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?