Dates of the Gospels

[FallentoReason]

http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml

Thanks for that. I had a look but I don't know how reliable it is... Apparently Justin Martyr did quote all four but if you read the article I posted you'll see why he couldn't have. Even your own contemporary, Drich, seems to disagree with this website you've posted.

I think they have taken the 'best case scenario' like a Catholic would... You know, saying stuff like 'Matthew' and 'John' were witnesses. That simply isn't the reality and I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of these ticks could be debunked within a matter of minutes.

---

I was researching something or other about the Bible the other day and I read in passing that early Church Fathers never quoted the canonical Gospels. I was focused on something else at the time, but now that I've gone back to explore that area I've been surprised yet again.

Justin Martyr, a big time apologist, left behind some important works that were penned down around 150 A.D. In his works he refers to the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' but it's not exactly obvious if they are the canonical Gospels. Well, long story short, I read this article by an author who debunks every possibility of why it could have been the Gospels. I'm pretty convinced that the Gospels were penned down towards the end of the second century, which according to this author is basically when they were made 'known' in a historical sense.

http://freethoughtnation.com/contributin...ommentForm

Does anyone have arguments for/against the Gospels being penned down towards the second century?

..And, Which of the 2 surviving Apologetic works of Martyr would need a canocial reference?

There isn't a context in which Martyr needs a canocial reference in the 8 surviving works we have. How do you know he did not ever reference the canocial gospels?

How many of these biased one sided posts are you going to make? You nor your source material never seem to take into account a role of a teacher/preacher beyond the role of an evangelist. Once you join a church (believe it or not) we talk about other things besides the gospel accounts. Meaning not everything said in the church revolves around the first for books of the NT.

Why wouldn't an apologist ever need to talk about the canonical Gospels? That's a tactic I've never heard of.

---

From my article, Drich:

If Justin actually had the canonical gospels before him when writing his texts, he could only be considered sloppy in his citations, which is the accusation made to explain why his "Memoirs" differs so much from the gospels. The reality is that the Church father is surprisingly consistent and conscientious in his quotation elsewhere. For example, as I state in SOG, Martyr quotes from the Old Testament 314 instances, 197 of which he names the particular book or author, equaling an impressive two-thirds of the total amount. Several of the other 117 instances may not have needed citation, "considering the nature of the passage." Despite his remarkably fastidious record, when Justin is supposedly quoting the New Testament, he mentions none of the four gospels. Instead, he distinctly states that the quotes are from the "Memoirs." Since he is careful in his quotation of the Old Testament, it is reasonable to assume that he is accurately citing the "Memoirs" and that such a book is not the same as any of the texts found in the New Testament. There could be no reason why Martyr would not cite the gospel books by name, unless he was not using them. Since he never mentions the four gospels, it is logical to assert that he had never heard of them. Thus, the Memoirs text is not the same as the canonical gospels, and the mention of and quotation from this book does not serve as evidence of the existence of the gospels.

And this is why your source is wishful at most.