Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 1:30 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:58 pm The answer to our question is, then, apparent: this particular expanded form of the reference to the memoirs here, calls our attention to the fact that what is quoted isn't found in every version of those memoirs. And if we went looking for them only in the memoirs of the apostles, such as Peter, we wouldn't find this line. Justin wants to be accurate and, once saying that it is found in the memoirs of the apostles (a repeated phrase), catches himself and adds that one must consider the memoirs of the followers of the apostles too. So much is obvious about the Gospel of Luke from its preface (Luke 1:1-4). As the author of Luke is conscious of the fact that he is not an apostle, yet is trying to write a text like those that have been attributed to apostles, so is Justin also aware of this. This attenuates the implicit argument that his gospels are superior because they are, more specifically, the reminiscences of the apostles, not just any (anonymous) gospel. But because Justin still wants to make use of this text and its wonderful proof against the docetists, Justin makes sure that his definition of the memoirs is expanded to include the Gospel of Luke.

GIven all this -- and given the evident distaste Justin has both for Marcion and for using the name "Gospel" for these texts, as Marcion did -- it becomes clear to me that Justin already wants to distance himself from the Marcionite text, making use of other Gospels: specifically, the memoirs of the apostles and those who followed them, including the Gospel of Luke.

Finally, if it is true that Justin is implicitly distinguishing between the memoir-gospels that are read on Sunday and the unaccepted non-memoir gospels, then Marcion's text was not numbered among the memoirs, as one of the most clearly stated things about Marcion's text, one of the primary charges against it, arguing for its secondary nature (according to the heresiologists), is its total anonymity.
This is well reasoned, Peter. I think it may also help us with understanding why there are so few identifiable references to Luke in Justin, because he may have wanted to privilege the two gospels thought to be by apostles.

But I'm even more baffled by Justin's failure to name the authors of the canonical gospels if anonymity was such a problem for Marcion's Evangelion and Valentinus's gospel, particularly since, if the Evangelion did not have the prologue we find in Luke, it would not have been obvious it was a second generation work and not the work of an apostle. But were Matthew and Mark (or Peter's gospel written down by Mark) transmitted without those names attached to them? As the work of apostles, but not particular, named apostles? I have no problem with the idea that the canonical gospels originally circulated without the names we find attached to them; I just wonder how this fits with Justin and the problem of an anonymous Evangelion circulated by Marcion.
It seems possible to me that the anonymity of Marcion's (and Valentinus') Gospel(s) was not so much a genuine problem for the likes of Justin and Tertullian as it was a weapon in their hands against their opponents. (The problem of an anonymous gospel text, after all, was fixed in a heartbeat simply by adding "according to X" as a title.) Their side of the debate had taken to making sure that every authoritative gospel text they consulted bore a title naming its author (κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μᾶρκον, κατὰ Λουκᾶν, κατὰ Ἰωάννην), while other sides of the debate either did not care or perhaps even felt that the anonymity was more in keeping with the ideals of a church in which the Spirit could fall on any Eldad or Medad in the crowd. If so, then Justin repeatedly attributing his own preferred texts to "the apostles" was already enough: it was not (usually) the exact names of the apostles in question which mattered, but rather the bare fact that their authority traced itself back to the apostolic college. That their ecclesiastical opponents did not (always) engage in the same game would then become ammunition against them: "Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime in his eyes to subvert the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognized, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author" (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.2.3). The real issue here is that "promise of credibility" which Tertullian's side of the debate felt was fulfilled by an explicit tracing of the text's origins back to the apostles, if that makes sense.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Peter Kirby wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:58 pmWhy, then, mention authorship by "those who followed" here (the other specific reference), apparently in connection with the story in Luke 22:43-44? There is no gospel witness that I can find for this anywhere outside of the Gospel of Luke. What's more, it appears to be absent from the Gospel of Luke in a substantial part of the textual transmission. Although some disagree, I would view it as an early interpolation into the text of the Gospel of Luke. If the text used by Marcion preceded the Gospel of Luke -- or, at the very least, if that text wasn't based on the Gospel of Luke in its later interpolated form -- then the sequence must be from the Marcionite form, to the early Lucan form, to the interpolated Lucan form. And if it is not in the Marcionite form of the text, then it could not have been quoted here from the Marcionite form of the text. It was quoted from the Lucan form, in its interpolated state.
Possibly relevantly, in the only other instance which seems to rely upon Luke alone, in Dialogue 105.5b, Justin simply says "memorabilia," without attribution to the apostles:

Memorabilia (Ἀπομνημονεύματα)

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 33.4-5: (memorializing all things, the verb), Matthew 1.18, 21; Luke 1.31-32.
Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 66.3: (memorabilia called gospels), Matthew 26.26-27 = Mark 14.22-23 = Luke 22.19-20.
Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 67.3: (memorabilia of the apostles), "are read as long as there is time."
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 100.4: (memorabilia of His apostles), general statement "that he is the Son of God, and saying that he is the Son."
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 101.3b: (memorabilia of His apostles), Matthew 27.39-42 = Mark 15.29-31 = Luke 23.35; 1 Apology 38.7-8, "you can learn."
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 102.5: (memorabilia of His apostles), Matthew 27.13-14 = Mark 15.4-5.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 103.6a: (memorabilia of the apostles), Matthew 4.9-10 = Luke 4.7-8.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 103.8: (memorabilia by His apostles and those who followed them), Luke 22.44.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 104.1b-2: (memorabilia of His apostles), fulfillment of the prophecy of Psalm 22.15b-18.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 105.1: (memorabilia), Matthew 1.23-25; Luke 1.34.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 105.5b: (memorabilia), Luke 23.46.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 105.6: (memorabilia), Matthew 5.20.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 106.1: (memorabilia of the apostles), Matthew 26.30 = Mark 14.26.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 106.3: (his/Peter's memorabilia), Mark 3.17.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 106.4: (memorabilia of his apostles), Matthew 2.2.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 107.1: (memorabilia), Matthew 12.38-39 = Luke 11.29.

Gospel(s)

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 66.3: (memorabilia called gospels), Matthew 26.26-27 = Mark 14.22-23 = Luke 22.19-20.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 10.2: (precepts in the so called gospel, Trypho speaking).
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 100.1: (in the gospel it is written), Matthew 11.25-27 = Luke 10.21-22.

User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Ken Olson »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:11 am It seems possible to me that the anonymity of Marcion's (and Valentinus') Gospel(s) was not so much a genuine problem for the likes of Justin and Tertullian as it was a weapon in their hands against their opponents. (The problem of an anonymous gospel text, after all, was fixed in a heartbeat simply by adding "according to X" as a title.) Their side of the debate had taken to making sure that every authoritative gospel text they consulted bore a title naming its author (κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μᾶρκον, κατὰ Λουκᾶν, κατὰ Ἰωάννην), while other sides of the debate either did not care or perhaps even felt that the anonymity was more in keeping with the ideals of a church in which the Spirit could fall on any Eldad or Medad in the crowd. If so, then Justin repeatedly attributing his own preferred texts to "the apostles" was already enough: it was not (usually) the exact names of the apostles in question which mattered, but rather the bare fact that their authority traced itself back to the apostolic college. That their ecclesiastical opponents did not (always) engage in the same game would then become ammunition against them: "Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime in his eyes to subvert the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognized, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author" (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.2.3). The real issue here is that "promise of credibility" which Tertullian's side of the debate felt was fulfilled by an explicit tracing of the text's origins back to the apostles, if that makes sense.
Does Justin know the titles of at least the synoptic gospels and just not mention them because it's unnecessary? He already has enough arrow in his quiver? Tertullian (who is, of course, writing after Irenaeus) found it useful to pull out the names of the authors of the canonical gospels right before the passage you quote bringing attention to the anonymity (or lack of apostolicity?) of Marcion's gospel:
Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith, in which there is disagreement with Marcion. Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author. But we prefer to join issue on every point; nor shall we leave unnoticed what may fairly be understood to be on our side. Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process. Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master — at least as far subsequent to him as the apostle whom he followed (and that, no doubt, was Paul ) was subsequent to the others; so that, had Marcion even published his Gospel in the name of St. Paul himself, the single authority of the document, destitute of all support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith. (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.2)
I'm still not satisfied (and may never be) on why Justin doesn't name the authors of the canonical gospels if he knows them, making use of the full arsenal that Tertullian would later bring against Marcion. It seems to me that criticizing your opponent for the anonymity of his gospel ought to come at the same time or later than when you name your own.

It also seems strange to me that he wouldn't know the names of at least Mark and Matthew, which Papias knew before him - unless we date Papias later than is customary. So I still don't quite grasp what's going on with Justin.

Best,

Ken
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Secret Alias »

Not everyone was allowed to say what they knew openly. Look at the oath of Justinus in the Philosophumena and that "modern fake" 'to Theodore.'
But swear, says Justin, if you wish to know "what eye hath not seen, and ear hath not heard, and the things which have not entered into the heart;" that is, if you wish to know Him who is good above all, Him who is more exalted, (swear) that you will preserve the secrets (of the Justinian) discipline, as intended to be kept silent.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:55 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:11 am It seems possible to me that the anonymity of Marcion's (and Valentinus') Gospel(s) was not so much a genuine problem for the likes of Justin and Tertullian as it was a weapon in their hands against their opponents. (The problem of an anonymous gospel text, after all, was fixed in a heartbeat simply by adding "according to X" as a title.) Their side of the debate had taken to making sure that every authoritative gospel text they consulted bore a title naming its author (κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μᾶρκον, κατὰ Λουκᾶν, κατὰ Ἰωάννην), while other sides of the debate either did not care or perhaps even felt that the anonymity was more in keeping with the ideals of a church in which the Spirit could fall on any Eldad or Medad in the crowd. If so, then Justin repeatedly attributing his own preferred texts to "the apostles" was already enough: it was not (usually) the exact names of the apostles in question which mattered, but rather the bare fact that their authority traced itself back to the apostolic college. That their ecclesiastical opponents did not (always) engage in the same game would then become ammunition against them: "Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime in his eyes to subvert the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognized, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author" (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.2.3). The real issue here is that "promise of credibility" which Tertullian's side of the debate felt was fulfilled by an explicit tracing of the text's origins back to the apostles, if that makes sense.
Does Justin know the titles of at least the synoptic gospels and just not mention them because it's unnecessary? He already has enough arrows in his quiver? Tertullian (who is, of course, writing after Irenaeus) found it useful to pull out the names of the authors of the canonical gospels right before the passage you quote bringing attention to the anonymity (or lack of apostolicity?) of Marcion's gospel....
To be fair, none of Justin's extant works (neither of the two Apologies, nor the Dialogue) is aimed at Marcion in the same way that Tertullian's Against Marcion is. We unfortunately lack the very work of Justin's, the Syntagma (if that is the book Irenaeus is referring to), which would have been most parallel to Against Marcion in its intent.

Tertullian refers to Christian writings in his own apology, To the Nations, even less often than Justin does in his two of that genre. As for the Dialogue, well, there is nothing quite like it written by Tertullian, I think; nevertheless, its references to the Memorabilia of the Apostles are limited almost entirely to Justin's interpretation of Psalm 22, for which he needs eyewitness testimony (from the apostles) that the particulars of the Psalm were fulfilled by Jesus in his passion. In that context how sure are we that the names of the apostles would much matter? Justin is not comparing one gospel text (Marcion's) to a set of other gospel texts; rather, he is comparing a prophetic prediction (in Psalm 22) to what he considers to be a recorded historical outcome (in his gospels, AKA memorabilia).

In fact, by attributing his texts of choice to the apostles as a group, he can kind of sidestep the issue, if one of those texts was attributed to Luke (and one of the main points of this thread was to query whether this is so), of Luke not having been a direct follower of Jesus.
I'm still not satisfied (and may never be) on why Justin doesn't name the authors of the canonical gospels if he knows them, making use of the full arsenal that Tertullian would later bring against Marcion.
I am not going to pretend in any way that I have Justin all figured out. Not by a long shot.
It seems to me that criticizing your opponent for the anonymity of his gospel ought to come at the same time or later than when you name your own.
I agree, and in Tertullian's case that is what we have: both a set of names for his own texts and an accusation of anonymity for that of his opponent. But it is not as if we have in Justin's case only one of these without the other; in fact, we have neither. One the one hand, we find only one name attached to one of the texts: that of Peter. On the other hand, however, we also lack the text in which Justin would have had his fairest chance to criticize Marcion's anonymous gospel either for its namelessness or for its lack of authority, nor do the extant texts of his pretend to criticize Marcion on that account.

If Justin has failed to use his full quiver of arrows, perhaps it is because, in what we have of him, he is not hunting a quarry which can be taken with a bow.
It also seems strange to me that he wouldn't know the names of at least Mark and Matthew, which Papias knew before him - unless we date Papias later than is customary.
The entire relationship of Papias and Justin needs to be explored more thoroughly.
So I still don't quite grasp what's going on with Justin.
Same here, though I seem to be less bothered specifically by his lack of naming the apostles in the Dialogue and especially in the Apologies than you are. (Please understand that none of this is an attempt to smuggle in the canonical four. I honestly do not know the exact state of Justin's gospel texts, and am still exploring it. I am just not sure that his failure to name the authors actually means that much in the texts that we have extant from him. I wish we had the Syntagma or whatever he wrote against Marcion.)
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Ken Olson »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:57 am Same here, though I seem to be less bothered specifically by his lack of naming the apostles in the Dialogue and especially in the Apologies than you are. (Please understand that none of this is an attempt to smuggle in the canonical four. I honestly do not know the exact state of Justin's gospel texts, and am still exploring it. I am just not sure that his failure to name the authors actually means that much in the texts that we have extant from him. I wish we had the Syntagma or whatever he wrote against Marcion.)
When I teach NT Intro, I give the usual spiel about the gospels originally circulating anonymously and I say that we even have one writer in the early-to-mid second century, called Justin Martyr, who knows of and refers to material from the three synoptic gospels but doesn't name them, so he either doesn't know or doesn't care. Now I'm reasonably convinced by Peter's argument that Justin is differentiating between Mark and Matthew, which have apostolic origins, and Luke, which does not. This means that Justin did care and did know (a tradition if not a fact) at least something about who their authors were and that I've been teaching wrong, and I hate that ;)

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:05 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:57 am Same here, though I seem to be less bothered specifically by his lack of naming the apostles in the Dialogue and especially in the Apologies than you are. (Please understand that none of this is an attempt to smuggle in the canonical four. I honestly do not know the exact state of Justin's gospel texts, and am still exploring it. I am just not sure that his failure to name the authors actually means that much in the texts that we have extant from him. I wish we had the Syntagma or whatever he wrote against Marcion.)
When I teach NT Intro, I give the usual spiel about the gospels originally circulating anonymously and I say that we even have one writer in the early-to-mid second century, called Justin Martyr, who knows of and refers to material from the three synoptic gospels but doesn't name them, so he either doesn't know or doesn't care. Now I'm reasonably convinced by Peter's argument that Justin is differentiating between Mark and Matthew, which have apostolic origins, and Luke, which does not. This means that Justin did care and did know (a tradition if not a fact) at least something about who their authors were and that I've been teaching wrong, and I hate that ;)
Aaaahhhhhh, clarity achieved. I would hate that, too. :cheers:
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:12 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:05 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:57 am Same here, though I seem to be less bothered specifically by his lack of naming the apostles in the Dialogue and especially in the Apologies than you are. (Please understand that none of this is an attempt to smuggle in the canonical four. I honestly do not know the exact state of Justin's gospel texts, and am still exploring it. I am just not sure that his failure to name the authors actually means that much in the texts that we have extant from him. I wish we had the Syntagma or whatever he wrote against Marcion.)
When I teach NT Intro, I give the usual spiel about the gospels originally circulating anonymously and I say that we even have one writer in the early-to-mid second century, called Justin Martyr, who knows of and refers to material from the three synoptic gospels but doesn't name them, so he either doesn't know or doesn't care. Now I'm reasonably convinced by Peter's argument that Justin is differentiating between Mark and Matthew, which have apostolic origins, and Luke, which does not. This means that Justin did care and did know (a tradition if not a fact) at least something about who their authors were and that I've been teaching wrong, and I hate that ;)
Aaaahhhhhh, clarity achieved. I would hate that, too. :cheers:
For the record, I too am finding that argument to be very attractive.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:18 am
The idea that Marcion and Valentinus (and followers) were roped together as corruptors of the gospels finds an echo in Origen:

"After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus." - Origen, Against Celsus 2.27

PS - The only explanation I have of the "Lucian" reference is that it refers to Peregrinus in Lucian of Samosata:
11. “It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.
.

I would say the passage I've highlighted would be as pertinent as and perhaps even more than the references to "the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and...those of Lucian" whn it comes to looking at evidence of who 'corrupted' whom.

Also, it's the followers of Marcion and of Valentinus who Origin accuses of altering 'the Gospel', not Marcion or Valentinus.

As for that passage from Peregrinus, I think these are noteworthy:

"in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself."

and "He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world."

As the quote from A.M. Harmon says, Lucian's 'The Life of Peregrnus' is
"An account of the life and death of a Cynic philosopher who for a time in his early life went over to Christianity, practicing it to the point of imprisonment under a very tolerant administration, and after returning to Cynicism became in his old age so enamoured of Indic ideas and precedents that he cremated himself at Olympia, just after the games of A.D. 165, even as Calanus had done at Susa in the presence of Alexander the Great and as Zarmarus had done at Athens, after initiation into the mysteries, in the presence of Augustus ....

"Lucian believes himself to be exposing a sham, whose zeal was not at all for truth but only for applause and renown.

[But] "Many notable modern critics, including Zeller, Bernays, Croiset, and Wilamowitz, dissent from his interpretation, discerning in the man an earnest seeker after truth; for to them thirst for glory is not an adequate explanation of his final act.

[Yet] This point of view hardly embodies sufficient recognition of the driving force of that motive with Greeks, and particularly Greeks of the second century (Nock, Conversion, p. 201). Greek writers recognised it as a possible explanation of the behaviour of Calanus and of Zarmarus ... Certainly there are authentic features in it, like the attempt of Proteus to get back the inheritance he had previously renounced and bestowed upon his native city, which make it impossible to see in him the “earnest and steadfast man” that Aulus Gellius thought him.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/peregrinus.html
Whether, "Lucian not only knew the man [and] knew others who knew him", as Harmon says, might be debateable ... I'm increasingly seeking texts like 'The Life of Peregrnus' and Justin Martyr's as rhetoric about various philosophies: Platonism, Cynicism, Stoicism, Roman gods (such as Jupiter), Judaism, and Gnosticism; with some as-yet-unclear Christian concepts thrown in [and perhaps in part thrown in retrospectively].
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Peter Kirby »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:55 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:18 amcertain of the Christian believers
I would say the passage I've highlighted would be as pertinent as and perhaps even more than the references to "the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and...those of Lucian" whn it comes to looking at evidence of who 'corrupted' whom.

Also, it's the followers of Marcion and of Valentinus who Origin accuses of altering 'the Gospel', not Marcion or Valentinus.
You seem to be, possibly, interpreting me as saying that Origen is evidence that Marcion and Valentinus corrupted the gospels. That is not what I was saying. I was saying that Origen is evidence of a concern among other Christians, in addition to Justin, about the texts used by Marcionites and Valentinians. Origen could have mentioned other sects or teachers, but he focuses on those of Marcion and Valentinus, substantiating the idea that in the second century those loomed largest as competitors to the likes of Justin (and that their texts competed with Justin's memoir-gospels).

Origen at many other times makes it clear that Celsus regarded Marcionites as Christians. So when Celsus says that Christian believers modified the gospels, he is not excluding Marcionites. (Of course, I give no credit to Origen's claim that only those of Marcion, Valentinus, and maybe Lucian are at fault.)

The connection between Origen's Lucian and Lucian of Samosata is uncertain to me. I just haven't found any better alternative. If so, though, Origen is playing very loose with his "those of" language. It's certainly odd to describe Peregrinus this way.

While an allegation here by Origen against "those of" Marcion and Valentinus doesn't clearly include those two specifically, I wouldn't lean too heavily on an interpretation of Origen where he's excluding them either. There's obviously a parallel between "those of" language (equivalent to our words "Marcionites" and "Valentinians") and "Christians," from Celsus.
Post Reply