Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 3:44 am
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 10:52 pmI cannot see how to get around Cassel's detailed case in
Supernatural Religion that Justin could not have known any of our "canonical gospels" -
thank you for referring about Cassel. He concludes his long chapter on Justin so (p. 428):
It is not necessary, however, for the purposes of this examination to dwell more fully upon the question as to what specific Gospel now no longer extant Justin employed. We have shown that there is no evidence that he made use of any of our Gospels, and he cannot, therefore, be cited even to prove their existence, and much less to attest the authenticity and character of records whose authors he does not once name. On the other hand it has been made evident that there were other Gospels, now lost but which then enjoyed the highest consideration, from which his quotations might have been, and probably were, taken. We have seen that Justin’s Memoirs of the Apostles contained many facts of Gospel history unknown to, or contradictory of, our Gospels, which were contained in apocryphal works and in the Gospel according to the Hebrews; that they contained matter otherwise contradictory to our Gospels, and sayings of Jesus not contained in them; and that his quotations, although so numerous, systematically vary from similar passages in our Gospels. No theory of quotation from memory can account for these phenomena, and the reasonable conclusion is that Justin did not make use of our Gospels, but quoted from another source. In no case can the testimony of Justin afford the requisite support to the Gospels as records of miracles and of a Divine Revelation
(my bold)
That's from Volume I (of III): from Chapter III, 'Justin Martyr,' in Part II (Part I [of Vol. I] also has a Chapter III):
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37231/3 ... nk2HCH0009
https://archive.org/details/supernatura ... es/284.png
Chapter III, 'Justin Martyr,' is long. It starts:
We shall now consider the evidence furnished by the works of Justin Martyr, regarding the existence of our synoptic Gospels at the middle of the second century, and we may remark, in anticipation, that whatever differences of opinion may finally exist regarding the solution of the problem which we have to examine, at least it is clear that the testimony of Justin Martyr is not of a nature to establish the date, authenticity, and character of Gospels professing to communicate such momentous and astounding doctrines. The determination of the source from which Justin derived his facts of Christian history has for a century attracted more attention, and excited more controversy, than almost any other similar question in connection with patristic literature, and upon none have more divergent opinions been expressed.
... It is not necessary to enter into any discussion as to the authenticity of the writings which have come down to us bearing Justin's name, many of which are undoubtedly spurious, for the two Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho, with which we have almost exclusively to do, are generally admitted to be genuine. It is true that there has been a singular controversy regarding the precise relation to each other of the two Apologies now extant, the following contradictory views having been maintained: that they are the two Apologies mentioned by Eusebius, and in their original order; that they are Justin's two Apologies, but that Eusebius was wrong in affirming that the second was addressed to Marcus Aurelius; that our second Apology was the preface or appendix to the first, and that the original second is lost. The shorter Apology contains nothing of interest connected with our inquiry.
There has been much controversy as to the date of the two Apologies, and much difference of opinion still exists on the point. Many critics assign the larger to about a.d. 138—140, and the shorter to a.d. 160—161.(2) A passage, however, occurs in the longer Apology, which indicates that it must have been written about a century and a half after the commencement of the Christian era, or, according to accurate reckoning, about a.d. 147. Justin speaks, in one part of it, of perverted deductions being drawn from his teaching "that Christ was born 150 years ago under Cyrenius" [ 1 Apol i. 46]. Those who contend for the earlier date have no stronger argument against this statement than the unsupported assertion, that in this passage Justin merely speaks "in round numbers," but many important circumstances confirm the date which Justin thus gives us. In the superscription of the Apology, Antoninus is called "Pius," a title which was first bestowed upon him in the year 139. Moreover, Justin directly refers to Marcion, as a man "now living and teaching his disciples...and who has by the aid of demons caused many of all nations to utter blasphemies," &c [ 2 Apol i. 46]. Now the fact has been established that Marcion did not come to Rome, where Justin himself was, until a.d. 139—142, when his prominent public career commenced, and it is apparent that the words of Justin indicate a period when his doctrines had already become widely diffused. For these and many other strong reasons, which need not here be detailed, the majority of competent critics agree in more correctly assigning the First Apology to about a.d. 147. The Dialogue with Trypho, as internal evidence shows, was written after the longer Apology, and it is therefore generally dated some time within the first decade of the second half of the second century.
In these writings Justin quotes very copiously from the Old Testament, and he also very frequently refers to facts of Christian history and to sayings of Jesus. Of these references, for instance, some fifty occur in the first Apology, and upwards of seventy in the Dialogue with Trypho, a goodly number, it will be admitted, by means of which to identify the source from which he quotes. Justin himself frequently and distinctly says that his information and quotations are derived from the "Memoirs of the Apostles" (άπομνημονεύματα των άποστόλων), but except upon one occasion, which we shall hereafter consider, when he indicates Peter, he never mentions an author's name.
Upon examination it is found that, with only one or two brief exceptions, the numerous quotations from these Memoirs differ more or less widely from parallel passages in our synoptic Gospels, and in many cases differ in the same respects as similar quotations found in other writings of the second century, the writers of which are known to have made use of uncanonical Gospels, and further, that these passages are quoted several times, at intervals, by Justin with the same variations. Moreover, sayings of Jesus are quoted from these Memoirs which are not found in our Gospels at all, and facts in the life of Jesus and circumstances of Christian history derived from the same source, not only are not found in our Gospels, but are in contradiction with them.
These peculiarities have, as might have been expected, created much diversity of opinion regarding the nature of the "Memoirs of the Apostles." In the earlier days of New Testament criticism more especially, many of course at once identified the Memoirs with our Gospels exclusively, and the variations were explained by conveniently elastic theories of free quotation from memory, imperfect and varying MSS., combination, condensation and transposition of passages, with slight additions from tradition, or even from some other written source, and so on. Others endeavoured to explain away difficulties by the supposition that they were a simple harmony of our Gospels, or a harmony of the Gospels, with passages added from some apocryphal work. A much greater number of critics, however, adopt the conclusion that, along with our Gospels, Justin made use of one or more apocryphal Gospels, and more especially of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or according to Peter, and also perhaps of tradition.
Others assert that he made use of a special unknown Gospel, or of the Gospel according to the Hebrews or according to Peter, with a subsidiary use of a version of one or two of our Gospels to which, however, he did not attach much importance, preferring the apocryphal work; whilst others have concluded that Justin did not make use of our Gospels at all, and that his quotations are either from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or according to Peter, or from some other special apocryphal Gospel now no longer extant.
Evidence permitting of such wide diversity of results to serious and laborious investigation of the identity of Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles, cannot be of much value towards establishing the authenticity of our Gospels, and in the absence of any specific mention of our Synoptics any very elaborate examination of the Memoirs might be considered unnecessary, more especially as it is admitted almost universally by competent critics, that Justin did not himself consider the Memoirs of the Apostles inspired, or of any dogmatic authority, and had no idea of attributing canonical rank to them. In pursuance of the system which we desire invariably to adopt of enabling every reader to form his own opinion, we shall as briefly as possible state the facts of the case, and furnish materials for a full comprehension of the subject.
Justin himself, as we have already stated, frequently and distinctly states that his information regarding Christian history and his quotations are derived from the Memoirs of the Apostles (άπομνημονεύματα των άποστόλων), to adopt the usual translation, although the word might more correctly be rendered "Recollections," or "Memorabilia." It has frequently been surmised that this name was suggested by the άπομνημονεύματα Σωκράτους of Xenophon, but, as Credner has pointed out, the similarity is purely accidental, and to constitute a parallel the title should have been "Memoirs of Jesus." The word άπομνημονεύματα is here evidently used merely in the sense of records written from memory, and it is so employed by Papias in the passage preserved by Eusebius regarding Mark, who, although he had not himself followed the Lord, yet recorded his words from what he heard from Peter, and who, having done so without order, is still defended for "thus writing some things as he remembered them" (———) [H.E. iii. 39]. In the same way Irenaeus refers to the "Memoirs of a certain Presbyter of apostolic times" (άπομνημονεύματα άποστόλικον τινός πρεσβυτέρον) [H.E. v. 8] whose name he does not mention; and Origen still more closely approximates to Justin's use of the word when, expressing his theory regarding the Epistle to the Hebrews, he says that the thoughts are the Apostle's, but the phraseology and the composition are of one recording from memory what the Apostle said (άπομνημονεύσαντός τινός τά άποστόλικά), and as of one writing at leisure the dictation of his master [Eusebius H.E. vi. 25]. Justin himself speaks of the authors of the Memoirs as οί άπομνημονεύσαντες [Apol i. 33] and the expression was then and afterwards constantly in use amongst ecclesiastical and other writers.
This title, "Memoirs of the Apostles," however, although most appropriate to mere recollections of the life and teaching of Jesus, evidently could not be applied to works ranking as canonical Gospels, but in fact excludes such an idea; and the whole of Justin's views regarding Holy Scripture, prove that he saw in the Memoirs merely records from memory to assist memory. He does not call them γραφαί, but adheres always to the familiar name of άπομνημονεύματα, and whilst his constant appeals to a written source show very clearly his abandonment of oral tradition, there is nothing in the name of his records which can identify them with our Gospels.
Justin designates the source of his quotations ten times, the "Memoirs of the Apostles" [Apol. i. 67, 67 cf. i.33; Dial. 88, 100, 102, 103, 104 and twice in 106], and five times he calls it simply the "Memoirs" [Dial. 103, 105, thrice 107]. He says, upon one occasion, that these Memoirs were composed "by his Apostles and their followers" [Dial. 103], but, except in one place, to which we have already referred, and which we shall hereafter fully examine, he never mentions the author's name, nor does he ever give any more precise information regarding their composition. It has been argued that, in saying that these Memoirs were recorded by the Apostles and their followers, Justin intentionally and literally described the four canonical Gospels, the first and fourth of which are ascribed to Apostles, and the other two to Mark and Luke, the followers of Apostles; but such an inference is equally forced and unfounded. The language itself forbids this explanation, for Justin does not speak indefinitely of Memoirs of Apostles and their followers, but of Memoirs of the Apostles, invariably using the article, which refers the Memoirs to the collective body of the Apostles. Moreover, the incorrectness of such an inference is manifest from the fact that circumstances are stated by Justin as derived from these Memoirs, which do not exist in our Gospels at all, and which, indeed, are contradictory to them. Vast numbers of spurious writings, moreover, bearing the names of Apostles and their followers, and claiming more or less direct apostolic authority, were in circulation in the early Church: Gospels according to Peter, to Thomas, to James, to Judas, according to the Apostles, or according to the Twelve, to Barnabas, to Matthias, to Nicodemus, and ecclesiastical writers bear abundant testimony to the early and rapid growth of apocryphal literature. The very names of most of such apocryphal Gospels are lost, whilst of others we possess considerable information; but nothing is more certain than the fact, that there existed many works bearing names which render the attempt to interpret the title of Justin's Gospel as a description of the four in our canon quite unwarrantable. The words of Justin evidently imply simply that the source of his quotations is the collective recollections of the Apostles, and those who followed them, regarding the life and teaching of Jesus.
The title: "Memoirs of the Apostles" by no means indicates a plurality of Gospels. A single passage has been pointed out, in which the Memoirs are said to have been called εναγγελια in the plural: "For the Apostles in the Memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels," &c [Apol. i. 66]. The last expression, ά καλεΐται εναγγελια, as many scholars have declared, is probably an interpolation. It is, in all likelihood, a gloss on the margin of some old MS. which some copyist afterwards inserted in the text. If Justin really stated that the Memoirs were called Gospels, it seems incomprehensible that he should never call them so himself. In no other place in his writings does he apply the plural to them, but, on the contrary, we find Trypho referring to the "so-called Gospel," which he states that he has carefully read [Dial. 10], and which, of course, can only be Justin's "Memoirs;" and again, in another part of the same dialogue, Justin quotes passages which are written "in the Gospel" (έν τω εναγγελίω γέγραπται) [Dial. 100]. The term "Gospel" is nowhere else used by Justin in reference to a written record [there's a reference to a singular Gospel in the fragment De Ressurr. 10 of doubtful authenticity]. In no case, however, considering the numerous Gospels then in circulation, and the fact that many of these, different from the canonical Gospels, are known to have been exclusively used by distinguished contemporaries of Justin, and by various communities of Christians in that day, could such an expression be taken as a special indication of the canonical Gospels.
....<omitted>...
The idea of attributing inspiration to the Memoirs, or to any other work of the Apostles, with the single exception, as we shall presently see, of the Apocalypse of John [Dial. 81], which, as prophecy, entered within his limits, was quite foreign to Justin, who recognized the Old Testament alone as the inspired word of God ... he held the accounts of the Apostles to be credible solely from their being authenticated by the Old Testament, and he clearly states that he believes the facts recorded in the Memoirs because the spirit of prophecy had already foretold them [Apol. i.33; cf. Dial. 119, Apol. i. 32, Dial. 48, 53]. According to Justin, the Old Testament contained all that was necessary for salvation, and its prophecies are the sole criterion of truth, the Memoirs, and even Christ himself, being merely its interpreters [cf. Apol i. 30, 32, 52, 53, 61; Dial. 32, 43, 48, 100]. He says that Christ commanded us not to put faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the holy prophets, and taught by himself [ --- Dial. 48].) Prophecy and the words of Christ himself are alone of dogmatic value, all else is human teaching. Indeed, from a passage quoted with approval by Irenæus, Justin, in his lost work against Marcion, said: "I would not have believed the Lord himself, if he had proclaimed any other God than the Creator;" that is to say, the God of the Old Testament [Adv. Haer. iv. 6,2; Eusebius H.E. iv. 18].
.... the names of Old Testament writers constantly occur in his writings. Semisch counts 197 quotations of the Old Testament, in which Justin refers to the author by name, or to the book, and only 117 in which he omits to do so, and the latter number might be reduced by considering the nature of the passages cited, and the inutility of repeating the reference ...
... The fact is that the only writing of the New Testament to which Justin refers by name is, as we have already mentioned, the Apocalypse, which he attributes to "a certain man whose name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a revelation made to him," &c [Dial. 81]. The manner in which John is here mentioned, after the Memoirs had been so constantly indefinitely referred to, clearly shows that Justin did not possess any Gospel also attributed to John. That he does name John, however, as author of the Apocalypse and so frequently refers to Old Testament writers by name, yet never identifies the author of the Memoirs, is quite irreconcilable with the idea that they were the canonical Gospels.
It is perfectly clear, however, and this is a point of very great importance upon which critics of otherwise widely diverging views are agreed, that Justin quotes from a written source, and that oral tradition is excluded from his system. He not only does not, like Papias, attach value to tradition, but, on the contrary, he affirms that "in the Memoirs is recorded everything that concerns [what] our "Saviour Jesus Christ taught" - οί άπομνημονεύσαντες πάντα τύ περί τοΰ Σωτήρος ήμών ’Ιησοί έδίδαξαν [Apol. i. 33]. He constantly refers to them directly, as the source of his information regarding the history of Jesus, and distinctly states that he has derived his quotations from them. There is no reasonable ground whatever for affirming that Justin supplemented or modified the contents of the Memoirs by oral tradition ...
The only genealogy of Jesus which is recognized by Justin is traced through the Virgin Mary ... The genealogy of Jesus in the canonical Gospels, on the contrary, is traced solely through Joseph, who alone is stated to be of the lineage of David ... So persistent...is Justin in ignoring this Davidic descent through Joseph, that not only does he at least eleven times trace it through Mary ... his Gospel materially differs from the canonical ... There can be no doubt that Justin not only did not derive his genealogies from the canonical Gospels but that, on the contrary, the Memoirs, from which he did learn the Davidic descent through Mary only, differed persistently and materially from them.
