Nongbri v Hurtado

[andrewcriddle]

I repeat: the question of how Justin and others regarded the Gospel texts (what Nongbri seems to be discussing) is a different question from how accurately the texts were copied.

Andrew Criddle

[mbuckley3]

An interesting sidelight on this discussion is provided by the Acts of Timothy (arguably fourth century). It is useful not as an accurate account of the facts of the case, but as an account which an ancient author thought was a credible explanation of the materials :


"Some followers of the disciples of the Lord, not knowing how to put in order certain papyri [chartai] which were written in different languages and put together in random fashion by these disciples and which dealt with the miracles of the Lord Jesus which had taken place in their time, came to the city of Ephesus and by common consent brought them to John the renowned theologian. He examined them thoroughly and taking his cue from them, after he had put in order the three gospel narratives and entitled them Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, assigning their proper titles to the gospels, he himself theologized upon the things they had not narrated...filling up also the gaps they had left...then he set his own name to this compilation [syntagma] or gospel".

[MrMacSon]

I repeat: the question of how Justin and others regarded the Gospel texts (what Nongbri seems to be discussing) is a different question from how accurately the texts were copied.

Sure, Hurtado was, in the first Hurdao blog-post which Nongbri responded to, making a point about transmission of texts, though I don't think he did that clearly: he did it by proxy by quoting Fred Wise, finishing that blog-post with

In sum: “Thus the claims of extensive ideological redaction of the Gospels and other early Christian literature runs counter to all of the textual evidence. This lack of evidence cannot be explained away by speculations about an extensively interpolated ‘standard’ text which was imposed by orthodox leadership late in the second century, and the successful suppression of all non-interpolated copies. The Church certainly lacked the means and apparently also the will to do this.” https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2018 ... nsmission/

A few months previously, in his September 2017 post, 'Is a Paradigm Shift Now Called for?', which I cited and quoted from as a prequel (for completeness), Hurtado was also referring to copying. And he did in his reply to Nongbri's first post: ie. in Hurtado's reply titled, 'Which New Paradigm?', 7 April 2018 -

... another major problem in Larsen’s case (at least as put forth in the article) is precisely his blurring of the actions of composition, editing, “publication,” and copying texts ... The copying process should not be confused with the editing or revising of texts. And it is the copying process that is the focus of textual criticism, not the process of composition or revision of texts.

It is, I think, noteworthy that all of our earliest extant copies of the Gospels, even the fragmentary remains, are readily recognizable as such.

Nongbri wrote parts 2 and 3 in reply. In part 3, titled 'Early Christian Textual Transmission, Part 3,' Nonbri says [emphasis added]

for now I want to focus on the writings of Justin. In the quotation above, Hurtado writes that “Justin Martyr refers to all the Gospels as apomnemoneumata (1 Apology 66.3; 67.3).” Hurtado can correct me if I’m wrong, but I take it that by “all the Gospels” he means texts that closely resemble Nestle-Aland’s texts of the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and maybe even John (this is the way this language normally functions in discussions of Justin’s writings, but it could be taken in different ways).

Over the years, different studies have sought to demonstrate that Justin definitely knew all four canonical gospels (e.g. Stanton), while others have emphasized instead the handful of examples in which Justin’s quotations don’t match up well with any of the canonical gospels (e.g. Koester). But I think what Larsen’s work allows us to see is that all these studies are asking a very modern question of the ancient texts. We see notices of written sources for the words of Jesus or narratives about Jesus in early Christian writings, and we ask “Which specific text is the source of this?” We seek to associate the quotation either with one of the four canonical gospels or with some other extra-canonical, but still discreet, finished, authored text. The point that Larsen raises is that this is not how Justin and other early Christian authors characterize the gospel(s). And this isn’t an oral vs. written issue; it’s about how Justin characterizes gospel writings.

In his preserved works, Justin doesn’t mention the “Gospel According to” any author. Now, I have no reason to doubt that Justin was familiar with texts very much like what we call the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (John is trickier). But the issue Larsen’s work raises is that Justin isn’t talking about the gospel(s) in that way. Justin is not distinguishing between discreet, independent writings, with individual attributed authors (it’s the “apomnemoneumata of the apostles“), and this point is what should be catching our attention.

To put it in more imaginative terms: I could be confronted today [in 2018] with an ancient sheet of papyrus with Greek writing, recognize passages that are unique to what I know as the Gospel according to Mark, and therefore identify the manuscript (correctly, in our terms) as a copy of the Gospel According to Mark. Imagine Justin was confronted with that very same papyrus in the year 140. How would he have characterized it? A gospel? The gospel? An apomnemoneuma of the apostles? Or just the apomnemoneumata of the apostles?

https://brentnongbri.com/2018/04/09/ear ... on-part-3/

Hurtado does Nongri the courtesy of 'strongmaning' Nongri's point in his response, 'Justin Martyr and the Gospels,' 10 April 2018, -

In a response to my blog-post about early textual transmission of the Gospels, Brent Nongbri points to Justin Martyr in support of the idea that in the early 2nd century we can’t really think of the texts of [as?] the Gospels as we know them ...

and continues, addressing Nongbri's point/s -

Justin’s frequent use of the term apomnēmoneumata (15x, often translated “memoirs”) comes in for attention. Nongbri seems to doubt that we can view the term as referring to the familiar NT Gospels. Well, it’s surely important to note that Justin actually identifies the writings in question as the writings also called “gospels” (ἅ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια, 1 Apology 66.3). So, clearly, Justin knows this term as a label for certain specific texts. For him the term “gospel” is the Christian message and the tradition about Jesus, to be sure, but the term has also come to designate a certain set of texts.

Moreover, in Dialogue 103.8, Justin refers to these “memoirs” as “composed by his [Jesus’] apostles and those who accompanied them”.1 This implies that Justin not only knew certain texts as “gospels,” but also thought of them as composed/authored by specific individuals. Indeed, his reference to their authors as “apostles and those who accompanied them” suggests to many scholars that Justin has in mind here our familiar NT Gospels,2 two of which were (at a very early point) ascribed to apostles (Matthew and John), and two of which were ascribed to figures linked with apostles (Mark, linked to Peter; and Luke, linked to Paul).[2]

One might ask why Justin refers to these texts as “apomnēmoneumata,” and the obvious answer is that both of the writings in which he uses the term are posed as addressing non-Christians, for whom the term had an established and respected meaning for a genre of literature (whereas, “gospel” did not).

1 the Roberts-Donaldson translation has, "For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them," ie. a mere assertion by Justin, not an allusion to a 'source'.

2 I think Hurtado is over-reaching to say, "Justin has in mind here our familiar NT Gospels", as would be anyone who agrees with him.

After that point, I would contend, Hurtado's points get loose and scattergun-ish, eg. (a) appealing to (i) "Justin’s use of his scriptures (which became the “Old Testament”)", and (ii) Oskar Skarsaune's observation that apomnēmoneumata had an association with Xenophon’s Memoirs of Socrates; (b) saying it's "appropriate to practice textual criticism of 'these' texts," but not specifying which ones; and (c) saying " 'they' seem to have acquired 'an identity' " - which is essentially an admission the texts Justin was referring to as 'apomnemoneumata' and 'euangelia' were not or cannot be known definitively.

Nongbri responds for the last time saying Hurtado "oversimplifies and blurs the matter under discussion."

What I wrote was this:

• 'In his preserved works, Justin doesn’t mention the “Gospel According to” any author. Now, I have no reason to doubt that Justin was familiar with texts very much like what we call the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (John is trickier). But the issue Larsen’s work raises is that Justin isn’t talking about the gospel(s) in that way. Justin is not distinguishing between discreet, independent writings, with individual attributed authors (it’s the “apomnemoneumata of the apostles”), and this point is what should be catching our attention.'

To bring it back to the start of the discussion, the particular issue about the gospel(s) that Larsen raised in his essay was this: In an early second-century context, “it would be anachronistic to categorize Matthew as creating a separate piece of literature from Mark.”

When Justin refers to texts very similar to what we would call the Gospel According to Matthew and the Gospel According to Mark, he consistently uses the plural (both apomnemoneumata and euangelia) and does not distinguish individual authorship (it’s nearly always “of/by the apostles” “and their followers”).

https://brentnongbri.com/2018/04/11/jus ... e-gospels/

Nongbri then makes some points about singular and plural (and a few other things).

In both your posts on this thread you have referred to the texts that Justin Martyr was using as "the Gospels" ie. you have emphasised them as definitive articles and capitalised the first letter, 'G', inferring you regard the texts Justin referred to as apomnemoneumata and euangelia were the canonical Gospels or close to them. As Hurtado was wont to do [underlining mine] -

Moreover, Justin Martyr refers to all the Gospels as apomnemoneumata (1 Apology 66.3; 67.3), and in contexts that hardly were intended to represent the Gospels as simply “disorderly or unpolished notes.”

We have no way at present of knowing what was in those apomnemoneumata and euangelia. Attempting to reify allusions by a church Father to otherwise unknown early Christian texts as versions of NT Gospels or close to them is wishful thinking, special-pleading and over-reaching beyond present information.

In summary: (i) the overall fundamental issue in Nongri's responses, and indeed in Hurtado's subsequent responses to him, was not copying (and is not for me); (ii) we cannot know what texts Justin was 'regarding', let alone (iii) how Justin might have "regarded" them ...

I repeat: the question of how Justin and others regarded the Gospel texts (what Nongbri seems to be discussing) is a different question from how accurately the texts were copied.

[andrewcriddle]

I repeat: the question of how Justin and others regarded the Gospel texts (what Nongbri seems to be discussing) is a different question from how accurately the texts were copied.

Sure, Hurtado was, in the first Hurdao blog-post which Nongbri responded to, making a point about transmission of texts, though I don't think he did that clearly: he did it by proxy by quoting Fred Wise, finishing that blog-post with

In sum: “Thus the claims of extensive ideological redaction of the Gospels and other early Christian literature runs counter to all of the textual evidence. This lack of evidence cannot be explained away by speculations about an extensively interpolated ‘standard’ text which was imposed by orthodox leadership late in the second century, and the successful suppression of all non-interpolated copies. The Church certainly lacked the means and apparently also the will to do this.” https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2018 ... nsmission/

A few months previously, in his September 2017 post, 'Is a Paradigm Shift Now Called for?', which I cited and quoted from as a prequel (for completeness), Hurtado was also referring to copying. And he did in his reply to Nongbri's first post: ie. in Hurtado's reply titled, 'Which New Paradigm?', 7 April 2018 -

... another major problem in Larsen’s case (at least as put forth in the article) is precisely his blurring of the actions of composition, editing, “publication,” and copying texts ... The copying process should not be confused with the editing or revising of texts. And it is the copying process that is the focus of textual criticism, not the process of composition or revision of texts.

It is, I think, noteworthy that all of our earliest extant copies of the Gospels, even the fragmentary remains, are readily recognizable as such.

Nongbri wrote parts 2 and 3 in reply. In part 3, titled 'Early Christian Textual Transmission, Part 3,' Nonbri says

for now I want to focus on the writings of Justin. In the quotation above, Hurtado writes that “Justin Martyr refers to all the Gospels as apomnemoneumata (1 Apology 66.3; 67.3).” Hurtado can correct me if I’m wrong, but I take it that by “all the Gospels” he means texts that closely resemble Nestle-Aland’s texts of the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and maybe even John (this is the way this language normally functions in discussions of Justin’s writings, but it could be taken in different ways).

Over the years, different studies have sought to demonstrate that Justin definitely knew all four canonical gospels (e.g. Stanton), while others have emphasized instead the handful of examples in which Justin’s quotations don’t match up well with any of the canonical gospels (e.g. Koester). But I think what Larsen’s work allows us to see is that all these studies are asking a very modern question of the ancient texts. We see notices of written sources for the words of Jesus or narratives about Jesus in early Christian writings, and we ask “Which specific text is the source of this?” We seek to associate the quotation either with one of the four canonical gospels or with some other extra-canonical, but still discreet, finished, authored text. The point that Larsen raises is that this is not how Justin and other early Christian authors characterize the gospel(s). And this isn’t an oral vs. written issue; it’s about how Justin characterizes gospel writings.

In his preserved works, Justin doesn’t mention the “Gospel According to” any author. Now, I have no reason to doubt that Justin was familiar with texts very much like what we call the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (John is trickier). But the issue Larsen’s work raises is that Justin isn’t talking about the gospel(s) in that way. Justin is not distinguishing between discreet, independent writings, with individual attributed authors (it’s the “apomnemoneumata of the apostles“), and this point is what should be catching our attention.

To put it in more imaginative terms: I could be confronted today [in 2018] with an ancient sheet of papyrus with Greek writing, recognize passages that are unique to what I know as the Gospel according to Mark, and therefore identify the manuscript (correctly, in our terms) as a copy of the Gospel According to Mark. Imagine Justin was confronted with that very same papyrus in the year 140. How would he have characterized it? A gospel? The gospel? An apomnemoneuma of the apostles? Or just the apomnemoneumata of the apostles?

Hurtado does Nongri the courtesy of 'strongmaning' Nongri's point in his response, 'Justin Martyr and the Gospels,' 10 April 2018, -

In a response to my blog-post about early textual transmission of the Gospels, Brent Nongbri points to Justin Martyr in support of the idea that in the early 2nd century we can’t really think of the texts of [as?] the Gospels as we know them ...

and continues, addressing Nongbri's point/s -

Justin’s frequent use of the term apomnēmoneumata (15x, often translated “memoirs”) comes in for attention. Nongbri seems to doubt that we can view the term as referring to the familiar NT Gospels. Well, it’s surely important to note that Justin actually identifies the writings in question as the writings also called “gospels” (ἅ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια, 1 Apology 66.3). So, clearly, Justin knows this term as a label for certain specific texts. For him the term “gospel” is the Christian message and the tradition about Jesus, to be sure, but the term has also come to designate a certain set of texts.

Moreover, in Dialogue 103.8, Justin refers to these “memoirs” as “composed by his [Jesus’] apostles and those who accompanied them”.1 This implies that Justin not only knew certain texts as “gospels,” but also thought of them as composed/authored by specific individuals. Indeed, his reference to their authors as “apostles and those who accompanied them” suggests to many scholars that Justin has in mind here our familiar NT Gospels,2 two of which were (at a very early point) ascribed to apostles (Matthew and John), and two of which were ascribed to figures linked with apostles (Mark, linked to Peter; and Luke, linked to Paul).[2]

One might ask why Justin refers to these texts as “apomnēmoneumata,” and the obvious answer is that both of the writings in which he uses the term are posed as addressing non-Christians, for whom the term had an established and respected meaning for a genre of literature (whereas, “gospel” did not).

1 the Roberts-Donaldson translation has, "For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them," ie. a mere assertion by Justin, not an allusion to a 'source'.

2 I think Hurtado is over-reaching to say, "Justin has in mind here our familiar NT Gospels", as would be anyone who agrees with him.

After that point, I would contend, Hurtado's points get too loose andscattergun-ish, appealing to "Justin’s use of his scriptures (which became the “Old Testament”)"; Oskar Skarsaune's observation that apomnēmoneumata had an association with Xenophon’s Memoirs of Socrates; saying it's "appropriate to practice textual criticism of 'these' texts," but not specifying which ones; saying " 'they' seem to have acquired 'an identity' " - which is essentially an admission the tests Justin was referring to as 'apomnemoneumata' and 'euangelia' were not or can not be known definitively.

Nongbri responds for the last time saying Hurtado "oversimplifies and blurs the matter under discussion."

.
What I wrote was this:

• 'In his preserved works, Justin doesn’t mention the “Gospel According to” any author. Now, I have no reason to doubt that Justin was familiar with texts very much like what we call the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (John is trickier). But the issue Larsen’s work raises is that Justin isn’t talking about the gospel(s) in that way. Justin is not distinguishing between discreet, independent writings, with individual attributed authors (it’s the “apomnemoneumata of the apostles”), and this point is what should be catching our attention.'

To bring it back to the start of the discussion, the particular issue about the gospel(s) that Larsen raised in his essay was this: In an early second-century context, “it would be anachronistic to categorize Matthew as creating a separate piece of literature from Mark.”

When Justin refers to texts very similar to what we would call the Gospel According to Matthew and the Gospel According to Mark, he consistently uses the plural (both apomnemoneumata and euangelia) and does not distinguish individual authorship (it’s nearly always “of/by the apostles” “and their followers”).

Nongbri then makes some points about singular and plural (and a few other things).

In both your posts on this thread you have referred to the texts that Justin Martyr was using as "the Gospels" ie. you have emphasised them as definitive articles and capitalised the first letter, G. Inferring you regard the texts Justin referred to as apomnemoneumata and euangelia were the canonical Gospels or close to them. As Hurtado was wont to do [underlining mine] -

Moreover, Justin Martyr refers to all the Gospels as apomnemoneumata (1 Apology 66.3; 67.3), and in contexts that hardly were intended to represent the Gospels as simply “disorderly or unpolished notes.”

We have no way at present of knowing what was in those apomnemoneumata and euangelia. Attempting to reify allusions by a church Father to otherwise unknown early Christian texts as versions of NT Gospels or close to them is wishful thinking, special-pleading and over-reaching beyond present information.

In summary: (i) the overall fundamental issue in Nongri's responses, and indeed in Hurtado's subsequent responses to him, was not copying (and is not for me); (ii) we cannot know what texts Justin was 'regarding', let alone (iii) how Justin might have "regarded" them ...

I repeat: the question of how Justin and others regarded the Gospel texts (what Nongbri seems to be discussing) is a different question from how accurately the texts were copied.

You seem to have updated this reply to me. I'll briefly reply. Nongbri agrees Justin was familiar with texts very much like what we call the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke ; what he is arguing IIUC is that it is misleading to claim that Justin knew the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke because this implies that Justin recognised canonical authoritative Gospel texts, which is anachronistic and a misunderstanding of Justin's position.

I think Nongbri may well be right here, but he is not arguing against the existence, in Justin's time, of texts very similar to the Synoptics as we know them.

Andrew Criddle

(Sorry about the underlining I can't seem to remove it.)

Corrected now thanks mlinssen

[mlinssen]

(Sorry about the underlining I can't seem to remove it.)

Code: Select all

[u]how Justin[/b]

is your nemesis here: the underline tag starts and is ended by a bold closing tag: change the b to a u and you're a happy chappy

[MrMacSon]

You seem to have updated this reply to me.

Yes, I just removed what I thought was unnecessary emphasis ie. underling and bold but obviously did not do so completely (in light of my recent citation of the post in another thread on this forum). I also changed 'might have' to "might have".

I have since

1. removed to codes I didn't remove completely eg. {u} [where { and } = [ & ], hence underlining persisted in your comment; and
2. added a space where there wasn't but should have been.

I'm about to also to do some minor grammatical, spelling and 'case' edits of some of my prose in that post (eg. correct 'tests' to texts; add (a), (b) and (i) and (ii) to some points in a paragraph).

I'll briefly reply. Nongbri agrees Justin was familiar with texts very much like what we call the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke ; what he is arguing IIUC is that it is misleading to claim that Justin knew the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke because this implies that Justin recognised canonical authoritative Gospel texts, which is anachronistic and a misunderstanding of Justin's position.

I think Nongbri may well be right here, but he is not arguing against the existence, in Justin's time, of texts very similar to the Synoptics as we know them.

Sure, Nongbri "is not arguing against the existence, in Justin's time, of texts very similar to the Synoptics as we know them,".

He says at one point [bold and underlining mine]

In his preserved works, Justin doesn’t mention the “Gospel According to” any author. Now, I have no reason to doubt that Justin was familiar with texts very much like what we call the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (John is trickier). But the issue Larsen’s work raises is that Justin isn’t talking about the gospel(s) in that way. Justin is not distinguishing between discreet, independent writings, with individual attributed authors (it’s the “apomnemoneumata of the apostles“), and this point is what should be catching our attention. https://brentnongbri.com/2018/04/09/ear ... on-part-3/

and he reiterates that in a later blog-post: https://brentnongbri.com/2018/04/11/jus ... e-gospels/

It's interesting that scholarship on this goes back to Cassels in the the mid-late 19th century, at least, -

Cassels in the second part of his Supernatural Religion pretty well nails the case for our canonical gospels not appearing on the scene until the mid-second century -- after Justin.

- but seems to have been either forgotten or overlooked.

Neil goes on to say [italics added]

Interestingly, Justin uses a reading known in Marcion's gospel and used by "heretics" generally to prove that Jesus introduced for the first time in human history knowledge of the Father (1 Apology 63:3, 13 -- but see Bellinzonl's work on Justin's text ... But Justin at no point indicates any knowledge of a Marcionite gospel so the possibility is open that the reading existed in "the Gospel" (of Hebrews?), singular, more widely known until our canonical works.

We're in interesting times as far as investigating key texts such as Justin Martyr's and others, and their relationships to each other.

eta: another subsequent interesting comment-post by Neil viewtopic.php?p=136822#p136822