Dates of the Gospels

[FallentoReason]

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?

[Minimalist]

We know the names were attached to them by Irenaeus c 185. Whether or not they were written then or if they had existed for a while as anonymous documents or even oral tales is unknown. Likewise we do not know the extent to which they were edited ( always as important if not more important than when they were first written ). Certainly, some edits, such as the "woman taken in adultery" which was attached to "John" sometime in the middle ages are easy to spot but others may be hidden.

[Undeceived]

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?

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

[Drich]

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.

[Minimalist]

A quick search of Early Christian Writings for Justin Martyr shows that as late as the 160's he did not mention any of the names Matthew, Luke or Mark in his apologias or the Dialogue with Trypho or "On the Resurrection." When he does mention "John" in Trypho it is in reference to John the baptist....not any alleged gospel writer.

Justin also knows nothing of any "Paul." Obviously in the mid 2d century that part of the story had not been invented, either.

[Drich]

A quick search of Early Christian Writings for Justin Martyr shows that as late as the 160's he did not mention any of the names Matthew, Luke or Mark in his apologias or the Dialogue with Trypho or "On the Resurrection." When he does mention "John" in Trypho it is in reference to John the baptist....not any alleged gospel writer.

Justin also knows nothing of any "Paul." Obviously in the mid 2d century that part of the story had not been invented, either.

Again the same applies here. Martyr was not known as an Evangelist. His known work centered around the establishment of the Church (Which meant established believers) because of this, thier is simply no need to go over the gospel account or it's characters. The Gospel plays a large role for the unbeliever, but is generally set aside after one accepts Christ.

It seems that there are many 'writers' who speak out against what they know of Christianity. Unfortunatly their knoweledge of the Church ends with the gospel they can not or will not accept, and i guess this leads them to believe that the whole of christianity past present and future. is only allowed to dewell on what they understand the church to be. That seems to be an evangelical movement that centers around casting the seed of the gospel. This is one function of the church, but by no means is the whole church forced to serve this way.

[Minimalist]

Again the same applies here. Martyr was not known as an Evangelist. His known work centered around the establishment of the Church (Which meant established believers) because of this, thier is simply no need to go over the gospel account or it's characters. The Gospel plays a large role for the unbeliever, but is generally set aside after one accepts Christ.

Um... you DO realize I hope that what you have written there is a complete pile of shit. You are making an apology for an apologist.

Doesn't it hurt like hell when you pull shit like that out of your ass?

[Drich]

Again the same applies here. Martyr was not known as an Evangelist. His known work centered around the establishment of the Church (Which meant established believers) because of this, thier is simply no need to go over the gospel account or it's characters. The Gospel plays a large role for the unbeliever, but is generally set aside after one accepts Christ.

Um... you DO realize I hope that what you have written there is a complete pile of shit. You are making an apology for an apologist.

Doesn't it hurt like hell when you pull shit like that out of your ass?

hock:
I guess i was wrong:

Scriptural sources

[edit] Gospels

Justin uses material from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) in the composition of the First Apology and the Dialogue, either directly, as in the case of Matthew,[33] or indirectly through the use of a gospel harmony, which may have been composed by Justin or his school.[34] However, his use, or even knowledge, of the Gospel of John is uncertain. One possible reference to John is a saying that is quoted in the context of a description of Christian baptism (1 Apol. 61.4 - "Unless you are reborn, you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."). However, Koester contends that Justin obtained this saying from a baptismal liturgy rather than a written gospel.[35]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr

On the plus side so were both of you

[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.

[Drich]

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

Apologists are not limited to apologetics concerning the gospel accounts. for instance His first book on apologetics focous on how christians were view and persecuted, Jesus as the 'Logos' which in short was a viable non treasonous philosphy, Then He focoused and defended earily church practices. All well with in the realm of apologetics but nothing to directly call for evangelistic review of the whole gospel from beginning to end.

Justins second apologetic starts with the identification of a satan controled world, an apologetic defense of the accusations levied against practing christians (cannibalism, sexual immorality, pleasure seekers who did not fear death.) and finishes with an appeal to spread this message so people would not fear Christians. (again no need to mention the gospel when it is not being discussed.)

---

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.

Not true He is sited to having quoted 3 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.

what would be known as Canocial gospels 200 years after his time were indeed literal 'Memoirs' durning his life time. If you look at what was quoted rather than tring to simply classify or identify the title he refered to you will see quotations from what would be known as Matthew, Luke and Mark in his works.

There could be no reason why Martyr would not cite the gospel books by name, unless he was not using them.

Or they have yet to be 'named.' or identified as what we know them as now.

Since he never mentions the four gospels, it is logical to assert that he had never heard of them.

1/2 truth

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.

This is a fools arguement. simply Look at the citation in question.

And this is why your source is wishful at most.

Your projecting again. There are on line copies of his works avaiable. i have done my due dillegence it is time that you did the same. you have been caught 4 times now relying on the failed thoughts of other 1/2 hearted mens efforts.
Rather than taking someone elses predigested commentary, and then from their mistakes try and develop you own spin. why not take actual reference material and begin there? the following is a link to a Catholic encyclpedia artical on martyr and his body of works with links and references to the actual works in question. Prove me wrong and do your own work quote from Martyr himself and not some fool who has it in for God because God would let him have the boy or girl of his choosing..
Your guy has failed on so many levels when compared to the actual legitmate works of martyr I feel foolish mentioning his name. This guy probably took the 1/2 heart works of another one of this peers saw an oppertunity to exploit a 1/2 truth and built what he thought to be an air tight arguement. When in truth the only way this arguement appears to be air tight is when you do not know how to or care to access the actual works being questioned here.

Do your OWN Research! Stop letting others tell you what to think! http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm