Quesionting Justin Martyr's Knowledge of the Canonical Gospels

[Ben C. Smith]

Justin seems to prefer details that we find in noncanonical gospels over anything we read in the canonical counterparts.

I think this is overstating the case. In truth, we could mix the (infancy) gospel of James and the gospel of Peter in with the canonical gospels, and I think they would fit in quite nicely as likely sources of Justin's gospel details: slightly less likely than Matthew, perhaps, but more likely than John and Mark, certainly. Not sure about Luke......

We can mix, but Justin doesn't.

I am not sure what this means. There are plenty of details in Justin Martyr currently found only in the canonical gospels. (Whether there are lost gospels which also contained those details is certainly a valid question.)

You refer to the magi from Arabia. That's not from Matthew.

Sure, the exact location of Arabia is not. Nor is it from the gospel of James, I believe.

I completely agree that there are details in Justin which do not find a place in the canonical gospels. Absolutely. But there are even more details which do. There are also details which are found only in extracanonical gospels, as well as some which are found only in Justin himself. That is my point. Justin's gospel details are kind of all over the place, not distinguishing between canonical and noncanonical and nonextant. But they do not prioritize noncanonical details in any meaningful sense of the word. That is, the number of details found in noncanonical gospels is not uniformly greater than the number found in canonical gospels; nor are such details deemed more important than those found in canonical writings. One simply cannot read Justin and get a good sense of which gospels were (or would later become) canonical and which were not.

ETA: Nor does Justin give a clear indication of what goes with which gospel, or whether the gospels as we have them are exactly the same as what he had.

[neilgodfrey]

ETA: Nor does Justin give a clear indication of what goes with which gospel, or whether the gospels as we have them are exactly the same as what he had.

Or even whether he was relying upon anything that looked like our gospels.

For me the point is not any sort of prioritization of source/gospel-type content because I don't think we have enough information to know if there was any "prioritization" per se going on. The notion of prioritization seems to me to be begging the question.

Why does he narrate details that are inconsistent with what we know from our canonical gospels?

What does that tell us about the status of the canonical gospels if he indeed knew of them? And that leads to other questions relating to the eventual emergence of "our gospels" to canonical status.

Why does he so often appear to be arguing for what look like gospel details straight from the OT and often not with reference to "gospels"?

Why does he refer to what seems to be precursors to our canonical gospels as "memoirs of apostles"? How did that concept emerge given our understanding of the relationships between the gospels themselves with their often opposing theological perspectives?

Sure there are lots of overlaps between gospel details and Justin's writings, but the way these overlaps are delivered (and at times opposed) is not what I would expect if Justin were drawing upon, even in part, our canonical four. We need to imagine pre-canonical forms, I think, but I don't know how to do that in any meaningful way. (Which brings us back to your ETA.)

Perhaps we need to start back at what we know about the Justin corpus and how we know it. I have only questions, still.

[John2]

Peter wrote:

Justin repudiates Marcion too. A good hypothesis is that Paul's legacy was tainted in the eyes of Justin's faction.

Hegesippus doesn't mention Paul and also repudiates Marcion and definitely used the Gospel of the Hebrews. This non- or anti-Pauline faction must have been large enough in the mid-second century CE then for Hegesippus to say in EH 4.22:

And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus ... In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.

Papias seems a bit too early for Marcion though (but I suppose nothing is certain about his or Marcion's dating). In any event, he doesn't mention Marcion. Either there is not enough of Papias to say whether or not he knew Paul and Marcion, or perhaps there was another reason he didn't mention Paul that has nothing to do with Marcion.

[MrMacSon]

As I said elsewhere recently: I wonder if texts like Justin's, Irenaeus's, and Tertullian's (+/- others) are fore-runners to the NT gospels, not consequences to, or reflections on, them.

[John2]

I see that Papias is mentioned in the anti-Marcionite prologue to John though (which I wasn't aware of), to which Ben notes, "These prologues, also called the Old Latin prologues, precede each of the gospels in some copies of the Bible. Scholars disagree as to their exact date, but many place them in the late second century."

http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html#antimarcion

This gospel, then, after the apocalypse was written was made manifest and given to the churches in Asia by John, as yet still in the body, as the Heiropolitan, Papias by name, dear disciple of John, transmitted in his Exoteric, that is, the outside five books. He wrote down this gospel while John dictated. Truly Marcion the heretic, when he had been disapproved by him because he supposed contrary things, was thrown out by John. He in truth carried writings or epistles sent to him from the brothers who were in Pontus, faithful in Christ Jesus our Lord.

And Papias is said to have known Polycarp in Ireneaus AH 5.33.4:

And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled by him.

And Polycarp is said to have met Marcion in AH 3.3.4:

To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, “Do you know me?” “I do know you, the first-born of Satan.”

And Polycarp appears to have been well acquainted with Paul's letters, as Hartog discusses here:

Some interpreters have claimed that Paul served as the only authority for Polycarp, or that Polycarp denigrated the authority of other apostles ... He probably emphasized the role of Paul because he was addressing a Pauline church ... Various scholars have examined the patent Pauline influence on Pol. Phil. The letter is filled with Pauline quotations and allusions, 'the most extensive such exploitation' up to his time. The only apostle explicitly named in Pol. Phil. is Paul.

https://books.google.com/books?id=eZkRA ... ul&f=false

The "because he was addressing a Pauline church" part is curious. Did Papias perhaps not address any "Pauline churches" then? It seems possible that Papias knew of Paul and maybe Marcion too though, since he knew Polycarp, which makes it all the more curious that he doesn't mention them (in what we have of him, or in any references to Papias that I am aware of, at least).

I know, I know, what does this have to do with Justin. I'm just thinking out loud. Sorry, Neil.

Edit: While the dates on Papias and Polycarp are slippery, it looks like it could be argued that Polycarp's awareness of (or interest in) Paul and Marcion came after Papias died since he is conjectured to have lived longer than him.

[hakeem]

A number of scholars have held that Justin never used the separate synoptic gospels, but instead used a harmony based upon either Matthew Mark and Luke or Matthew and Luke. (See for example various essays by the late William Lawrence Petersen.)

If this is true, (and IMHO it may well be), then we have no clear evidence that Justin had direct access to the separate synoptic gospels. However this would not imply that these gospels did not exist in Justin's time merely that Justin may not have ever come across copies.

Andrew Criddle

The fact that the writings attributed to Justin did not mention Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can imply that those Gospels did not exist in his time.

It is flawed reasoning to assume it only implies that Justin did not ever come across those Gospels.

In any event, it cannot be shown that Gospels called according Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were composed before the supposed time of Justin or before his supposed writings.

[Ben C. Smith]

And Polycarp is said to have met Marcion in AH 3.3.4:

To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, “Do you know me?” “I do know you, the first-born of Satan.”

And Polycarp appears to have been well acquainted with Paul's letters, as Hartog discusses here:

Some interpreters have claimed that Paul served as the only authority for Polycarp, or that Polycarp denigrated the authority of other apostles ... He probably emphasized the role of Paul because he was addressing a Pauline church ... Various scholars have examined the patent Pauline influence on Pol. Phil. The letter is filled with Pauline quotations and allusions, 'the most extensive such exploitation' up to his time. The only apostle explicitly named in Pol. Phil. is Paul.

https://books.google.com/books?id=eZkRA ... ul&f=false

The "because he was addressing a Pauline church" part is curious. Did Papias perhaps not address any "Pauline churches" then? It seems possible that Papias knew of Paul and maybe Marcion too though, since he knew Polycarp, which makes it all the more curious that he doesn't mention them (in what we have of him, or in any references to Papias that I am aware of, at least).

I myself do not place much stress on Irenaeus' claim that Papias and Polycarp were companions, whatever that means. Irenaeus apparently saw, heard, or met Polycarp when he was a mere boy, and if anything he is going to play up the connection. He is also going to make it seem like the entire early church was in agreement with each other (and against Marcion and other "heretics").

In my recently attempted reconstruction of "John versus Paul" I have John the elder, the one known to Papias, as an antagonist toward Paul. I have already changed my mind on a couple of things on that thread, but I still suspect that John the elder and Paul were ideological opponents (not that they necessarily ever met). The evidence is hardly a slam dunk. But there are things to consider.

If I am correct and John the elder did not like Paul, then it would not be surprising if his self-proclaimed protégé Papias dismissed Paul out of hand, too. (There is a possible Papian reference to Paul as "the apostle" in one of the fragments, but it is controversial.)

More broadly, in my recent attempt at a reconstruction for early Christian history, there are (at least) two broad streams of tradition which flow together eventually: (A) a mythicist tradition exemplified (but not remotely exhausted) by Paul and (B) an historicist tradition exemplified by the gospels. The only real overlap between Paul's mythical divine servant Jesus/Yehoshua and the gospels' Galilean preacher Jesus is their name and the manner of their death. But, based on this central coincidence, the various factions within these broad streams adopt the other stream's precepts gradually and unevenly, leading to much Christological confusion, among other things. In this scenario, Papias and Justin would both hail from the historicist side of things, but after that stream has already adopted a lot of the concepts from the mythicist stream. John the elder would represent the city of Ephesus, which had a mythicist Jesus before Paul arrived and was gradually grafting historicist elements onto him until we get the gospel of John. Paul's view of idols and other legal matters deeply offended "the elders" of Ephesus, who basically attempted to blot out his memory. Papias, from nearby Hierapolis, would be part of this trend.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

I rather think "his" means Jesus: Trypho CVI "And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder;" http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html
The Greek needs to be checked for possible clarification.

It is not impossible in the Greek, but the nearest antecedent for the pronoun is Peter, not Jesus. In Greek, as in English, an author can skip the most immediate antecedent in favor of a more distant one sometimes; it is not great form, but it does happen.

Yes, but the next "he" (in "he changed the name") should refer to Peter if the "him" also refers to Peter. However, it is not the case: that "he" refers to Christ.
Actually, all over Trypho CVI, all "he", "his" and "him" refer to Christ.

Cordially, Bernard

[John2]

Thanks, Ben. Lots to think about. (I also added an edit to my post above regarding the dating of Polycarp and Papias.)

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

I rather think "his" means Jesus: Trypho CVI "And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder;" http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html
The Greek needs to be checked for possible clarification.

It is not impossible in the Greek, but the nearest antecedent for the pronoun is Peter, not Jesus. In Greek, as in English, an author can skip the most immediate antecedent in favor of a more distant one sometimes; it is not great form, but it does happen.

Yes, but the next "he" (in "he changed the name") should refer to Peter if the "him" also refers to Peter. However, it is not the case: that "he" refers to Christ.
Actually, all over Trypho CVI, all "he", "his" and "him" refer to Christ.

Like I said, your view is possible. Why, in your view, is this the only time the memoirs are said to belong to Jesus? Why is it Peter in one case, the apostles in another, and their followers in the latter, as well?