Indisputable Historical Facts About Early Christianity

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Indisputable Historical Facts About Early Christianity

Post by Jax »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:14 pm Almost guarantee IC, XC etc
You heavily study the church fathers, are there any actual copies of their material?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8041
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Indisputable Historical Facts About Early Christianity

Post by Peter Kirby »

Jax wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:11 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:10 pm
Jax wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:28 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:02 am
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 7:42 am How about adding that early Christianity resembled Mithraism as an indisputable historical fact?
We learn that the rituals were similar enough from Justin Martyr.
I wonder, what can we say factually about Justin Martyr?
I'm not a huge fan of the "facts" / "factually" terminology here because it encourages unnecessarily reductive answers.

I would suggest common authorship of the Dialogue / First Apology / Second Apology and coming before Irenaeus.
I am trying to get as close to the original texts attributed to Justin Martyr as I can, do you know of any links to actual early copies in the original language? I hope to locate something that might show what if any Nomina Sacra these texts might contain.
The oldest manuscript is 4th century but very fragmentary.

http://163.1.169.40/cgi-bin/library?e=d ... dd896ae8fb

The Vatican Library manuscript shows nomina sacra:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Ott.gr.274
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Indisputable Historical Facts About Early Christianity

Post by Jax »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 3:47 pm
Jax wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:11 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:10 pm
Jax wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:28 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:02 am

We learn that the rituals were similar enough from Justin Martyr.
I wonder, what can we say factually about Justin Martyr?
I'm not a huge fan of the "facts" / "factually" terminology here because it encourages unnecessarily reductive answers.

I would suggest common authorship of the Dialogue / First Apology / Second Apology and coming before Irenaeus.
I am trying to get as close to the original texts attributed to Justin Martyr as I can, do you know of any links to actual early copies in the original language? I hope to locate something that might show what if any Nomina Sacra these texts might contain.
The oldest manuscript is 4th century but very fragmentary.

http://163.1.169.40/cgi-bin/library?e=d ... dd896ae8fb

The Vatican Library manuscript shows nomina sacra:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Ott.gr.274
Awesome!

Thanks Peter.

Lane
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Indisputable Historical Facts About Early Christianity

Post by MrMacSon »

Jax wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:28 am I wonder, what can we say factually about Justin Martyr?
We can only analyse the texts attributed to him. And they include commentary about a fairly wide range of things. Some of which commentary, at least, misrepresents others eg.

First Apology chapter 60
And the physiological discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timoeus of Plato, where he says, "He placed him crosswise in the universe," he borrowed in like manner from Moses;1 for in the writings of Moses it is related how at that time, when the Israelites went out of Egypt and were in the wilderness, they fell in with poisonous beasts, both vipers and asps, and every kind of serpent, which slew the people; and that Moses, by the inspiration and influence of God, took brass, and made it into the figure of a cross, and set it in the holy tabernacle, and said to the people, "If ye look to this figure, and believe, ye shall be saved thereby".2

And when this was done, it is recorded that the serpents died, and it is handed down that the people thus escaped death.

Which things Plato reading, and not accurately understanding, and not apprehending that it was the figure of the cross, but taking it to be a placing crosswise, he said that the power next to the first God was placed crosswise in the universe.

1 the notion Plato borrowed that motif from Moses would be nonsense

2 Justin is invoking and elaborating on an account about Moses from Numbers 21 —

Numbers 21:8-9:
8 And Moses prayed to the Lord for the people; and the Lord said to Moses, 'Make thee a serpent, and put it on a signal-staff ; and it shall come to pass that whenever a serpent shall bite a man, every one so bitten that looks upon it shall live.'

9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a signal-staff : and it came to pass that whenever a serpent bit a man, and he looked on the brazen serpent, he lived.

— but Martyr is misrepresenting those verses -
  1. Moses didn't take brass & ''make it into the figure of a cross', he took brass & made a serpent and put it on a signal-staff, a pole: see 21:8
  2. Numbers doesn't record that 'the serpents died', it says, "whenever a serpent bit a man, and he looked on the brazen [ie. the brass] serpent, [the man] lived": see 21:9


In the first section of chapter two of The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr's Proof-text Tradition : Text-type, Provenance, Theological Profile, 1987, Brill, author Oskar Skarsaune, outlines textual variants among the same OT passage which appear at least once in both Justin's First Apology and his Dialogue with Trypho, and on which Justin himself comments.

Quoted OT passages often appear in a different format in the First Apology than they do in the Dialogue, as if Justin was using different versions of the LXX or other OT texts for the two different works (apparently they were written about ten years apart).

Skarsaune does note
"There is every reason to believe that at Justin’s time the production of OT MSS in Christian circles was in its infancy. The earliest LXX MSS which can be ascribed to Christian scribes (codex format!) stem from about the middle of the second century … they derive from…fluent writers…of communities [not professional scribes] …"

Skarsaune frequently proposes a 'testimony source' as the reason for some variations in Justin's use or account of OT passages, but I'm not so sure.


Justin also sometimes criticises the Jews for some OT texts being different to what he wants them to say. But he also seems to misrepresent or reinterpret some of the texts in different places.

eg. Justin's use of Genesis 49.10f -

In 1 Apol. 32:1 and 54:5, we find vss.10f quoted as if from a markedly different text from where it appears in Dial 120:4 and in Dial 120 he says the Jews read έως άν έλθη τά άποκείμενα αύτώ, while the ‘true LXX’ reading is έως άν έλθη ώ άπόκείται. Yet, in Dial 52:2, Justin quotes the whole of Gen 49:8-12 as if from a text which is almost identical with the LXX and containing the 'Jewish reading' in v. 10.

For Gen 49.11, after quoting it as for the LXX in Dial 52, as just stated, in Dial 54 he he first quotes Gen 49:11 according to the LXX text -- here the στολή is washed in wine, while the περιβολή is washed in the blood of the grape -- and he then extrapolates the text in a different way, saying

That the Scripture mentions the blood of the grape has been evidently designed, because Christ derives blood not from the seed of man, but from the power of God. For as God, and not man, has produced the blood of the vine, so also [Scripture] has predicted that the blood of Christ would be not of the seed of man, but of the power of God.

Similar allusions to something different to the LXX are espoused later in the Dialogue: in 63:2 and 76:2.

Isaiah 7:14

Isa. 7:14 in 1 Apol. 33:1 is the same as in Matt 1:23.

But in Dial 43:5f, Justin has Isa. 7:10-17 with Isa. 8:4 interpolated in the middle of v.16; followed by the comment: “you and your teacher dare to say that there is not said in the prophecy ..”

Moreover, Justin seems to be totally unaware that there is an interpolation in Dial 43 and 66, and goes on to build an argument in Dial 77f based on the interpolated verse.

Also, he argues in Dial 71:

you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.

There are a few other examples, eg. use of Psalm 96 (LXX: Ps. 95) with Justin at one point - in Dial 73:1-4, at least,- complaining Jews removed some words. Yet, the text in 1 Apol 41:1-4 is really much closer to 1 Chron 16:23-31 than to Ps. 96, especially when Justin’s text is compared with the readings in the uncials BS and the cursive 93 - the text of 1 Apol 41:1-4 looks like carefully composed harmony, 1 Chron 16 as the basic text. After the 'septuagintal' quotation in Dial 73:f, the allusions to Ps 96 in Dial. 79:4 and 83:4 also become septuagintal.

In Dial 71:2ff Justin again complains the Jews have removed certain passages from ‘the LXX’ [in relation to Ps.Ezra; Jer 11:19; Ps Jer].
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Indisputable Historical Facts About Early Christianity

Post by Jax »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:01 am
Jax wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:28 am I wonder, what can we say factually about Justin Martyr?
We can only analyse the texts attributed to him. And they include commentary about a fairly wide range of things. Some of which commentary, at least, misrepresents others eg.

First Apology chapter 60
And the physiological discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timoeus of Plato, where he says, "He placed him crosswise in the universe," he borrowed in like manner from Moses;1 for in the writings of Moses it is related how at that time, when the Israelites went out of Egypt and were in the wilderness, they fell in with poisonous beasts, both vipers and asps, and every kind of serpent, which slew the people; and that Moses, by the inspiration and influence of God, took brass, and made it into the figure of a cross, and set it in the holy tabernacle, and said to the people, "If ye look to this figure, and believe, ye shall be saved thereby".2

And when this was done, it is recorded that the serpents died, and it is handed down that the people thus escaped death.

Which things Plato reading, and not accurately understanding, and not apprehending that it was the figure of the cross, but taking it to be a placing crosswise, he said that the power next to the first God was placed crosswise in the universe.

1 the notion Plato borrowed that motif from Moses would be nonsense

2 Justin is invoking and elaborating on an account about Moses from Numbers 21 —

Numbers 21:8-9:
8 And Moses prayed to the Lord for the people; and the Lord said to Moses, 'Make thee a serpent, and put it on a signal-staff ; and it shall come to pass that whenever a serpent shall bite a man, every one so bitten that looks upon it shall live.'

9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a signal-staff : and it came to pass that whenever a serpent bit a man, and he looked on the brazen serpent, he lived.

— but Martyr is misrepresenting those verses -
  1. Moses didn't take brass & ''make it into the figure of a cross', he took brass & made a serpent and put it on a signal-staff, a pole: see 21:8
  2. Numbers doesn't record that 'the serpents died', it says, "whenever a serpent bit a man, and he looked on the brazen [ie. the brass] serpent, [the man] lived": see 21:9


In the first section of chapter two of The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr's Proof-text Tradition : Text-type, Provenance, Theological Profile, 1987, Brill, author Oskar Skarsaune, outlines textual variants among the same OT passage which appear at least once in both Justin's First Apology and his Dialogue with Trypho, and on which Justin himself comments.

Quoted OT passages often appear in a different format in the First Apology than they do in the Dialogue, as if Justin was using different versions of the LXX or other OT texts for the two different works (apparently they were written about ten years apart).

Skarsaune does note
"There is every reason to believe that at Justin’s time the production of OT MSS in Christian circles was in its infancy. The earliest LXX MSS which can be ascribed to Christian scribes (codex format!) stem from about the middle of the second century … they derive from…fluent writers…of communities [not professional scribes] …"

Skarsaune frequently proposes a 'testimony source' as the reason for some variations in Justin's use or account of OT passages, but I'm not so sure.


Justin also sometimes criticises the Jews for some OT texts being different to what he wants them to say. But he also seems to misrepresent or reinterpret some of the texts in different places.

eg. Justin's use of Genesis 49.10f -

In 1 Apol. 32:1 and 54:5, we find vss.10f quoted as if from a markedly different text from where it appears in Dial 120:4 and in Dial 120 he says the Jews read έως άν έλθη τά άποκείμενα αύτώ, while the ‘true LXX’ reading is έως άν έλθη ώ άπόκείται. Yet, in Dial 52:2, Justin quotes the whole of Gen 49:8-12 as if from a text which is almost identical with the LXX and containing the 'Jewish reading' in v. 10.

For Gen 49.11, after quoting it as for the LXX in Dial 52, as just stated, in Dial 54 he he first quotes Gen 49:11 according to the LXX text -- here the στολή is washed in wine, while the περιβολή is washed in the blood of the grape -- and he then extrapolates the text in a different way, saying

That the Scripture mentions the blood of the grape has been evidently designed, because Christ derives blood not from the seed of man, but from the power of God. For as God, and not man, has produced the blood of the vine, so also [Scripture] has predicted that the blood of Christ would be not of the seed of man, but of the power of God.

Similar allusions to something different to the LXX are espoused later in the Dialogue: in 63:2 and 76:2.

Isaiah 7:14

Isa. 7:14 in 1 Apol. 33:1 is the same as in Matt 1:23.

But in Dial 43:5f, Justin has Isa. 7:10-17 with Isa. 8:4 interpolated in the middle of v.16; followed by the comment: “you and your teacher dare to say that there is not said in the prophecy ..”

Moreover, Justin seems to be totally unaware that there is an interpolation in Dial 43 and 66, and goes on to build an argument in Dial 77f based on the interpolated verse.

Also, he argues in Dial 71:

you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.

There are a few other examples, eg. use of Psalm 96 (LXX: Ps. 95) with Justin at one point - in Dial 73:1-4, at least,- complaining Jews removed some words. Yet, the text in 1 Apol 41:1-4 is really much closer to 1 Chron 16:23-31 than to Ps. 96, especially when Justin’s text is compared with the readings in the uncials BS and the cursive 93 - the text of 1 Apol 41:1-4 looks like carefully composed harmony, 1 Chron 16 as the basic text. After the 'septuagintal' quotation in Dial 73:f, the allusions to Ps 96 in Dial. 79:4 and 83:4 also become septuagintal.

In Dial 71:2ff Justin again complains the Jews have removed certain passages from ‘the LXX’ [in relation to Ps.Ezra; Jer 11:19; Ps Jer].
Thanks MrMacSon, I would like to read more critical commentary on Justin, are there any books that you recommend? Also, are there any English translations of the works that you favor?

Lane
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Indisputable Historical Facts About Early Christianity

Post by MrMacSon »

Jax wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 5:47 am Thanks MrMacSon, I would like to read more critical commentary on Justin, are there any books that you recommend?
Lane
This 2018 dissertation looks quite good (have only had a quick look so far)

https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstr ... sequence=1
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Indisputable Historical Facts About Early Christianity

Post by mlinssen »

Mac, this is some very, very important research!
It would be interesting to go by the Greek of Matthew and see how that matches up to the Greek of Justin - solely in case of the "prophecies"
MrMacSon wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:01 am
Jax wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:28 am I wonder, what can we say factually about Justin Martyr?
We can only analyse the texts attributed to him. And they include commentary about a fairly wide range of things. Some of which commentary, at least, misrepresents others eg.

First Apology chapter 60
And the physiological discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timoeus of Plato, where he says, "He placed him crosswise in the universe," he borrowed in like manner from Moses;1 for in the writings of Moses it is related how at that time, when the Israelites went out of Egypt and were in the wilderness, they fell in with poisonous beasts, both vipers and asps, and every kind of serpent, which slew the people; and that Moses, by the inspiration and influence of God, took brass, and made it into the figure of a cross, and set it in the holy tabernacle, and said to the people, "If ye look to this figure, and believe, ye shall be saved thereby".2

And when this was done, it is recorded that the serpents died, and it is handed down that the people thus escaped death.

Which things Plato reading, and not accurately understanding, and not apprehending that it was the figure of the cross, but taking it to be a placing crosswise, he said that the power next to the first God was placed crosswise in the universe.

1 the notion Plato borrowed that motif from Moses would be nonsense

2 Justin is invoking and elaborating on an account about Moses from Numbers 21 —

Numbers 21:8-9:
8 And Moses prayed to the Lord for the people; and the Lord said to Moses, 'Make thee a serpent, and put it on a signal-staff ; and it shall come to pass that whenever a serpent shall bite a man, every one so bitten that looks upon it shall live.'

9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a signal-staff : and it came to pass that whenever a serpent bit a man, and he looked on the brazen serpent, he lived.

— but Martyr is misrepresenting those verses -
  1. Moses didn't take brass & ''make it into the figure of a cross', he took brass & made a serpent and put it on a signal-staff, a pole: see 21:8
  2. Numbers doesn't record that 'the serpents died', it says, "whenever a serpent bit a man, and he looked on the brazen [ie. the brass] serpent, [the man] lived": see 21:9


In the first section of chapter two of The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr's Proof-text Tradition : Text-type, Provenance, Theological Profile, 1987, Brill, author Oskar Skarsaune, outlines textual variants among the same OT passage which appear at least once in both Justin's First Apology and his Dialogue with Trypho, and on which Justin himself comments.

Quoted OT passages often appear in a different format in the First Apology than they do in the Dialogue, as if Justin was using different versions of the LXX or other OT texts for the two different works (apparently they were written about ten years apart).

Skarsaune does note
"There is every reason to believe that at Justin’s time the production of OT MSS in Christian circles was in its infancy. The earliest LXX MSS which can be ascribed to Christian scribes (codex format!) stem from about the middle of the second century … they derive from…fluent writers…of communities [not professional scribes] …"

Skarsaune frequently proposes a 'testimony source' as the reason for some variations in Justin's use or account of OT passages, but I'm not so sure.


Justin also sometimes criticises the Jews for some OT texts being different to what he wants them to say. But he also seems to misrepresent or reinterpret some of the texts in different places.

eg. Justin's use of Genesis 49.10f -

In 1 Apol. 32:1 and 54:5, we find vss.10f quoted as if from a markedly different text from where it appears in Dial 120:4 and in Dial 120 he says the Jews read έως άν έλθη τά άποκείμενα αύτώ, while the ‘true LXX’ reading is έως άν έλθη ώ άπόκείται. Yet, in Dial 52:2, Justin quotes the whole of Gen 49:8-12 as if from a text which is almost identical with the LXX and containing the 'Jewish reading' in v. 10.

For Gen 49.11, after quoting it as for the LXX in Dial 52, as just stated, in Dial 54 he he first quotes Gen 49:11 according to the LXX text -- here the στολή is washed in wine, while the περιβολή is washed in the blood of the grape -- and he then extrapolates the text in a different way, saying

That the Scripture mentions the blood of the grape has been evidently designed, because Christ derives blood not from the seed of man, but from the power of God. For as God, and not man, has produced the blood of the vine, so also [Scripture] has predicted that the blood of Christ would be not of the seed of man, but of the power of God.

Similar allusions to something different to the LXX are espoused later in the Dialogue: in 63:2 and 76:2.

Isaiah 7:14

Isa. 7:14 in 1 Apol. 33:1 is the same as in Matt 1:23.

But in Dial 43:5f, Justin has Isa. 7:10-17 with Isa. 8:4 interpolated in the middle of v.16; followed by the comment: “you and your teacher dare to say that there is not said in the prophecy ..”

Moreover, Justin seems to be totally unaware that there is an interpolation in Dial 43 and 66, and goes on to build an argument in Dial 77f based on the interpolated verse.

Also, he argues in Dial 71:

you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.

There are a few other examples, eg. use of Psalm 96 (LXX: Ps. 95) with Justin at one point - in Dial 73:1-4, at least,- complaining Jews removed some words. Yet, the text in 1 Apol 41:1-4 is really much closer to 1 Chron 16:23-31 than to Ps. 96, especially when Justin’s text is compared with the readings in the uncials BS and the cursive 93 - the text of 1 Apol 41:1-4 looks like carefully composed harmony, 1 Chron 16 as the basic text. After the 'septuagintal' quotation in Dial 73:f, the allusions to Ps 96 in Dial. 79:4 and 83:4 also become septuagintal.

In Dial 71:2ff Justin again complains the Jews have removed certain passages from ‘the LXX’ [in relation to Ps.Ezra; Jer 11:19; Ps Jer].
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Indisputable Historical Facts About Early Christianity

Post by Jax »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:31 pm
Jax wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 5:47 am Thanks MrMacSon, I would like to read more critical commentary on Justin, are there any books that you recommend?
Lane
This 2018 dissertation looks quite good (have only had a quick look so far)

https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstr ... sequence=1
Excelent, Thanks M8. :cheers:

Lane
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Indisputable Historical Facts About Early Christianity

Post by neilgodfrey »

Aleph One wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 2:28 pm I think the info from Pliny the Younger's Letter to Emperor Trajan should fit this bill as well anything. We learn that in 110 AD there was a notable Christian presence, some of whom having been adherents for 20 years, in the Roman province of Bithynia. Christians were persecuted (though not systematically) under the Roman prohibition on secret clubs. The Christians referred to themselves as such (or at least others referred to them by that name) and they participated in some kind of communal meal and pre-dawn ritual.
Regrettably, even the authenticity of this letter is disputed. See Enrico Tuccinardi's analysis -- https://vridar.org/2016/02/17/fresh-dou ... hristians/

Is a first-century provenance for any Christian source or record beyond dispute?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8041
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Indisputable Historical Facts About Early Christianity

Post by Peter Kirby »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Jun 23, 2021 3:20 am Is a first-century provenance for any Christian source or record beyond dispute?
No.

But talking about "beyond dispute" is asking for a negative outcome. Without a firmly dated manuscript in the first century, we can dispute the provenance of any literary text as being something other than first century. This is not unique to Christian sources.
Post Reply