Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by mlinssen »

rgprice wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 5:56 am A few comments:

#1) This seems to have gotten way off track in questions about whether Justin even knew Gospels at all. Of course Justin knew Gospels.
No, he didn't. He uses quite different words, and only once does he use the word Evangellion - in singular
#2) I am very doubtful about the supposed testimony from Papias because, as has been pointed out, I doubt very seriously that any such "Gospels" were known as having been "According to X" prior to the creation of the four Gospel collection. In their independent forms, these were not attributed to specific apostles (with the possible exception of the Gospel of John).
Papias is an invention
#3) The question of whether Justin knew the four Gospel collection or indeed the larger NT collection is valid. I have assumed that he did not since he seems to refer to works outside the collection with regularity.
He most certainly did not, Irenaeus is the first to come up with a number - and that number is four
#4) My question still stands, which is: Did anyone in Rome know of any narrative about Jesus prior to Justin?
How would you want to prove the latter?
And what would it matter?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 7:36 am
rgprice wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 5:56 am A few comments:

#1) This seems to have gotten way off track in questions about whether Justin even knew Gospels at all. Of course Justin knew Gospels.
No, he didn't. He uses quite different words, and only once does he use the word Evangellion - in singular
A strong evidence in such sense is the following:

Justin speaks of Pilate as Epitropos in Judea in the times of Tiberius Caesar.

This is the proper Greek term for procurator. The first and third of our gospels employ the term Hegemon for Pilate’s title, which is also given to Felix and to Festus, Epitropos is never used for a procurator in the New Testament. Plainly, therefore, Justin is not following our New Testament, but ordinary Greek usage, in respect of the term. An incidental point, yet worth attention; because it is
strange that, if there had been a common tradition from the first of an event under the rule of the procurator, there should not have been agreement as to the proper Greek rendering of his title.

(quoted from Edwin Johnson, Antiqua Mater)
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by mlinssen »

rgprice wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 7:34 am From Justin's Dialog with Trypho:

The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. The words are the following: 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise You. You that fear the Lord, praise Him; all you, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.' And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs. And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, 'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;' Numbers 24:17 and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

This is quite important I think for many reasons.

#1) Clearly Justin is here reading from what we call the Gospel of Mark.

#2) Justin appears here to be the first person (that we can reliably identify) to associate the Gospel of Mark with Peter.

Justin here appears to be arguing that Jesus was a "name changer" and that his pattern of changing people's names among his disciples reflects the same behavior as the figure who changed the name of Jacob to Israel.

But at any rate, what's important is that he seems to call the account he is reading from the memoirs of Peter.
Verbatim agreement with Mark doesn't preclude that this is present in Marcion. The Magi aren't in Mark, nor the star that rose - but those are in Matthew.
The text could have been a Diatessaron, it could all have been in Marcion, it could have been a collection of texts. You can't just draw the conclusions that you do based on the single cherries that you decide to pick
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by Giuseppe »

In my view, Justin didn't know Mark but he knew probably the sect who would have written Mark in Rome, shortly after Justin:

There are some... who acknowledge that He is Christ, while at the same time declaring that He was a man among men; I am not of this view.

viewtopic.php?p=106648#p106648
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:18 am
In my view, Justin didn't know Mark but he knew probably the sect who would have written Mark in Rome, shortly after Justin:

There are some... who acknowledge that He is Christ, while at the same time declaring that He was a man among men; I am not of this view.

viewtopic.php?p=106648#p106648

Why do you link to an erroneous post of yours? A known erroneous post (one you should remember and know is in error) ??!!

GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:26 am
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:28 am
I would like to find the entire quote from Justin Apology 63 (it is my only reference) where Justin would have written:

There are some... who acknowledge that He is Christ, while at the same time declaring that He was a man among men; I am not of this view.

It's actually from Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 48:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html


And Trypho said, "We have heard what you think of these matters. Resume the discourse where you left off and bring it to an end. For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this[assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish."

And I replied to this, "I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race, who are ever unwilling to understand or to perform the [requirements] of God, but [ready to perform] those of your teachers, as God Himself declares [Isaiah 29:13]. Now assuredly, Trypho," I continued,"[the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father's will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01284.htm
.

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:48 am
... Justin himself writes, following chapter 48 above, in chapter 49:


And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He [the Christ]."

Justin: "Does not Scripture, in the book of Zechariah [Malachi 4:5] say that Elijah shall come before the great and terrible day of the Lord?

"If therefore Scripture compels you to admit that two advents of Christ were predicted to take place — one in which He would appear suffering, and dishonoured, and without comeliness; but the other in which He would come glorious and Judge of all, as has been made manifest in many of the fore-cited passages — shall we not suppose that the word of God has proclaimed that Elijah shall be the precursor of the great and terrible day, that is, of His second advent?"

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01284.htm

...< . . omitted [though somewhat interesting] . . >
.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:16 pm And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He [the Christ]."

Justin: "Does not Scripture, in the book of Zechariah [Malachi 4:5] say that Elijah shall come before the great and terrible day of the Lord?

"If therefore Scripture compels you to admit that two advents of Christ were predicted to take place — one in which He would appear suffering, and dishonoured, and without comeliness; but the other in which He would come glorious and Judge of all, as has been made manifest in many of the fore-cited passages — shall we not suppose that the word of God has proclaimed that Elijah shall be the precursor of the great and terrible day, that is, of His second advent?"

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01284.htm[/box]
This is reminiscent of what I call the dance around Elijah: Matthew even bends the knee with his "if you are willing to accept it". This right here may shed some interesting light on that, but it surely attests to John B having failed to be credible as an Elijah in disguise. Which may place Sweet Just after Mark and before Matthew, or even after Matthew
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by MrMacSon »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:36 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:16 pm

And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He [the Christ]."

Justin: "Does not Scripture, in the book of Zechariah [Malachi 4:5] say that Elijah shall come before the great and terrible day of the Lord?

"If therefore Scripture compels you to admit that two advents of Christ were predicted to take place — one in which He would appear suffering, and dishonoured, and without comeliness; but the other in which He would come glorious and Judge of all, as has been made manifest in many of the fore-cited passages — shall we not suppose that the word of God has proclaimed that Elijah shall be the precursor of the great and terrible day, that is, of His second advent?"

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01284.htm

This is reminiscent of what I call the dance around Elijah: Matthew even bends the knee with his "if you are willing to accept it". This right here may shed some interesting light on that, but it surely attests to John B having failed to be credible as an Elijah in disguise. Which may place Sweet Just after Mark and before Matthew, or even after Matthew
  • Yes, good point.

    And I noted (in the last day or so) that the subsequent main part of Dialogue 49 seems to be interpolated - ie. reference to the death of John among some Elijah stuff - as if John was being elevated ie. as if there's a general and wide-spread theme of John being habilitated
eta:
MrMacSon wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 3:04 pm
That excerpt from Dial. 49 seems like a grab-bag from Matthew.*
It's in the context of Justin trying to justify Christ in the context of "the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come" when Elijah is supposed to be is the precursor of the first advent ...

* The first two passages from Matthew in the excerpt in question - Matt 3:11-2 and 14:6–11 - appear to be out-of-context
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by rgprice »

rgprice wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 7:34 am From Justin's Dialog with Trypho:

The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. The words are the following: 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise You. You that fear the Lord, praise Him; all you, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.' And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs. And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, 'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;' Numbers 24:17 and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

This is quite important I think for many reasons.

#1) Clearly Justin is here reading from what we call the Gospel of Mark.

#2) Justin appears here to be the first person (that we can reliably identify) to associate the Gospel of Mark with Peter.

Justin here appears to be arguing that Jesus was a "name changer" and that his pattern of changing people's names among his disciples reflects the same behavior as the figure who changed the name of Jacob to Israel.

But at any rate, what's important is that he seems to call the account he is reading from the memoirs of Peter.
I'm looking at this again and wonder if I read this correctly.

Does "the memoirs of him" mean the memoirs of Peter, or does it mean the memoirs about Jesus?

In other words, is Justin saying that this is recorded in memoirs written by Peter or is he simply talking about the memoirs of "the apostles" about Jesus, and thus not ascribing this writing to Peter?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8026
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by Peter Kirby »

ἀπομνημόνευτις means “recounting, summarizing, commemoration” and apparently was elsewhere used to refer to the memories of a philosopher as written down by others: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017 ... e-gospels/

So the word places a stress on the ones doing the remembering, and the phrase "memoirs of the apostles" refers to the apostles' account (and not the account about the apostles). It seems reasonable to assume that "his memoirs" likewise refers to his account (and not an account about him). On the assumption that Jesus left no account - and certainly no account of someone else? - it seems reasonable to assume that Peter's account of Jesus is meant.

However, I agree it's not 100% clear. I've puzzled over it before too.
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Did Justin introduce gospels to Rome?

Post by rgprice »

Peter Kirby wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2024 1:46 pm ἀπομνημόνευτις means “recounting, summarizing, commemoration” and apparently was elsewhere used to refer to the memories of a philosopher as written down by others: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017 ... e-gospels/

So the word places a stress on the ones doing the remembering, and the phrase "memoirs of the apostles" refers to the apostles' account (and not the account about the apostles). It seems reasonable to assume that "his memoirs" likewise refers to his account (and not an account about him). On the assumption that Jesus left no account - and certainly no account of someone else? - it seems reasonable to assume that Peter's account of Jesus is meant.

However, I agree it's not 100% clear. I've puzzled over it before too.
Hmm, this seems important. Because I was thinking that this was the source of the claim that the Gospel of Mark was associated with Peter. Maybe it still is. Does it seem possible that it is from this statement that it came to be believed that the Gospel of Mark, which is the only Gospel that talks about the renaming of John and James to Boanerges, was written by an associate of Peter?

In other words, was this statement taken to mean "Peter's memoirs"?
Post Reply