Chris Palmero on what Justin knew

[Giuseppe]

His citations of the Gospels conflict with them on so many key issues that the best explanation is that he was working off a number of disparate texts that may have had some connection with the canonical gospels but did not represent them in their final forms. As one example out of very many, he puts the episode of the disciples abandoning Jesus after the Crucifixion. So the "strike the shepherd" vignette that Mark and Matthew put right after the arrest is transferred by Justin to after the Crucifixion. The only Canonical gospel that preserves something close to that is John, but Justin actually doesn't seem to have John because he never cites any specifically Johannine material. His immediate source would appear to be the Preaching of Peter and at least one other document that was actually more focused on how Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies than it was a record of his ministry and career.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1038530526485151

[dbz]

• Chris Palmero. "Born in the Second Century". borninthesecondcentury.com.

Chris Palmero examines and compares two passages from ancient books: one that suggests an early origin for Christianity, and one that suggests that Christianity was indeed BORN IN THE SECOND CENTURY. In our first vision in this Temple of Time, we listen as Justin Martyr tells us about geriatric volcel Christians in 156 AD. In our second vision, from the gospel of Matthew, we listen to Jesus' infamous statement about John the Baptist that seems to suggest that John was really a figure from the distant, murky past - and not a contemporary of Jesus at all.

Anyone who listens to this episode can learn about the host's Catholic background, about why this is not an anti-Christian show, about the lack of evidence for an early origin of Christianity, about Mark changing the day of Jesus' death, about Justin Martyr and his time and place, and about the temporal paradox created when the gospels merged the timelines of Jesus and John the Baptist.

Opening reading: The fake travel diary of Thessalos of Tralles shows us how common forgery was in the Hellenistic world, and what implications that may have for Pliny's famous letter to Trajan concerning Christians.

00:47 - Reading: THESSALOS OF TRALLES, On the Virtues of Herbs.
14:34 - Intro and General REMARKS. Background of the Host.
22:26 - No Evidence for a First Century ORIGIN.
28:20 - Excursus: MARK Changed the Day of Jesus' Death.
36:18 - Our Opponents Generally Motivated by a FAITH Motive.
39:07 - Intro to the TEMPLE OF TIME.
42:38 - First Vision: JUSTIN MARTYR, First Apology 15.
1:02:01 - Second Vision: MATTHEW on John the Baptist (Matt 11:12).
1:28:08 - CLOSING Remarks.

---

"9. John the Baptist and Justin Martyr in the Temple of Time. - Born in the Second Century".

---

A few months ago I was asked about good secular histories of Christianity. I’ve never actually found a good one, at least in the sense they meant, so I recommended Loisy’s books. But I thought I would share some of the tools essential to me in radical criticism for those interested in this subject. Now most of my research materials are online (including the many indispensable materials from Jewish perspectives, such as the J.A.B.) but I needed to have a bunch of physical books for whenever I do online dating – I need sharable visual evidence of why I haven’t seemed to have left my home in fifteen years. “I mean, I do a lot of reading, so…”

To be a radical critic along the lines of Rylands (d. 1942), Detering (d. 2018), or Palmero (d. 2052), you will have to quickly get used to the accusation that you’ve never read X, Y, or Z. Remember: (1) no one can ever read all of the material written on this subject, (2) most of the existing material conflicts with most other material and (3) there is no silver bullet that can defeat radical criticism, except a truly breakthrough archaeological discovery.
[Image and caption of a laid out book collection]
1. A well-vacuumed carpet – essential, as you will be spending most of your time indoors
2. Row 1
A. Eusebius – this is the translation from Paul “Eusebius Said Nothing Wrong” Maier, but it’s pictured here to indicate that you’re gonna need a Eusebius in some form
B. Kelber / Mark’s Story of Jesus – he demonstrates via literary criticism that Mark is a completely literary creation, but for some reason backs off of the full implications of this. You can easily fill in the blanks yourself, but don’t do it in public because you might risk a “You Know Nothing of My Work” moment with Herr Kelber in the role of the “You Know Nothing” man
C. Trobisch / First Edition of NT – The New Testament was arranged consciously by an editor and all subsequent manuscripts were based on this collated edition. A powerful weapon, considering how mainstream the author is
D. Schweitzer / Quest of Historical Jesus – My ex-girlfriend told me that no woman moves into a house without purchasing a toilet brush. I am simply relating what she said to me verbatim; that is not my own opinion. But just so, no radical critic moves into a house without a Quest of the Historical Jesus
D. Mack / Myth of Innocence – He demonstrates that Mark was a literary creation almost in its entirety. He, too, backs off the implications of this but in his case I expect a deathbed confession of mythicism
E. Koester / Ancient Christian Gospels – useful for its record of the earliest gospel citations, but it’s also example of a relatively conservative scholar challenging readings that are even more conservative. Therefore our opponents are found to be fighting one another, like when Sapphire Weapon fought against Shinra in Final Fantasy 7, allowing the heroes to escape
F. Tried Money Changers Apocrypha – a weird book that slaps together Jewish and Christian apocrypha. Useful if you like 1000 page books with no table of contents
3. Row 2
A. BeDuhn / First New Testament – Thankfully you will not need another resource on Marcion’s gospel because this book presents it in Dwarf Fortress levels of detail
B. Price / Amazing Colossal Apostle – In the first half of the book he builds a case that Paul is either Simon Magus or a Simonian. The second half is invaluable because it’s a line by line analysis of what he sees as the composite layers of Paul’s text. He deprecates this book often, calling it a “brick.” It’s a BRICK OF TRUTH imo
C. Your ass is gonna need a Septuagint
D. Dead Sea Scrolls – I honestly never saw the significance of these, but 90% of your audience will ask about them, so I got a book called “The Dead Sea Scrolls” with no subtitle. If you’re not going the Eisenman route, then the signficance of the DSS toward early Christianity can be summed up in three paragraphs probably
E. Schneemelcher Apocrypha – about as important as the NT itself
F. Companion to Second Century Heretics – Essays by mostly Finnish scholars with some cutting-edge stuff about heretics. I mean to say that most of the scholars are Finnish, not that each individual scholar is mostly Finnish
4. Row 3
A. Antiqua Mater – the Mao’s Red Book of radicalism
B. Schurer / Jewish People in the Time of Jesus / Jewish Literature in the Time of Jesus – One can go either way on this, but I prefer to have more resources in my collection than less. Just treat it like an extraction mission: go in, get what you need, and get out
C. Thompson / Mythic Past – For me it was either spend 50 years studying the entire Old Testament, or just read this book which gives a good enough explanation of its provenance
D. Maccoby / Paul and Hellenism – Pretty much a comfort book because he hardly likes to cite anything, but it shows just how breezily the conservative paradigms can be dispensed with. If anyone says that Maccoby’s analysis is too simplistic, just pretend that someone’s texting you and say “Sorry, I have to take this”
E. Strauss / Life of Jesus Critically Examined – translated by George Eliot. I would say its indispensible, but stylistically, I think that 19th century prose authors could use to tone it quite down a bit
F. Sanders / Studying the Synoptic Gospels – Read this book by this kick-ass husband and wife team so that no one can accuse of you of not reading conventional scholarship about the NT. It’s basically a college textbook that sums up the conventional paradigm
G. Loisy – This two-in-one book is my go-to recommendation for people interested in early Christianity. I think his most important contribution was to show the evolution of the concept of the “Lord’s Supper” throughout the texts. Also, he is one of the few people who truly cares about the actual timeline of Jesus’ crucifixion, whether it happened on the Day of Preparation or on the Passover itself, which to me is the main indicator of whether someone is truly invested in these books
5. Row 4
A. The blue book is Supernatural Religion by Walter Cassels, necessary for its discussion of NT attestations in early Christian documents. He was kind of the New Atheist of his day so you have to slog through a LOT of 19th century-style trolling of the damnable theists
B. Zindler / Jesus the Jews Never Knew – if you can mentally tune out all the New Atheist rhetoric, it’s a useful guide to Jesus references in Jewish literature. I think Zindler’s best contribution was (in my opinion correctly) arguing that all the John the Baptist material was interpolated into Mark
C. Streeter / Four Gospels – this is another sham shield so that no one can accuse you of reading scholars that only support your position. You get a 2-for-1 by reading this because at least in my opinion, NT scholars have not really substantially moved away from Streeter’s position, even though for some reason they claim otherwise
D. Maccoby / Mythmaker – Paul was not a Pharisee, cf. Row 3D
E. Layton / Gnostic Scriptures – you will probably need at least three Nag Hammadi books, but this Layton character is a knowledgable fellow when it comes to these texts
F. Rudolph / Gnosis – If people try arguing that Christianity preceded gnosticism you can either read this book and refute them therefrom; otherwise it’s big enough to throw in their direction to ward them off
G. Price / Pre-Nicene New Testament – I would say that people could even get this in lieu of an actual New Testament. He includes about 70% of the early Christian texts and makes hardly any OJ Simpson references in this one. Generally speaking, in a book about Christianity you want no more than 1.75 OJ Simpsons references per chapter

---

--Palmero, Chris (9 December 2020). “Radical Christianity Critic Starter Pack”. Facebook.

[mlinssen]

His citations of the Gospels conflict with them on so many key issues that the best explanation is that he was working off a number of disparate texts that may have had some connection with the canonical gospels but did not represent them in their final forms. As one example out of very many, he puts the episode of the disciples abandoning Jesus after the Crucifixion. So the "strike the shepherd" vignette that Mark and Matthew put right after the arrest is transferred by Justin to after the Crucifixion. The only Canonical gospel that preserves something close to that is John, but Justin actually doesn't seem to have John because he never cites any specifically Johannine material. His immediate source would appear to be the Preaching of Peter and at least one other document that was actually more focused on how Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies than it was a record of his ministry and career.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1038530526485151

Justin Martyr Part II: Dialogue with Trypho 51-59 (Greek-English)

CHAPTER LIII -- JACOB PREDICTED THAT Christ WOULD RIDE ON AN ASS, AND ZECHARIAH CONFIRMS IT. "And that expression, 'binding his foal to the vine, and the ass's foal to the vine tendril,' was a declaring beforehand both of the works wrought by Him at His first advent, and also of that belief in Him which the nations would repose. For they were like an unharnessed foal, which was not bearing a yoke on its neck, until this Christ came, and sent His disciples to instruct them; and they bore the yoke of His word, and yielded the neck to endure all[hardships], for the sake of the good things promised by Himself, and expected by them. And truly our Lord Jesus Christ, when He intended to go into Jerusalem, requested His disciples to bring Him a certain ass, along with its foal, which was bound in an entrance of a village called Bethphage; and having seated Himself on it, He entered into Jerusalem. And as this was done by Him in the manner in which it was prophesied in precise terms that it would be done by the Christ, and as the fulfilment was recognised, it became a clear proof that He was the Christ. And though all this happened and is proved from Scripture, you are still hard-hearted. Nay, it was prophesied by Zechariah, one of the twelve[prophets], that such would take place, in the following words: 'Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion; shout, and declare, daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy King shall come to thee, righteous, bringing salvation, meek, and lowly, riding on an ass, and the foal of an ass.' Now, that the Spirit of prophecy, as well as the patriarch Jacob, mentioned both an ass and its foal, which would be used by Him; and, further, that He, as I previously said, requested His disciples to bring both beasts;[this fact] was a prediction that you of the synagogue, along with the Gentiles, would believe in Him. For as the unharnessed colt was a symbol of the Gentiles even so the harnessed ass was a symbol of your nation. For you possess the law which was imposed[upon you] by the prophets. Moreover, the prophet Zechariah foretold that this same Christ would be smitten, and His disciples scattered: which also took place. For after His crucifixion, the disciples that accompanied Him were dispersed, until He rose from the dead, and persuaded them that so it had been prophesied concerning Him, that He would suffer; and being thus persuaded, they went into all the world, and taught these truths. Hence also we are strong in His faith and doctrine, since we have[this our] persuasion both from the prophets, and from those who throughout the world are seen to be worshippers of God in the name of that crucified One. The following is said, too, by Zechariah: 'O sword, rise up against My Shepherd, and against the man of My people, saith the Lord of hosts. Smite the Shepherd, and His flock shall be scattered.'

Chabad: O sword, awaken against My shepherd and against the man who is associated with Me! says the Lord of Hosts. Smite the shepherd, and the flock shall scatter, and I will return My hand upon the little ones

LIII 1 Καὶ τὸ Δεσμεύων πρὸς ἄμπελον τὸν πῶλον αὐτοῦ καὶ τῇ ἕλικι τὸν πῶλον τῆς ὄνου καὶ τῶν ἔργων, τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς πρώτης αὐτοῦ παρουσίας γενομένων ὑπ' αὐτοῦ, καὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν ὁμοίως, τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν αὐτῷ, προδήλωσις ἦν. οὗτοι γὰρ ὡς πῶλος ἀσαγὴς καὶ ζυγὸν ἐπὶ αὐχένα μὴ ἔχων τὸν ἑαυτοῦ, μέχρις ὁ Χς οὗτος ἐλθὼν διὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ πέμψας ἐμαθήτευσεν αὐτούς, καὶ τὸν ζυγὸν τοῦ λόγου αὐτοῦ βαστάσαντες τὸν νῶτον ὑπέθηκαν πρὸς τὸ πάντα ὑπομένειν διὰ τὰ προσδοκώμενα καὶ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ κατηγγελμένα ἀγαθά. 2 καὶ ὄνον δέ τινα ἀληθῶς σὺν πώλῳ αὐτῆς προσδεδεμένην ἔν τινι εἰσόδῳ κώμης Βηθσφαγῆς λεγομένης, ὅτε ἔμελλεν εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς τὰ Ἰεροσόλυμα ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰς Χς, ἐκέλευσε τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ ἀγαγεῖν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐπικαθίσας ἐπεισελήλυθεν εἰς τὰ Ἰεροσόλυμα· ὅπερ ὡς ἐπεπροφήτευτο διαρρήδην γενήσεσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ Χῦ, γενόμενον ὑπ' αὐτοῦ καὶ γνωσθέν, τὸν Χν ὄντα αὐτὸν φανερὸν ἐποίει. καί, τούτων ἁπάντων γενομένων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν ἀποδεικνυμένων, ὑμεῖς ἔτι σκληροκάρδιοί ἐστε. 3 προεφητεύθη δὲ ὑπὸ Ζαχαρίου, ἑνὸς τῶν δώδεκα, τοῦτο μέλλειν γίνεσθαι οὕτως· Χαῖρε σφόδρα, θύγατερ Σιών, ἀλάλαξον, κήρυσσε, θύγατερ Ἰερουσαλήμ· ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἥξει σοι δίκαιος καὶ σώζων αὐτὸς καὶ πραῢς καὶ πτωχός, ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὑποζύγιον καὶ πῶλον ὄνου. 4 τὸ δὲ καὶ ὄνον ὑποζύγιον ἤδη μετὰ τοῦ πώλου αὐτῆς ὀνομάζειν τὸ προφητικὸν πνεῦμα μετὰ τοῦ πατριάρχου Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῇ κτήσει αὐτὸν ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, ὡς προέφην, ἀμφότερα τὰ ζῶα κελεῦσαι ἀγαγεῖν, προαγγελία ἦν καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς συναγωγῆς ὑμῶν ἅμα τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν πιστεύειν ἐπ' αὐτὸν μέλλουσιν. ὡς γὰρ τῶν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν σύμβολον ἦν ὁ ἀσαγὴς πῶλος, οὕτως καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑμετέρου λαοῦ ἡ ὑποσαγὴς ὄνος· τὸν γὰρ διὰ τῶν προφητῶν νόμον ἐπικείμενον ἔχετε. 5 ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τοῦ προφήτου Ζαχαρίου, ὅτι παταχθήσεται αὐτὸς οὗτος ὁ Χς καὶ διασκορπισθήσονται οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, προεφητεύθη· ὅπερ καὶ γέγονε. μετὰ γὰρ τὸ σταυρωθῆναι αὐτὸν οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ ὄντες μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ διεσκεδάσθησαν, μέχρις ὅτου ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ πέπεικεν αὐτοὺς ὅτι οὕτως προεπεφήτευτο περὶ αὐτοῦ παθεῖν αὐτόν· καὶ οὕτω πεισθέντες καὶ εἰς τὴν πᾶσαν οἰκουμένην ἐξελθόντες ταῦτα ἐδίδαξαν. 6 ὅθεν καὶ ἡμεῖς βέβαιοι ἐν τῇ πίστει καὶ μαθητείᾳ αὐτοῦ ἐσμεν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην εἰς ὄνομα τοῦ ἐσταυρωμένουι ἐκείνου ὁρωμένων καὶ γενομένων θεοσεβῶν τὴν πειθὼ ἔχομεν. ἔστι δὲ τὰ λεχθέντα ὑπὸ τοῦ Ζαχαρίου ταῦτα· Ῥομφαία, ἐξεγέρθητι ἐπὶ τὸν ποιμένα μου καὶ ἐπ' ἄνδρα τοῦ λαοῦ μου, λέγει κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων· πάταξον τὸν ποιμένα, καὶ διασκορπισθήσονται τὰ πρόβατα αὐτοῦ.

LXX: 7Ῥομφαία, ἐξεγέρθητι ἐπὶ τοὺς ποιμένας μου καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἄνδρα πολίτην μου, λέγει Κύριος Παντοκράτωρ· πατάξατε τοὺς ποιμένας καὶ ἐκσπάσατε τὰ πρόβατα, καὶ ἐπάξω τὴν χεῖρά μου ἐπὶ τοὺς μικρούς.

Justin is a dress rehearsal, telling the story as it was thought to need to be told at that time.
There's a very interesting bit in the LXX:

εκσπασατε (εκσπαω) 1aor act imp 2nd pl do-REMOVE-you(pl)!

It is an imperative, directed to 2nd plural. Disagrees with the MT, and the English translation to the LXX as well as the current "OT" - and Justin - is bogus

https://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.ph ... ritics=off

[GakuseiDon]

His citations of the Gospels conflict with them on so many key issues that the best explanation is that he was working off a number of disparate texts that may have had some connection with the canonical gospels but did not represent them in their final forms. As one example out of very many, he puts the episode of the disciples abandoning Jesus after the Crucifixion. So the "strike the shepherd" vignette that Mark and Matthew put right after the arrest is transferred by Justin to after the Crucifixion. The only Canonical gospel that preserves something close to that is John, but Justin actually doesn't seem to have John because he never cites any specifically Johannine material. His immediate source would appear to be the Preaching of Peter and at least one other document that was actually more focused on how Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies than it was a record of his ministry and career.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1038530526485151

Fair dinkum that makes me mad as a cut snake. How else can Justin prove his point to Jews other than by quoting OT prophecies? Is quoting the Gospels going to be convincing to Trypho??? Is saying that "we have eye-witness accounts from a hundred years ago!" going to be convincing to any pagan or Jew? Was it convincing to Celsus? Would it convince anyone on this board???

I just don't get that blind spot. The most convincing arguments were those backed up by either (1) references to Scriptures/Plato, or (2) personal revelation. That's because they were first hand or authoritative. Eye-witness accounts were third hand and not as reliable. It wasn't until Gospels became authoritative themselves that they started to be used for proofs, and that wasn't until late in the Second Century,

[GakuseiDon]

His citations of the Gospels conflict with them on so many key issues that the best explanation is that he was working off a number of disparate texts that may have had some connection with the canonical gospels but did not represent them in their final forms.

Here's a novel thought: Justin didn't care what the Gospels said. That is, he didn't consider them as authoritative. Instead, they told a story and Justin worked from the story rather than the Gospels themselves. It was the story that mattered, not quoting the Gospels verbatim like it was Scripture. And for that matter, early Christians didn't even quote the Hebrew Scriptures verbatim, but rather played around with them in order to make their points. So why not do the same with the Gospels?

[GakuseiDon]

As one example out of very many, he puts the episode of the disciples abandoning Jesus after the Crucifixion. So the "strike the shepherd" vignette that Mark and Matthew put right after the arrest is transferred by Justin to after the Crucifixion.

"After"! Oh my God, Justin Martyr's a monster!

[mlinssen]

His citations of the Gospels conflict with them on so many key issues that the best explanation is that he was working off a number of disparate texts that may have had some connection with the canonical gospels but did not represent them in their final forms.

Here's a novel thought: Justin didn't care what the Gospels said. That is, he didn't consider them as authoritative. Instead, they told a story and Justin worked from the story rather than the Gospels themselves. It was the story that mattered, not quoting the Gospels verbatim like it was Scripture. And for that matter, early Christians didn't even quote the Hebrew Scriptures verbatim, but rather played around with them in order to make their points. So why not do the same with the Gospels?

If you ever consider a career change, I would advise gymnastics.
First you equate Gnostics with orthodox Christians several times, and now you try to make a case for a Justin who had nothing but the Tanakh to go on yet didn't quote that verbatim because it was the custom among early Christians to loosely quote from texts "in order to make their points"

[Peter Kirby]

His citations of the Gospels conflict with them on so many key issues that the best explanation is that he was working off a number of disparate texts that may have had some connection with the canonical gospels but did not represent them in their final forms.

Here's a novel thought: Justin didn't care what the Gospels said. That is, he didn't consider them as authoritative. Instead, they told a story and Justin worked from the story rather than the Gospels themselves. It was the story that mattered, not quoting the Gospels verbatim like it was Scripture. And for that matter, early Christians didn't even quote the Hebrew Scriptures verbatim, but rather played around with them in order to make their points. So why not do the same with the Gospels?

This is supported by the way that Justin refers to them as memoirs, as though they had not yet assumed any particular status. On the other hand, if someone reads Marcion in the background of this, perhaps the attempt to view them as only memoirs was already reactionary, i.e. as a way to dispossess the Marcionites of the one authoritative Gospel. Then it took another generation for the various memoirs to be fused with the idea of an authoritative Gospel, by claiming that God chose a fourfold Gospel.

[Giuseppe]

How else can Justin prove his point to Jews other than by quoting OT prophecies? Is quoting the Gospels going to be convincing to Trypho???

sure. The Gospels, until proved otherwise, are OT prophecies, via midrash.
This is particularly true for the Passion story and the birth story, where even a blind could realize the OT sources behind them. If Justin didn't quote them, it is why he didn't know them. Well: apart proto-Luke, but that was still in the hands of Marcion.

[Giuseppe]

In addition:

Surely Matthew and Luke wee not known by Justin, since Jesus is circumcised in the flesh in those two gospels, whereas Justin hates sincerely the circumcision in the flesh.

Justin didn't accept Paul as apostle therefore he didn't know or didn't like a paulinist gospel as Mark.