Just How Much of Adversus Marcionem Came from Justin?

[Secret Alias]

From my conversation with Andrew, the question arises - how much of Tertullian's work can be traced back to Justin. Let's start with what is available online:

The apologete Justin Martyr ('died' 165) is the first Church Father who employs the concept of accommodation. In his dialogue with the Jew Trypho Justin has to account for the fact that Christians say they serve the God of the Jews, whereas they on the other hand refrain from obeying the Jewish laws of circumcision, the Sabbath and the sacrifices. In his answer, Justin first points at the examples of the uncircumcised righteous Lot and Noah, which demonstrate in Justin's opinion that even under the Old Testament circumcision was not indispensable. Justin then explains the sacrificial laws as a result of Israel's sin with the golden calf. This sin clearly shows Israel's inclination to idolatry, “wherefore God, accommodating (oipuoooiusvog) Himself to that nation, enjoined them also to offer sacrifices, as if to His name, in order that you might not serve idols.” So God's purpose in giving sacrificial laws was not directed to God's needs, but to the needs of Israel, which was so heavily inclined to offerings and idolatry that a means had to be found to meet their need for sacrifice, while at the same time keeping them from idolatry.

God's accommodation did not function as an explanatory model for the fact that Christians do not keep certain Old Testament commandments only in discussion with the Jews. Marcion confronted the Christian church with a similar question but from the opposite perspective, for he advanced the thesis that Christians should do away with the inferior God of the Old Testament in order to rightly serve the God of the New Testament. Marcion used the bloody and primitive character of sacrificial law as one of his arguments against the Old Testament. In opposition to Marcion, Tertullian (160-220) in fact employs the same argument Justin used against Trypho; namely, that God did not need the sacrifices for Himself, but that they were a means to keep Israel away from idolatry. If the Jews had to perform rites for God that were common in contemporary idolatry, they could be kept from making new idols out of their need for rites. In short, sacrificial law expresses God's patience with idolatrous inclinations.71 Although Tertullian does not use the term accommodare in the passage where he describes God's motives for demanding sacrifices, the idea is obviously present.

The argument of God's accommodation that Justin used against the Jews and that Tertullian used against Marcion, is taken up by many other Church Fathers. Sacrificial law posed a serious challenge, which could be dealt with in two ways, one of which was reference to divine accommodation. The other strategy was allegorical exegesis, which explains sacrifices as instituted in order to achieve a higher goal, but to a further goal in history. In the contrast between the strategies of accommodation and allegory, the specific hermeneutical character of the concept of accommodation becomes clear as moving along historical lines in exegesis.

Like other Church Fathers, Irenaeus (d 200) also explains certain Old Testament prescriptions as divine accommodations to the Jews' hardness of heart and to their inclination to idolatry, but he places it in an original theological 72 Irenaeus not only finds God's accommodations in the Old Testament, but also in the New, because Paul sometimes permits certain things that he does not command.73 Irenaeus used this argument in his discussion with the Gnostics, who rejected the Old Testament completely because they regarded it as only as only earthly and non-spiritual, unlike the spiritual New Testament truth. However, Irenaeus contends, when accommodation to the weak takes place even in the New Testament, because the weak would otherwise not be able to bear the message and would even apostatize, then God's accommodations in the Old Testament are not that offensive at all; at least, they do not indicate a principal difference between the Old and New Testaments. https://books.google.com/books?id=I3CVS ... 22&f=false

But one can already see what the author fails to grasp - namely that the real 'accommodation' that Irenaeus was responsible for was with the Imperial government. For clearly the passages where Paul 'accommodates' himself to the sacrificial veneration of the 'ruler of the world' were added by Irenaeus to the Pauline canon. No one before Irenaeus ever says anything to this effect - i.e. that Paul allowed for this or that ancient prescription before Irenaeus. Justin has been effectively 'cut off' from any knowledge of Paul. Indeed Irenaeus as far as I can tell never wades into the dangerous waters of whether Christians could be allowed to join in the Imperial cult of acknowledging the Emperor as the living personification of the cosmocrator. That ambiguity is most interesting given the persecution of Christians while Irenaeus lived.

It is also worth noting that - as is consistent in Tertullian's borrowings from Justin - that an original argument developed against the Jews by Justin is here turned around by Tertullian against the Marcionites. Another example is large passages of Book Three of Against Marcion and Against the Jews. There are many others. How and why an argument developed against the Jews would be able to 'suit' attacks against the Marcionites is never explained - especially if as is generally supposed the Marcionites opposed the Jews. But here we have yet another piece of the puzzle which might be useful to figure that out.

[Stuart]

I think for you to make this charge you have three basic hurdles to overcome

1. establish Justin's theological positions
2. establish the writing style of Justin, his phraseology, use of terms (see #1)
3. show a pattern of consistency in #1 and #2 in the writings of Tertullian

I would add one more, establish the authentic writings of Justin. There are several troublesome passages in the two supposed writings of Justin, the 1st Apology, and the Dialogue with Trypho that are internally inconsistent and which take up concerns that are more than a century in the future as issues of concern in the church. The Apology chapter 56 is a good example, as it takes up the sacrament substance issue of the Chalcedon era, the Miaphysitism issue. Also he takes on Mithras cult, which really didn't take off until after Marcus Aurelius, and was not a direct competitor with Christianity until the 3rd century, with Commodus being the first emperor to partake in any ceremonies (Historia Augusta, however reliable that is. It was at its height in Diocletian and even Constantine, and its suppression came later. How much more of the apology is late?

I think you have much boring technical work to to establish before your theory can be taken seriously

[Secret Alias]

Or I can continue to do what I am doing, amusing and entertaining myself and a handful of fans at the forum, and continue to watch Biblical studies erode to the point of cultural irrelevancy. Same difference in the end. But appreciate the advice

[Secret Alias]

The Apology chapter 56 is a good example, as it takes up the sacrament substance issue of the Chalcedon era, the Miaphysitism issue. Also he takes on Mithras cult, which really didn't take off until after Marcus Aurelius, and was not a direct competitor with Christianity until the 3rd century, with Commodus being the first emperor to partake in any ceremonies (Historia Augusta, however reliable that is. It was at its height in Diocletian and even Constantine, and its suppression came later. How much more of the apology is late?

I really appreciate this insight. It's the second piece of evidence I've found for another controversial opinion (although with relatively wide acceptance) that Justin's works as we have them were edited in the late second century. The other, surprisingly comes from a conservative scholar Craig Evans. I am too stupid to figure out how to link to that page but here it is:

First of all Justin's Dialogue has been identified to have been tampered with at the time Irenaeus was living. He makes an explanation of Isaiah:

this king Herod, at the time when the Magi came to him from Arabia, and said they knew from a star which appeared in the heavens that a King had been born in your country, and that they had come to worship Him … For the Magi, who were held in bondage for the commission of all evil deeds through the power of that demon, by coming to worship Christ, shows that they have revolted from that dominion which held them captive; and this[dominion] the Scripture has showed us to reside in Damascus. Moreover, that sinful and unjust power is termed well in parable, Samaria. And none of you can deny that Damascus was, and is, in the region of Arabia, although now it belongs to what is called Syrophoenicia.

The names of places change over time and here it appears that Justin stepped into a time machine and ended up forty years in the future. As Craig Evans points out “Damascus was reckoned to Arabia until it was brought into Coele Syria, on the division of Syria by Septimius Severus between 193 and 198 (Dio Cassius 53.12): Justin, dial. 78, seems to have previous knowledge of this rearrangement unless the observation is a later addition.” Justin had previous knowledge of a name change at the time of Irenaeus? Of course it is a later addition.

[Secret Alias]

The basic idea I would like scholarship to realize is that the various Patristic texts - no less than the New Testament writings - are a collaborative work. Someone wrote something - let's call it 'document X by person 1.' It might have been written for a specific theological purpose. But then someone else came along a generation or so later and reworked that text, maybe added scriptural proofs or arguments - more than likely left out large portions of text and maybe addressed a new set of concerns more important to the editor. Now it is called 'document Y by person 2' or maybe 'document Y by person 1' or even retain its original identification (if having an ancient Father was deemed to be useful to the editor). And this might have happened more than once and ultimately the text may also have undergone a complete translation into another language or maybe two. From the beginning of the second century to the time of Nicaea works were constantly undergoing change and transformation.

[andrewcriddle]

The Apology chapter 56 is a good example, as it takes up the sacrament substance issue of the Chalcedon era, the Miaphysitism issue. Also he takes on Mithras cult, which really didn't take off until after Marcus Aurelius, and was not a direct competitor with Christianity until the 3rd century, with Commodus being the first emperor to partake in any ceremonies (Historia Augusta, however reliable that is. It was at its height in Diocletian and even Constantine, and its suppression came later. How much more of the apology is late?

I really appreciate this insight. It's the second piece of evidence I've found for another controversial opinion (although with relatively wide acceptance) that Justin's works as we have them were edited in the late second century. The other, surprisingly comes from a conservative scholar Craig Evans. I am too stupid to figure out how to link to that page but here it is:

First of all Justin's Dialogue has been identified to have been tampered with at the time Irenaeus was living. He makes an explanation of Isaiah:

this king Herod, at the time when the Magi came to him from Arabia, and said they knew from a star which appeared in the heavens that a King had been born in your country, and that they had come to worship Him … For the Magi, who were held in bondage for the commission of all evil deeds through the power of that demon, by coming to worship Christ, shows that they have revolted from that dominion which held them captive; and this[dominion] the Scripture has showed us to reside in Damascus. Moreover, that sinful and unjust power is termed well in parable, Samaria. And none of you can deny that Damascus was, and is, in the region of Arabia, although now it belongs to what is called Syrophoenicia.

The names of places change over time and here it appears that Justin stepped into a time machine and ended up forty years in the future. As Craig Evans points out “Damascus was reckoned to Arabia until it was brought into Coele Syria, on the division of Syria by Septimius Severus between 193 and 198 (Dio Cassius 53.12): Justin, dial. 78, seems to have previous knowledge of this rearrangement unless the observation is a later addition.” Justin had previous knowledge of a name change at the time of Irenaeus? Of course it is a later addition.

It may well be a later addition but it is IMHO not certain.

IF the reference in Dialogue with Trypho to Syrophoenicia refers to the province created by Severus when he split the giant province of Syria into smaller less powerful administrative divisions then it is clearly later than Justin. There was no earlier Roman province with that name.

However Damascus in the time of Justin was part of the giant Syrian province (probably from the time of Trajan). And this whole area was sometimes referred to as Syrophoenicia to distinguish it from Libyphoenicia (Carthage and North West Africa.) See the reference to a Syrophoenician woman in the Gospels.

Hence Justin may mean that Damascus historically is linked to Arabia but is currently part of Syria which he calls Syrophoenicia to indicate that this region is an amalgamation of traditional Syria and traditional Phoenicia.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

But the plain reading of the text would agree with Evans no?

[Secret Alias]

https://books.google.com/books?id=lXcpe ... on&f=false

The author's points develop from the well known (at least by the handful of people that care about this stuff) parallels between Adv Marc 3 and Against the Jews. According to both Adv Marc and Adv Iud that both the Jews and Marcionites agreed that (according to the author's conflation of Is 7:14/8:4) Jesus did not Isaiah's expectation of Christo qui iam uenit - the Messiah who has already come. There is some debate in scholarship as to whether the argument in Adv Iud was borrowed from Adv Marc (Skarsaune) or the other way around. My supposition is that both text derive from a document written by Justin which can't be clearly discerned to be against the Marcionites or Jews. My guess however is that the two were one and the same in the period or at least close enough that the same argument could be used against both. Skarsaune's point - "The implication must be that the Messiah spoken of in Isaiah has not yet come. But this is the position of Marcion - not the Jews" is fucking retarded. The 'position of the Jews' must have been written in an age where Jews believed that messiah had not yet come - i.e. either before bar Kochba or in the immediate aftermath of the failed rebellion - but who were still actively using Isaiah to appease their hope for his arrival.

It would seem however that large portions of Tertullian's two treatises go back to an original testimonium associated with or written by Justin.

[Secret Alias]

On the subject of the treatises (Justin and Adv Iud) being written after 194 CE:

A few years earlier Noeldechen had made some general comments about Aduersus Iudaeos. He indicated that he believed it was a genuine response to a genuine debate, because the opponent in the debate was presented not simply as a Jew but as a proselyte. In many regards it lacks the falsity one associates with feigned debates and the overall tone is mild rather than harsh.26 He dated the work to early 196 because of the statements in 9.12 about Roman provincial matters with regard to the 7-8 about Roman interaction with the Parthians and Gaetulians.27 It is to be noted that Tertullian's comments about Syria match those in Justin's Dialogus 78.10, written well before the actual division in 194, which suggests that this is a gloss in Justin (p. 9 Dunn)

But what is always overlooked by these people is that it shows quite clearly that Tertullian wasn't just 'inspired' by 'ideas' in 'Justin' (or as I would have it - a late second century edition of Justin fully corrupted or perhaps 'co-opted' by Irenaeus - but that Tertullian is certainly COPYING THINGS WRITTEN ON A PAGE BEFORE HIM INTO ANOTHER WORK. In other words, he found a work which dealt which was 'against the Jews' from a Christian perspective. He may well have found a few of such works and then set out rework the arguments into another work against the Jews (indeed explicitly so entitled) without admitting that the material came from Justin. Yet more likely however the work was written by Irenaeus originally (for the comments were first embedded into a Greek edition of Justin that had nothing to do with Tertullian) and then Tertullian simply copied out that Greek edition of this work Against the Jews into Latin with his own 'spiritual flourishes.' I don't know how to explain why Irenaeus also decided to corrupt Justin with this information. Maybe he was mentally unbalanced. But it is obvious that most people read the material as if it pertained to the events of 194.

But the fact that the two works - one almost universally acknowledged to be dependent on Justin in some form - the other a work by Justin - can't be coincidence. It is interesting that when scholars read the comments in Tertullian they always argue it is referent to the political divisions of 194 CE. When they see the same or similar comments in Justin it has to be a vague allusion to something plausible for a figure writing in the middle of the second century. The idea that the Church Fathers corrupted writings from previous generations of Christians is deliberately avoided even though it would seem to be the best explanation of the phenomenon.

[Secret Alias]

And one explanation for why the material in Justin's text was used against both Jews and Marcion when it trickled down to Tertullian - Irenaeus.

According to Irenaeus, the Jews of his time read their scriptures “like a fable” since they did not accept the true meaning of what they had been told (Adv. Haer. 4.26.1). “Tradition” demonstrated there was one God, identical with the God of Israel, and this God had chosen the followers of Christ as his people.53 The patriarchs and the prophets “prefigured our faith and sowed on earth the coming of the Son of announcing who and what he would be" (Adv Haer 4.23.1), yet the Jews misunderstood and, therefore, they will be judged (Adv. Haer. 4.33.1). With the Jews placed outside of salvation, Irenaeus can further disparage his opponents by accusing them of adopting pseudo-Jewish practices and procedures: they might be demon-inspired gentiles, but they foolishly acted like “Jews." The Valentinians, for example, pronounced phony Hebrew words during worship to impress their initiates (Adv. Haer. 1.21.3), and the Ebionites foolishly practiced circumcision, maintained Jewish legal customs, and prayed while facing toward Jerusalem (Adv. Haer. 1.26.2).54 Marcion, though he identified the creator God as a demon, “circumcise[d] the scriptures” when he chose to adopt only the Gospel of Luke and portions of the writings of Paul (Adv. Haer. 1.27.2–4). In other words, Irenaeus accuses him of behaving like a Jew even as he rejects any continuity between Judaism and Christianity." [Knust p. 156]

So clearly the possibility is open now that we can add a new wrinkle in the development of Tertullian's works, namely -

1. Tertullian had access to texts written by Justin both in the form still attributed to Justin and those which were refashioned by Irenaeus and identified Irenaeus as the author
2. Adv Marc 3 and Adv Iud represent the preservation of almost verbatim material written originally by Justin. In Adv Iud we have Tertullian using something closer to the original text by Justin (because Justin wrote against the Jews); Adv Marc 3 represents a reworking of the original argument against the Jews now against the Marcionites by the hand of Irenaeus
3. the reason the same arguments were used against both was that Irenaeus consistently identified the heretics as being Jewish or having Jewish traits. There is no evidence that Tertullian knew enough about the Jews to identify the heretics as possessing 'Jewish traits' in this way.

To this end Irenaeus's consistent identification of the heretics as Jews makes him likely the reason common material was reused against both the Jews and Marcion in Tertullian. Tertullian was just copying out things written before him.