Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 3:02 am Since we don't know if Justin knew about an anti-marcionite "gospel" (called as such by Justin himself)
But to refer to multiple memoirs of the apostles and those who came after the apostles is (as this thread and the article from Cosgrove shows) already an anti-Marcionite strategy, and so Justin did know of such.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 3:02 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 10:59 pm Mark 1:1 refers to Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου and therefore cannot refer to the text as "gospel" but instead, if it indeed refers to the text, refers to it as "the beginning" (Ἀρχὴ),
If "Gospel" disturbed Justin for the marcionite associations, then also the "beginning of the gospel", as any expression where occurs the word, would have disturbed him.
No, the word "gospel" didn't disturb Justin because he believed in the gospel. Justin shows himself reluctant only in the regard of referring to a text as the gospel itself (while also broaching it a couple times, showing at least awareness of this reference). Justin would have no problem with referring to a text as the Ἀρχὴ of the gospel of JC because Justin believed in the gospel of JC and that it had a beginning.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon

Post by Giuseppe »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:53 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 3:02 am Since we don't know if Justin knew about an anti-marcionite "gospel" (called as such by Justin himself)
But to refer to multiple memoirs of the apostles and those who came after the apostles is (as this thread and the article from Cosgrove shows) already an anti-Marcionite strategy, and so Justin did know of such.
No doubt that Justin practiced anti-Marcionism by invoking multiple memories. Only, my point is that there was not anti-marcionism in these memories themselves, whereas in Mark, Matthew and Luke there is anti-marcionism even inside the content itself.

In order to confute me on this point above, you should bear evidence that Justin called 'gospel' the same multiple memories used by him. Only in this way I may call 'anti-marcionite' not only their use, but their content too.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:05 am Only, my point is that there was not anti-marcionism in these memories (sic) themselves
Why would you say that?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon

Post by Giuseppe »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:07 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:05 am Only, my point is that there was not anti-marcionism in these memories (sic) themselves
Why would you say that?
An example:

Justin mentions the baptism of Jesus by John.

We know with certainty that it is anti-marcionite (assuming Klinghardt and/or Vinzent is right).

But Justin mentions the fire on the river Jordan.

A detail that is missing in Mark.

Therefore this text was not Mark, nor a gospel based on Mark.

If you give me another example of an anti-marcionite episode remembered by Justin, and one that doesn't show (differently from the baptism episode) so great differences from the similar episode found in the canonical Gospels, then I can be persuaded by the your view.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:13 am the canonical Gospels
This term has a lot of baggage.

I'm not saying that Justin knew "the canonical Gospels," in those words, as such.

Justin most assuredly knew of some texts that were different (e.g. that had the fire on the Jordan).

And he did not treat any of them as canonical.

And the texts of the mid second century were still subject to revision.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon

Post by GakuseiDon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 7:26 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 5:46 pmHe writes on page 220: "... Marcion was the first, as far as can be ascertained, to promulgate a fixed written canon, and since the radical canon which he produced..."

Was Marcion's canon so radical? What was his canon? A Gospel that, apart from the first line, any Christian of the time could have read without many problems? A collection of Paul's letters that were apparently not much different to the ones we have, and again any Christian of the time could have read without many problems? Maybe the Antitheses, but not sure if that was considered part of Marcion's canon.

I don't see Marcion's canon being a problem at all. The problem was Marcion's theology.
Cosgrove's sentence here continues "... and since the radical canon which he produced was a result of the theology for which he was excommunicated from the Roman church." Cosgrove may be adhering to a school of thought according to which Marcion made amendations to the text.
Sure, but that's not what I mean. I guess I'm thinking out loud here. Marcion was supposedly a member of the early church. He has a Gospel and a collection of the letters of Paul. He hands them out and people are impressed. I'm thinking: is there anything in his Gospel and letters by Paul that would have been rejected by fellow Christians? I don't think so. I see a lot of the early texts -- 'heretical' and 'orthodox' -- as pretty much the same: Jesus doing and saying pretty much the same things in the Evangelion, Paul writing pretty much the same thing in both collections. (Of course, the lack of Jewish Scripture references in Marcion would have disturbed some Christians for whom that would have been important.)

In short, Marcion's canon would not have been radical. Any Christian could have picked it up and read through it without concerns. It's only when it came to theological interpretation -- framing the texts through the idea that the Creator of the material world was the Demiurge rather than the previously unknown Higher God -- that problems started. The texts started to become heretical only through association, rather than the contents themselves. I can see important (eventual) heretics like Marcion and Valentius joining the early church, distributing their own versions of the texts which probably receiving a good reception from their Christian audience generally, until the theological debates started.

Anyway, these are half-formed thoughts. I'm rambling now so I'll leave that there!
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8020
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon

Post by Peter Kirby »

You cut off most of what I said (and everything that was very relevant):
Peter Kirby wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 7:26 pm Cosgrove also is clearly saying that Marcion had the first "written canon," which allowed the Gospel and the Apostle to be quoted as scripture. And Cosgrove is almost certainly implying that Marcion's canon excluded the scriptures of the Hebrew Bible (or Septuagint), which Marcion made a point of contrasting to discredit with the Antitheses.

Justin's biggest objection wouldn't be what was included, but what was excluded: the Jewish scriptures. This exclusion of the Jewish scriptures followed from Marcion's theology.

And a reactionary effort would be to place an emphasis on the scriptures of the Bible, thus demoting the (multiple, human, potentially flawed) gospels back to noncanonical, nonscriptural status. This is a strategy that both Cosgrove and I see in Justin.
And quoted the first couple sentences:
GakuseiDon wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 3:54 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 7:26 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 5:46 pmHe writes on page 220: "... Marcion was the first, as far as can be ascertained, to promulgate a fixed written canon, and since the radical canon which he produced..."

Was Marcion's canon so radical? What was his canon? A Gospel that, apart from the first line, any Christian of the time could have read without many problems? A collection of Paul's letters that were apparently not much different to the ones we have, and again any Christian of the time could have read without many problems? Maybe the Antitheses, but not sure if that was considered part of Marcion's canon.

I don't see Marcion's canon being a problem at all. The problem was Marcion's theology.
Cosgrove's sentence here continues "... and since the radical canon which he produced was a result of the theology for which he was excommunicated from the Roman church." Cosgrove may be adhering to a school of thought according to which Marcion made amendations to the text.
Sure, but that's not what I mean. I guess I'm thinking out loud here. Marcion was supposedly a member of the early church. He has a Gospel and a collection of the letters of Paul. He hands them out and people are impressed. I'm thinking: is there anything in his Gospel and letters by Paul that would have been rejected by fellow Christians? I don't think so. I see a lot of the early texts -- 'heretical' and 'orthodox' -- as pretty much the same: Jesus doing and saying pretty much the same things in the Evangelion, Paul writing pretty much the same thing in both collections. (Of course, the lack of Jewish Scripture references in Marcion would have disturbed some Christians for whom that would have been important.)

In short, Marcion's canon would not have been radical. Any Christian could have picked it up and read through it without concerns. It's only when it came to theological interpretation -- framing the texts through the idea that the Creator of the material world was the Demiurge rather than the previously unknown Higher God -- that problems started. The texts started to become heretical only through association, rather than the contents themselves. I can see important (eventual) heretics like Marcion and Valentius joining the early church, distributing their own versions of the texts which probably receiving a good reception from their Christian audience generally, until the theological debates started.

Anyway, these are half-formed thoughts. I'm rambling now so I'll leave that there!
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with most of what you're saying.

I am saying that Marcion's canon was radical because it provided a substitute for the scriptures (i.e., the Jewish scriptures, also known as the only scriptures up to this point). That is its raison d'être, and that fact could not be avoided. Marcion's stink was on the idea of a Christian canon. Not necessarily on the idea of writings about Jesus or letters from an apostle (which I agree existed before Marcion and were read by others besides Marcion), but on the idea that they could be elevated to scripture. That is the issue.

Going back to your initial reply:
GakuseiDon wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 5:46 pm Marcion's texts aren't particularly radical at all. Tertullian makes a big deal over certain words being included and excluded, and we today reinforce his concerns as though Marcion had a completely different canon.
The approaches of Justin and of Tertullian are quite different, aren't they? Tertullian himself has a New Testament, a Christian canon, and he accuses Marcion of falsifying it. Justin does no such thing. Instead, Justin has the memoirs of the apostles and their followers, which are simply testimony from a human perspective about Jesus on earth that show his fulfillment of the scriptures. For Justin, there is no New Testament canon. There is no New Testament text. There are no Christian scriptures.

For Justin, the scriptures foretold Jesus. The scriptures had prophecies. The scriptures had to be read carefully. These scriptures were the law and the prophets. By reading these scriptures, Justin comes to faith in Christ. And just as Justin comes to love Christ, Justin loves the scriptures. To Justin, these scriptures are misinterpreted by the Jews and read rightly by the Christians.

Marcion discarded these scriptures, substituting the Gospel and the Apostle. This is a radical difference.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon

Post by mlinssen »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 5:26 pm For Justin, the scriptures foretold Jesus. The scriptures had prophecies. The scriptures had to be read carefully. These scriptures were the law and the prophets. By reading these scriptures, Justin comes to faith in Christ. And just as Justin comes to love Christ, Justin loves the scriptures. To Justin, these scriptures are misinterpreted by the Jews and read rightly by the Christians.

Marcion discarded these scriptures, substituting the Gospel and the Apostle. This is a radical difference.
Indeed, and the observation could be that Justin has an LXX yet not an NT - and it could well be that the LXX did get created at this point, in order to have at least something to hold in their hands. Which would mean that whatever texts were flying around at that time, none of those were theirs

I can think of the Tanakh of course, and of *Ev, possibly prime-John s well
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Justin Martyr and the Emerging Christian Canon

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:13 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:07 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:05 am Only, my point is that there was not anti-marcionism in these memories (sic) themselves
Why would you say that?
An example:

Justin mentions the baptism of Jesus by John.

We know with certainty that it is anti-marcionite (assuming Klinghardt and/or Vinzent is right).

But Justin mentions the fire on the river Jordan.

A detail that is missing in Mark.

Therefore this text was not Mark, nor a gospel based on Mark.

If you give me another example of an anti-marcionite episode remembered by Justin, and one that doesn't show (differently from the baptism episode) so great differences from the similar episode found in the canonical Gospels, then I can be persuaded by the your view.
I am with you on this one, Giuseppe. The Memoirs seems to have preceded Marcion's work, if we date Marcion's work from around 140. I cannot see how to get around Cassel's detailed case in Supernatural Religion that Justin could not have known any of our "canonical gospels" - nor any of our known "apocryphal gospels" like the Protoevangelium or Gospel of Peter.

But in relation to your point about the baptism of Jesus, Justin could have made a much stronger case for his attempt to demonstrate the pre-existence of Jesus had he known the canonical gospel words of God at Jesus' baptism: "You are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased". The Memoirs gave Justin nothing stronger than "this day have I begotten you" -- which one could imagine opponents saying doesn't make Justin's case at all.
Post Reply