Ulan wrote:Ben C. Smith wrote:The noun can indeed indicate verbal communication. Justin does, however, use it of written communication in
Dialogue 100.1:
ὅτι γὰρ καὶ Ἰακὼβ καὶ Ἰσραὴλ καλεῖται ὁ Χριστός, ἀπέδειξα· καὶ οὐ μόνον ἐν τῇ εὐλογίᾳ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ Ἰούδα τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ κεκηρύχθαι ἐν μυστηρίῳ ἀπέδειξα, καὶ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ δὲ γέγραπται εἰπών· Πάντα μοι παραδέδοται ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός, καὶ οὐδεὶς γινώσκει τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός, οὐδὲ τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ οἷς ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ.
I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but 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.'
This is an apparent reference to the so-called "Johannine thunderbolt" (Matthew 11.25-27 = Luke 10.21-22).
Ben.
Thanks, Ben. That's exactly the use of "evangelion" I referred to, the single time in Justin's writings where it is completely clear that he is talking about a written gospel, and it's also clear that he's talking about "the gospel", not "gospels". Markus Vinzent claims that the word order matches Marcion, not Matthew or Luke, from which he concludes that "Marcion's" gospel was the only written gospel Justin knew, whatever one may think of this statement (
link here, with more sources concerning the thread question).
Correct, and good point. Roth notes that the canonical version has οὐδεὶς γινώσκει τίς ἐστιν ὁ Υἱὸς εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατήρ, καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ Πατὴρ εἰ μὴ ὁ Υἱὸς, whereas
Marcion seems to have οὐδεὶς γινώσκει τίς ἐστιν ὁ πατήρ εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ υἱός εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ (which agrees with Justin in order).
Ben.
ETA: From the sources listed below the passage on that Marcionite gospel page I linked to:
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.6.1: 1. Dominus enim ostendens semetipsum discipulis, quoniam ipse est Verbum, qui agnitionem Patris facit, et exprobrans Iudaeis putantibus se habere Deum, cum et frustrentur Verbum eius, per quem cognoscitur Deus, dicebat: Nemo cognoscit Filium nisi Pater, neque Patrem quis cognoscit nisi Filius, et cui voluerit Filius revelare. Sic et Matthaeus posuit, et Lucas similiter, et Marcus idem ipsum: Iohannes enim praeterit locum hunc. Hi autem qui peritiores Apostolis volunt esse, sic describunt: Nemo cognovit Patrem nisi Filius, nec Filium nisi Pater, et cui voluerit Filius revelare; et interpretantur, quasi a nullo cognitus sit verus Deus ante Domini nostri adventum: et eum Deum qui a prophetis sit annuntiatus, dicunt non esse Patrem Christi. / 1. For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they, had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]." Thus hath Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; for John omits this passage. They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write [the verse] in the following manner: "No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him];" and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord's advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ.
Interesting that Irenaeus acknowledges the phrase to be absent from John but thinks it is found in Mark. Our canonical Mark bears no such passage.
Ben.