Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.
Posted: 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.Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 1:30 amThis 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.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.
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.