Gospels not PUBLISHED until c.150 - Justin Martyr

Dec 2016
97
Austria
#72
Gday all :)

Let's compare the consensus for Jesus' existence with the consensus for GW
But Jesus belief is based only on OPINIONS and conclusions from ancient legends - we cannot SEE clear evidence for Jesus, any more than for Moses, also a myth.
Jesus beliefe is based on faith and Jesus existence is based on historical proofs. If you don't like the historical proofs of Jesus .. it is not a wise thing to try to convince Others to agree with you..


Jesus is strongly believed in only by CHRISTIANS, while other cultures and religions believe very differently.
And after the above stupid claim it is clear you don't know what you are talking about.


Scientists get ahead by DIS-AGREEING - by showing that others were wrong. So when all the scientists agree, it's because of the FACTS. If a scientist disagrees and has solid evidence for it - he becomes famous, and other scientists follow the new facts. There is ONE scientific consensus.

Believers get ahead by AGREEING with other's beliefs, they agree because of FAITH. If a believer disagrees - they are rejected, and may split off to make another new faith - along with the old.
It makes no sense for you to appeal to science and scientists when you claim that only Christians believe in Jesus.
You are more and more confused..

Currently there are about 33,000 Christian churches.


99% of the Jesus supporters have a FAITHFUL connection to Jesus - based on beliefs and opinions and agreeing with other faithful.
And 1.2 bilion people are Catholics and for hundreds year there was only Catholic Church in Europe...plus some heretics somewhere..

Anyway you can read ( i think it is time you read and understand the GOSPEL once for good..) and decide to establish a new Christian interpretation of the holy scripture.
In Europe the people are still free..

Catholic Church is based: A) Holy scriptures .... as every Christian Church
B) Autorithy ...... to avoid the "stupid" and "too much free" interpretations of the GOSPEL
C) Tradition ...... respects for the fathers of Christians Catholic Church...
 
Last edited:

Jax

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
6,208
Seattle
#73
Jesus beliefe is based on faith and Jesus existence is based on historical proofs.
If there are historical proofs for Jesus of the Gospel stories then why would you need faith to believe in said Jesus?

What are these historical proofs that you speak of BTW? Show them to us.

Can you?
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
3,914
Connecticut
#74
By why would that be so, I was looking for an explanation of why works obviously intended to win converts would've been withheld from most people for decades.
 
Last edited:

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
3,914
Connecticut
#75
One possible piece of evidence is that Papias (perhaps late first century to mid second century) mentions 'Mark' and 'Matthew' but makes no mention of either 'Luke or 'John'.
If Papias lived in 100 CE it wouldn't be at all surprising if he didn't know John, even if it were written in 90-95. In those times, disseminating writings took some time. Furthermore the john gospel was so different from the synoptics many holy joes might've at first dismissed it.

Justin Martyr (mid second century) seems to be aware of 'Mark' and 'Matthew' and perhaps 'Luke' but does not seem to know 'John'.
His pupil Tatian (160 - 170's) however seems to know all four Gospels and seems to have made a harmony of them called the Diatessaron but without Acts (the second half of 'Luke').

Acts seems unknown until the 180's.
Well, it's possible some compilers didn't include Acts because it was about the apostles post jesus not "the lord" himself like the canonical four.


What about 'Mark' though? Where did he get his information?
My money is on the work of Josephus that came out in the mid 90's called Antiquity of the Jews as this history has quite a few details that were not in his earlier work War of the Jews, details such as the mention of John the Baptist, an important figure in the Gospel stories but found no where else.
Josephus has nowhere near as much info as the gospels. And another thing. We know Paul was dishing out letters by c 55 CE or earlier. These were not attempts to tell the whole story but to deal with specific issues; ergo info on holy joe 1 is limited. But if christians in various places could read and write--and there wouldn't be much point in paul writing to them if they couldn't--shouldn't we expect a number of attempts to tell the story of jesus, as opposed to just clarifying a few specific points? Surely it would've made sense to write down the story, so they could cover everything for converts.

So here's my "guess".

1: 'Mark' mid 90's - 100/120.
Way too late IMO. As I noted earlier, the somber tone suggests compilation soon after the neronian persecution or c 70 CE. The holy joes didn't have it so bad 95-120.:)


A late dating for 'John' besides the Gnostic tone may be one of the reasons that 'John' was so borderline in being accepted by the Christians of this time.
I think a key reason for the acceptance of this gospel was the realization of most church leaders, by c 170, that waiting for jesus to come back seemed futile and john's notion of "heaven" was a better approach. People were getting frustrated by the failed prediction of the synoptics. :lol:
 
Nov 2015
57
Southern California
#76
I think Augie is trying to distinguish between faith in Jesus the deity vs belief that Jesus was a historical man. He's right, of course, that most people, regardless of religious affiliation, believe that Jesus lived in Galilee in the first century. Aug mistakenly thinks that there's sufficient evidence to justify those beliefs. It's there where the historicity argument lies, not in questions of faith.

I, too, would like to see those "historical proofs" Augustus speaks of. I'd also like to know why it's not "a wise thing" for those of us who don't accept his proofs - whatever they may be - to "try to convince Others" (sic) that they are inadequate.
 
#77
Sorry to go off on a tangent, but it's not a complete break from the topic at hand.
I have my own theory on the origin of Mark, based mainly on the alleged remarks of Papias.

Mark, the interpreter for Peter, was not familiar with the holy land, let alone any Jesus character. I think that after Peter died, he wrote down as many of the sermons of Peter that he could remember. That accounts for the somewhat disjointed nature of GMark and the errors it contains. This would be the work that Papia referred to. Later editors arranged it into a logical order until it became the book we know today. Mark was certainly no eyewitness and i think Peter only used the legend of a Jesus character as a starting point for his sermons, not paying particular attention to the ultimate truth of the details. I think this also explains why it took so long to start publiching the gospels.
 

Jax

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
6,208
Seattle
#78
For anyone interested in the subject of this thread I can highly recommend the book Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Hundred-Years-Before-Christ/dp/0879517204



I have just finished reading it and while I don't agree with all of his conclusions I find it to be a very well researched and thought provoking book. I am now in the process of vetting his sources and the book is worthwhile just for the bibliography alone.

Written by retired dean of the faculty of arts at the University of Gotenburg Alvar Ellegard it is written from a refreshing historical perspective and should be read by anyone with any interest in this subject.

I have another book on the way The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Jesus that is related. https://books.google.com/books?id=_...ved=0ahUKEwibmM2an-XRAhUUwWMKHVU9B4QQ6AEIGjAA
 

Jax

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
6,208
Seattle
#79
From another thread by Kapyong http://historum.com/religion/125238-council-nicea-325-did-not-select-books-bible.html we have...

"Justin Martyr of Rome composed his first Apology to an emperor in 150 A.D., the second around 161 A.D. (scholars continue to debate whether there were really two, whether the two we have were originally those two, or only one of them that was later split up, and so on). He also wrote a Dialogue with Trypho [the Jew] which relates what purports to be a debate held around 135 A.D. (M 143-8). In the first of these works, Justin describes "Memoirs of the Apostles" (borrowing consciously from the idea of Xenophon's "Memoirs of Socrates") which he says are called Gospels (1st Apology 66.3). He quotes Luke, Matthew and Mark, and uses distinctly Johanine theology, which accords to a great deal with the Judaized Neoplatonism of Philo the Jew, who wrote c. 40 A.D. Justin calls Mark the "Memoirs of Peter" (M 145), perhaps influenced by Papias (or both are following a common oral tradition). Justin also tells us that services were conducted by reading from these books, followed by a sermon, then communal prayer (1st Apology 67.3-5), demonstrating the rising interest in and use of written texts in the churches. Justin's choice of Gospels could have been influenced by his location (Rome) or some other preferences unknown to us, but it is a crucial consideration because the first "orthodox" canon is devised by Justin's pupil, Tatian, who would thus have favored the choices of the man who had converted and instructed him. Finally, Justin quotes a lot of additional oral tradition outside these Gospels (M 147-8), including the belief that Jesus was born in a cave outside Bethlehem (Dialogue with Trypho 78.5). He also refers to the Revelation to John, but never mentions or quotes any Epistles.

IX. Tatian

Curiously, the first "orthodox" Christian move toward canonization begins outside the Roman Empire, in the Syrian church. Moreover, this canon was ultimately not in Greek, but was a Syrian translation (M 114-7). The single man responsible is Tatian, who was converted to Christianity by Justin Martyr on a visit to Rome around 150 A.D. and, after much instruction, returned to Syria in 172 to reform the church there, banning the use of wine, the eating of meat, and marriage (M 115). At some point in all this (it is suggested c. 160 A.D.) he selected four Gospels (the four we now know as the canon, and which no doubt supported his own ideology and that of his tutor, Justin) and composed a single harmonized "Gospel" by weaving them together, mainly following the chronology of John. This is called the Diatessaron ("That Which is Through the Four") and it became for a long time the official Gospel text of the Syraic church, centered in Edessa. The Syriac Doctrine of Addai (c. 400 A.D.) claims to record the oldest traditions of the Syrian church, and among these is the establishment of a canon: members of the church are to read only the Gospel (meaning the Diatessaron of Tatian), the Epistles of Paul (which are said to have been sent by Peter, from Rome), and the Book of Acts (which is said to have been sent by John the son of Zebedee, from Ephesus), and nothing else (M 113-4). This tradition is traced back to Tatian.

Unfortunately we lack any complete versions of this, the first Christian canon outside of the Gnostic tradition (see XVIII). We do not know which Epistles he accepted as authentic, yet we know he rejected some (cf. Jerome, "On Titus," pr.), including 1 Timothy because it allowed the taking of wine, meat, and marriage. Other references allow us to guess at some of those he thought authentic. But of the original Diatessaron we only have one fragment and a few quotations, although the fragment is very close to the original--within eighty years (M 115). The fragment matches the narrative just after the crucifixion and just before the body of Jesus is taken down, with verses mainly from the three synoptic Gospels, and one from John. However, in other quotations of the Diatessaron (and in late copies in Syriac and Armenian, which are not securely reliable) there are phrases which seem to come from other sources, such as the Gospel of Hebrews and the Protoevangelium of James, suggesting that the four Gospels at that time may have contained verses now missing or altered. The only complete work of Tatian's that survives is his "Oration to the Greeks" which is a scathing attack on Greek culture. We know he wrote books prolifically on a number of other topics. He was probably the first Christian to do so, apart from Justin." From https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html#3a
 
Last edited:

Jax

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
6,208
Seattle
#80
Also from https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html#3a

"The first author who shows a more concerted interest in textual sources is Papias. We do not know when he wrote, but presumably it was between 110 and 140, and most likely 130 or later (M 51-2). What he wrote has not survived, apart from fragmentary quotations in other works of his "Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord" which purported to be a collection of things he had actually heard said by the students of elders who claimed to have known the first disciples (yes, this sounds a lot like "a friend of a friend of a friend"), since he specifically regarded this as more useful than anything written, according to a quotation of his preface by Eusebius (History of the Church, 3.39.4), where Papias says "I did not think that information from books would help me so much as the utterances of a living and surviving voice" (M 52). Thus, Papias reveals the early Christian preference for oral rather than written tradition. It was only in the later 2nd century that this preference began to change. Other quotations of his work show how destructive this 'preference for oral tradition' was, since Papias apparently recorded the most outlandish claims as if they were true, such as the fact that Judas' head bloated to greater than the width of a wagon trail and his eyes were lost in the flesh, and that the place where he died maintained a stench so bad that no one, even to his own day, would go near it (from book 4 of the Expositions, quoted by Apollinaris of Laodicea, cf. footnote 23 in M p. 53).

Of note in the surviving quotations of this same work are his claims about the writing of Mark and Matthew. The latter, he claimed, was a collection by Matthew of the sayings of Jesus in Hebrew, which several others had translated "as best they could" (M 54). This is the origin of the belief that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but there are three points against such a belief. First, we have seen that Papias is hugely unreliable. Second, he is not describing a Gospel at all, but a collection of sayings. He is thus describing some other book now lost (some have suggested it was the Q document), or that had never existed in the first place. Third, it is distinctly possible, since the text is vague, that instead of the "Hebrew sayings of Jesus" this book contained the "Hebrew (i.e. OT) prophecies about Jesus," which curiously fits the fact that the Gospel of Matthew is the one to include many of these prophetic claims and allusions. Moreover, the word for "translated" may mean "interpreted," in which case what Papias is describing is perhaps a proto-Matthew containing a bare collection of OT prophecies, from which were drawn a few by the later author of the Gospel of Matthew, who had done his own "interpreting" of how they applied to Jesus. But this is speculative. At any rate, Papias only hints at a possible name for a possible Gospel author. And this reference is most likely to a different, now lost, work. This remark of Papias thus could have become an inspiration for naming a certain Gospel after the same man. So this is not entirely helpful.

Papias's account of Mark is stranger still. He says Mark was Peter's secretary (perhaps getting the idea from 1 Peter 5.13), and though he had never known Jesus, he followed Peter around and recorded everything he said, leaving nothing out and changing no details (M 54-5). However, he did not "set in order" the sayings of Jesus. It is hard to tell what he means, but scholars see in his account a growing apologetic in defense of Mark: Mark was regarded as unreliable because he did not know Jesus, and he was attacked for being incomplete and disorderly, and so on, so Papias defends him by putting him in the entourage of Peter and asserting that he faithfully recorded what Peter said, and so on. What is evident is that this, the first historical thinking about Christian literary traditions, shows a possible corruption of reliability by oral transmission and a readiness to engage in apologetic distortions.[5] This does not create much confidence in later reports, and raises the real possibility that other claims to authority are rhetorical rather than genuine (such as that made in the closing paragraphs of the Gospel of John). But at least we now discover (perhaps), between 110 to 140 A.D., the first definite name of a Gospel author: Mark. There is one outstanding problem for these references to Mark and Matthew in Papias: they appear only in Eusebius, who is notorious for reporting (if not creating) forgeries.[6] We cannot establish whether this has happened in this case, but there must always remain a pall of suspicion. Even if accurate, there is another side of the story: the situation evident in Papias is that there is little regard for any written Gospels, in contrast with nearly complete faith in oral tradition, with little critical thought being applied.[7] More importantly, the context seems to be one where there were perhaps no set written Gospels in his day, but an array of variously-worked texts. And this picture is somewhat confirmed by the remarkable discovery of fragments dated c. 130-180 A.D. from a lost synoptic Gospel, the composition of which has been dated "not later than A.D. 110-30" (M 167). In this text, there are echoes from all four Gospels, but also miracles and sayings of Jesus found nowhere else, and it appears the author was working not from textual sources but from memory, and composing freely in his own style (M 168). It is likely that this, in part, is how all the Gospels were written. Moreover, it is possible that the canonical Gospels did not achieve their final (near-present) form until during or shortly after the time of Papias."

So once again it seems that by around 130 two of the Gospels may have been known but all four don't seem to be in circulation until around 150 or so.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions