Justin Martyrs Writings Dates?

[Jair]

I come bearing more questions. I probably should have bookmarked the thread but I didn’t, alas, but I was reading a thread here recently where the topic of dating Justin Martyrs writings came up and it was the first time I had seen anyone suggest (significantly, let alone any) later dates for his writings than what has been considered consensus. I am wondering what findings in the text are driving these recent conversations?

I’ve skimmed through an online translation of First Apology twice, and it’s long, so I don’t remember everything and my details might be off a bit but there was one thing in particular… well two things actually.

Regarding very late date propositions, I find that unlikely because First Apology doesn’t consider the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be equals. I would think that this would make it very unlikely to be written after the Constantinople-Nicene Council in 380. Surely?

The second point that gives me pause to consider late dates is that I recall Justin relaying a tradition in First Apology where Jesus is resurrected on the day after the crucifixion, in other words, written before the 3 days tradition.

Those are my thoughts, albeit far from scholarly and likely somewhat religiously biased. I’m curious though, and perhaps I read the posts wrong and nobody really considers late dates for Justin Martyr but I figured if so, the topic itself makes for some interesting discussion.

[MrMacSon]

I doubt Justin Martyr's writings can be dated much differently to convention without re-dating all the other early Christian writings dated to the mid 2nd century, including those attributed to non-orthodox sects such as the Valentinians and Marcion and his followers.

See the commentary by Ismo Dundnerberg about the likely relationship of aspects of Ptolemy's Letter to Flora to

1. Justin Martyr
   
   
   Given the similarities between the situation described by Justin and that implied in Ptolemaeus’s letter, it is also possible that the woman mentioned by Justin was identical with Flora viewtopic.php?p=136615#p136615
   
   and
   .
2. the Marcionite texts
   
   
   
   Ptolemaeus’s text is significant also because it bears witness to a competition among early Christian groups in the second century. Ptolemaeus is apparently well aware of other contemporary positions about the biblical law and engages himself in a discussion with these positions. His treatise shows a specific affinity with the teachings of Marcion. Whereas scholars usually interpret Ptolemaeus’s argumentation as an attack against Marcion and his followers, I believe a more nuanced assessment of his relationship to Marcionite theology is needed.
   
   Ptolemaeus’s own position that the Creator-God is neither the supreme God (as some people claim) nor the devil (as other people claim), and the arguments he offers in support of this position, are, in fact, very close to those of Marcion.
   
   viewtopic.php?p=136614#p136614
   
   
   
   

eta: Markus Vinzent has determined that Justin Martyr and Marcion likely had a dialogue-communicating relationship

[Jair]

I find the last point to be very interesting as I know Rene Salm recently made a blog that he was no longer convinced Marcion ever existed. I’m assuming he is in the extreme minority even among mythicists, along with propositions of late dates for Justin.

[MrMacSon]

To what extent 'Marion' or even Valentinus (and others) existed-as-they-are-often-portrayed may, depending on one's point of view, be hard to tell. But I think that the key thing at present is to try to unravel the relationships of the theologies in the early Christian texts we have, to try to build a better picture of what may have or actually happened in the development of early Christianity and subsequently.

It's highly likely that texts such as those of Justin Martyr have been embellished : Justin's texts are, as you have said, very long, and there are indications that passages or even whole sections have been repeated in the same text or even in other of his texts.

[mlinssen]

I find the last point to be very interesting as I know Rene Salm recently made a blog that he was no longer convinced Marcion ever existed. I’m assuming he is in the extreme minority even among mythicists, along with propositions of late dates for Justin.

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2022/02/25/marcion/

I developed that idea last year, and put it into my bio, and out here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7724&p=132529&hilit ... on#p132529

Marcion is a mere portraying of Chrestianity, and as such a useful tool for the Falsifying Fathers to use but most particularly abuse.
Salm doesn't have any use for Chrestianity of course, with his convoluted Yeshua origins dating back to the Hasmoneans, neatly tagging the DSS along, and everything else - but what he describes is Chrestianity, namely that which precedes Christianity

I prefer the term ahistoricists, by the way - it doesn't leave much room for margin about what the stance is

[Jair]

I find the last point to be very interesting as I know Rene Salm recently made a blog that he was no longer convinced Marcion ever existed. I’m assuming he is in the extreme minority even among mythicists, along with propositions of late dates for Justin.

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2022/02/25/marcion/

I developed that idea last year, and put it into my bio, and out here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7724&p=132529&hilit ... on#p132529

Marcion is a mere portraying of Chrestianity, and as such a useful tool for the Falsifying Fathers to use but most particularly abuse.
Salm doesn't have any use for Chrestianity of course, with his convoluted Yeshua origins dating back to the Hasmoneans, neatly tagging the DSS along, and everything else - but what he describes is Chrestianity, namely that which precedes Christianity

I prefer the term ahistoricists, by the way - it doesn't leave much room for margin about what the stance is

I look forward to reading the thread. I agree that his theories about Yeshu ha Notsri are a stretch. Earliest mentions of said figure post date earliest mentions of Jesus of Nazareth, iirc, so, that turns that theory into a bit of a moot point, imo. Interesting theory, but unlikely I think.

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

[mlinssen]

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

The most objective material that we have are the texts of the NT, all of which are dated via palaeography - and there's an awful lot of wishful thinking involved there. While there are major trends to be discerned - e.g. script, majuscule and miniscule covering many centuries of development in Christian writings - it is ludicrous to try and date any one of those within a certainty of more than a century or one, two.
Any writing is related to dozens of factors; look at your own. I can easily tell whether a handwritten letter these days is by French, German, Dutch or Americans for example, because all of them are taught in a very significantly different way. I can even tell roughly what level of education the writer received (without looking at spelling errors) and indeed I can, with regard to Dutch handwriting, tell with a certainty of a few decades in which time the writer lived - but I can only do the latter because I have a magnitude of samples, each of which is dated within a time of a few years at best.
And that little bit is exactly what is missing in palaeography: there are no starting documents that are dated, at best there is a handle of documents around the 6th CE that are dated

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)

Is Justin's work untainted? To a degree yes, to a degree no. The funniest remains of him are in the following fragment:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm is the link to this very text.
Dialogue with Trypho chapter 4, the infamous section where Justin refers to an "us" who are called Chr?stians because they are so "χρηστότατοι", the superlative of χρηστός: kind, good.
As you can see, it equates "excellent" to Chrestos, and when we consult the Greek, we can see that:

IV 1. Ὀνόματος μὲν οὖν προσωνυμίᾳ οὔτε ἀγαθὸν οὔτε κακὸν κρίνεται ἄνευ τῶν ὑποπιπτουσῶν τῷ ὀνόματι πράξεων· ἐπεί, ὅσον τε ἐκ τοῦ κατηγορουμένου ἡμῶν ὀνόματος χρηστότατοι ὑπάρχομεν. 2. ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ οὐ τοῦτο δίκαιον ἡγούμεθα, διὰ τὸ ὄνομα ἐὰν κακοὶ ἐλεγχώμεθα, αἰτεῖν ἀφίεσθαι, πάλιν, εἰ μηδὲν διά τε τὴν προσηγορίαν τοῦ ὀνόματος καὶ διὰ τὴν πολιτείαν εὑρισκόμεθα ἀδικοῦντες, ὑμέτερον ἀγωνιᾶσαί ἐστι, μὴ ἀδίκως κολάζοντες τοὺς μὴ ἐλεγχομένους τῇ δίκῃ κόλασιν ὀφλήσητε. 3. ἐξ ὀνόματος μὲν γὰρ ἢ ἔπαινος ἢ κόλασις οὐκ ἂν εὐλόγως γένοιτο, ἢν μή τι ἐνάρετον ἢ φαῦλον δι’ ἔργων ἀποδείκνυσθαι δύνηται. 4. καὶ γὰρ τοὺς κατηγορουμένους ἐφ’ ὑμῶν πάντας πρὶν ἐλεγχθῆναι οὐ τιμωρεῖτε· ἐφ’ ἡμῶν δὲ τὸ ὄνομα ὡς ἔλεγχον λαμβάνετε, καίπερ, ὅσον γε ἐκ τοῦ ὀνόματος, τοὺς κατηγοροῦντας μᾶλλον κολάζειν ὀφείλετε. 5. Χριστιανοὶ γὰρ εἶναι κατηγορούμεθα· τὸ δὲ χρηστὸν μισεῖσθαι οὐ δίκαιον. 6. καὶ πάλιν, ἐὰν μέν τις τῶν κατηγορουμένων ἔξαρνος γένηται τῇ φωνῇ μὴ εἶναι φήσας, ἀφίετε αὐτὸν ὡς μηδὲν ἐλέγχειν ἔχοντες ἁμαρτάνοντα, ἐὰν δέ τι ὁμολογήσῃ εἶναι, διὰ τὴν ὁμολογίαν κολάζετε· δέον καὶ τὸν τοῦ ὁμολογοῦντος βίον εὐθύνειν καὶ τὸν τοῦ ἀρνουμένου, ὅπως διὰ τῶν πράξεων ὁποῖός ἐστιν ἕκαστος φαίνηται. 7. ὃν γὰρ τρόπον παραλαβόντες τινὲς παρὰ τοῦ διδασκάλου Χριστοῦ μὴ ἀρνεῖσθαι ἐξεταζόμενοι παρακελεύονται, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον κακῶς ζῶντες ἴσως ἀφορμὰς παρέχουσι τοῖς ἄλλως καταλέγειν τῶν πάντων Χριστιανῶν ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν αἱρουμένοις. 8. οὐκ ὀρθῶς μὲν οὐδὲ τοῦτο πράττεται· καὶ γάρ τοι φιλοσοφίας ὄνομα καὶ σχῆμα ἐπιγράφονταί τινες, οἳ οὐδὲν ἄξιον τῆς ὑποσχέσεως πράττουσι· γινώσκετε δ’ ὅτι καὶ οἱ τὰ ἐναντία δοξάσαντες καὶ δογματίσαντες τῶν παλαιῶν τῷ ἑνὶ ὀνόματι προσαγορεύονται φιλόσοφοι. 9. καὶ τούτων τινὲς ἀθεότητα ἐδίδαξαν, καὶ τὸν Δία ἀσελγῆ ἅμα τοῖς αὐτοῦ παισὶν οἱ γενόμενοι ποιηταὶ καταγγέλλουσι· κἀκείνων τὰ διδάγματα οἱ μετερχόμενοι οὐκ εἴργονται πρὸς ὑμῶν, ἆθλα δὲ καὶ τιμὰς τοῖς εὐφώνως ὑβρίζουσι τούτους τίθετε

1. By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; and indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are most excellent people. 2. But as we do not think it just to beg to be acquitted on account of the name, if we be convicted as evil-doers, so, on the other hand, if we be found to have committed no offense, either in the matter of thus naming ourselves, or of our conduct as citizens, it is your part very earnestly to guard against incurring just punishment, by unjustly punishing those who are not convicted. 3. For from a name neither praise nor punishment could reasonably spring, unless something excellent or base in action be proved. 4. And those among yourselves who are accused you do not punish before they are convicted; but in our case you receive the name as proof against us, and this although, so far as the name goes, you ought rather to punish our accusers. 5. For we are accused of being Christians, and to hate what is excellent (Chrestian) is unjust. 6. Again, if any of the accused deny the name, and say that he is not a Christian, you acquit him, as having no evidence against him as a wrong-doer; but if any one acknowledge that he is a Christian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgment. Justice requires that you inquire into the life both of him who confesses and of him who denies, that by his deeds it may be apparent what kind of man each is. 7. For as some who have been taught by the Master, Christ, not to deny Him, give encouragement to others when they are put to the question, so in all probability do those who lead wicked lives give occasion to those who, without consideration, take upon them to accuse all the Christians of impiety and wickedness. 8. And this also is not right. For of philosophy, too, some assume the name and the garb who do nothing worthy of their profession; and you are well aware, that those of the ancients whose opinions and teachings were quite diverse, are yet all called by the one name of philosophers. 9. And of these some taught atheism; and the poets who have flourished among you raise a laugh out of the uncleanness of Jupiter with his own children. And those who now adopt such instruction are not restrained by you; but, on the contrary, you bestow prizes and honours upon those who euphoniously insult the gods.

.
The word in the first sentence is χρηστότατοι. Sentence 5 then says Χριστιανοὶ γὰρ εἶναι κατηγορούμεθα· τὸ δὲ χρηστὸν μισεῖσθαι οὐ δίκαιον and it is evident how that doesn't make much sense - unless it says Χρηστιανοὶ γὰρ εἶναι κατηγορούμεθα· τὸ δὲ χρηστὸν μισεῖσθαι οὐ δίκαιον and we can see how those twain meet, and how the pivotal word in the first sentence is repeated.
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

The only way to study any of this is in the original language of the original manuscripts, because every single translation is biased

So - how to date Justin? Justin predates Christianity but is an incredibly strong witness to Romans overtaking Chrestianity. So we need a year, decade or even a century? I don't, all I need is precedence and direction of dependence

[Jair]

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.

[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

[Jair]

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.