Justin Martyr and the apostle Paul.

[Secret Alias]

That's what the orthodox version of his writings now say. But Samaritans are bad so who knows what his original pedigree was. We don't have the original version of any of his writings. Heavily redacted by Irenaeus likely.

[Jax]

That's what the orthodox version of his writings now say. But Samaritans are bad so who knows what his original pedigree was. We don't have the original version of any of his writings. Heavily redacted by Irenaeus likely.

Well.... how then can you make the claim that he was in fact Samarian?

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

A. 1 Clement was admitted to have been written by the Church of Rome--- there was no Church of Rome until the 4th century. Clement as Bishop of Rome was fabricated--there was no Bishop of Rome up to at least the writings attributed to Justin. In addition, 1 Clement does not mention any date for the Epistle.

The author of 1 Clement did not reveal himself in the letter. He did not pretend to be Clement or a bishop or both. That will be done later.
There were congregations of Christians in Rome in the time of Justin. Justin said he belongs to one of them. And according to Tacitus & Suetonius, there were Christians in Rome under Nero's reign.
No epistle mentions date. Also the letters of Pliny the Younger to Trajan do not mention date of composition. That does not mean the date of composition of 1 Clement cannot be investigated through the internal evidence:
http://historical-jesus.info/52.html

B. Justin mentioned the teachings of Marcion and it was not compatible with the Pauline Epistles. Marcion preached about another God and another Son. According to Justin Marcion's teachings were from the Devil.

But three Fathers (Irenaeus, Tertullian and Epiphanius) accused Marcion to have truncated these letters in order to make them compatible to his preaching: http://historical-jesus.info/53.html

C. Ignatius has no idea who Paul was or what he wrote or knew some other Paul. If Paul did not write to the Ephesians then Ignatius is not credible

The important point is that the author of "to the Ephesians" knew of Paul and Paul having written at least one letter.
And how do you know that author had no idea who Paul was? Do you think that in his letter, he should have said all he knew about Paul?

PS: at the same times of Justin (even slightly earlier) the author of the Epistula Apostolorum knew of Paul (and also of Acts).
The Gnostics also made use of (and quoted) Paul's letters before Justin's times. They include:
the Naassenes (around 120) and Basilides (120-140). Both also named Paul.
http://historical-jesus.info/64.html

Here, One argument in favor of proving Marcion's Pauline epistles were written after the "canonical" ones: http://historical-jesus.info/73.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Secret Alias]

how then can you make the claim that he was in fact Samarian

Well technically he was a Samaritan. He was born in Samaria. It all comes down to whether you think it likely that the story of him being a Gentile who lived in the new colony and happened to convert to a new Jewish sect is a likely scenario. It also comes down to whether you think the surviving writings of Justin - especially the Dialogue - is an authentic preservation of the original text or whether it was later manipulated by orthodox Christians

[Jax]

how then can you make the claim that he was in fact Samarian

Well technically he was a Samaritan. He was born in Samaria. It all comes down to whether you think it likely that the story of him being a Gentile who lived in the new colony and happened to convert to a new Jewish sect is a likely scenario. It also comes down to whether you think the surviving writings of Justin - especially the Dialogue - is an authentic preservation of the original text or whether it was later manipulated by orthodox Christians

Were then people born in Roman settlement colonies of Greece for instance Greek? Or Roman?

Also IIRC he says that he became Christian only after trying other pagan philosophies.

[MrMacSon]

Also IIRC he says that he became Christian only after trying other pagan philosophies.

That's what his possibly later-manipulated writings say ...

[Jax]

Also IIRC he says that he became Christian only after trying other pagan philosophies.

That's what his possibly later-manipulated writings say ...

Possibly?

[Bernard Muller]

Some scholars (and myself) think some of Paul's epistles were the result of the combination of several original smaller letters into one.
Tertullian and other "Fathers" (and myself) thought/(think) that the Marcion's rendition of the Pauline epistles were a modification of the canonical ones (allegedly already combined for some of them).
If it is true, that would mean the original letters would have existed before Marcion.

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

A. 1 Clement was admitted to have been written by the Church of Rome--- there was no Church of Rome until the 4th century. Clement as Bishop of Rome was fabricated--there was no Bishop of Rome up to at least the writings attributed to Justin. In addition, 1 Clement does not mention any date for the Epistle.

The author of 1 Clement did not reveal himself in the letter. He did not pretend to be Clement or a bishop or both. That will be done later.
There were congregations of Christians in Rome in the time of Justin. Justin said he belongs to one of them. And according to Tacitus & Suetonius, there were Christians in Rome under Nero's reign.
No epistle mentions date. Also the letters of Pliny the Younger to Trajan do not mention date of composition. That does not mean the date of composition of 1 Clement cannot be investigated through the internal evidence:
http://historical-jesus.info/52.html...[/quote]

You have not produced any internal evidence to show when the supposed 1st Clement was written. You have only made baseless speculation and assumptions riddled with flawed logic.

B. Justin mentioned the teachings of Marcion and it was not compatible with the Pauline Epistles. Marcion preached about another God and another Son. According to Justin Marcion's teachings were from the Devil.

But three Fathers (Irenaeus, Tertullian and Epiphanius) accused Marcion to have truncated these letters in order to make them compatible to his preaching: http://historical-jesus.info/53.html

Your claim that three Fathers accused Marcion of truncating supposed letters of Paul is not evidence that any Epistle was written in the 1st century before c 70 CE.

C. Ignatius has no idea who Paul was or what he wrote or knew some other Paul. If Paul did not write to the Ephesians then Ignatius is not credible

The important point is that the author of "to the Ephesians" knew of Paul and Paul having written at least one letter.
And how do you know that author had no idea who Paul was? Do you think that in his letter, he should have said all he knew about Paul?

PS: at the same times of Justin (even slightly earlier) the author of the Epistula Apostolorum knew of Paul (and also of Acts).
The Gnostics also made use of (and quoted) Paul's letters before Justin's times. They include:
the Naassenes (around 120) and Basilides (120-140). Both also named Paul.
http://historical-jesus.info/64.html

You continue to make baseless speculation and assumptions inundated with flawed logic. We do not even have the writings of the Naassenes and Basilides. The supposed fragments found in later sources do not tell us when any Epistle was composed.

Here, One argument in favor of proving Marcion's Pauline epistles were written after the "canonical" ones: http://historical-jesus.info/73.html

Cordially, Bernard

Again, your reasoning is utterly flawed. Your claim that there were Marcion's Pauline Epistles is not evidence that Pauline Epistles were composed before c 70 CE.

[MrMacSon]

Rodney Werline, “The Transformation of Pauline Arguments in Justin Martyr’s ‘Dialogue with Trypho,’” in the Harvard Theological Review, volume 92, number 1 (January 1999), pages 80-81: 80-81 Justin probably avoids citing the apostle for two reasons. First, Justin’s goal lies in convincing Trypho that Jesus is God’s Messiah and the Son of God. If Trypho does not accept Jesus as Messiah, he certainly will not adoipt Paul’s theology. Justin might find the apostle’s arguments helpful, but he has no reason to bring his name into the conversation. Second, citing Paul is not pertinent to Justin’s strategy. In order to convince Trypho that Jesus is God’s Messiah, Justin must appeal to an authority that he and Trypho mutually hold in respect, the Jewish scriptures. He especially relies on the Jewish scriptures’ prophecies for his arguments that Jesus is the promised Messiah. In fact, Justin tells Trypho that he will avoid quoting Christian writings. He even shows restraint in his use of logia of Jesus. A second important authority that the two interlocutors share is philosophy. Justin seeks to prove to Trypho that Christianity is actually the best philosophy. For Justin, the prophets are even philosophers who testify to the truth of Jesus’ identity. Paul, however, is not an authority figure for Trypho, and, consequently, it is futile to cite him in this regard.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue 120.5: 5 “But, since what follows indicates that the reference is to Christ — for it is, 'And He shall be the expectation of nations' (= Genesis 49.10) — I do not proceed to have a mere verbal controversy with you, as I have attempted to establish proof about Christ, not from the passages of Scripture which are not admitted by you, which I quoted from the words of Jeremiah the prophet, and Esdras, and David, but rather from those which are even now admitted by you, which, had your teachers comprehended, be well assured they would have deleted them, as they did those about the death of Isaiah, whom you sawed asunder with a wooden saw. And this was a mysterious type of Christ being about to cut your nation in two, and to raise those worthy of the honor to the everlasting kingdom along with the holy patriarchs and prophets; but He has said that He will send others to the condemnation of the unquenchable fire along with similar disobedient and impenitent men from all the nations.”

I wonder if if one could emphasise different aspects of Dialogue 120.5, viz., -

Justin Martyr, Dialogue 120.5: 5 “But, since what follows indicates that the reference is to Christ — for it is, 'And He shall be the expectation of nations' (= Genesis 49.10) — I do not proceed to have a mere verbal controversy with you, as I have attempted to establish proof about Christ, not from the passages of Scripture which are not admitted by you, which I quoted from the words of Jeremiah the prophet, and Esdras, and David; but rather from those which are even now admitted by you, which, had your teachers comprehended, be well assured they would have deleted them, as they did those about the death of Isaiah, whom you sawed asunder with a wooden saw. And this was a mysterious type of Christ being about to cut your nation in two, and to raise those worthy of the honor to the everlasting kingdom along with the holy patriarchs and prophets; but He has said that He will send others to the condemnation of the unquenchable fire along with similar disobedient and impenitent men from all the nations.”

ie. it is said Trypho and his cohort, for some reason, would not admit the words of Jeremiah the prophet, and Esdras, and David, and, it seems, 'those about the death of Isaiah'.

And is Justin mocking them -Trypho and his companions- with

those which are even now admitted by you, which, had your teachers comprehended, be well assured they would have deleted them [too] ?

The start of Dialogue 121 would also seem to be noteworthy in context of Dial 120.5, viz., -

And as they kept silence, I went on: "[The Scripture], speaking by David about this Christ, my friends, said no longer that 'in His seed' the nations should be blessed, but 'in Him.' So it is here: 'His name shall rise up for ever above the sun; and in Him shall all nations be blessed' [Psalm 72:17?]. But if all nations are blessed in Christ, and we of all nations believe in Him, then He is indeed the Christ, and we are those blessed by Him.