Did Justin Martyr use Pauline epistles?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
bcedaifu
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:40 am

Re: Did Justin Martyr use Pauline epistles?

Post by bcedaifu » Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:39 pm

ficino wrote:Anyway, I had started out thinking that Justin showed no knowledge of Paul and that this fact argued against an early date of the Pauline corpus, or of some of it. Now I don't think such an argument can stand. I'm ready to be shown wrong, though.
Hi again, ficino.
Thank you, once more, for this excellent thread. Unlike you, I commenced this inquiry with a strong bias, opposing the notion that Paul preceded the Gospels. Unlike you, ficino, after all this inquiry, I am more convinced than ever, that aa5874 is right, and spin is wrong. In my opinion, after reading (finally!!) the text in Greek, I believe that Paul had read Justin Martyr, and changed the latter's text, to conform both to John's gospel, which mentions Abraham, not Moses, and the LXX, with “all”.

I was wrong to have relied on the English version, of Roberts and Donaldson. Spin has always insisted on reading the text in the original language, and he was right again. The English version of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho 95.1, but not the Greek version, conforms to the Greek version of LXX Deuteronomy 27:26, as you have illustrated, above. Thank you. Yes, you were correct, ficino, both Paul, and LXX have “all”, while Justin Martyr's Greek version (but not the English translation) preserves the original Hebrew version, which lacks “all”. Thanks for correcting my blunder.
From skeptik http://www.textexcavation.com/skeptiktexts.html
Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 95.1 (initial part)
Καὶ γὰρ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων εὑρεθήσεται ὑπὸ κατάραν ὂν κατὰ τὸν νόμον Μωυσέως· Ἐπικατάρατος γὰρ εἴρηται πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει ἐν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά.
As you pointed out ficino, contrary to my claim, Paul is not citing Abraham as an authority for the twelve “torah” of Deuteronomy 27. Paul identifies Abraham as the chap who received the pledge from God directly, (Galatians 3:7) regarding his grandsons, who went on to create the twelve tribes. In Galatians 3:10, Paul writes γέγραπται, referring, as he makes clear in the next phrase, to the twelve laws elaborated in Deuteronomy 27.

As we contemplate the significance, if any, of these two texts (Paul vs. Justin) the question arises, why Paul refers to Abraham, rather than Moses, to serve as introduction to these twelve νόμον? What of the converse? Does it make any sense at all, for Justin Martyr, writing 95.1, to insert “νόμον Μωυσέως”, preceding the quote from Deuteronomy? Sure. Moses is the presumptive author of Deuteronomy. Why are these two figures Moses or Abraham, introduced immediately before these dozen νόμον, enumerated in Deuteronomy 27? Why doesn't Paul cite Moses?

Could we insert Ἀβραάμ into Justin Martyr's text, replacing Μωυσέως without changing the meaning of Justin's text? Could we substitute Moses for Abraham in Paul's text, without changing Paul's meaning? Can we use these two names to distinguish sequence?

In my opinion, it is no problem to write Abraham, instead of Moses, in Justin Martyr's text, but impossible to substitute Moses for Abraham, in Paul's text, since the twelve tribes arise from the DNA of Abraham, not Moses. I find that ability, to modify Justin's text without destroying the meaning, to indicate priority. Why does Paul ramble on and on, about Abraham, in these three verses of Galatians 7,8, and 9? Justin Martyr is concise. Why is Paul so verbose?

I believe that Paul recognized that God (aka Jesus), not Moses, was not the author of these 12 νόμον , and embarrassed, Paul wrote Galatians 3 to correct the errors found in Justin Martyr's presentation. Paul inserted “all”, to correct that other “mistake” in Justin Martyr's text—which had been based upon the corrupt, old, obsolete, depasse Hebrew version of Deuteronomy, instead of the more contemporary, modern, state of the art, authorized version, the Greek LXX.

Thanks once more, ficino. Excellent topic.

Bernard_Muller
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:57 am

Re: Did Justin Martyr use Pauline epistles?

Post by Bernard_Muller » Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:42 pm

Did Justin Martyr use Pauline epistles?

It appears he did, once, but indirectly, by quoting an expression from a part of gLuke already interpolated with a passage of '1 Corinthians' Last Supper.

Justin Martyr's 1 Apology LXVI
"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."

Let's compare that with:

Lk 22:17-20
"17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you.
18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.""


"do this in remembrance of me" is in both '1 Apology' and gLuke.

But it exists also in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
"23 The Lord Jesus, ... took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.""


Lk 22:19b-20 is likely a later insertion because:
a) it is lacking in Codex Bezae & some early Latin translations. And in other early manuscripts, sequence of the three clauses is changed in 22:17-20 (wine, bread, wine).
b) it duplicates the cup offering.
c) it suggests Jesus' atoning death ("which is poured out for you"), but this concept never appears again in gLuke/'Acts'.
d) it shares with 1 Co 11:24-25 expressions like "given for you", "do this in remembrance of me" & "This cup is the new covenant in my blood", not appearing in gMark & gMatthew's versions of the Last Supper.

Cordially, Bernard

ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Did Justin Martyr use Pauline epistles?

Post by ficino » Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:13 am

bcedaifu wrote: As you pointed out ficino, contrary to my claim, Paul is not citing Abraham as an authority for the twelve “torah” of Deuteronomy 27. Paul identifies Abraham as the chap who received the pledge from God directly, (Galatians 3:7) regarding his grandsons, who went on to create the twelve tribes. In Galatians 3:10, Paul writes γέγραπται, referring, as he makes clear in the next phrase, to the twelve laws elaborated in Deuteronomy 27.

As we contemplate the significance, if any, of these two texts (Paul vs. Justin) the question arises, why Paul refers to Abraham, rather than Moses, to serve as introduction to these twelve νόμον? What of the converse? Does it make any sense at all, for Justin Martyr, writing 95.1, to insert “νόμον Μωυσέως”, preceding the quote from Deuteronomy? Sure. Moses is the presumptive author of Deuteronomy. Why are these two figures Moses or Abraham, introduced immediately before these dozen νόμον, enumerated in Deuteronomy 27? Why doesn't Paul cite Moses?
Hi bcedaifu, funny, that old indeterminacy of texts! I think we still fall on opposite sides of the fence on these passages.

I don't see Paul referring to the twelve "torah" of Deut. 27, or to the twelve tribes mentioned in that chapter, at all. He merely quotes 27:26 (w/ variations from the LXX), which he lifts out of its context to use as a proof text for his contention that all under the law are under a curse.

I think "cite" in your question, why doesn't Paul cite Moses, can be unpacked: Paul does cite Moses in the sense that he quotes a text considered to have been written by Moses, and the Galatians know this. We don't, on the other hand, have adequate access to his intentions to know why he doesn't name Moses here, except to speculate that it wasn't necessary. He does allude to Moses indirectly when he characterizes the two covenants by bundling up Hagar/slavery/law/Mt. Sinai to contrast them to Sarah/freedom/grace/"upper Jerusalem" in his "allegory" at 4:24ff.
Could we insert Ἀβραάμ into Justin Martyr's text, replacing Μωυσέως without changing the meaning of Justin's text? Could we substitute Moses for Abraham in Paul's text, without changing Paul's meaning? Can we use these two names to distinguish sequence?

In my opinion, it is no problem to write Abraham, instead of Moses, in Justin Martyr's text, but impossible to substitute Moses for Abraham, in Paul's text, since the twelve tribes arise from the DNA of Abraham, not Moses. I find that ability, to modify Justin's text without destroying the meaning, to indicate priority. Why does Paul ramble on and on, about Abraham, in these three verses of Galatians 7,8, and 9? Justin Martyr is concise. Why is Paul so verbose?
I don't think we can insert "Abraham" instead of "Moses" at Justin, DT 95.1, where Justin speaks of the curse κατὰ τὸν νόμον Μωυσέως. There is no "Law of Abraham." As we both have discussed, here Justin quotes the same verse that Paul quotes. Justin merely adds "of Moses." Justin, too, lifts Deut. 27:26 from its context. Like Paul, he makes no reference to the twelve tribes or the twelve promises cum curses. His application of the verse is more expansive than Paul's, however, since he takes pains to say that all nations are under the curse - a point that Paul does not make explicit.

Justin doesn't neglect Abraham, however. He introduced Abraham back at DT 11.5 in a prolepsis of the "Abraham righteous before circumcision father of many nations" theme that he says he will develop later. He develops it on and off but especially at 92, as I mentioned above. There he quotes Gen. 15:6, just as Paul does back at Gal. 3:6. So I still think that Justin is expanding on the very same argument that Paul develops more concisely in Gal. 3.

For what it's worth, in quoting Gen. 15:6, Justin follows the LXX more closely than does Paul, who perhaps reverses ἐπίστευσε and Ἀβραὰμ for stylistic reasons, because he wants to lay emphasis on Abraham (?):

LXX Gen. 15:6 Καὶ ἐπίστευσεν Ἀβραμ τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην.

Justin DT 92.3 Ἐπίστευσε δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην.

Galatians 3:6 Ἀβραὰμ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην.
I believe that Paul recognized that God (aka Jesus), not Moses, was not the author of these 12 νόμον , and embarrassed, Paul wrote Galatians 3 to correct the errors found in Justin Martyr's presentation. Paul inserted “all”, to correct that other “mistake” in Justin Martyr's text—which had been based upon the corrupt, old, obsolete, depasse Hebrew version of Deuteronomy, instead of the more contemporary, modern, state of the art, authorized version, the Greek LXX.
Again, we part ways on the MSS. Justin and Paul agree in various places against the LXX in the verses we discussed above, so I don't think one can be sure that Justin was working from the Hebrew. I don't have an apparatus criticus of the Dialogue, but it looks to me as though Paul or Justin was quoting from memory or quoting freely, and the other followed along. We are left only with the discrepancy betw Paul's πᾶσιν vs. Justin's ἐν. There are various possible causes; w/o knowing the MSS., I can't hazard an opinion. I think your conclusions go too far, though.

My rough sense is that it's more likely that Justin is expanding on Paul's argument than that Paul is condensing (and correcting) Justin's. As to the prevalence of Moses in Justin's presentation of Deut. 27:26, as I said earlier, I think it's important not to overlook the fact that we have a dialogue. As with dialogues of Plato, one needs to consider the characters of the interlocutors and the dramatic setting as well as propositional content. Since Trypho is a learned Jew, Justin makes a point of quoting from the Torah and emphasizing that Moses foretells Christ in all sorts of ways.

One final note, which I can't do anything with: the apparatus of my Greek NT (Nestle) shows that Marcion omits Galatians 3:6-9. !!

Thanks once more, ficino. Excellent topic.
Likewise. I always value chances to learn more.

ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Did Justin Martyr use Pauline epistles?

Post by ficino » Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:29 am

Bernard_Muller wrote:Did Justin Martyr use Pauline epistles?

It appears he did, once, but indirectly, by quoting an expression from a part of gLuke already interpolated with a passage of '1 Corinthians' Last Supper.
Hello Bernard, thanks for this below. But first -- when you say "once," do you mean to deny that Justin parallels Paul in the Dialogue with Trypho?

Justin Martyr's 1 Apology LXVI
"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."

Let's compare that with:

Lk 22:17-20
"17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you.
18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.""


"do this in remembrance of me" is in both '1 Apology' and gLuke.

But it exists also in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
"23 The Lord Jesus, ... took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.""


Lk 22:19b-20 is likely a later insertion because:
a) it is lacking in Codex Bezae & some early Latin translations. And in other early manuscripts, sequence of the three clauses is changed in 22:17-20 (wine, bread, wine).
b) it duplicates the cup offering.
c) it suggests Jesus' atoning death ("which is poured out for you"), but this concept never appears again in gLuke/'Acts'.
d) it shares with 1 Co 11:24-25 expressions like "given for you", "do this in remembrance of me" & "This cup is the new covenant in my blood", not appearing in gMark & gMatthew's versions of the Last Supper.

Cordially, Bernard
Interesting, thanks. I note that the case is even more complicated by the fact that Justin does not include the words "given for you" re the bread. As for the words about the cup, he says nothing about the new covenant, and he says "this is my blood," not "in my blood" as we have in I Cor and the expanded gLuke. I wonder about what was said in whatever eucharistic liturgy Justin knew.

ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Did Justin Martyr use Pauline epistles?

Post by ficino » Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:48 am

There are also parallels to Paul in Justin's First Apology:

Apol. 19.4 ἀφθαρσίαν ἐνδύσασθαι, 52.3 ἐνδύσει ἀφθαρσίαν
I Cor. 15:54 ενδυσηται αφθαρσιαν

Apol. 28.3 ὥστ’ ἀναπολόγητον εἶναι τοῖς πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις παρὰ τῷ θεῷ·
Rom. 1:20 εις το ειναι αυτους αναπολογητους

Apol. 60.11 ὡς συνεῖναι οὐ σοφίᾳ ἀνθρωπείᾳ ταῦτα γεγονέναι, ἀλλὰ δυνάμει θεοῦ λέγεσθαι.
I Cor. 2:5 μη η εν σοφια ανθρωπων αλλ εν δυναμει θεου

(Sorry, too lazy to put the diacriticals in the NT quotations!)

beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Did Justin Martyr use Pauline epistles?

Post by beowulf » Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:02 am

ficino wrote:There are also parallels to Paul in Justin's First Apology:

Apol. 19.4 ἀφθαρσίαν ἐνδύσασθαι, 52.3 ἐνδύσει ἀφθαρσίαν
I Cor. 15:54 ενδυσηται αφθαρσιαν

Apol. 28.3 ὥστ’ ἀναπολόγητον εἶναι τοῖς πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις παρὰ τῷ θεῷ·
Rom. 1:20 εις το ειναι αυτους αναπολογητους

Apol. 60.11 ὡς συνεῖναι οὐ σοφίᾳ ἀνθρωπείᾳ ταῦτα γεγονέναι, ἀλλὰ δυνάμει θεοῦ λέγεσθαι.
I Cor. 2:5 μη η εν σοφια ανθρωπων αλλ εν δυναμει θεου

(Sorry, too lazy to put the diacriticals in the NT quotations!)
Good work, ficino :)

ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Did Justin Martyr use Pauline epistles?

Post by ficino » Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:05 am

Thanks, Beowulf. I didn't hunt down these parallels myself, though! They are in the back of Krueger's edition.

OK, here are some reasons why so far I think Galatians predates Justin:

1. Paul makes no reference to the destruction of the 2nd temple. You would think it would serve his purpose in Galatians, esp. as a sign that the Presence/Glory had departed Israel. Justin, on the other hand, explicitly refers to it (DT 107).

2. The ecclesiastical situation presupposed by Galatians ill suits a mid-second century or later date. We can't imagine "judaizers" exercising any sway by that time. On the other hand, there is no hint of an episcopal structure.

3. I haven't done the study required by this third point, but it's my impression that it's more likely Justin expands Paul's argument than that Paul compresses (and corrects?) Justin's. If text A holds together as a unified discourse w/ logical connections of thought and makes n points, and text B contains many of n points, sometimes w/ almost identical wording, interspersed among a lot of other material of the same vein, I would think B expands A rather than A compresses B. This is not the same phenomenon as epitomization. It is rather like what spin pointed out some time ago seems to occur betw the account of Nero's persecutions in Sulpicius and the so-called Testimonium Taciteum
(viewtopic.php?f=3&t=344&p=7087&hilit=tacitus#p7087)

4. As to Paul's "all" vs. Justin's "in" in their quoting Deut. 27:26, all I can add now is that Paul does not restore the LXX reading; the two words, "in all," are the LXX reading. Rather, it looks as though we have to do with variant readings, of which selections have been made; we would have to see the MS. evidence.

5. I'm aware that some people maintain that the entire Pauline corpus is a (late) 2nd century forgery. As far as Galatians goes, on the standard dating, I can see motivation for its writing. I have difficulty seeing motivation for concocting a fake issue over judaizing in the later 2nd century. The latter hypothesis seems to me to require too many auxiliary and speculative assumptions.

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

Stephan, I am sorry that only now do I find your reference to Oskar Skarsune's The Proof from Prophecy:

viewtopic.php?p=8398#p8398


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

Re 5. above: the "forgery" hypothesis is, I realize, old stuff to many on here, but it and its associated controversies are new to me; I don't "work on" biblical or patristic studies. A short case against the authenticity of the Pauline corpus is this by Hermann Detering (I have not seen his Falsified Paul):
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/detering.html

bcedaifu
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:40 am

ιπποκράτειο προσωπείο

Post by bcedaifu » Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:59 am

Characteristics of Καχεξία described by Hippocrates:
Hippocrates Volume VII
Loeb Classical Library 477
Epidemics 2, 4-7
Described by an Italian physician, writing (in Latin) in the latter half of the 16th century: (translation into English in mid 18th century)
“Such is that habit of face, in which, as Hippocrates, in the beginning of his prognostics, describes it, 'The nose is sharp....' ”
Prospero Alpini, “The Presages of Life and Death in Diseases: In Seven Books.”page 29.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zfs1AQ ... th&f=false
ficino wrote: There are also parallels to Paul in Justin's First Apology:

Apol. 19.4 ἀφθαρσίαν ἐνδύσασθαι, 52.3 ἐνδύσει ἀφθαρσίαν
I Cor. 15:54 ενδυσηται αφθαρσιαν
shall have put on imperishable
Apol. 28.3 ὥστ’ ἀναπολόγητον εἶναι τοῖς πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις παρὰ τῷ θεῷ·
Rom. 1:20 εις το ειναι αυτους αναπολογητους

Apol. 60.11 ὡς συνεῖναι οὐ σοφίᾳ ἀνθρωπείᾳ ταῦτα γεγονέναι, ἀλλὰ δυνάμει θεοῦ λέγεσθαι.
I Cor. 2:5 μη η εν σοφια ανθρωπων αλλ εν δυναμει θεου
Here are two English prose phrases, written by two native speakers, who lived several centuries apart. Do you imagine that we can deduce dates of authorship, or compositional priority, from them?

A.
...for his nose was as sharp as a pen ...

B.
... her face pinched and anxious, her nose sharp as a pen ...
But, these two authors were both copying Hippocrates, who offered this same description, “a sharp nose”, in his elucidation of the famous ιπποκράτειο προσωπείο

Today, we refer to such patients, nearing death, as demonstrating Καχεξία . But, the original description, was by Hippocrates.

A above, was published in 1599.
B first appeared on planet Earth in 2010.

Why did Shakespeare employ “Hippocrates' face” in describing the death of Sir John Falstaff, in Henry V act II, scene III? Was that famous description known in Elizabethan England, in English (Shakespeare read neither Latin nor Greek)?

B was authored by a physician, writing a novel “Cutting for Stone”. Did B employ A's text? Perhaps. I cannot prove that Abraham Verghese had read Hippocrates' own text, either in Greek or in English translation.

It is difficult to employ extracts, to determine degree of influence. I am unpersuaded, ficino, that these three snippets of Paul's epistles, and the corresponding text from Justin Martyr, demonstrates the relationship between these authors which you propose: Paul's writing influencing Justin.
ficino wrote: One final note, which I can't do anything with: the apparatus of my Greek NT (Nestle) shows that Marcion omits Galatians 3:6-9. !!
I would be careful to offer a claim about what Marcion wrote or did not write. Those on this forum who tout Marcion's opinion, rarely acknowledge the fact that we possess nothing by this author. 100% of what little we know about him, comes from the quill of someone else, and that someone is invariably hostile to him. Imagine having as a task, the chore of writing a description, for an encyclopedia let's say, of the life of Hitler, using only as a reference, the 02 May 1945 edition of The Stars and Stripes.

But, apart from that, what is gained, in an attempt to clarify precedence: Paul vs Justin, by introducing Marcion's non-existent texts?

How is that method of argument, ficino, different from aa5874 claiming that Paul's epistles must have followed Justin Martyr, because Justin does not cite Paul's epistles (a spurious argument in my opinion)?

I think reference to Marcion, or Clement of Alexandria, or Clement of Rome, or Irenaeus of Lugdunum (or Σμύρνα) represents derailment of the thread.

Meanwhile, back to the central question posed by this instructive, useful, and entertaining thread: did Paul's epistles influence the writing of Justin Martyr? Rephrasing the question: How do we establish the sequence of authorship of these two prominent figures in the history of earliest Christianity?

Alternatively: Is there something about the original text of both men, that suggests, to an open mind, that one author must have used the text of the other, in creating his own version?

I think we can agree, ficino, that most of the existing literature on this subject, accepts as valid, the hypothesis that Paul's epistles were written before Dialogue with Trypho, of Justin Martyr. My starting point, on the other hand, is to assume nothing about either author's date of birth. I inquire simply: Does the Greek text of both men, suggest that one author used the other author's text?
ficino wrote: Again, we part ways on the MSS. Justin and Paul agree in various places against the LXX in the verses we discussed above, so I don't think one can be sure that Justin was working from the Hebrew. I don't have an apparatus criticus of the Dialogue, but it looks to me as though Paul or Justin was quoting from memory or quoting freely, and the other followed along. We are left only with the discrepancy betw Paul's πᾶσιν vs. Justin's ἐν. There are various possible causes; w/o knowing the MSS., I can't hazard an opinion. I think your conclusions go too far, though.
I will not hazard a guess as to the importance of omitting πᾶσιν, but some famous Englishman, Tyndall, perhaps, wrote some kind of analysis of the omission's significance. πᾶσιν is absent from none of the extant copies of LXX, but is missing from the Masoretic text.

http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B05C027.htm#V26
Cursed be he who doesn`t confirm the words of this law to do them.
King James Version:
Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.

That Justin chose to present the Hebrew version of Deuteronomy, rather than that of the LXX, suggests to me, that “Dialogue with Trypho”, uses materials which Trypho himself would have offered in rebuttal. Both Paul, in Galatians, and Justin, in Dialogue, are engaged in argument against Judaism. Trypho knows that God promised, that Abraham's grandchildren, would become fathers of the twelve tribes. If Justin had indeed possessed a copy of Galatians in front of him, why would he ignore Paul's elaborate introduction of Deuteronomy 27:26, replacing Paul's long harangue about Abraham, with a much shorter preface: “Moses' laws”? Would not the faith of Abraham serve as an equally appropriate introduction to Justin's quote from Deuteronomy? Why would Justin omit this important homage to Abraham, introducing the importance of faith, as Paul has done in Galatians?

In other words, is it not the obligation, of those who would claim that Justin Martyr relied upon Paul's epistles, to explain those sections of Paul's epistle, of especial significance to the debate of Judaism vs. Christianity, which have been omitted by Justin? To me, it is much simpler to acknowledge the difference, (omission in “Dialogue with Trypho”, of concepts of crucial importance to the argument found in Paul's text), and attribute that distinction to a temporal disparity between creation of Dialogue, and the subsequent authorship of Galatians. Justin omitted this crucial component of Galatians, because he didn't have it. Justin didn't have it, because Paul had not yet written it.

Putting the shoe on the other foot, had Paul possessed a copy of “Dialogue with Trypho”, in front of him, as he composed Galatians, would he not have felt obliged to correct Justin's “errors”, those incompatibilities with LXX and John? Paul is not engaged in a salesman's pitch to Trypho, a Jewish intellectual. Paul seeks to stop the leaks in his boat. The Galatians are running away from his church. They lack faith. They know all about Moses' laws. They need to be reminded of Abraham's faith. The “foolish” Galatians, enchanted by “laws” and “rules”, need to listen or read, more, about faith, and less about doctrine. So, Paul does not mention Moses, the law giver, instead focuses attention on Abraham, the ultimate authority on faith.
ficino wrote: My rough sense is that it's more likely that Justin is expanding on Paul's argument than that Paul is condensing (and correcting) Justin's. As to the prevalence of Moses in Justin's presentation of Deut. 27:26, as I said earlier, I think it's important not to overlook the fact that we have a dialogue. As with dialogues of Plato, one needs to consider the characters of the interlocutors and the dramatic setting as well as propositional content. Since Trypho is a learned Jew, Justin makes a point of quoting from the Torah and emphasizing that Moses foretells Christ in all sorts of ways.
Ἱπποκράτης wrote: Walking is man's best medicine

ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: ιπποκράτειο προσωπείο

Post by ficino » Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:13 am

bcedaifu wrote:Characteristics of Καχεξία described by Hippocrates:


I will not hazard a guess as to the importance of omitting πᾶσιν, but some famous Englishman, Tyndall, perhaps, wrote some kind of analysis of the omission's significance. πᾶσιν is absent from none of the extant copies of LXX, but is missing from the Masoretic text.

http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B05C027.htm#V26
Cursed be he who doesn`t confirm the words of this law to do them.
King James Version:
Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.

That Justin chose to present the Hebrew version of Deuteronomy, rather than that of the LXX, suggests to me, that “Dialogue with Trypho”, uses materials which Trypho himself would have offered in rebuttal.
Hi bcedaifu, I appreciate very much the time and thought you've put into this thread. Like you, I'm surprised that more haven't joined in. Maybe this is old material to a lot of folks on here.

Of the three Greek versions of Deut. 27:26 that we've been discussing, Paul and Justin stand in a group against the LXX:

LXX Deut. 27:26 Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ἄνθρωπος, ὃς οὐκ ἐμμενεῖ ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς
λόγοις τοῦ νόμου τούτου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτούς·

Gal. 3:9-10 Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει
πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ
ποιῆσαι αὐτά.

Justin DT 95.1 ... Ἐπικατάρατος γὰρ εἴρηται πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει ἐν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ
τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά.

Readings I consider significant:

ἄνθρωπος habet L: om. PJ; λόγοις L: γεγραμμένοις PJ; ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ om. L: habent PJ; τούτου habet L: om. PJ; αὐτούς L: αὐτά PJ.

then there's this: ἐν πᾶσιν L: πᾶσιν P: ἐν J.

If we could exclude writers' intentions, we could postulate that PJ were copied independently from some third source, which was not the LXX. Since we don't know what pieces of the LXX or of the Hebrew may have stuck in either writer's mind, however, and since ἐμμένει can be construed in Greek with or without repeating ἐν, I'm not prepared to draw any conclusion from the two men's variants on ἐν πᾶσιν. I don't think your "Justin chose to present the Hebrew version" can be asserted de dicto; we don't know that Justin intended to follow the Hebrew as such. So I abstain from drawing conclusions from about chronological priority from P's and J's handling of the phrase.

Both Paul, in Galatians, and Justin, in Dialogue, are engaged in argument against Judaism. Trypho knows that God promised, that Abraham's grandchildren, would become fathers of the twelve tribes. If Justin had indeed possessed a copy of Galatians in front of him, why would he ignore Paul's elaborate introduction of Deuteronomy 27:26, replacing Paul's long harangue about Abraham, with a much shorter preface: “Moses' laws”? Would not the faith of Abraham serve as an equally appropriate introduction to Justin's quote from Deuteronomy? Why would Justin omit this important homage to Abraham, introducing the importance of faith, as Paul has done in Galatians?

In other words, is it not the obligation, of those who would claim that Justin Martyr relied upon Paul's epistles, to explain those sections of Paul's epistle, of especial significance to the debate of Judaism vs. Christianity, which have been omitted by Justin? To me, it is much simpler to acknowledge the difference, (omission in “Dialogue with Trypho”, of concepts of crucial importance to the argument found in Paul's text), and attribute that distinction to a temporal disparity between creation of Dialogue, and the subsequent authorship of Galatians. Justin omitted this crucial component of Galatians, because he didn't have it. Justin didn't have it, because Paul had not yet written it.

Putting the shoe on the other foot, had Paul possessed a copy of “Dialogue with Trypho”, in front of him, as he composed Galatians, would he not have felt obliged to correct Justin's “errors”, those incompatibilities with LXX and John? Paul is not engaged in a salesman's pitch to Trypho, a Jewish intellectual. Paul seeks to stop the leaks in his boat. The Galatians are running away from his church. They lack faith. They know all about Moses' laws. They need to be reminded of Abraham's faith. The “foolish” Galatians, enchanted by “laws” and “rules”, need to listen or read, more, about faith, and less about doctrine. So, Paul does not mention Moses, the law giver, instead focuses attention on Abraham, the ultimate authority on faith.
I see the above as possible but not as compelling, since Justin does go into the Abraham argument in 92. So he's not ignoring the earlier part of Gal. 3.

Spinning off my five reasons for inclining toward Pauline priority, I find it hard to wrap my mind around a postulated scenario in which some person or persons invents the entire Pauline corpus in the mid or late 2nd century, unless there was a real Paul who lived then and who had visions etc. But even if there was, the writer speaks of meeting the brother of Jesus. We would get into the position of having to postulate a fake Jesus who was supposed to have been on earth in the second century, no? Starts to get very unwieldy.

We all know there are lots of pseudonymous epistles and other writings in antiquity. Part of the logic of pseudepigraphica, though, is ascription of the text to a famous earlier person. I don't know of cases where the purported author himself was invented out of whole cloth, but there may be some.

I also don't know of ecclesiastical situations at which the six or seven supposedly authentic Paulines would be aimed in the second century. From the little I've read this AM of Detering, he suggests they are Marcionite productions directed toward issues in that movement. I can't evaluate that suggestion. As you say, since we don't have direct access to Marcion's writings, this all gets speculative quickly.

I can't advance the ball any further at this point. Please do express further arguments or thoughts that you may have.

Cheers, F

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Did Justin Martyr use Pauline epistles?

Post by neilgodfrey » Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:20 pm

Roger Parvus argues that Paul was in fact the same as Simon "Magus" - not unlike Hermann Detering and Robert Price, but I think Roger's particular argument actually explains more and raises fewer unanswered questions than Robert Price's case -- and that Justin must have known of the letters but saw no reason to discuss anything more about Simon than his brief condemnation and dismissal of him.

Roger is currently posting a series on this argument on Vridar and includes a dissection of Paul's letters. The series is indexed at http://vridar.org/other-authors/roger-p ... istianity/ In the first of these posts Roger does respond to a query about Justin's knowledge of Paul.

Some key points: Simon was known as Simon Megas (the Great One) and the "Magus" (Magician) label was assigned to him as a mocking pun by his critics. Paulus (The Small One) was an appropriate alternative to his more well-known identity. The letters of Paul are characterized by regular zig-zags: a teaching of Simon Magus is expressed only to be countered by a contrary teaching, a proto-orthodox rebuttal and "explanation". Hence the often contradictory nature of Paul's letters.

The letters of Simon were thus co-opted by the proto-orthodox. Justin does indeed contain several allusions to passages in those letters but it's a long time since I've read these and I would be interested in investigating if they coincide with what Winsome Munro identifies as the pastoral stratum that is found woven through them.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Post Reply