Justin Martyrs Writings Dates?

[GakuseiDon]

Justin Martyr is explaining here why he and his are called Chrestians - it's right in front of our nose, but if you read any translation it goes unnoticed.
Obviously, the words Christians and Christ are falsified, but the dumb idiots just scanned the text for those and forgot to corrupt the evidence that fits along with it - and here we have it, undeniably: Justin Martyr attests to Chrestianity and Chrestians, and a Chrestos

Surely though Justin Martyr is making an obvious pun? Tertullian makes a similar point in "Ad nationes":

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian06.html

These crimes in (mere) words and names are just like barbarous words and phrases, which have their fault, and their solecism, and their absurdity of figure. The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing. Even when by a faulty pronunciation you call us "Chrestians" (for you are not certain about even the sound of this noted name), you in fact lisp out the sense of pleasantness and goodness. You are therefore vilifying in harmless men even the harmless name we bear, which is not inconvenient for the tongue, nor harsh to the ear, nor injurious to a single being, nor rude for our country, being a good Greek word, as many others also are, and pleasant in sound and sense.

[MrMacSon]

Brent Nongbri, The Use and Abuse of P52 :Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel
https://www.academia.edu/436092/The_Use ... rth_Gospel

Here's a thread about Nongri's comments about comments by the late Larry Hurtado about Justin, and Hurtado's responses ie. a to-and-fro dialogue between them via several blog-posts by each : viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7698

[schillingklaus]

JM is fully Roman Catholic as he alludes to a sacrificial prayer which evolved into the MEMENTO DOMINE of the Roman canon missae.

[mlinssen]

I don’t think dating is inherently dominated by churchianity. Well, I’ll clarify. What I mean is, from my limited observation, unbiased professional attempts to date things seems to be a standard practice in just about every genre of historical science. I don’t see any reason why the same scholarship can’t apply here.

Granted, I will acknowledge that there does seem to be a lot of obstinacy when it comes to dealing with many biblical scholars when it comes to dating things like this, and I imagine that’s what you’re referring to when you say you just avoid it entirely. I can see how that gets in the way because the field of biblical studies is still dominated largely by theologians who aren’t going to budge on certain things. But that doesn’t mean that historical critical work can’t also be done.

I think it’d be cool to look at the layers of works like First Apology, try to analyze it as best we can, and we don’t necessarily need to treat the idea of dating the layers as a futility.

But that’s just my take on it. For what it’s worth, I myself am a Christian, yet I say, we shouldn’t stifle historical scholarly work. We can choose to disagree with it or not acknowledge it if we must, but to stifle it, I think, is wrong.

Cunning, to put that adjective in there.
Read some of what Brent Nongbri has to say on the topic of dating and palaeography

I have been explaining to you what is lacking in palaeography that is the basis to all dating, and you equate my arguments to stifling - it's very nice if you to say that you are a Christian, but there really was no need for that

I am by no means equating your arguments to stifling. Rather, I am equating Christian theologians arguments and behavior to be stifling. That’s what I meant by “we”. I wasn’t including you in that statement. I probably should have articulated that better.

Perhaps I misunderstood your original argument but I thought you were in essence saying you didn’t bother with dating because too many theologians in the field try to twist dates and strongarm them to their arguments. I am saying, if that is happening, they are wrong to do so.

What I didn’t understand, until now, is that you were telling me that this is an issue when it comes to dating any writings and paleography. I didn’t catch that at first and that is an entirely new concept to me.

Ah, thanks. All clear now

The dating game that is being played is to date everything Christian as early as possible, and everything else as late as possible. Take the alleged reference to the alleged destruction of the Temple, for instance: there is not a single gospel that dates to the 1st CE but naturally people jump on the prediction in order to make it refer to the alleged 70 CE destruction - whereas Bar Kokhba would be a much better fit given the MSS that we have.
But then there's Luke and the Tiberius dating! And so on.
On the other side, when I demonstrate that some of Thomas clearly precedes the NT, I'll get thrown the opinion that Coptic didn't get into the world until the 3rd CE - so what is it now? Do we look at textual evidence, MSS dating, both? If anything, we should do so in all cases - but as you can see only the goal matters to the Christian "daters", not the consistency in what they use when

Paleography is a very subjective field, and frequently there will be a century in between the date by X and that by Z, for the same text. But the whole issue to Paleography for the MSS at hand is that there is no baseline for anything: there are no dated documents on which basis others can be extrapolated, so the whole field is a house of cards when it comes to dating early Christian and Chrestian MSS

[mlinssen]

Justin Martyr is explaining here why he and his are called Chrestians - it's right in front of our nose, but if you read any translation it goes unnoticed.
Obviously, the words Christians and Christ are falsified, but the dumb idiots just scanned the text for those and forgot to corrupt the evidence that fits along with it - and here we have it, undeniably: Justin Martyr attests to Chrestianity and Chrestians, and a Chrestos

Surely though Justin Martyr is making an obvious pun? Tertullian makes a similar point in "Ad nationes":

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian06.html

These crimes in (mere) words and names are just like barbarous words and phrases, which have their fault, and their solecism, and their absurdity of figure. The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing. Even when by a faulty pronunciation you call us "Chrestians" (for you are not certain about even the sound of this noted name), you in fact lisp out the sense of pleasantness and goodness. You are therefore vilifying in harmless men even the harmless name we bear, which is not inconvenient for the tongue, nor harsh to the ear, nor injurious to a single being, nor rude for our country, being a good Greek word, as many others also are, and pleasant in sound and sense.

Both attest unequivocally to the use of Chrestian, first and foremost. But if you see a pun, can you explain the pun in both of these excerpts? Because it is blatantly obvious that even Tertullian is screwing up things by saying "even the harmless name we bear", "being a good Greek word"

https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tertull ... nes1.shtml

[8] Haec uocabulorum aut nominum crimina, sicuti uerborum atque sermonum barbarismus est uitium et soloecismus et insulsior figura. Christianum uero nomen, quantum significatio est, de unctione interpretatur. [9] Etiam cum corrupte a uobis Chrestiani pronuntiamur (nam ne nominis quidem ipsius liquido certi estis), sic quoque de suauitate uel bonitate modulatum est. [10] Detinetis igitur in hominibus innoxiis etiam nomen innoxium nostrum, non incommodum linguae, non auribus asperum, non homini malum, non pari infestum, sed et Graecum cum aliis, et sonorum et interpretatione iucundum. Et utique non gladio aut cruce aut bestiis punienda sunt nomina

[andrewcriddle]

Justin claims to be writing in the time of Antoninus Pius First Apology

To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Cæsar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Cæsar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition on behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.

In principle one might challenge this claim but it is what Justin is claiming.

Andrew Criddle

[Leucius Charinus]

Do you have any theories on the dating of Justin Martyrs works?

I don't play the dating game, it's invented by Churchianity in order to drag you onto their terrain so they can beat you with their sticks - everything is a house of cards

Particularly the 10 volume set of the Ante Nicene Falsifying Fathers which although based on the "Ecclesiastical History" of Eusebius has been in all likelihood added to over the intervening centuries by the utterly corrupt church industry.

What do we have then of Justin? Writings from the 11th CE at the earliest, handed down to us via Christians alone - not the best of objective environments, shall we say?
Then who has dated those writings? Christians again, and not only that: fellow Christian buddies who had a strong and solid business case to date him as early as possible. The whole dating game by Christians is nothing but one great incestuous circle of circular refences patting one another on the back for being such a good Christian (with a few rare exceptions)

Earliest extant manuscripts

0800 - Suetonius (De vita Caesarum) *

0800 - Tertullian (Apologeticum plus) *

914 Eusebius "Against Hierocles"

914 Eusebius "Praeparatio Evangelica"

9/10TH Lucian of Samosata

10th Socrates Scholasticus:

10/11 Origen: the Manuscripts of the "Philocalia"

13th - Cyril of Alexandria "Against Julian"

1364 - Saint Justin ("Omnibus edition")

1350 - Hippolytus ("extremely crabbed hand") - C14

10/11th Irenaeus - (Latin not Greek) Claremontanus - Latin AH (C14 it)

1526 Irenaeus - Erasmus thinks Irenaeus was a Latin author (No Greek mss!)

What could possibly go wrong ?

[GakuseiDon]

Both attest unequivocally to the use of Chrestian, first and foremost.

Yes, but called "Chrestian" by the pagans. We could also include Tacitus as well, by writing about a man crucified in Judea under Pilate whose followers were called "Chrestians" according to one text that had the word changed later on. Now, leaving aside the nature of the passage, e.g. interpolation or not, it is clearly Christ that has followers that were "a class hated for their abominations, called "Chrestians" by the populace." So it seems to have been a well-known appellation of that time.

But if you see a pun, can you explain the pun in both of these excerpts? Because it is blatantly obvious that even Tertullian is screwing up things by saying "even the harmless name we bear", "being a good Greek word"

Yes, but it appears that Tertullian is referring to "anointing". Both Justin Martyr and Tertullian link "Christ" to "anointing" when writing to the pagans.

First Justin Martyr in his First Apology to the pagans, where he is quoting Psalm 2:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine new things? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast their yoke from us. He that dwelleth in the heavens shall laugh at them, and the Lord shall have them in derision.

Then in his Second Apology to the pagans:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html

And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all things through Him

Finally, Tertullian, from the link I gave above, when writing to pagans:

The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing. Even when by a faulty pronunciation you call us "Chrestians" (for you are not certain about even the sound of this noted name), you in fact lisp out the sense of pleasantness and goodness. You are therefore vilifying in harmless men even the harmless name we bear, which is not inconvenient for the tongue, nor harsh to the ear, nor injurious to a single being, nor rude for our country, being a good Greek word, as many others also are, and pleasant in sound and sense. Surely, surely, names are not things which deserve punishment by the sword, or the cross, or the beasts.

It may be possible that Christians believed in a "Christ" while at the same time calling themselves "Chrestians" in the First Century CE. Sometimes labels get applied by others, like "Mormons", "Big Bang Theory", etc. But both Justin Martyr and Tertullian call themselves "Christian" and infer that calling them "Chrestians" is a mistake.

From a dating perspective, the concern over being called "Chrestian" suggests writings that were earlier rather than later. AFAIK "Chrestian" stops being referenced after Tertullian, though I could be wrong.

[Leucius Charinus]

AFAIK "Chrestian" stops being referenced after Tertullian, though I could be wrong.

See below.

The sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος] and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity


Most of the following list has been extracted from the tabulation here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/c ... stians.htm



1.00) Manuscript Evidence: "Chrestian" exclusively dominates earliest evidence from 3rd/4th centuries

1.01) SB XII 10772 ................. "Chrestian" [3rd/4th century?]
1.02) P.Laur. II 42 ................ "Chrestian" [3rd/4th century?]
1.03) P.Oxy.XLIII 3149 ............. "Chrestian" [5th century?]
1.04) SB XVI 12497 ................. "Chrestian" [3rd/4th century?]
1.05) P.Oxy XLII 3035 .............. "Chresian" [28 February 256 CE]
1.06) P.Oxy.XLIII 3119 ............. "Chrestian" [3rd/4th century?]
1.07) PGM IV. 3007-86 .............. "The Good" ("Chrestos") [4th century]
1.08) Manichaean Mss: Kellis ....... "The Good" ("Chrestos") [4th century?]
1.09) Cartonage NHC7 ............... "The Good" ("Chrestos") [4th century]
1.10) [#01] Codex Sinaiticus........ "Chrestian" [4th century?] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
1.11) Nag Hammadi Codices ....... Mid 4th century
1.12) Gospel of Philip (NHC 2.3) ..... Contains both Chrestian and Christian !!!
1.21) Miniscule 1243 ............... "Chrestian" [11th century]


2.00) Manuscript Evidence: "not known"
2.01) Chester Beatty 45 ............ lacunae, nomina sacra form? [3rd century]


3.00) Manuscript Evidence: "Chreistian" (Transitional spelling? epsilon-iota diphthong)

3.01) [#03] Codex Vaticanus ....... "Chreistians" [4th century] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus
3.02) [#05] Codex Bezae ........... "Chreistians" [6th century] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae


4.00) Manuscript Evidence: Uncials/Majuscules - "Christian" (later evidence from 5th/6th centuries????)

4.001) Gospel of Philip (NHC 2.3) ..... Contains both Chrestian and Christian !!!
4.01) [#02] Codex Alexandrinus .... "Christian" [5th century?] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus
4.02) [#08] Codex Laudianus ....... "Christian" [6th century?] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Laudianus
4.03) [#14] Codex Mutinensis ...... "Christian" [7th century] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Mutinensis
4.04) [#20] Codex Angelicus ....... "Christian" [9th century] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Angelicus
4.05) [#25] Codex Porphyrianus .... "Christian" [9th century] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Porphyrianus
4.06) [#44] Codex Athous Lavrensis. "Christian" [9th century] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Athous_Lavrensis
4.07) [#049] Codex at Mt. Athos ... "Christian" [9th century] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_049
4.08) [#056] Codex at Paris ....... "Christian" [10th century] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_056

Manuscript Evidence: Miniscules:
4.09) 1 (12th),
4.10) 88 (12th),
4.11) 104 (dated 1087 CE),
4.12) 226 (12th),
4.13) 323 (12th),
4.14) 330 (12th),
4.15) 440 (14th),
4.16) 547 (11th),
4.17) 614 (13th),
4.18) 618 (12th),
4.19) 927 (dated 1133 CE),
4.20) 945 (11th),
4.21) 1175 (14th),
4.22) 1241 (12th),
4.23) 1245 (12th),
4.24) 1270 (11th),
4.25) 1505 (12th),
4.26) 1611 (10th),
4.27) 1646 (12th),
4.28) 1739 (10th),
4.29) 1828 (14th) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuscule_182
4.30) 1837,
4.31) 1854,
4.32) 1891,
4.33) 2147,
4.34) 2344,
4.35) 2412,
4.36) 2492,
4.37) 2495.
etc

Source: New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Acts - (1996) by Reuben Swanson (Editor)

[mlinssen]

Both attest unequivocally to the use of Chrestian, first and foremost.

Yes, but called "Chrestian" by the pagans.

That's what Tertullian says, but Justin includes himself among the Chrestians.
It is extremely interesting to see that apparently things had changed between Martyr and Tertullian, where Tertullian explicitly refers to pagans indeed, while martyr still speaks of an "us".
In that light, and given Bezae, Vaticanus and Sinatitucs, it is evident that these two date to 4th/5th CE rather than 2nd

We could also include Tacitus as well, by writing about a man crucified in Judea under Pilate whose followers were called "Chrestians" according to one text that had the word changed later on. Now, leaving aside the nature of the passage, e.g. interpolation or not, it is clearly Christ that has followers that were "a class hated for their abominations, called "Chrestians" by the populace." So it seems to have been a well-known appellation of that time.

Yes indeed, that's part of the point

But if you see a pun, can you explain the pun in both of these excerpts? Because it is blatantly obvious that even Tertullian is screwing up things by saying "even the harmless name we bear", "being a good Greek word"

Yes, but it appears that Tertullian is referring to "anointing". Both Justin Martyr and Tertullian link "Christ" to "anointing" when writing to the pagans.

First Justin Martyr in his First Apology to the pagans, where he is quoting Psalm 2:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine new things? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast their yoke from us. He that dwelleth in the heavens shall laugh at them, and the Lord shall have them in derision.

Then in his Second Apology to the pagans:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html

And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all things through Him

I'm not a native English speaker, but WHERE IS THE PUN - why is it funny or punny, which words connect in which way?
Because I don't see any pun at all between Chrestos and anything else

Finally, Tertullian, from the link I gave above, when writing to pagans:

The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing. Even when by a faulty pronunciation you call us "Chrestians" (for you are not certain about even the sound of this noted name), you in fact lisp out the sense of pleasantness and goodness. You are therefore vilifying in harmless men even the harmless name we bear, which is not inconvenient for the tongue, nor harsh to the ear, nor injurious to a single being, nor rude for our country, being a good Greek word, as many others also are, and pleasant in sound and sense. Surely, surely, names are not things which deserve punishment by the sword, or the cross, or the beasts.

It may be possible that Christians believed in a "Christ" while at the same time calling themselves "Chrestians" in the First Century CE.

1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th - yes, there was Chrestianity who believed in a Chrest, and he was like Marcion's, not only not intertwined with Judaism but even starkly opposed to it

Sometimes labels get applied by others, like "Mormons", "Big Bang Theory", etc. But both Justin Martyr and Tertullian call themselves "Christian" and infer that calling them "Chrestians" is a mistake.

No, that is my point: Justin talks about "us Chrestians". Let me run it by you again: viewtopic.php?p=136685#p136685 contains the full story but I'll make it more concise this time

For we are accused of being Chrestians, and to hate what is excellent (Chrestian) is unjust
Χρηστιανοὶ γὰρ εἶναι κατηγορούμεθα· τὸ δὲ χρηστὸν μισεῖσθαι οὐ δίκαιον

I have un-redacted the i, and it makes perfect sense this way. The literal Greek is as follows:

Χρηστιανοὶ γὰρ εἶναι κατηγορούμεθα· τὸ δὲ χρηστὸν μισεῖσθαι οὐ δίκαιον
Chrestians indeed being we-are-accused-of, the however good to-hate not righteous

From a dating perspective, the concern over being called "Chrestian" suggests writings that were earlier rather than later. AFAIK "Chrestian" stops being referenced after Tertullian, though I could be wrong.

Yes, Chrestianity preceded Christianity, it was the original movement, not hijacked by Romans who judaized it beyond any and all recognition in order to counter and undo "Marcion"'s