts, I would tell you.

:) well, if Justin Martyr reads a book, quotes it, commits his life to the point of death to it without knowing where he got it then perhaps you are also able to get to a web site without typing the URL.

You might have also looked at the url of your browser and told me that infidels.org hosts it. for the sake of argument let's pretend that you know all about it. You may tell me the names of the stakeholders. You might tell me the names of employees or volunteers. You might tell me the names of the different moderators. You might tell me the name of the guy that set up the server or the person / people that design the site. collectively, I would refer to them at this point as infidels.org.

However, because it is unlikely that I care about any of that in the context of my question, I would expect you would do the same as Justin Martyr may have done and withhold those details. Plenty of others addressing the church were sharing those details to people that cared about them.

~steve

[Toto]

...
:) well, if Justin Martyr reads a book, quotes it, commits his life to the point of death to it without knowing where he got it ...

It may be time to split this and give Justin Martyr his own thread -

But we have no indication that J.M. was converted by reading the gospels. He was converted by philosophical arguments.

If he didn't name the apostles, perhaps it was because they were not important, and tracing any apostolic succession was not important to him.

eta: you can find the names of the board members of the Internet Infidels, a bona fide 501(3)(c) charity, and read the words of the founding members and other contributors in the Library. But no one deifies them AFAIK.

[andrewcriddle]

Justin predicts denunciation by Crescens in chapter 3 of his second apology
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-47.htm#P3966_758753


See also Justin's disciple Tatian http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-37.htm#P1114_299739 Crescens, who made his nest in the great city, surpassed all men in unnatural love (paiderasti/a), and was strongly addicted to the love of money. Yet this man, who professed to despise death, was so afraid of death, that he endeavoured to inflict on Justin, and indeed on me, the punishment of death, as being an evil, because by proclaiming the truth he convicted the philosophers of being gluttons and cheats.

Andrew Criddle

[sschlichter]

...
:) well, if Justin Martyr reads a book, quotes it, commits his life to the point of death to it without knowing where he got it ...

It may be time to split this and give Justin Martyr his own thread -

But we have no indication that J.M. was converted by reading the gospels. He was converted by philosophical arguments.

If he didn't name the apostles, perhaps it was because they were not important, and tracing any apostolic succession was not important to him.

eta: you can find the names of the board members of the Internet Infidels, a bona fide 501(3)(c) charity, and read the words of the founding members and other contributors in the Library. But no one deifies them AFAIK.

ha! good to know, I hope they do not mind being the subject of an illustration.

I am all for moving on from this topic. However, as far as his conversion. I think philosophy was less important to him than revelation.

"There existed, long before this time, certain men more ancient than all those who are esteemed philosophers, both righteous and beloved by God, who spoke by the Divine Spirit, and foretold events which would take place, and which are now taking place. They are called prophets. These alone both saw and announced the truth to men, neither reverencing nor fearing any man, not influenced by a desire for glory, but speaking those things alone which they saw and which they heard, being filled with the Holy Spirit. Their writings are still extant, and he who has read them is very much helped in his knowledge of the beginning and end of things, and of those matters which the philosopher ought to know, provided he has believed them."

-Dialogue with Trypho

[aa5874]

If he didn't name the apostles, perhaps it was because they were not important, and tracing any apostolic succession was not important to him.

Or perhaps he just didn't know the names of the apostles who wrote the memoirs and was not even aware of persons named Mark and Luke who, incidentally, were not apostles.

These are some of the logical possibilities.

And, Justin did mention an apostle named John who prophesied in a "revelation", which would indicate to me that Justin did put some importance to giving the names of those who wrote about Jesus of the NT.


Why did NOT Justin say the "revelations of the apostles"?

Because Justin either heard, saw or was aware that there was a written revelation by an apostle named John.

I am not convinced that Justin heard, saw or was aware of one or more Gospels called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

[sschlichter]

Why did NOT Justin say the "revelations of the apostles"?


Perhaps because 'revelations' is plural and there was only one.

Out of respect for the moderator, I am done with Justin for now.

I understand, you are unconvinced.

~Steve

[Petergdi]

Or perhaps he just didn't know the names of the apostles who wrote the memoirs and was not even aware of persons named Mark and Luke who, incidentally, were not apostles.
.

How do you know they weren't apostles in the understanding of the term
which existed in Justin's time?

If Barnabas was an apostle (see Acts 14:14) why not his cousin Mark or
Paul's other sometime companion Luke? You can't expect Justin to know
about a theological definition of apostle which evolved after his time.

Peter.

[aa5874]

Why did NOT Justin say the "revelations of the apostles"?


Perhaps because 'revelations' is plural and there was only one.

Out of respect for the moderator, I am done with Justin for now.

I understand, you are unconvinced.

~Steve

What about the "revelations" of "Paul"? More than one person had revelations in the NT, but Justin never mentioned that "Paul" had "revelations".

Galations 1.11-12, "But I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not of man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

[aa5874]

Or perhaps he just didn't know the names of the apostles who wrote the memoirs and was not even aware of persons named Mark and Luke who, incidentally, were not apostles.
.

How do you know they weren't apostles in the understanding of the term
which existed in Justin's time?

If Barnabas was an apostle (see Acts 14:14) why not his cousin Mark or
Paul's other sometime companion Luke? You can't expect Justin to know
about a theological definition of apostle which evolved after his time.

Peter.

And if Barnabas was not really an apostle, what?

[Roger Pearse]

Justin predicts denunciation by Crescens in chapter 3 of his second apology
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-47.htm#P3966_758753


See also Justin's disciple Tatian http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-37.htm#P1114_299739 Crescens, who made his nest in the great city, surpassed all