Chris Palmero on what Justin knew

[Peter Kirby]

Justin was most plausibly both familiar with the Gospel of Mark and also familiar with the tradition that it was associated with Peter.

“And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder. . ." (Dial. 106)

I suppose one could postulate otherwise unknown texts and traditions as an alternative explanation of this sentence, or say something else that is less convincing than the most obvious explanation. Another possibility is that Justin was familiar with the Gospel of Peter or the Preaching of Peter and that this text agreed with Mark in relating this detail, in sections of the Gospel of Peter or the Preachinng of Peter now lost. In any case, Justin had familiarity with "the memoirs" he wrote about, enough to be able to reference details from them.

[Giuseppe]

Justin was most plausibly both familiar with the Gospel of Mark

how could he like Mark and not Paul, when Mark is a paulinist gospel?

[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?

If you ever consider a career change, I would advise gymnastics.
First you equate Gnostics with orthodox Christians several times,

No, I argued that the author of the Gospel of Philip called the orthodox Christians "Chrestians", since he/she believed they only had baptism, and hadn't been anointed by "chrism". Only those anointed by chrism can call themselves "Christian", since chrism is superior to baptism. I backed this up by showing that the positions that the author criticised are consistent with orthodox Christians of his time. I'm not saying it is conclusive proof. If I'm right, I predict that other gnostic texts might use "Chrestian" in the same way.

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"

That's nothing like what I'm arguing, which I've left above.

[Peter Kirby]

Justin was most plausibly both familiar with the Gospel of Mark

how could he like Mark and not Paul, when Mark is a paulinist gospel?

Justin appeared to associate GMark with Peter, not Paul, and would most likely reject your own assertion of Paulinism, which is not his assertion. And the important part of your question is whether Justin could reject the label of Paulinism (although we don't know if this term or idea even existed... perhaps Justin would say he was rejecting Marcion), not whether you would apply it, as that is what can explain how Justin could use the memoirs of Peter and not the letters of Paul.

[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?

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.

You are wrong about that, Justin does mostly refer to them as memoirs. Papias uses the term and so does Tatian:

Justin: 1 Apol. 33; 66; 67; Dial. 100,4; 101,3; 102,5; 103,6; 104,1; 106,1.4; Dial. 103,8; 105,5.6; 107,1;
Tatian: Or. 21.
Papias: Euseb. Caes., Hist. eccl. III 37,4 - and in 39,15 Eusebius uses the word to refer to Mark (!)

Hegesippus also uses it

Regarding gospel, Justin does use the word in Dial. 10,2 but lets Trypho name it "so-called gospel" or interprets it as "gospel for the poor (Dial. 12,2). He seems to use it to refer to writings in Dial. 100,1 yet when using it in the plural again (1 Apol 66,3) he resorts to "so-called gospels" once more

Just like the phrase 'new covenant' the infant Church was reluctant to abuse 'evangelion' at that early point in time, it would seem.
20 mentions in the Synoptics AND NONE IN JOHN, 90 mentions in letters and Acts: https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=BS ... NTERLEAVED - evidently the word comes from *Ev

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... hru%2Fssw0

κηρύσσω

I.to be a herald, officiate as herald, Il.; λαὸν κηρύσσοντες ἀγειρόντων let them convene the people by voice of herald, id=Il.; κήρυσσε, κῆρυξ Aesch., etc.:—impers., κηρύσσει (sc. ὁ κῆρυξ) he gives notice, proclamation is made, Xen.
II.c. acc. pers. to summon by voice of herald, Hom., Ar.
2.to proclaim as conqueror, Xen., etc.: to extol, Eur.
3.to call upon, invoke, Aesch., Eur.
III.c. acc. rei, to proclaim, announce, τί τινι Trag.:— to proclaim or advertise for sale, Hdt.; κ. ἀποικίαν to proclaim a colony, i. e. to invite people to join as colonists, Thuc.
2.to proclaim or command publicly, Lat. indicere, Aesch., Soph., etc.; τὰ κηρυχθέντα the public orders, Soph

That is the verb used for "preaching the gospel" and I just can't use that word in any language without envisioning someone unrolling a one-page scroll and starting to read from it.
Then the really interesting bit of that Mark uses the noun only whereas Matthew introduces the verb - and lets Luke use nothing but the verb: Matthew ensures that Luke DOES NOT CONTAIN THE NOUN GOSPEL

It is so bloody obvious that Matthew redacted *Ev into Luke and that the letters come after the gospels, but then again all of it is bloody obvious, people just don't want to disagree with the majority (biblical academic consensus)

[GakuseiDon]

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 wrote in his First Apology:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html

For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass:'

Note the "Those who followed them". In Luke, we have:

Luke 22:[42] Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
[43] And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
[44] And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

That's a clear reference to Luke. On the other hand, it is not a direct quote from Luke so maybe Justin got it from an unknown Gospel. (sarcasm! (directed at Chris Palmero, that is))

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

There's no evidence that "Justin didn't accept Paul". He just doesn't refer directly to him in his writings to the pagans and the Jews. And why should he? What would mentioning the name of Paul have meant to the pagans and the Jews? Anyway, scholars see parallels between the theology of Paul and Justin, that suggests Justin may have approved of Paul's theology.

[Peter Kirby]

You are wrong about that, Justin does mostly refer to them as memoirs.

Thanks for the additional information, but I don't think I contradicted this or said exclusively.

[GakuseiDon]

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.

Yes, I think that the drive to see the Gospels as authoritative was as a reaction to Marcionism. But we need to keep in mind Justin's audience: pagans (in First and Second Apologies) and Jews (Dialogue with Trypho). In the First Apology, Justin writes:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said...

So I think Justin was using "memoirs" when writing to his pagan audience though he meant Gospels, since it may have been a clearer term for the pagans.

[Peter Kirby]

It is so bloody obvious that Matthew redacted *Ev into Luke and that the letters come after the gospels, but then again all of it is bloody obvious, people just don't want to disagree with the majority (biblical academic consensus)

I'm happy to disagree with the majority / biblical academic consensus.

It's a false dichotomy to say that people either refrain to disagree or see the "bloody obvious" that you're talking about. That should be obvious.

I'm quite open to the hypothesis that *Ev was redacted into Luke. I've explored it quite positively.

Could you refer me to the explanation of why you think (the author of) Matthew did it?

[mlinssen]

It is so bloody obvious that Matthew redacted *Ev into Luke and that the letters come after the gospels, but then again all of it is bloody obvious, people just don't want to disagree with the majority (biblical academic consensus)

I'm happy to disagree with the majority / biblical academic consensus.

It's a false dichotomy to say that people either refrain to disagree or see the "bloody obvious" that you're talking about. That should be obvious.

I'm quite open to the hypothesis that *Ev was redacted into Luke. I've explored it quite positively.

Could you refer me to the explanation of why you think (the author of) Matthew did it?

I could do that but there's still the matter of me having asked you to read one single tiny post in order to comment on leaven vs colostrum. You didn't explicitly say that you would do that so perhaps this would be the time to get clarity on that, lest I respond to your query here which may result in you tasking yourself with mountains of self assigned homework as you did in the previous instance