Was Judas an afterthought?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by MrMacSon »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:16 pm It is easier to argue, I think, that Justin changed the meaning of Paul's words to make them fit with what became orthodox thought.
I'm not so sure about that. It likely happened around Justin or closely after him, but it may not have been Justin or anyone aligned with him ...
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by neilgodfrey »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 2:01 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:16 pm It is easier to argue, I think, that Justin changed the meaning of Paul's words to make them fit with what became orthodox thought.
I'm not so sure about that. It likely happened around Justin or closely after him, but it may not have been Justin or anyone aligned with him ...
I'm referring to the examples discussed in the Werline article.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 1:04 am Returning to this discussion, then, what is an afterthought in the context of your question?
Was there a gospel narrative about the teaching, miracle-working, passion and resurrection of Jesus that did not include a Judas betrayal prior to the basic narrative we find in our canonical gospels? Is the gospel narrative that we are familiar with, one (with variants) that contains a Judas narrative, a later development?

Justin's account of Jesus has Jesus teaching, working miracles, answering before Pilate, being crucified and resurrected -- but the Twelve are always depicted as a solid unit: they all flee together when Jesus is crucified (not when he is arrested), they all see the resurrected Jesus together and they all twelve go out to preach the gospel to the world. Justin's narrative leaves no room for a betrayer Judas.

So the question arises: does the canonical narrative, the one with a Judas role, arise after Justin? (But in the light of some above helpful responses I have decided the answer is No.)
Paul the Uncertain wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 1:04 am Our first knowledge of the Judas character comes from a fully developed work of storytelling, a work which is by any standard one of the enduring landmarks of world literature. The character is one half of what is among the best known scenes-in-two in our culture. To reach that moment, the character is fully integrated into the progress of the work, as was discussed in an earlier post.

None of that suggests any kind of "afterthought" with which I am familiar.
The Judas function may be integrated into the canonical gospels -- but was that narrative a revision of an earlier one that lacked that Judas role?
Paul the Uncertain wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 1:04 am
Whether the character was missing from some "first draft" of what became Mark, who knows? Did the character exist, either in real life or in legend, before Mark's masterpiece acquired its earliest concrete form? Ditto.
Of course Judas didn't exist. He is entirely a literary invention. There is no reason to think he was a real person and several reasons to see him as a literary device.
Paul the Uncertain wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 1:04 am If none of the above provides an answer to the topic title question, then what information are you seeking?
Others earlier helped me out by reminding me of the Marcionite factor and how that threw fresh light (for me) on the question.
rgprice
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by rgprice »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:16 pm It may be thought somewhat too glib to say that Justin's theology is the same as the writings found in the NT. If the NT calls for a unification of gentiles and Jews in one new body Justin is, on the contrary, pronouncing the replacement of the Jews by the new body of Christianity.

Justin's words are not identical to those found in Paul. The similarities also draw attention to the differences. It is easier to argue, I think, that Justin changed the meaning of Paul's words to make them fit with what became orthodox thought.

This discussion requires an in-depth thread of its own for those with the energy and interest.
I'm not saying that every detail of thought between the NT and Justin matches. The NT was created from existing material. That existing material already had various agendas and perspectives. I'm saying that the revisions to the material change it in the same direction as Justin. If you compare Marcion's Gospel and Marcion's letters vs Luke and the Catholic letters, then the change between the two is in the same direction as Justin's framework. And of course, if the NT was not created by Justin himself (which I'm not suggesting), then of course whatever did the editing may have been informed by Justin, but not of exactly the same mind as Justin.

But as for the case that Justin used Paul instead of Paul having been interpolated with Justin's arguments, I don't think the case is nearly so clear as you suggest. When you look at all of the examples put forward by Werline, I believe all of them reference material that apparently did not exist in Marcion's version of the letters. So, the material that Justin finds so useful, is also material that differentiates the Catholic letters from Marcon's.

Here is the BeDuh reconstruction of part of Gal 3:

5Does the one who supplies you with the spirit and operates power among you, therefore, (do so) based on lawful conduct or based on trust in what you heard? . . .] 10 For whoever is under law is under a curse; for it is written: “Accursed is every one that does not continue in all the things written in the scroll of the Law in order to do them.” 11[Moreover, (it is) evident that by law no one is rectified with God.] Learn therefore that “the ethical person will live based on trust.” 12 [But the Law is not (observed) based on trust,] but “the one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christos has purchased us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse on our behalf—[because it is written:] “Accursed is everyone hanged upon a tree”— 14 . . . so that we might receive the blessing of the spirit through that trust. . . .

Here is the Catholic version:

5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

6 Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, recognize that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

10 For all who are of works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all the things written in the book of the Law, to do them.” 11 Now, that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “the righteous one will live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not [r]of faith; on the contrary, “The person who performs them will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


Dial. 119.5-120.1
[A]nd along with Abraham we shall inherit the holy land, when we shall receive the inheritance for an endless eternity, being children of
Abraham through the like faith . . . "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed."


Romans 4:
9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.” 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not [m]through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, then faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15 for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 (as it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed, that is, God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that do not exist. 18 In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, “So shall your descendants be.”

BeDuhn's notes:
Rom 4.3–4.25 is unattested. Harnack considers these verses to have been omitted. Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius say anything about an omission in Marcion’s text here, but we would expect them to cite some of the content against Marcion. Various proposals for small interpolations
in this section of the letter have been made.

Justin:
Dial. 92.34
For Abraham was declared by God to be righteous, not on account of circumcision, but on account of faith. For before he was circumcised
the following statement was made regarding him: "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness." And we,
therefore, in the uncircumcision of our flesh, believing God through Christ, and having that circumcision which is of advantage to us who
have acquired it namely that of the heart we hope to appear righteous before and well-pleasing to God.

So here is the big question. Did Paul really make these Abraham arguments? It's difficult to understand them first of all. Secondly, they don't feature in the Gospel of Mark, which is derived from Paul's letters. Thirdly, does it not seem superfluous in regard to Christ? For Paul, the Lord Jesus is the source of salvation. See Galatians 2.

Here is the Catholic version:
Gal 2:
15 “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from the Gentiles; 16 nevertheless, knowing that a person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law; since by works of the Law no flesh will be justified. 17 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Far from it! 18 For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a wrongdoer. 19 For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

Here is BeDuhn's reconstruction of Marcion:
16. . . A person is rectified, not by lawful conduct, but only through trust [. . . and we have trusted in Christos Jesus, so that we might be rectified
on the basis of Christly trust, and not on the basis of lawful conduct. . . .] 18[For if] I build up again the very things that I once tore down, [I prove myself to be a defector.] . . . 20. . . But what I now live in flesh I live entrusted to the child of God who purchased me. . . .

In either case, here the letters say that faith in Christ is what its all about. These claims do not align with the Abraham justification. What it is? Are we to be saved because we have faith in Christ Jesus? Or is there need to build some case from scripture based on an incoherent story about Abraham? Would Paul really be so bold and foolish, as a schooled Pharisee, to try and argue that you don't need to be circumcised because of Abraham!? Or is that the argument of a Gentile like Justin? (You can argue that Paul wasn't real, but is a construct invented by a Gentile...) The whole Abraham argument has always been a case of special pleading that was unconvincing. Now really think about this. The Abraham argument appeals to "logic" of a sort. Its a legalistic case being built on precedent and a tricky reading of the scriptures. Sure, maybe Paul did this. Of course many people think Paul could have said anything because that's what we find in the Catholic letters, a jumble of nonsense coming from all directions. But, if you work from the Marcionite basis, everything makes more sense. There "Paul" is consistent. The theme is clear. The basis of salvation is faith in Christ Jesus.

3I testify again that a circumcised person is obligated to fulfill the whole Law. . . . 6[But] in Christos neither circumcision has any effect, nor (does) uncircumcision, but (only) trust operating through love.

The Abraham business is a distraction.

Now, if none of the Abraham talk existed in Marcion's version of the letters, when how would Justin have read it in Paul's letters? It would mean that either the orthodox version of the letters had already been derived from Marcion's collection and Justin was reading that, or that the orthodox version is original/independent of Marcion's version of the letters (and potentially that Marcion revised the orthodox version).

I think the case for Marcion having revised the orthodox version is untenable at this point. I now take the position that the orthodox Pauline letters are derived from Marcion's. I will concede that it is possible they are based on some independent version of the letters, but that seems highly unlikely.

So we know with reasonable certainty that a version of Paul's letters existed at the time Justin wrote his Dialogue, which lacked the Abraham arguments. Thus, Justin could not have read those arguments in that version of the Pauline letters. Here is a genuine question that I don't know the answer to. Is there any indication that Justin knew the Pastorals? (Even if so we potentially get into this same problem)

So we have confidence that a version of the letters existed at the time of Justin's writing that lacked the arguments that Justin made. If we think that the orthodox letters were derived from Marcion's then that means Justin would be our earliest witness to the orthodox letters, which would have been created by someone after the "publication" of Marcion's letters, giving a very narrow window for this to have happened. In addition, Justin is the earliest writer we have record of to actually put forward a proto-orthodox theological framework. So, did that theological framework pre-date Justine and exist within a version of Pauline letters? Did it really originate from Paul?

I think no. I think the Abraham argument is core proto-orthodoxy and a second century invention, its not authentic Pauline. It's part of the retrospective analysis that was done in reaction to Marcionism. It's a clever means of tying Christianity to the roots of Judaism, while also avoiding the Law. It creates a gap between the advent of circumcision and the ministry of Jesus, that can effectively be ignored, or considered not to pertain to Gentiles. It's the means of appropriating the Jewish God without taking Judaism. It's all a bit too clever for Paul IMO. It's just not the road that we see Paul going down in other areas.

It's funny that Werline notes Justin primarily used Romans and Galatians. It "just so happens" that Romans and Galatians are the two letters that have the most differences from Marcion. Coincidence that Justin references Paul from the two letters that have the most Catholicizing changes made to them?

No, the more I look at this, the more it seems to me that Justin's theology is the source of the Catholicizing changes made to Marcion's work.

Again, lets look at the case.

1) Justin is the earliest person we have record of to call out Marcion as a theological opponent.
2) Justin makes philosophical and legalistic arguments that we find in the Pauline letters, and which did not exist in Marcion's version of the letters.
3) Justin describes the birth of Jesus in terms that don't fully comply with any existing Gospel, but features of which are found in Luke and Matthew.
4) Justin argues that our certainty in the divinity of Jesus is based on confirmation of prophecy.
5) Justin opposes the teachings of Marcion, who rejects the Jewish scriptures and believes that Jesus is not from the Jewish God.
6) Justin argues that Jesus did come from the Jewish God, and the Jewish scriptures did predict his coming, but he rejects Judaism and the unbelief of the Jewish people.
7) Justin did not know the "New Testament".

BUT, some 30-40 years after Justin writes his Dialogue, Irenaeus holds in his hand a "New Testament" that contains the theology of Justin. The New Testament argues that Jesus did come from the Jewish God, and the Jewish scriptures did predict his coming, but rejects Judaism and the unbelief of the Jewish people. The letters of Paul in the New Testament contain philosophical and legalistic arguments mirrored in Justin's work. The birth narrative of Luke contains features described by Justin and not found elsewhere, while also contradicting Justin's on some points (i.e. Justin couldn't have been working from Luke).

Now, prior to this whole discussion, my view was that the Gospel of Luke must have been produced between the time of Justin and Irenaeus. I also think that whoever wrote Luke also created Acts, along with the Catholic version of the Pauline letters. It was a total package appropriated from Marcion. Marcion's scripture was a Gospel and a collection of Pauline letters. The writer of Luke, working from Marcion produced a corresponding set, consisting of a Gospel, collection of Pauline letters, and Acts of the Apostles to tie it all together (something that Marcion lacked). So we have on person working with a set of material and producing a coherent collection: a Gospel, a collection of letters, and a story that ties the two together.

That collection, I would argue, is the backbone of the New Testament: Luke, Acts & Paul. That's the core, around which everything else is attached. Now, we KNOW, with significant certainty, that Luke is derived from Marcion's Gospel. Of that I am positive. But once we acknowledge that Luke is derived from Marcion, and we acknowledge that Acts is written by the writer of Luke, and we acknowledge that the writer of Acts was making use of Paul's letters, a bunch of stuff becomes obvious. The person who wrote Luke and Acts clearly also edited Paul's letters. In fact, they invented tie-ins between Acts and Paul's letters, i.e. inventing scenes in Acts and also inserting corresponding passages into Paul's letters that tied the two together. This is because there was a significant interest in documents that "bore witness" to each other. You "cannot testify for yourself".

So we have to ask, if we know that Luke was derived from Marcion's Gospel, and that this derivation likely happened between the time of Justin and Irenaeus and that Luke reflects the ideas of Justin Martyr, and that whoever wrote Luke would have had both opportunity and cause to edit Paul's letters, and that there are apparent literary parallels between Justin and Paul, only found in the Catholic version of the letters, and that Justin never mentioned Paul, then is it not reasonable to conclude that the passages in the Catholic letters that parallel Justin are actually derived from Justin?
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

@neilgodfrey

Thank you for the reply and for providing additional clarity on the afterthought question. On a few points:
Of course Judas didn't exist. He is entirely a literary invention. There is no reason to think he was a real person and several reasons to see him as a literary device.
I agree that Mark's Judas is a literary invention, but then again so is Mark's Simon Peter. The latter seems to have been prompted by Paul's Cephas Peter, who in turn is widely accepted to have been a real man who actually lived.

That doesn't tell us how much or how little the biography of the real man coincides with the words and deeds enacted by the literary character. There is no limit on how loosely coupled the participants in a "prompted by" relation might be.

However, there's nothing far-fetched about the outline of Judas. Some people leave cults. Rumor has it that you know somebody like that. Sometimes law enforcement benefits from former members' help in breaking up those cults which are also criminal conspiracies.

Judas, then, seems to me to be a lot like Jesus. There's a reasonable chance he didn't exist, and if he did, we know little or nothing about him.
Justin's account of Jesus has Jesus teaching, working miracles, answering before Pilate, being crucified and resurrected -- but the Twelve are always depicted as a solid unit: they all flee together when Jesus is crucified (not when he is arrested), they all see the resurrected Jesus together and they all twelve go out to preach the gospel to the world. Justin's narrative leaves no room for a betrayer Judas.

So the question arises: does the canonical narrative, the one with a Judas role, arise after Justin? (But in the light of some above helpful responses I have decided the answer is No.)
We agree on the "no." I'd like to comment on Justin's behavior.

Justin was openly an apologist, an acknowledged advocate for the proposition that Jesus is a worthy leader to follow. Loyalty of close associates reflects well on any leader; betrayal by close associates reflects badly on any leader. The bad reflection is aggravated in proportion to how much the leader had promoted the defector, and sometimes further aggravated by subsequent behavior.

In our time, for example, kind-of-cultish Ayn Rand's image was tarnished by the defection of highly placed Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. After the split, the Brandens circulated unflattering stories about Rand's personal dealings with them, intentionally compounding the injury to Rand. Nevertheless, she still has admirers. I wonder how much do they volunteer about the Brandens in mixed company?

What can be read into Justin soft-pedaling Judas's defection? Perhaps he is content to let the counterapologists bring it up if they want to (as Celsus did, Against Celsus II.11), and if so, the apologist can make some answer for it at that time (as Origen did). An advocate might raise an inconvenient fact pre-emptively, but it is not obligatory, is not risk-free, and is easily understood if the advocate chooses not to do it.

What goes for Justin goes for Paul, too, I think, although Paul has little to say about Jesus's natural life, good or bad.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by ABuddhist »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:01 am @neilgodfrey

Thank you for the reply and for providing additional clarity on the afterthought question. On a few points:
Of course Judas didn't exist. He is entirely a literary invention. There is no reason to think he was a real person and several reasons to see him as a literary device.
I agree that Mark's Judas is a literary invention, but then again so is Mark's Simon Peter. The latter seems to have been prompted by Paul's Cephas Peter, who in turn is widely accepted to have been a real man who actually lived.

That doesn't tell us how much or how little the biography of the real man coincides with the words and deeds enacted by the literary character. There is no limit on how loosely coupled the participants in a "prompted by" relation might be.

However, there's nothing far-fetched about the outline of Judas. Some people leave cults. Rumor has it that you know somebody like that. Sometimes law enforcement benefits from former members' help in breaking up those cults which are also criminal conspiracies.

Judas, then, seems to me to be a lot like Jesus. There's a reasonable chance he didn't exist, and if he did, we know little or nothing about him.
Justin's account of Jesus has Jesus teaching, working miracles, answering before Pilate, being crucified and resurrected -- but the Twelve are always depicted as a solid unit: they all flee together when Jesus is crucified (not when he is arrested), they all see the resurrected Jesus together and they all twelve go out to preach the gospel to the world. Justin's narrative leaves no room for a betrayer Judas.

So the question arises: does the canonical narrative, the one with a Judas role, arise after Justin? (But in the light of some above helpful responses I have decided the answer is No.)
We agree on the "no." I'd like to comment on Justin's behavior.

Justin was openly an apologist, an acknowledged advocate for the proposition that Jesus is a worthy leader to follow. Loyalty of close associates reflects well on any leader; betrayal by close associates reflects badly on any leader. The bad reflection is aggravated in proportion to how much the leader had promoted the defector, and sometimes further aggravated by subsequent behavior.

In our time, for example, kind-of-cultish Ayn Rand's image was tarnished by the defection of highly placed Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. After the split, the Brandens circulated unflattering stories about Rand's personal dealings with them, intentionally compounding the injury to Rand. Nevertheless, she still has admirers. I wonder how much do they volunteer about the Brandens in mixed company?

What can be read into Justin soft-pedaling Judas's defection? Perhaps he is content to let the counterapologists bring it up if they want to (as Celsus did, Against Celsus II.11), and if so, the apologist can make some answer for it at that time (as Origen did). An advocate might raise an inconvenient fact pre-emptively, but it is not obligatory, is not risk-free, and is easily understood if the advocate chooses not to do it.

What goes for Justin goes for Paul, too, I think, although Paul has little to say about Jesus's natural life, good or bad.
Although I admire the elegance of your explanation for why Justin would not mention Judas's betrayal, are you certain that his outright lying that none of the original twelve apostles betrayed Jesus (and that all remained loyal to the end and even afterwards) would have been an effective strategy? He could have minimized the scope of Judas's betrayal and/or attributed it to various nefarious forces without outright lying about the apostles' loyalties.

If I may bring up a situation relevant from my user name, when the Tibetan Buddhist leader Sogyal was (within the past few years) denounced to the public by former members of his inner circle as a sadistic abusing sybarite, Sogyal's apologists/defenders did not deny that Sogyal had been denounced to the public; rather, they claimed that the defectors were possessed by demons, lying, and that the whole situation had been caused by misunderstandings. Justin could have adapted similar approaches in discussing the fact that not all of Jesus's apostles remained loyal to him; GMark already claims that even the best apostles did not understand Jesus.

I am not denying that Justin could have been lying outright about Judas's loyalty, but such a lie would have been more effective if the story about Judas's betrayal had been little known in general - otherwise, a non-Christian audience could have learned that Justin was lying by consulting with another Christian. And, of course, Justin's approach would have been most effective if it had not been a lie at all.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by GakuseiDon »

ABuddhist wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:41 amAlthough I admire the elegance of your explanation for why Justin would not mention Judas's betrayal, are you certain that his outright lying that none of the original twelve apostles betrayed Jesus...
@ABuddhist, Neil and Paul the Uncertain,

I don't think Justin was hiding anything about Judas. Judas simply isn't a factor in the arguments he is using against Trypho. Justin uses "twelve" a number of times in his Dialogue:

(1) "Twelve prophets" of the OT, which he uses 8 times in his arguments against Trypho
(2) "Twelve tribes" of Israel, which he uses twice
(2) "Twelve apostles", which he uses once (though he uses the word "apostle"/"apostles" without giving a specific number around 15 times)

The use of "twelve prophets of the OT" and "twelve apostles of Christ" seem clear and deliberate. Here he sees the significance of twelve bells with twelve apostles:

Moreover, the prescription that twelve bells be attached to the [robe] of the high priest, which hung down to the feet, was a symbol of the twelve apostles, who depend on the power of Christ, the eternal Priest; and through their voice it is that all the earth has been filled with the glory and grace of God and of His Christ.

There were twelve apostles who were sent out from Jerusalem, with someone being chosen by lot to replace Judas, according to Acts. If the number "twelve" was significant, which it appears to be, then that is probably the origin of that story in Acts: to show twelve apostles going out.

It may be that Justin was 'hiding' the story of Judas, but I don't think it is even that. Justin doesn't mention Judas because Judas is simply irrelevant to any of his arguments. There were twelve apostles sent out from Jerusalem. I suggest a case would have to be made to propose that Justin should have mentioned Judas.

A lot of these arguments about what "should" be in ancient Christian texts seem to come from a place that the texts were trying to teach Christianity. They weren't.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by MrMacSon »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 2:14 am
MrMacSon wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 2:01 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:16 pm It is easier to argue, I think, that Justin changed the meaning of Paul's words to make them fit with what became orthodox thought.
I'm not so sure about that. It likely happened around Justin or closely after him, but it may not have been Justin or anyone aligned with him ...
I'm referring to the examples discussed in the Werline article.
My bad, I hadn't read Werline's article properly, and should do so. I'm surprised the issue of Justin [supposedly] having engaged with Paul hasn't seemed to have featured more prominently in any discussions of Justin or early Christianity I'm aware of (other than the odd statement he hadn't).

I wonder about the direction of engagement, too. And I note rgp has addressed this since our posts -
rgprice wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:23 am
When you look at all of the examples put forward by Werline, I believe all of them reference material that apparently did not exist in Marcion's version of the letters. So, the material that Justin finds so useful, is also material that differentiates the Catholic letters from Marcon's ..

... I now take the position that the orthodox Pauline letters are derived from Marcion's. I will concede that it is possible they are based on some independent version of the letters, but that seems highly unlikely.

So we know with reasonable certainty that a version of Paul's letters existed at the time Justin wrote his Dialogue, which lacked the Abraham arguments. Thus, Justin could not have read those arguments in that version of the Pauline letters. Here is a genuine question that I don't know the answer to. Is there any indication that Justin knew the Pastorals? (Even if so we potentially get into this same problem)

So we have confidence that a version of the letters existed at the time of Justin's writing that lacked the arguments that Justin made. If we think that the orthodox letters were derived from Marcion's then that means Justin would be our earliest witness to the orthodox letters, which would have been created by someone after the "publication" of Marcion's letters, giving a very narrow window for this to have happened. In addition, Justin is the earliest writer we have record of to actually put forward a proto-orthodox theological framework. So, did that theological framework pre-date Justine and exist within a version of Pauline letters? Did it really originate from Paul?

I think no ...

It's funny that Werline notes Justin primarily used Romans and Galatians. It "just so happens" that Romans and Galatians are the two letters that have the most differences from Marcion. Coincidence that Justin references Paul from the two letters that have the most Catholicizing changes made to them?

No, the more I look at this, the more it seems to me that Justin's theology is the source of the Catholicizing changes made to Marcion's work ...
< . . .snip . . >
2) Justin makes philosophical and legalistic arguments that we find in the Pauline letters, and which did not exist in Marcion's version of the letters.
< . . .snip . . >
... The letters of Paul in the New Testament contain philosophical and legalistic arguments mirrored in Justin's work ...
.
The rest of rgp's post above is a noteworthy read ...
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:23 am
In either case, here [in Gal 3 and Romans 4] the letters say that faith in Christ is what its all about. These claims do not align with the Abraham justification. What it is? Are we to be saved because we have faith in Christ Jesus? Or is there need to build some case from scripture based on an incoherent story about Abraham? Would Paul really be so bold and foolish, as a schooled Pharisee, to try and argue that you don't need to be circumcised because of Abraham? Or is that the argument of a Gentile like Justin? (You can argue that Paul wasn't real, but is a construct invented by a Gentile...) The whole Abraham argument has always been a case of special pleading that was unconvincing. Now really think about this. The Abraham argument appeals to "logic" of a sort. Its a legalistic case being built on precedent and a tricky reading of the scriptures. Sure, maybe Paul did this. Of course many people think Paul could have said anything because that's what we find in the Catholic letters, a jumble of nonsense coming from all directions. But, if you work from the Marcionite basis, everything makes more sense. There "Paul" is consistent. The theme is clear. The basis of salvation is faith in Christ Jesus.

3I testify again that a circumcised person is obligated to fulfill the whole Law. . . . 6[But] in Christos neither circumcision has any effect, nor (does) uncircumcision, but (only) trust operating through love.

The Abraham business is a distraction.
.

Does this and other aspects of the Pauline letters, especially the prequel to Gal 3:5-14, 5-21, above, ie. the end of Galatians 2, raise the question of whether Paul really could have been a Pharisee?

Galatians 2:1521

.
15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
  • [d]: or, 'but through the faithfulness of' .. [or] .. 'justified on the basis of the faithfulness of'
17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, 'we Jews' find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not!

18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
.

(interestingly, a note at the bottom of the biblegateway.com NIV version of Galatians 2 says many versions of this chapter finish at v.14.)

See also Romans 7 and 8 re the Law v the Spirit
rgprice
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by rgprice »

@MrMacSon "many versions of this chapter finish at v.14" Indeed. And I know I sound like a broken record with this, but again if we check back to the evidence for Marcion's version, we find significant differences here.

Some may disagree with constantly checking on reconstructions of Marcion's text, and of course it has its problems, but the point is that if we have evidence that certain passages were not in Marcion's version of the letter, then we have to ask whether the differences make sense, if they serve an apologetic interest, etc. If we keep finding that all of these elements that establish the key aspects of Paul's supposed theology didn't exist in Marcion's letters, then we need to ask some serious questions.

Of course some will argue that Marcion removed these because of their implications, but teh removal of these passages has to be established. What is more consistent, the version with the passages or without them? And again, the case regarding Luke is almost ironclad. It is very clear that Luke is built on Marcion, so can we really logically argue that Luke was derived from Marcion, but Marcion's Pauline letters were derived from the Catholic version? Not likely at all. It makes sense that all of the derivation goes in the same direction.

Here is BeDuhn's reconstruction of Marcion's text:
11[But, when] Peter [came to Antioch], I resisted him face to face, [because] he was culpable. 12 For [before the arrival of certain persons . . .] he used to eat with (people) from the nations; but [when they arrived,] he withdrew and separated himself, in fear of those from circumcision. 13 [And the others . . . joined him in hypocrisy. . . . 14 But . . .] they were not walking straight according to the truth of the proclamation. . . . 16. . . A person is rectified, not by lawful conduct, but only through trust [. . . and we have trusted in Christos Jesus, so that we might be rectified on the basis of Christly trust, and not on the basis of lawful conduct. . . .] 18 [For if] I build up again the very things that I once tore down, [I prove myself to be a defector.] . . . 20. . . But what I now live in flesh I live entrusted to the child of God who purchased me. . . .

v15 is a very strange statement. I'll say that the NIV translation seems odd here and makes it a bit more extreme than some others, such as NASB or NRSV, but still. And v21...

I would argue that the Marcionite version seems much more reasonable.
Post Reply