The Diatessaron

[Secret Alias]

The idea that Justin had a harmony and Tatian's harmony had nothing to do with Justin's but was one wholly made up from his heretical imagination - a break with tradition - is among the most ridiculously idiotic things promulgated in scholarship. If my father beat me up and I beat up my daughter, my habit of beating my children comes from my experiences as a child. If I watch TV and see an add for a McDonald's hamburger and go out later that day and buy that same hamburger we say I was influenced by what I saw. But not when it comes to things which contradict or undermine the sanctity of the four canonical gospels.

When will people wake up and see that while the scholars of a former age protected the canon for religious reasons, a new generation of dunderheads do so for slightly different reasons - their unconscious fear of having nothing left to say with any assurance about the origins of early Christianity, what Nietzsche would call nihilism and Heidegger geworfenheit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrownness. The wimps just can't admit that there's nothing left to hold on to. They don't quite believe in a providential plan from God or maybe even a God inherited from their ancestors. But they aren't willing to admit we inherited a bunch of lies and most everything is full of shit ...

The wimps now control the study of early Christianity. A bunch of losers who stayed in school because they were afraid of growing up and making it in the scary world out there. We're expecting these cowards to chart our course through the nihilism of a post-modern apocalypse in the humanities. Please! Wimps only know being scared and hiding from their feelings of being scared.

[andrewcriddle]

The idea that Justin had a harmony and Tatian's harmony had nothing to do with Justin's but was one wholly made up from his heretical imagination - a break with tradition - is among the most ridiculously idiotic things promulgated in scholarship. If my father beat me up and I beat up my daughter, my habit of beating my children comes from my experiences as a child. If I watch TV and see an add for a McDonald's hamburger and go out later that day and buy that same hamburger we say I was influenced by what I saw. But not when it comes to things which contradict or undermine the sanctity of the four canonical gospels.

IIUC the standard position (e.g. in Petersen) is that the synoptic portion of Tatian's Diatessaron was similar but far from identical to Justin's harmony and that Tatian included material from John that was missing in Justin.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

I know Petersen's position. But if I had a dollar for every time the idea that Tatian fashioned on his own a new harmony I'd be very rich. Still can't my head around how Tatian could have justified 'adding John' to a synoptic harmony. That would represent a break from tradition.

[Secret Alias]

Could Tatian's merely have represented the secret version of Justin's public preaching of the apostles? Forget about Secret Mark for a minute. Tertullian (from Irenaeus) does reference the 'secret gospel' concept in his Praescriptione. The idea here is that Paul added to the apostles to make a superior secret gospel. Nothing about Mark. Both Paul and John are absent in Justin (but lurking in the background). Could Justin have been keeping them secret (the Johannine 'additions' to the gospel and the Pauline epistles) simply because they were sacred?

[Secret Alias]

That would also account for why there are no Johannine references in Adv Marc if it developed from Justin's original too.

[Secret Alias]

The secret gospel concept might also be in the Shepherd with the two compositions to Clement and Grapte. Maybe different communities explained the two recensions in different ways and let's accept that there were differences too. The whole secret vs public concept might come from the parallels in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Just look at the name 'Deuteronomy" = Δευτερονόμιον = "second law." If there was a second Law why not two gospels? Deuteronomy chapter 32 is treated like an apocalypse by the Samaritans. Its a 'more spiritual' Law.

[andrewcriddle]

Assuming Justin's harmony was a single physical text (as distinct from say a collection of texts with cross-references) then if it included John I don't think Justin could have avoided quoting it sometimes.

It is entirely possible that Justin knew John but felt it was inappropriate for use in public debate, but it seems unlikely that he knew a text in which John had been harmonized with the synoptics.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

Okay, let's suppose that John wasn't part of the text Justin cited publicly (I've always been intrigued by the idea that Justinus of the Philosophumena = Justin). I'll give in to your erudition. Let's look at the portions of John that stand out. The prologue in John is sort of like the later portions of Deuteronomy insofar as it isn't strictly narrative. Compare Deuteronomy here with Exodus which is strictly narrative. The whole business about the Paraclete is apocalyptic in that it speaks of a future time beyond the strict narrative of the ministry of Jesus. Those are the portions of John that keep resurfacing among the heretics who 'used Johannine material.' Couldn't we be misreading the evidence? Couldn't Tatian really be associated with an 'apocalyptic' gospel - one which began with John 1 (which frames the narrative in some grander context) and which made reference to the Paraclete? Sure there might have been other bits and pieces (John 7 identifying Jesus as the 'I am' angel etc). But doesn't the public vs secret business explain the differences between Justin's and Tatian's harmonies? Is it really likely that Tatian stole bits and pieces from John and wove them into the existing narrative? John itself is a problematic text. Maybe you could sidestep those difficulties if Justin thought the original was a harmony made up of Matthew, Mark and Luke. But is that really likely? Justin speaks about his gospel as a gospel from the apostles. Mark and Luke aren't apostles. Doesn't quite seem to fit together well.

[Ben C. Smith]

Assuming Justin's harmony was a single physical text (as distinct from say a collection of texts with cross-references) then if it included John I don't think Justin could have avoided quoting it sometimes.

It is entirely possible that Justin knew John but felt it was inappropriate for use in public debate, but it seems unlikely that he knew a text in which John had been harmonized with the synoptics.

How do you treat the overlaps, albeit small ones, with the gospel of John in Justin? In John 19.13 Pilate sits on the judgment seat (ἐπὶ βήματος), and in Apology 1.35.4 Jesus is seated on the judgment seat (ἐπὶ βήματος). Both Justin in Apology 1.35.7 and John 20.25-27 specifically refer to the nails of the crucifixion (I think the gospel of Peter does, too). In Dialogue 57.3 Justin uses the noun λαχμός (instead of the more usual κλῆρος) for the lots cast for Jesus' clothes, while John has the corresponding verb λάχωμεν. And of course Apology 1.61.4-5 quotes Christ as saying, "Unless you are born again, you shall not go into the kingdom of the heavens," before adding, "But that those who have once been born are unable to enter into the maternal womb is apparent to all." Shades of John 3.3-4.

Would these details have been in Justin's harmony? If so, any connection to John?

Ben.

[andrewcriddle]

Assuming Justin's harmony was a single physical text (as distinct from say a collection of texts with cross-references) then if it included John I don't think Justin could have avoided quoting it sometimes.

It is entirely possible that Justin knew John but felt it was inappropriate for use in public debate, but it seems unlikely that he knew a text in which John had been harmonized with the synoptics.

How do you treat the overlaps, albeit small ones, with the gospel of John in Justin? In John 19.13 Pilate sits on the judgment seat (ἐπὶ βήματος), and in Apology 1.35.4 Jesus is seated on the judgment seat (ἐπὶ βήματος). Both Justin in Apology 1.35.7 and John 20.25-27 specifically refer to the nails of the crucifixion (I think the gospel of Peter does, too). In Dialogue 57.3 Justin uses the noun λαχμός (instead of the more usual κλῆρος) for the lots cast for Jesus' clothes, while John has the corresponding verb λάχωμεν. And of course Apology 1.61.4-5 quotes Christ as saying, "Unless you are born again, you shall not go into the kingdom of the heavens," before adding, "But that those who have once been born are unable to enter into the maternal womb is apparent to all." Shades of John 3.3-4.

Would these details have been in Justin's harmony? If so, any connection to John?

Ben.

Maybe Justin did use John but some of the eamples here are IMO weak. For example Justin says And the expression, They pierced my hands and my feet, was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. the referece to hands and feet probably refers to Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. interpreted on the basis of familiarity with the ugly reality of crucifixion, rather than to John 20 with its reference to hands only.

There is also the general issue of possible knowledge of the Gospel of Peter And they clothed him with purple and sat him on a chair of judgment, saying: 'Judge justly, King of Israel.' and And they drew out the nails from the hands of the Lord and placed him on the earth; and all the earth was shaken, and a great fear came about IMO the Gospel of Peter depends on John so if Justin knew the Gospel of Peter he indirectly knew John but this is not direct usage of John.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew Criddle