Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote around the middle of the second century and makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books; but none from the Four Gospels. -- In the latter half of the second century, between the time of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus, the Four Gospels were undoubtedly written or compiled.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. This also is admitted by Christian scholars. Dr. Dodwell says: "We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named" (Dissertations upon Irenaeus).

The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels.

The Rev. Dr. Giles says: "The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin] -- do not occur once in all his writings" (Christian Records, p. 71).

Papias, another noted Father, was a contemporary of Justin. He refers to writings of Matthew and Mark, but his allusions to them clearly indicate that they were not the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Dr. Davidson, the highest English authority on the canon, says: "He [Papias] neither felt the want nor knew the existence of inspired Gospels" (Canon of the Bible, p. 123).

Theophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second century, mentions the Gospel of John, and Irenaeus, who wrote a little later, mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from them. In the latter half of the second century, then, between the time of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus, the Four Gospels were undoubtedly written or compiled.

These books are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They simply imply that they are "according" to the supposed teachings of these Evangelists. As Renan says, "They merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their authority." Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: "They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24).

It is claimed that the Gospel of Matthew originally appeared in Hebrew. Our version is a translation of a Greek work. Regarding this St. Jerome says: "Who afterwards translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain." The consequences of this admission are thus expressed by Michaelis: "If the original text of Matthew is lost, and we have nothing but a Greek translation then, frankly, we cannot ascribe any divine inspiration to the words."

The contents of these books refute the claim that they were written by the Evangelists named. They narrate events and contain doctrinal teachings which belong to a later age. Matthew ascribes to Christ the following language: "Thou art Peter, and Upon this rock I will build my Church" (xvi, 18). This Gospel is a Roman Catholic Gospel, and was written after the beginning of the establishment of this hierarchy to uphold the supremacy of the Petrine Church of Rome. Of this Gospel Dr. Davidson says : "The author, indeed, must ever remain unknown'. (Introduction to New Testament, p. 72).

The Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who is believed to be the person addressed, flourished in the latter half of the second century.

Dr. Schleiermacher, one of Germany's greatest theologians, after a critical analysis of Luke, concludes that it is merely a compilation, made up of thirty-three preexisting manuscripts. Bishop Thirlwall's Schleiermacher says: "He [Luke] is from beginning to end no more than the compiler and arranger of documents which he found in existence" (p. 313).

The basis of this Gospel is generally believed to be the Gospel of Marcion, a Pauline compilation, made about the middle of the second century. Concerning this Gospel, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould in his Lost and Hostile Gospels, says: "The arrangement is so similar that we are forced to the conclusion that it was either used by St. Luke or that it was his original composition. If he used it then his right to the title of author of the Third Gospel falls to the ground, as what he added was of small amount."

Mark, according to Renan, is the oldest of the Gospels; but Mark, according to Strauss, was written after the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written. He says: "It is evidently a compilation, whether made from memory or otherwise, from the first and third Gospels" (Leben Jesu, p. 5I). Judge Waite, in his History of Christianity, says that all but twenty-four verses of this Gospel have their parallels in Matthew and Luke. Davidson declares it to be an anonymous work "The author," he says, "is unknown."

Omitting the last twelve verses of Mark, which all Christian critics pronounce spurious, the book contains no mention of the two great miracles which mark the limits of Christ's earthly career, his miraculous birth and his ascension.

Concerning the first three Gospels, the Encyclopedia Britannica says: "It is certain that the Synoptic Gospels took their present form only by degrees." Of these books Dr. Westcott says: "Their substance is evidently much older than their form." Professor Robertson Smith pronounces them "unapostolic digests of the second century."

The internal evidence against the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel is conclusive. The Apostle John did not write it. John, the apostle, was a Jew; the author of the Fourth Gospel was not a Jew. John was born at Bethsaida; the author of the Fourth Gospel did not know where Bethsaida was located. John was an uneducated fisherman; the author of this Gospel was an accomplished scholar. Some of the most important events in the life of Jesus, the Synoptics declare, were witnessed by John; the author of this knows nothing of these events. The Apostle John witnessed the crucifixion; the author of this Gospel did not. The Apostles, including John, believed Jesus to be a man; the author of the Fourth Gospel believed him to be a god.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/gospel...y_writings.htm

Interesting material here! There is a fewcomments I have though:

The internal evidence against the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel is conclusive. The Apostle John did not write it. John, the apostle, was a Jew; the author of the Fourth Gospel was not a Jew. John was born at Bethsaida; the author of the Fourth Gospel did not know where Bethsaida was located. John was an uneducated fisherman; the author of this Gospel was an accomplished scholar. Some of the most important events in the life of Jesus, the Synoptics declare, were witnessed by John; the author of this knows nothing of these events. The Apostle John witnessed the crucifixion; the author of this Gospel did not. The Apostles, including John, believed Jesus to be a man; the author of the Fourth Gospel believed him to be a god.

I don't know if the author of John witnessed the crucifixtion, but he did write about it.

Also, about the authorship of Matthew, it is hard to believe that Matthew would copy verbatim the scene where Jesus tells Matthew to follow him. It seems more likely that if the disciple Matthew wrote that gospel, and that scene actually happened, he would have recorded his own emotionally charged perspective, rather than lazily copying from another author.

Originally posted by Magdalenbrother

The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels.

That's not strictly true. Justin talks about Gospels, but doesn't name the authors. Interestingly, he refers to the Gospels as "memoirs", including "memoirs of the apostles and those that followed them", again without naming them. But there are lots of quotes there.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html
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.'

... and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God, and since we call Him the Son...

... For they that saw Him crucified shook their heads each one of them, and distorted their lips, and twisting their noses to each other, they spake in mockery the words which are recorded in the memoirs of His apostles: 'He said he was the Son of God: let him come down; let God save him...

... and chose to return no answer to any one in the presence of Pilate; as has been declared in the memoirs of His apostles...

... when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, 'Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,' is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles...

... For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass:'...

Lots more there. Just search under the word "memoirs".

I'll probably have more to say about this but for right now how old is this
article?

What about some of the manuscripts we have out there?
http://www.gospelcom.net/faithfacts/maps_m.html
Bodmer manuscript containing most of John 150-200 A.D
John Ryland manuscript 130 A.D. in Egypt


What about the church fathers we have quoting the gospels?
Clement of Rome (a disciple of the apostles) cited Matthew, John, and 1 Corinthians in 95 to 97 A.D
Ignatius (who knew the apostles well) referred to six Pauline Epistles in about 110.
Polycarp (disciple of apostle John) quoted from all four Gospels, Acts, and most of Paul's Epistles from 110 to 150.
Taitian's harmony of the Four Gospels completed in 160 A.D.

Of the four Gospels alone, there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on. Even if we had no manuscripts, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from these quotations. This argues powerfully that the Gospels were in existence before the end of the first century, while some eyewitnesses (including John) were still alive.

Originally posted by Magdalenbrother

Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote around the middle of the second century and makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books; but none from the Four Gospels. -- In the latter half of the second century, between the time of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus, the Four Gospels were undoubtedly written or compiled.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. This also is admitted by Christian scholars. Dr. Dodwell says: "We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named" (Dissertations upon Irenaeus).

The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels.

The Rev. Dr. Giles says: "The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin] -- do not occur once in all his writings" (Christian Records, p. 71).

Papias, another noted Father, was a contemporary of Justin. He refers to writings of Matthew and Mark, but his allusions to them clearly indicate that they were not the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Dr. Davidson, the highest English authority on the canon, says: "He [Papias] neither felt the want nor knew the existence of inspired Gospels" (Canon of the Bible, p. 123).

Theophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second century, mentions the Gospel of John, and Irenaeus, who wrote a little later, mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from them. In the latter half of the second century, then, between the time of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus, the Four Gospels were undoubtedly written or compiled.

These books are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They simply imply that they are "according" to the supposed teachings of these Evangelists. As Renan says, "They merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their authority." Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: "They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24).

It is claimed that the Gospel of Matthew originally appeared in Hebrew. Our version is a translation of a Greek work. Regarding this St. Jerome says: "Who afterwards translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain." The consequences of this admission are thus expressed by Michaelis: "If the original text of Matthew is lost, and we have nothing but a Greek translation then, frankly, we cannot ascribe any divine inspiration to the words."

The contents of these books refute the claim that they were written by the Evangelists named. They narrate events and contain doctrinal teachings which belong to a later age. Matthew ascribes to Christ the following language: "Thou art Peter, and Upon this rock I will build my Church" (xvi, 18). This Gospel is a Roman Catholic Gospel, and was written after the beginning of the establishment of this hierarchy to uphold the supremacy of the Petrine Church of Rome. Of this Gospel Dr. Davidson says : "The author, indeed, must ever remain unknown'. (Introduction to New Testament, p. 72).

The Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who is believed to be the person addressed, flourished in the latter half of the second century.

Dr. Schleiermacher, one of Germany's greatest theologians, after a critical analysis of Luke, concludes that it is merely a compilation, made up of thirty-three preexisting manuscripts. Bishop Thirlwall's Schleiermacher says: "He [Luke] is from beginning to end no more than the compiler and arranger of documents which he found in existence" (p. 313).

The basis of this Gospel is generally believed to be the Gospel of Marcion, a Pauline compilation, made about the middle of the second century. Concerning this Gospel, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould in his Lost and Hostile Gospels, says: "The arrangement is so similar that we are forced to the conclusion that it was either used by St. Luke or that it was his original composition. If he used it then his right to the title of author of the Third Gospel falls to the ground, as what he added was of small amount."

Mark, according to Renan, is the oldest of the Gospels; but Mark, according to Strauss, was written after the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written. He says: "It is evidently a compilation, whether made from memory or otherwise, from the first and third Gospels" (Leben Jesu, p. 5I). Judge Waite, in his History of Christianity, says that all but twenty-four verses of this Gospel have their parallels in Matthew and Luke. Davidson declares it to be an anonymous work "The author," he says, "is unknown."

Omitting the last twelve verses of Mark, which all Christian critics pronounce spurious, the book contains no mention of the two great miracles which mark the limits of Christ's earthly career, his miraculous birth and his ascension.

Concerning the first three Gospels, the Encyclopedia Britannica says: "It is certain that the Synoptic Gospels took their present form only by degrees." Of these books Dr. Westcott says: "Their substance is evidently much older than their form." Professor Robertson Smith pronounces them "unapostolic digests of the second century."

The internal evidence against the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel is conclusive. The Apostle John did not write it. John, the apostle, was a Jew; the author of the Fourth Gospel was not a Jew. John was born at Bethsaida; the author of the Fourth Gospel did not know where Bethsaida was located. John was an uneducated fisherman; the author of this Gospel was an accomplished scholar. Some of the most important events in the life of Jesus, the Synoptics declare, were witnessed by John; the author of this knows nothing of these events. The Apostle John witnessed the crucifixion; the author of this Gospel did not. The Apostles, including John, believed Jesus to be a man; the author of the Fourth Gospel believed him to be a god.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/gospel...y_writings.htm

Predictible atheist rant.

The authenticity of the Gospels has long been proven = evidence doesn't matter if you are an atheist.

WT

From the Dr. Gene Scott Bible Museum, Los Angeles, California:

1862 [London] reproduction:

Codex Mayerianus is several papyrus fragments from Thebes, Upper Egypt found by Rev. Henry Stobart, sold to Joseph Mayer of Liverpool.

One fragment containing the end of the 28th chapter of Matthew (in greek):

"The writing by the hand of Nicolaus the Deacon, at the dictation of Matthew, the apostle of Jesus Christ. It was done in the fifteenth year after the Ascension of our Lord, and was distributed to the believing Jews and Greeks in Palestine."

Dr. Scott (Ph.D. Stanford University) has announced the five Matthew fraqments to be paleographically First Century.

I have personally seen the exhibit in the glass case at the Museum.

The following scholarship is relevant to the subject of this topic and the first entry below might contain in-depth presentation about Codex Mayerianus.

http://www.drgenescott.com/thearchives.htm

S-4818 WebTV

08/25/03

Bible Manuscripts: The Aleppo Codex and reading from the book Eyewitness to Jesus

S-4819 WebTV

08/26/03

Bible Manuscripts: The influence of The Aleppo & Leningrad Codices on the Masoretic Hebrew Text

S-4820 WebTV

08/27/03

Bible Manuscripts: The John Ryland Fragment

Yeah, yeah, how about the fact that we have manuscripts dating to between 100-120 AD, and it would have taken time for them to be copied and passed around to reach that state ... there goes that ridiculous theory.

Add to that the fact that you are clearly mistaken. Justin Martyr quoted or cited the gospels no less than 268 times. Look at other early dated ECFs as well, who were roughly contemporary to Justin Martyr. Iraneaus quoted or cited them 1,038 times. Clement of Alexandria 1,017 times. Origen 9,231 times. Tertullian 3,822 times. Hippolytus 734 times. These are only Gospel quotations also, if you want to go to full NT quotations the numbers would be 330 for Justin Martyr, 1,819 for Iranaeus, 2,406 for Clement, 17,922 for Origen, 7,258 for Tertulian, 1,378 for Hippolytus. Everone one of these quoted from each of the following categories: Gospels, Acts, Pauline Epistles, General Epistles, Revelation.

Greetings all,

Indeed,
there is NO mention of the Gospels,
or their contents,
or the Evangelists,
until 2nd century.


salvationfound wrote :
"What about some of the manuscripts we have out there?
Bodmer manuscript containing most of John 150-200 A.D
John Ryland manuscript 130 A.D. in Egypt"


P75
The Bodmer papyrus is known as P75,
which is dated to 3rd century by NA27, and dated c.200 by others.
Who dates it to 150-200?

A 3rd or late 2nd century MSS does NOT prove the Gospels were written before 2nd century.
Do you really think it does?


P52
The John Ryland manuscript is catalogued as P52,
which is dated to 2nd century by NA27,
late 2nd century by some (e.g. Schneelmelcher IIRC),
mid/late 2nd century by others,
and early/mid 2nd century by yet others.

A 2nd century MSS does NOT prove the Gospels were written before 2nd century.
Do you really think it does?


Clement
salvationfound wrote :
"Clement of Rome (a disciple of the apostles) cited Matthew, John, and 1 Corinthians in 95 to 97 A.D"

False.
Clement does NOT cite any Gospels :
* he makes hundreds of citations to the OT by name, as 'scripture'
* he makes hundreds of citations to the epistles of Paul which are wise 'writings' -

But
* the ALLEGED Gospel quotes boil down to only TWO phrases which are merely SIMILAR to Jesus' words in the NT.

They introduced with the formulae like 'remember the words of Jesus ' - i.e. a Saying of Jesus from the Oral tradition.
* There is not a single mention of a Gospel as writing.
* There is not a single mention of a Gospel's name.
* There is no hint that these word's of Jesus were written.

So,
The oft-repeated Christian claim that Clement quotes the Gospels in 1st century is FALSE.


Ignatius
salvationfound wrote :
"Ignatius (who knew the apostles well) referred to six Pauline Epistles in about 110."

So?
Ignatius, probably forged in the 130s, makes no clear reference to the Gospels or the evangelists.

This does NOT in any way prove that the Gospels were written before the 2nd century.
Do you really think it does?


Polycarp
salvationfound wrote :
"Polycarp (disciple of apostle John) quoted from all four Gospels, Acts, and most of Paul's Epistles from 110 to 150. "

So?
A mid 2nd century MSS does not prove the Gospels were written before 2nd century.
Do you really think it does?


Tatian
salvationfound wrote :
"Taitian's[sic] harmony of the Four Gospels completed in 160 A.D."

So?
A mid 2nd century Gospel does not prove the Gospels were written before 2nd century.
Do you really think it does?



Gospel cites
salvationfound wrote :
"Of the four Gospels alone, there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on."

False.
There are NO citations of the Gospels from 1st century.

The first vague mention of Gospel-like writings is by Papias in early-mid 2nd century.

The first quotes of proto-Gospels (still UN-named) is by Justin in the mid 2nd century.

The first to quote our Gospels by name is Ireneaus in late 2nd century.


salvationfound wrote :
"Even if we had no manuscripts, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from these quotations."

False.
There has NEVER been any proof produced for this frequent claim.
And all these "quotes" are from 2nd century and later.

Even worse - there are many disagreements and contradictions in the early quotations -
e.g. the words of God at the baptism were changed from :
"this is my beloved son, this day have I begotten thee"
to
"this is my beloved son, in thee I am well pleased"
The change in the scriptures can be followed in the early quotes, like many others.



salvationfound wrote :
"This argues powerfully that the Gospels were in existence before the end of the first century, while some eyewitnesses (including John) were still alive."


Pardon?
How does it?

You adduced NO evidence that any 1st century Christian knew about the Gospels or their contents until early-mid 2nd century.

Notably,
there is NO MENTION in the first century of -
* the birth stories, Mary or Joseph, Bethlehem or Nazareth
* the baptism, John the Baptist
* the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the temple
* the wedding at Cana, the temptation
* the sermon on the mount, the gathering of the apostles
* the miracles, healings, feeding the masses
* Lazarus, and his raising
* the transfiguration, the Last Supper, Judas
* the trial, Pilate, Nicodemus
* the empty tomb !!!

Yup,
NOT ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN even MENTIONS the empty tomb until early/mid 2nd century or so - clear evidence the Gospel stories arose late.


The complete silence by 1st century Christians about the Gospels and their contents, shows they were unknown until 2nd century.


Iasion

Greetings all,

Berean Todd wrote :
"Yeah, yeah, how about the fact that we have manuscripts dating to between 100-120 AD, and it would have taken time for them to be copied and passed around to reach that state ... there goes that ridiculous theory."

False.
We do not have any MSS dated 100-120.
If you mean P52, it is dated variously -
* 2nd century,
* late 2nd century,
* early/mid 2nd century.
Funny how Christians keep falsely dating this MSS earlier and earlier.


Berean Todd wrote :
"Add to that the fact that you are clearly mistaken. Justin Martyr quoted or cited the gospels no less than 268 times."

Justin quotes from "memoirs of the apostles" which "are called Gospels".
Justin never gives a SINGLE Evangelist's name, showing the Gospels were un-named in his day.

This is confirmed by Aristides (writing 138-161) who refered to
"...the Gospel as it is called, which (has been) preached a short time among them".

This tells us that in this period -
* the Gospel was un-named,
* the Gospel had only been preached "a short time".

Aristides wrote 138-161CE (we can tell because he named the Roman emperor), so this is further evidence that the Gospels were still un-named and fairly new in mid 2nd century.


Berean Todd wrote :
"Look at other early dated ECFs as well, who were roughly contemporary to Justin Martyr."
Hmmm...
Did you think we wouldn't notice these writers you cite were considerably later than Justin?
Or do you not actually know when these fathers wrote?


"Iraneaus quoted or cited them 1,038 times."
Late 2nd century - no proof the Gospels were written before 2nd century.


"Clement of Alexandria 1,017 times. "
Late 2nd century, early 3rd ! - no proof the Gospels were written before 2nd century.


"Origen 9,231 times. "
Late 2nd century, early 3rd ! - no proof the Gospels were written before 2nd century.


"Tertullian 3,822 times. "
Late 2nd century, early 3rd ! - no proof the Gospels were written before 2nd century.


"Hippolytus 734 times. "
Late 2nd century, early 3rd ! - no proof the Gospels were written before 2nd century.


Berean Todd wrote :
"These are only Gospel quotations also, if you want to go to full NT quotations the numbers would be 330 for Justin Martyr, 1,819 for Iranaeus, 2,406 for Clement, 17,922 for Origen, 7,258 for Tertulian, 1,378 for Hippolytus. Everone one of these quoted from each of the following categories: Gospels, Acts, Pauline Epistles, General Epistles, Revelation."

Mate, seriously...
Do you REALLY believe these late 2nd century or early 3rd century citatations prove the Gospels were known in 1st century?
Did you think we wouldn't notice that NOT ONE of your cites are from the 1st century?


Lets continue your method back to the 1st century and early mid 2nd century, something you conspicuously failed to do:

Hebrews (60s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Colossians (70s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
James (80s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
1 John (80s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
2 Thessalonians (80s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Ephesians (90s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
1 Peter (90s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Revelation (90s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Clement (90s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Jude (100s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Didakhe (100s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Barnabas (110s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
1 Timothy (120s?) - ZERO cites from Gospels
2 Timothy (120s?) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Titus (120s?) - ZERO cites from Gospels
2 John (120s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
3 John (120s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Papias (130s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Hermas (130s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
to Diognetus (130s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
2 Peter (130s?) - ZERO cites from Gospels


Not only do early Christian writers show no mention of the Gospels, but the Ministry of Jesus is unknown to early Christians too.

Apart from spiritual references to the Risen Christ, the events and actors mentioned in the Gospels are also unkown until 2nd century -

e.g.
Mary - not mentioned until c.130 (Ignatius)
Bethlehem - not mentioned until c.150 (Justin)
Virgin Birth - not mentioned until c.140 (Epistle of the Apostles)
Nazareth - not mentioned until c.140 (Epistle of the Apostles)
John Baptist - not mentioned until c.150 (Justin)
Lazarus - not mentioned until c.140 (Epistle of the Apostles)
Herod - not mentioned until c.130 (G.Peter)
Judas - not mentioned until c.130 (Papias)
Pilate - not mentioned until c.130 (Pastorals, Ignatius)


The Gospel stories, like the Gospels, simply were NOT KNOWN to Christians until early/mid 2nd century when the first few items start to develop. Not until late 2nd century are the Gospels and their contents fully known to Christianity.


Iasion

Originally posted by Iasion

Greetings all,

Berean Todd wrote :
"Yeah, yeah, how about the fact that we have manuscripts dating to between 100-120 AD, and it would have taken time for them to be copied and passed around to reach that state ... there goes that ridiculous theory."

False.
We do not have any MSS dated 100-120.
If you mean P52, it is dated variously -
* 2nd century,
* late 2nd century,
* early/mid 2nd century.
Funny how Christians keep falsely dating this MSS earlier and earlier.

The Gospel stories, like the Gospels, simply were NOT KNOWN to Christians until early/mid 2nd century when the first few items start to develop. Not until late 2nd century are the Gospels and their contents fully known to Christianity.


Iasion

Great post! This one earned you some pearls for my education.

Originally posted by Iasion

Berean Todd wrote :
"Add to that the fact that you are clearly mistaken. Justin Martyr quoted or cited the gospels no less than 268 times."

Justin quotes from "memoirs of the apostles" which "are called Gospels".
Justin never gives a SINGLE Evangelist's name, showing the Gospels were un-named in his day.

"Unnamed", yes, but that doesn't mean unknown.

Clement (90s) - ZERO cites from Gospels

How about in http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...t-roberts.html? Clement writes:

being especially mindful of the words of the Lord Jesus which He spoke, teaching us meekness and long-suffering. For thus He spoke: "Be merciful, that you may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven to you; as you do, so shall it be done to you; as you judge, so shall you be judged; as you are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you; with what measure you measure, with the same it shall be measured to you."...

Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said, "Woe to that man [by whom offences come]! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect...

Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached?...

What was in this gospel we don't know. It may have been just dogma concerning Christ's resurrection. But note the 2 quotes of Jesus's words that also are found in the Gospels.

Originally posted by Iasion

The Gospel stories, like the Gospels, simply were NOT KNOWN to Christians until early/mid 2nd century when the first few items start to develop. Not until late 2nd century are the Gospels and their contents fully known to Christianity.

How do you know that the Gospel stories were "unknown"? Isn't this just argument from silence?

Originally posted by Iasion

1 Timothy (120s?) - ZERO cites from Gospels

Wrong it clearly is quoting Luke look it up.

1:16 I believe chapter 1 for sure

Its about the working getting his wages.

And since you decided that 1 Timothy was written in 120 AD and since Luke
was written after Mark you would be hard pressed to say that Mark was
written and distributed and then Luke was written and distributed and then
1 Timothy was written and distributed in 20 years?

Not only do early Christian writers show no mention of the Gospels, but the Ministry of Jesus is unknown to early Christians too.

Apart from spiritual references to the Risen Christ, the events and actors mentioned in the Gospels are also unkown until 2nd century -

e.g.
Mary - not mentioned until c.130 (Ignatius)
Bethlehem - not mentioned until c.150 (Justin)
Virgin Birth - not mentioned until c.140 (Epistle of the Apostles)
Nazareth - not mentioned until c.140 (Epistle of the Apostles)
John Baptist - not mentioned until c.150 (Justin)
Lazarus - not mentioned until c.140 (Epistle of the Apostles)
Herod - not mentioned until c.130 (G.Peter)
Judas - not mentioned until c.130 (Papias)
Pilate - not mentioned until c.130 (Pastorals, Ignatius)


The Gospel stories, like the Gospels, simply were NOT KNOWN to Christians until early/mid 2nd century when the first few items start to develop. Not until late 2nd century are the Gospels and their contents fully known to Christianity.


Iasion

Interesting.. is there any consolidated way to verify these?

Greetings all,

Thanks for your replies.

shunyadragon - thank you kindly for that :-)


Justin

GakuseiDon wrote :

"Unnamed", yes, but that doesn't mean unknown.

referring to Justin's quotes.

Yes,
by Justin's time proto Gospels were known, but he is the first to provide such lengthy quotes - which argues the Gospels were fairly new in his time.

Note that these Gospels are not mentioned by Justin until the very end of the first apology, but after that he quotes them often - this argues he received the Gospels while he was writing his apology, and that they were unknown to him before that.

This matches what we see in Aristides -
that the Gospels were new,
and UN-named
in the period 138-161CE


Clement

GakuseiDon wrote :

How about in http://www.earlychristianwritings.c...nt-roberts.html? Clement writes:

Note that I dealt with Clement in my first post, I will repeat the argument -

Clement does NOT actually cite any Gospels :
* he makes about a hundred citations to the OT by name, as 'scripture'
* he makes many citations to the epistles of Paul which are wise 'writings' -

But
the ALLEGED Gospel quotes you mention are only TWO phrases which are merely SIMILAR to Jesus' words in the NT.
They are NOT exactly the same as found in the Gospels, merely SAYINGS which are later found in a DIFFERENT form in the Gospels. This argues they were part of an oral tradition, not writings.

They introduced with the formulae like 'remember the words of Jesus ' - i.e. a Saying of Jesus from the Oral tradition.
* There is not a single mention of a Gospel as writing.
* There is not a single mention of a Gospel's name.
* There is no hint that these word's of Jesus were written.


Then you mention this passage -

"Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached?"

Note that two things occur at the same time -
* Paul wrote
and
* the Gospel first began to be preached.

Now, we know the written Gospel did not exist when Paul wrote - so the phrase "Gospel .. preached" simply means Christian beliefs were proclaimed - it does not refer to a written Gospel.

This usage can be seen frequently in the early days before the Gospels were written - e.g. compare with -

1Cor - 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel

1 Peter - 1:12 To them it was revealed, that not to themselves, but to you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced to you through those who preached the Gospel

Sophia of Jesus Christ - And his disciples began to preach the Gospel of God, the eternal, imperishable Spirit. Amen.


In light of this analysis,
It is simply NOT correct to say Clement quoted the Gospel(s).



Gospels not cited = unknown

How do you know that the Gospel stories were "unknown"? Isn't this just argument from silence?

Yes, an argument from CHRISTIAN SILENCE.

Compare the evidence we have chronologically -

Hebrews (60s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Colossians (70s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
James (80s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
1 John (80s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
2 Thessalonians (80s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Ephesians (90s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
1 Peter (90s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Revelation (90s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Clement (90s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Jude (100s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Didakhe (100s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Barnabas (110s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
1 Timothy (120s?) - ZERO cites from Gospels
2 Timothy (120s?) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Titus (120s?) - ZERO cites from Gospels
2 John (120s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
3 John (120s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Papias (130s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
Hermas (130s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
to Diognetus (130s) - ZERO cites from Gospels
2 Peter (130s?) - ZERO cites from Gospels

Followed by -

Justin Martyr (c.150) - 268 times.
Iraneaus (c.185) - 1,038 times.
Clement of Alexandria (c.200) - 1,017 times.
Origen (c.200) - 9,231 times.
Tertullian (c.200) - 3,822 times.
Hippolytus (c.200) 734 times.
(I have not checked these figures that Berean Todd gave.)


Thats ZERO cites in the first century of Christian writings - covering over a dozen writers.

Then THOUSANDS of cites after 150CE

The only reasonable conclusion is that the Gospels were unknown until early/mid 2nd century.


Iasion

Greetings again,

salvationfound wrote -

Wrong it clearly is quoting Luke look it up.

Hmmm .. you can't be bothered to check your own facts for your argument?

1:16 I believe chapter 1 for sure Its about the working getting his wages.

False (yet you are "sure" :-)

1:16 has this -

1:16 However, for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first, Jesus Christ might display all his patience, for an example of those who were going to believe in him for eternal life.

No mention of a Gospel there, nor wages.

Indeed, chapter 1 has no mention anywhere of a Gospel, or wages.


However, we do see this later -

5:17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching. 5:18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox when it treads out the grain." And, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

which refers to scripture having "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

No mention of a Gospel at all.
But it does refer to "scripture" - meaning the Jewish scriptures, NOT the NT (the NT did not exist when the Pastorals were written, it cannot mean the Gospels.)

And, we CAN find this phrase in the OT at Leviticus 19:13 (and the other part in Deuteronomy 25:4) which shows clearly it is referring to the OT, not the NT.

There is not the slightest evidence that Timothy refers to a Gospel here.

And since you decided that 1 Timothy was written in 120 AD

Actually I said " 120? " meaning probably c.120, but I did not decide this myself, it is well known that the Pastorals are late forgeries.

and since Luke was written after Mark you would be hard pressed to say that Mark was written and distributed and then Luke was written and distributed and then 1 Timothy was written and distributed in 20 years?

Empty argument - Timothy does not cite Luke.

In future, I suggest you check your facts before posting, salvationfound :-)


Iasion

Greetings Jayrok,

Originally posted by Jayrok

Interesting.. is there any consolidated way to verify these?

Well,
I have attempted to place the early writings in chronological order and analysed them for what words can be found there-in.

You can see my table here:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin...ity/Table.html

Please do take the time to view this table, it shows in one glance when various items are mentioned in Christian writings.

Iasion