Memoirs of the Apostles in Justin's Trypho Dialogue

[Secret Alias]

What is also difficult to make sense of in this section is the unusual lack of direct references to whole sections of the chapter. In chapter 9 of Adv Marc 5 the discussion is less a commentary on 1 Corinthians other than a parallel discussion focused mostly on the 'antitheses' in the last few lines of chapter 15. It begins suddenly with the statement "touching the resurrection of the dead and apparently 'jumps down' to 1 Cor. 15. 21 "Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection." This monism (i.e. 'man' and 'man') is contrasted in the juxtaposition which follows in the next lines:

Here in the word man, who consists of bodily substance, as we have often shown already, is presented to me the body of Christ. But if we are all so made alive in Christ, as we die in Adam, it follows of necessity that we are made alive in Christ as a bodily substance, since we died in Adam as a bodily substance. The similarity, indeed, is not complete, unless our revival in Christ concur in identity of substance with our mortality in Adam.

If you read these lines without knowing that a long 'antitheses' follows at the end of chapter 15 where Adam and Christ are juxtaposed you might not be able to easily make sense of it. At first it would seem that Paul said that there was only one agent of salvation - 'man.' But of course we 'know' that 1 Corinthians ends with an antitheses between 'Adam' and Christ.

The discussion degenerates into a most unusual discussion regarding 'substance.' Again it only makes sense because we know the text of Paul as it is received by our churches has this unusual digression. But the Commentary (now 'Against Marcion Book 5') undeniably breaks from this discussion of 'substance' (i.e. whether man and Christ had the same substance - viz. 'matter') by way of a reference to Christ sitting on the right hand to a discussion of Jewish interpretation of the psalms back to a discussion of 'substance' with two apparent references to 1 Corinthians which both take the strange form of rhetorical questions in the lead up to the 'antitheses.'

My supposition here is that Treatise A created the later portions of 1 Corinthians chapter 15. Let's start with the supposition there are at least two layers to the text - the author of Treatise A (let's call him 'Author A') and Tertullian (we will call him 'Author B').

We have first to inquire in what sense at that time some said there was no resurrection of the dead. Surely in the same sense as even now, seeing that the resurrection of the flesh is always under denial.

This is Author B. He has before him 1 Corinthians 15:29. His discussion is to understand what Paul means by 1 Corinthians 15:29. He goes on to say:

The soul indeed certain of the philosophers claim is divine, and vouch for its salvation, and even the common man on that assumption pays respect to his dead, in that he is confident that their souls remain: their bodies however are manifestly reduced to nothing, either immediately by fire or wild beasts, or even when carefully embalmed at length by passage of time. If then the apostle is refuting people who deny the resurrection of the dead, evidently he is defending against them that which they were denying, which is the resurrection of the flesh.2 There, in brief, is my answer. What follows is more than was necessary.

Clearly though there is another interpretation of resurrection of the dead, one which has nothing to do with 'resurrection of the flesh.' It will be my supposition that what was originally under discussion here in Treatise A was the controversial material preserved in the Marcionite canon associated with 1 Corinthians 15:50 - 52 (i.e. all of the section which immediately precedes this statement, the so-called 'antitheses' which is still the main subject of chapters 9 and 10 in Adv Marc Book 5).

It will be my contention that this section isn't Pauline at all but was derived from Treatise A and adapted to deflect the original discussion. To this end the controversy was rooted in:

I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall all sleep, but we shall not all be changed

This is the core 'controversy' which has to do with 'resurrection for the dead' (cited earlier). We see once again that Marcionites used the term 'dead' to mean those who are only of the flesh but are still alive (similar to 'let the dead bury their dead' in the gospel in what immediately following in Adv Marc:

For the fact that the expression used is 'resurrection of the dead' demands insistence on the precise meaning of the terms. So then 'dead' can only be that which is deprived of the soul by whose energy it was once alive. It is the body which is deprived of the soul and by that deprivation becomes dead: so that the term 'dead' applies to the body. So then if the resurrection is of something dead, and the dead thing is no other than the body, it will be a resurrection of the body. So too the term 'resurrection' lays claim to no other object than one that has fallen down. The verb 'rise' can be used of something which has in no sense fallen down, something which in the past has always lain there. But 'rise again' applies only to that which has fallen down, since by rising again, because it has fallen down, it is said to experience resurrection: for the syllable 're' is always applied to some act of repetition. So we affirm that the body falls down to earth by death, as the fact itself bears witness, by the law of God. For it was to the body that God said, Earth thou art, and into earth shall thou go:a so that that which is from the earth will go into the earth. The falling down is of that which departs into the earth, the rising again is of that which falls down.

The person who wrote these words is clearly doing so in Latin. He is not Author A nor does the material come from Treatise A.

But we should notice that in the material that follows it isn't clear that the author is actually citing Paul or developing his own ideas about the resurrection and flesh (IMO against the Marcionite version of 1 Corinthians 15:50 - 52):

Since by man death, by man also the resurrection. Here I find that Christ's body is indicated by the designation 'man', for man consists of body, as I have already several times shown. But if as in Adam we are all brought to death, and in Christ are all brought to life, since in Adam we are brought to death in the body it follows of necessity that in Christ we are brought to life in the body. Otherwise the parallel does not hold, if our bringing to life in Christ does not take effect in the same substance in which we are brought to death in Adam.

Again I think that this is Author A developing an argument against 1 Corinthians 50 - 52 in the heretical form. It was taken over by someone and fused to the section which immediately precedes 1 Corinthians 15:50 - 52 in the Catholic canon as:

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Getting back to Adv Marc, Author B now has to somehow make sense of a jump in Treatise A:

But he has added here another reference to Christ, which for the sake of the present discussion must not be overlooked ...

For it is at this point in Treatise A that Author A attempts to explain how it is that 'flesh' is reconcilable with 'Christ' - a wholly supernatural being in earliest Christianity. He writes (as closely as Author B allows us to hear):

for there will be even more cogent proof of the resurrection of the flesh, the more I show that Christ belongs to that God in whose presence the resurrection of the flesh is an object of belief. When he says, For he must reign until he place God's enemies under his feet, here again by
this saying he declares God an avenger, and consequently the same who has made Christ this promise, Sit thou at my right hand until I place thine enemies as a footstool of thy feet: the Lord shall send the rod of thy power out of Sion, and be the ruler with thee in the midst of thine enemies.

In other words Author A is using the Psalm 110 to prove that Christ was not to be identified with 'Chrestos' (i.e. the Father) but a wholly human messiah who died and was raised up to the right hand of God - i.e. exactly as the gospel of Mark concluded for some Christians.

The long section of material that we identified as deriving from Justin Martyr in my mind proves that Justin is Author A. It is my guess then that Justin is writing 'Against Marcion' (in his original treatise) under the supposition that Marcion - not Paul - was the historical person who uttered the original text of 1 Corinthians 15:50 - 52. It is my guess that Irenaeus came along and fused Justin's argument against Marcion (i.e. the Marcionite ur-text of 1 Corinthians chapter 15) into chapter 15.

When we pick up the original argument of Treatise A which paraphrases 1 Corinthians 15:50 - 52 as if it came right from the mouth of Marcion:

What, he asks, shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not? That practice must speak for itself.

Against I don't think that Author A is citing 1 Corinthians 15:29 - 30. Rather he is paraphrasing Marcion's version of 1 Corinthians 15:50 - 52, the only version of that passage that Justin. Author B adds in typical mockery:

Perhaps the kalends of February will answer him: pray for the dead. Abstain then from at once blaming the apostle as either having recently
invented this or given it his approval, with intent to establish doing so by faith in the resurrection of the flesh more firmly in that those who without
any effect were having themselves baptized for the dead were. We see him in another context setting a limit, of one baptism. Consequently, to be baptized for the dead is to be baptized for bodies: for I have shown that what was dead is the body. What shall they do who are baptized for bodies, if bodies do not rise again? And so with reason we here take our stand, to let the apostle introduce his second point of discussion, this too with reference to the body.

At this point we go back to Author A who continues to paraphrase Marcion:

But some men will say, How will the dead rise again ? And with what body will they come? For after the defence of the resurrection, which was under denial, his next step was to discuss those attributes of the body, which were not open to view. But concerning these we have to join issue with other opponents: for since Marcion entirely refuses to admit the resurrection of the flesh, promising salvation to the soul alone, he makes this a question not of attributes but of substance.

This is an Aristotlean distinction. Note that what follows strongly supposes that Marcion is making the distinction not 'Paul.' We read:

Again if he (i.e. Marcion) proposes the examples of the grain of wheat, or something of that sort, things to which God gives a body, as I shall please him, and if he says that to every seed there is its own particular body, as there is one kind of flesh of men, and another of beasts and birds, and bodies
celestial and terrestrial, and one glory of the sun and another of the moon and another of the stars, does he not indicate that this is a carnal and corporeal resurrection, which he commends by carnal and corporeal examples? And is he not giving assurance of it on behalf of that God from whom come the examples he adduces? So also ... is the resurrection. How so? Like the grain of wheat, as a body it is sown, as a body it rises again. Thus he has described the dissolution of the body into earth as the sowing of a seed, because it is sown in corruption, to honour, to power. The process followed at the resurrection is the act of that same whose was the course taken at the dissolution—-just like the grain. If not, if you take away from the resurrection that body which you have surrendered to dissolution, what ground can there be for any difference of outcome? And further, if it is sown an animate
object and rises again a spiritual one, although soul or even spirit possesses some sort of body of its own, so that animate body might be taken to mean soul, and spiritual body to mean spirit, he does not by that affirm that at the resurrection the soul will become spirit, but that the body, which by being born along with the soul, and living by means of the soul may properly be termed animate, will become spiritual when by the spirit it rises again to
eternity. In short, since it is not soul, but flesh, that is sown in corruption when dissolved into the earth, then that animate body cannot be soul, but is that flesh which has been an animate body, so that out of animate the body is made spiritual: as also he says, a little later, Not first that which is spiritual. In preparation for this ... the first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Lord was made a quickening spirit

In other words, I am fairly confident that all the material here which ultimately made its way to 1 Corinthians before verses 15:50 - 52 originally derived from a dualistic distinction between Adam and Christ which came from Justin Martyr not Paul or Marcion. In Marcion's system Jesus (= Man) dies and is resurrected. In the system of Justin and his circle there is Man (= Jesus) and Christ.

[MrMacSon]

You^ would do well to write some papers to submit to peer-reviewed journals, Stephan

[DCHindley]

I recall visiting a university library some years ago and coming across a journal article that offered reasons for thinking that Justin's references to the Memoirs of the Apostles may not have been in Justin's original work. One detail I recall is pointing out that mention of the Memoirs appears only in a narrow section of Trypho (chapters 100 to 106) and nowhere else.

Unfortunately I have no recollection of who wrote that article or in what journal.

Does anyone here by any chance happen to know of any studies raising this question of authenticity?

Getting back to your OP, and Ben's list, now that everything was been discussed except "memoirs" in Justin , it is important to note that Justin uses a form of the verb ἀπομνημονεύω (relate from memory, remember, call to mind) in 1 Apology 33:5 "as they who have recorded [ἀπομνημονεύσαντες, part pl aor act masc nom/voc] all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught". "Recorded" generally applies when the verb is in the passive voice, but here it is active.

Josephus uses this verb to signify
• Josephus, Jwr 1.223) to forget [ἀπεμνημόνευσεν, verb indicative aorist active 3rd person singular] kindness
• Josephus, Jwr 7.431) to be banished (I guess by formal decree "remembering" the offense that occasioned the banishment) [ἀπομνημονεύοντι, verb participle present active dative masculine singular]
• Josephus, Ant 8.387) would remember (bring to mind) [ἀπομνημονεύσειν, verb infinitive future active]
• Josephus, Ant 14.212) we ... remember [ἀπομνημονεύσειν, verb infinitive future active]
• Josephus, Ant 14.315) remembrance [ἀπομνημονεύσαντας, verb participle aorist active accusative masculine plural]
• Josephus, Ant 15.34) he ... remembered [ἀπομνημονεύσας, verb participle aorist active nominative masculine singular]
• Josephus, Ant 15.376 or 377) attend to [ἀπομνημονευομένης, verb participle present passive] something alleged ...

Eusebius also uses it to signify
• Eusebius Church History, 3.39.15: ... the tradition [ἀπεμνημόνευσεν, verb futperf inf act or verb 3rd sg aor ind act nu_movable] which he (Papias) gives ...
• Eusebius Church History, 4.18.9: ... Irenaeus quotes [ἀπομνημονεύειν, verb futperf inf act] his words
• Eusebius Church History, 5.20.6: ... (Irenaeus says) And as he (Polycarp) remembered [ἀπεμνημόνευεν, verb 3rd sg imperf ind act] their words (i.e., the words of those who had "seen the Lord", which Irenaeus says he had heard Polycarp speak of as a boy)
• Eusebius Church History, 6.25.13: ... someone who remembered [ἀπομνημονεύσαντός, part sg aor act masc/neuter gen] the apostolic teachings

All other cases in Justin's works are forms of the noun ἀπομνημόνευμα (memorial, record, memorandum, in pl., memoirs).
• Justin 1 Apology 66:3) For the apostles, in the memoirs [ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, noun pl neut dat nu_movable] composed by them, which are called Gospels [εὐαγγέλια] ...
• Justin 1 Apology 67:3) and the memoirs [ἀπομνημονεύματα, noun pl neut voc/nom/acc] of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read ...
• Justin Dialogue 100:4) And since we find it written in the Memoirs [ἀπομνημονεύμασι, noun pl neut dat] of the Apostles ...
• Justin Dialogue 101:3) words which are recorded in the Memoirs [ἀπομνημονεύμασι, noun pl neut dat] of the Apostles ...
• Justin Dialogue 103:6) It is narrated in the Memoirs [ἀπομνημονεύμασι, noun pl neut dat] of the Apostles ...
• Justin Dialogue 103:8) For in the Memoirs of the Apostles [ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, noun pl neut dat nu_movable] and their successors ...
• Justin Dialogue 104:1) This event, too, is recorded in the Memoirs [ἀπομνημονεύμασι, noun pl neut dat] of the Apostles.
• Justin Dialogue 105:1) we have learned from the Memoirs [ἀπομνημονευμάτων, noun pl neut gen] (of the Apostles)] ...
• Justin Dialogue 105:5) For, the Memoirs [ἀπομνημονευμάτων, noun pl neut gen] of the Apostles said ...
• Justin Dialogue 105:6) are thus recorded in the Memoirs [ἀπομνημονεύμασι, noun pl neut dat] of the Apostles ...
• Justin Dialogue 106:1) according to the Memoirs [ἀπομνημονεύμασι, noun pl neut dat] of the Apostles ...
• Justin Dialogue 106:3) Now, when we learn from the Memoirs [ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, noun pl neut dat nu_movable] of the Apostles ...
• Justin Dialogue 106:4) as the Apostolic Memoirs [ἀπομνημονεύμασι, noun pl neut dat] attest.
• Justin Dialogue 107:1) And these [Apostolic] Memoirs [ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, noun pl neut dat nu_movable] ...

Josephus doesn't use this word at all, it seems.

Eusebius uses it once, but the reference is actually erroneous.
• Eusebius Church History 5 8:8) He [i.e., Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.27.1] mentions also the memoirs [ἀπομνημονευμάτων, noun pl neut gen] of a certain apostolic presbyter, whose name he passes by in silence ...

Actually, Irenaeus heard this unspecified source directly, not from a book of memoirs.
• Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.27.1 "As I have heard from a certain presbyter, who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles, and from those who had been their disciples [Quemadmodum audivi a quodam presbytero, qui audierat ab his qui Apostolos viderant, et ab his qui didicerant] ..."

As can be seen below, the more usual term for a written record was ὑπομνηματισμός (memorandum, of a shopping list, royal decree, the duty of various officials, list/register of records, a decree of the Areopagus, note-taking) and was used interchangeably with ὑπόμνημα (memoirs, annals, treatise, commentary on an author). I restrict this list to the Judean LXX including Apocrypha, Josephus, Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, but http://www.Perseus.org lists a large number of non-Christian authors who also use it.
• Ezra 4:15) examination may be made in thy [Royal] fathers' book of record [ὑπομνηματισμοῦ, noun genitive masculine singular common] ...
• 1Esdras 2:22) And thou shalt find in the [Royal] chronicles [ὑπομνηματισμοῖς, noun dative masculine plural common] what is written concerning these things
• 2 Maccabees 2:13) The same things also were reported in the writings and commentaries [ὑπομνηματισμοῖς, noun pl masc dat] of Neemias ...
• 2 Maccabees 4:23) to put him in mind [ὑπομνηματισμοὺς, noun accusative masculine plural common] of certain necessary matters
• Josephus, Ant 7.110) Jehoshaphat, the son of Ahilud, made recorder [ὑπομνημάτων]
• Josephus, Ant 7.293) Jehoshaphat and Achilud set over the records [ὑπομνημάτων]
• Josephus, Ant 10.5) Joah the recorder [ὑπομνημάτων]
• Josephus, Ant 10.55) Joah the recorder [ὑπομνημάτων]
• Josephus, Ant 11.94) the records [ὑπομνήματα] of the kings
• Josephus, Ant 11.98) the royal records [ὑπομνήμασιν]
• Josephus, Ant 11.104) [ὑπομνήμασιν]
• Josephus, Ant 11.208) the records [ὑπομνήματα] of Cyrus
• Josephus, Ant 11.248) the chronicles [ὑπομνήματα] of the former kings
• Josephus, Ant 12.258) a written brief [ὑπόμνημα] summarizing a problem
• Josephus, Ant 12.262) a written brief [ὑπόμνημα] summarizing a problem
• Josephus, Ant 15.174) the commentaries [ὑπομνήμασιν] of King Herod
• Josephus, Ant 16.43) memorials [ὑπομνήμασιν]
• Josephus, Ant 17.213) a memorial [ὑπόμνημα]
• Josephus, Ant 19.294) a memorial/testimony [ὑπόμνημα] (that is, Agrippa's gold chain when he was imprisoned)
• Josephus, Lif 1.342) the Commentaries [ὑπομνήμασιν] of Vespasian
• Josephus, Lif 1.358) the commentaries [ὑπομνήματα] of Caesar
• Josephus, Against Apion 1.56) although they [men like Josephus' foe Apion] pretend to have made use of both the emperors' own memoirs [ὑπομνήμασιν, noun pl neut dat nu_movable] ...
• Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks/Protrepticus 2.44: As a mystic memorial [ὑπόμνημα] of this incident, phalloi are raised aloft in honour of Dionysus through the various cities.
• Eusebius Church History 1.2. ... [ὑπομνήμασιν, ]
• Eusebius Church History 1.9.3) those who have recently given currency to acts [ὑπομνήματα, noun pl neut voc] against our Saviour
• Eusebius Church History 1.11.9) who have forged the acts [ὑπομνήματα, noun pl neut voc] against them [John the Baptist and our Savior]
• Eusebius Church History 2.? ... [ὑπομνημάτων, ]
• Eusebius Church History 2.15. ... [ὑπόμνημα, ]
• Eusebius Church History 2.23.3) But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs [ὑπομνήματι, noun sg neut dat].
• Eusebius Church History 2.23.8) Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs [ὑπομνήμασιν, noun pl neut dat nu_movable] (of Hegesippus) ...
• Eusebius Church History 2.25. ... [ὑπομνήμασιν, ]
• Eusebius Church History 3.24. ... [ὑπομνήματα, ]
• Eusebius Church History 3.37. ... [ὑπομνημάτων, ]
• Eusebius Church History 4.15. ... [ὑπομνήματα, ]
• Eusebius Church History 4.18. ... [ὑπομνήματα, ]
• Eusebius Church History 4.15.48) ... records [ὑπομνήματα, noun pl neut voc] extant of others that suffered martyrdom
• Eusebius Church History 4.18.1) This writer [Justin Martyr] has left us a great many monuments [ὑπομνήματα, noun pl neut voc]
• Eusebius Church History 4.22.1) Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs [ὑπομνήμασιν, noun pl neut dat nu_movable] which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views.
• Eusebius Church History 5.11.2-3) 2 In his Hypotyposes [Ὑποτυπώσεσιν, noun sg fem acc, from ὑποτύπωσις (sketch, outline, model, pattern, a matter vividly sketched in words] he [Clement of Alexandria] speaks of ... 3 [Clement says] my notes [ὑπομνήματα, noun pl neut voc] are stored up for old age ...
• Eusebius Church History 5.13. ... [ὑπόμνημα, ]
• Eusebius Church History 5.16. ... [ὑπόμνημά ]
• Eusebius Church History 5.27.1) Numerous memorials [ὑπομνήματα, noun pl neut voc] of the
• Eusebius Church History 6.12.1) It is probable that others have preserved other memorials [ὑπομνήματα, noun pl neut voc] of ...
• Eusebius Church History 6.13. ... [ὑπομνημάτων, ] ... [Ὑποτυπώσεων, ]
• Eusebius Church History 6.17.1) Commentaries [ὑπομνήματα, noun pl neut voc] of Symmachus
• Eusebius Church History 6.22. ... [ὑπομνημάτων, ]
• Eusebius Church History 6.23. ... [ὑπομνημάτων, ] ... [ὑπομνημάτων, ]
• Eusebius Church History 7.30. ... [ὑπομνημάτων, ]
• Eusebius Church History 9.5.1) Acts [ὑπομνήματα, noun pl neut voc] of Pilate and our Saviour
• Eusebius Church History 9.7.1) The children in the schools had daily in their mouths the names of Jesus and Pilate, and the Acts [ὑπομνήματα, noun pl neut voc] which had been forged ...

DCH

[Secret Alias]

Thanks DCH

In all fairness though the question in the OP is whether or not it might be possible that a section of Justin's Dialogue might not be original to the text (i.e. plopped in from somewhere else). The discussion about patterns in Justin's texts and texts that might have borrowed from Justin and how they borrowed material from Justin and plopped that material into new places is all relevant to the OP, IMHO.

[Secret Alias]

You^ would do well to write some papers to submit to peer-reviewed journals, Stephan

Retirement but thank you. It's a theory that has grown little by little. The difficulty with Book Five is that - as you know - there is some disagreement as to whether Justin knew Paul. This exercise today has helped me explain that a little. Did Justin think Marcion was the author of what we call the Pauline corpus? Of course it's hard to know for certain what belongs where. Source criticism is a murky science if can even be called science.

I will say that I like the idea of Justin arguing against Marcion all the while assuming that bits and pieces of the Pauline writings that are familiar to us (for instance 1 Corinthians 15:50 - 52) were by Marcion. I am not sure if that is enough though. But the idea that Justin's treatises were somehow fused to the Marcionite corpus and perhaps rearranged to obscure any trace of the original Marcionite doctrine has some attractiveness to it. I am not sure we can just draw a line and say - the Patristic writings are like this but not the Pauline letters. Why is there some magical barrier here?

[Secret Alias]

And again the methodology is very similar (at least in the broadest sense) to what happened in the rabbinic tradition. The Mishnah takes opinions from hostile parties and arranges them all within a canon of acceptable halakhah. I don't think modern Jewry can imagine how incredible this would have sounded to Jews of a previous age who had an absolute sense of 'right belief' and 'wrong belief' based on tradition. How on earth can the Mishnah claim on the one hand there was an unbroken tradition between it and Moses and on the other hand lay out a collection of 'tolerable' opinions. Does anyone in their right mind imagine that Moses would have written a Torah and then allow for gray areas of interpretation? At its most comical the sages of the Second Commonwealth period didn't know what to do if Passover should land on a Sabbath! It's ludicrous. But the same thing is basically in evidence in the Pauline corpus.

'Paul says some crazy things,' we are told by the corpus, 'which he claims he received in heaven but don't take him too seriously, even he had second thoughts about it!' And with that a trap door opens in the middle of the texts and all sorts of references to Jewish writings emerge which transform the radical revelation from heaven into something utterly mundane.

Where did these come from? I am strongly suspecting now that this line of argumentation - Paul says X and that is supported by the scriptures is a result of a fusion of Marcion and Justin. Originally Justin was attacking Marcion. He attacked Marcion by appealing to scripture. The gospel wasn't according to Marcion but according to the Creator, the very same god who inspired the prophets. It must have been Irenaeus who reconciled (or made peace) between these two hostile parties 'straightening out' disagreements and leading to harmony in the scriptures again.

To basically package together hostile points of view and say this and that is acceptable and everything outside of here deserves condemnation is about the Jewish equivalent of fusing 'Marcionite critic' Justin and Marcion into a new fabrication - Paul. Pure Paul is Marcion.

[Stuart]

Stuart

Like a lot of the patchwork texts (Adv Haer for example) the difficulty is why add the interpolation. My line of reasoning is a little different than yours. I am led to the conclusion (or at least working hypothesis) that we have two different treatises here. Treatise A is about matter or substance (a very anti-Marconite fixation ) as it pertains to the resurrection. It is interrupted by Treatise B which deals with the Jewish interpretation of the psalms. Why the ----- would you write a commentary on 1 Corinthians this way? Why fuse together two other texts that aren't actually commentaries on the text under scrutiny?

Because I am insane I can't help think that Treatise A has nothing to do with 1 Corinthians at all. That it existed in its original form before the 15th chapter of Corinthians was ever fabricated and it became in essence it's rough template. Why? Because something had to be done about 1 Corinthians 15:50 (however it was originally understood and contextualize within the Pauling corpus). Treatise A was treasured because it argued for a certain interpretation of the resurrection in a way that was "anti-Marcionite" and this treatise (or perhaps bits and pieces of this original treatise) made reference to that troublesome passage 1 Cor 15:50 became it's new home or literary context.

Here we go in a nutshell:

Works of the Church Fathers (Irenaeus is the worst I have seen by far; some books in AH are probably 50-60% later interpolations) were interpolated over centuries because the were the backbone of anti heretical actions of the church. As different heresies appeared, in the same fashion as other ancient works, rather than write new texts they adjusted the existing ones to meet the new threats. The Didache evolved, likely from the start of the 3rd century well into the 6th century. The works of the early church fathers were modified to meet new threats, in early 3rd century Bardenes, in the later 3rd century the Manicheans (most of the Simon related material is directed at this heresy that lasted late into the 4th century). The Arian controversy, the Nestorians and so on. And most of all the Albigesians. It seems many of the works survived because they were recycled to meet that challenge.

Sometimes new works, like Adamantius, are put together by recycling older works.

The pattern we see from the books of the New Testament to add on material. Surprising little material is thrown away, although maybe 5% of the original text in Marcion was probably washed over. The 2nd edition of the Ignatian epistles gives another case study in how redaction was carried out. And this applied to various histories -all of which got Christian makeovers.

My own opinion is that it was both expensive - more so in time and resources than in money - to write a new book (major pain in the butt). It was much easier to add a parchment with new or corrected material for the need at hand. If it was found useful and copies were needed that patch work copy became a master for subsequent copies. Our copies of Josephus, and other historians, of Tertullian and other Church Fathers likely went through multiple editors before the progenitor master copy of our current texts was created.

There is one other thing to consider about all the texts from before the 4th century. The Decian persecution and the Diocletian persecution (the great persecution) were documented and state run. In both texts were confiscated and many destroyed (no doubt some corrupt Roman officuals sold them back to rich Christian benefactors for a profit here and there, so some survived). What survived is probably a random subset of the diversity that went before - luck of the draw. This probably accounts for the text types being distinct with gaps in how we got from one to the other.

Anyway that is my WAG as to why that happened.

[Stuart]

Stephen,

1 Corinthians 15 (plus a form of 16:23) was the concluding chapter of the book in Marcionite form. I will post my reproduction and then explain it:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 11
Now I make known to you, brothers,
the Gospel which I preached to you, which you received, in which you also have stood,
if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless in vain you believed.
For I handed on to you, in the very first things, that Christ died for our sins,
and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day,
Therefore whether I or they, so we preach and so you believe.

1 Corinthians 15:12-14, 16-19
And if Christ is proclaimed raised from the dead,how do some of you say there is not resurrection of the dead?
And if the dead are not resurrected, neither has Christ been raised;
and if Christ is not raised, our preaching is [also] in vain, also in vain is your faith,
for if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised;
and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, you remain in your sins.
Then also those having fallen asleep in Christ are destroyed.
And if in this life we have only hoped in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all.

1 Corinthians 15:20-22
But now Christ has been raised from the dead,
For since through man came death, also through man came resurrection of the dead;
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:29
Otherwise what will they do, those being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead really are not raised,
why indeed are they baptized on behalf of them?

1 Corinthians 15:35-41
but some will say, 'How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?'
Foolish man, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies;
and what you sow, you sow not the body will become but a bare grain perhaps of wheat or some other;
but god gives to it a body as he wanted, and to each of the seeds [its] own body.
Not all flesh is the same flesh, but another of men, and another flesh of animals, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.
And [there are] heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but different is the glory of the heavenly, and different of the earthly.
[there is] another glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

1 Corinthians 15:42-49
So also with resurrection of the dead. It is sown as perishable, raised as imperishable;
it is sown in dishonor, raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, raised in power;
it is sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual.
So also it was written, "The first man Adam became a living soul;" (Genesis 2:7)
the last Adam (1) a life giving spirit.
But the first is not spiritual but natural, afterward the spiritual.
The first man is made of the dust out of the earth, the second man out of heaven.
As the man of dust, Such also are the men of dust, and as the heavenly man, such also the heavenly;
As we bore the image of the of the man of dust, we must bear the image of the heavenly man.

1 Corinthians 15:50-58
But this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood are not able to inherit the kingdom of God, neither does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Behold I speak a mystery to you; we will not all sleep, but all will be changed,
in a moment, in the wink of an eye, in the last trumpet;
for a trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
for it is necessary for this perishable to put in the imperishable and this mortal to put on the immortal.
But when this perishable nature puts on the imperishable and this mortal puts on the immortal,
then will come to pass the word written,
"Death is swallowed up in victory." (Isaiah 25:8)
"Where, O death, is your victory?"
"Where, O death, is your sting?" (Hosea 13:14 LXX)
But the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the Law;
but thanks be to God, the one giving us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
So then, my beloved brothers, be steadfast ones, be immoveable ones
abounding in the work of the Lord always, knowing that you labor in the Lord is not in vain.

1 Corinthians 16:23
The grace [of the lord Jesus] be with you.

[Stuart]

The reason I posted the entire block in English was to discuss it in terms of the Marcionite theology. But before I do that a quick comment on the abrupt ending. This seems to be a pattern in the Marcionite collection. As soon as the final point is made, Paul signs out with a form of "Grace be with you." Later scribes expanded.

Every verse can be explained well by the Marcionite theology . And nearly every word (about 90%) is attested as in the Marcionite version via our three primary sources, although it took some work to extract verses 15:1-4. Anyway the reason I start at verse 15:1-4, 11 was to show how it fits as an introduction into the baptism of the dead.

Verses 15:1-4 have the earliest form of the formula, where there is one mention of handing down of a tradition is from Paul's preaching the Gospel which the Corinthians (i.e., the reader) receives (ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε ... earlier, παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις), concerns Christ dying for our sins (being in/of the flesh) and being buried and rising on the third day. He says he taught it first, so there are other traditions being taught. Paul is in competition, as he admits in verse 15:11 (εἴτε οὗν ἐγὼ εἴτε ἐκεῖνοι, οὕτως κηρύσσομεν καὶ οὕτως ἐπιστεύσατε). This competition is preaching the Gospel, and I would argue two different Gospels (Marcion's and Matthew). But whatever the point of the passage is Christ died and rose.

Verses 15:12-19 is missing verse 15:15. Not only is not attested in Marcion but it's Catholic interpretation is obvious. It repeats the concept of Christ raise, but says God, ie. the father, raises Christ (κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ὅτι ἤγειρεν τὸν Χριστόν) a position not held by Marcionites. And to make that clear it suggests that false witnesses (ψευδομάρτυρες τοῦ θεοῦ = Gnostic heretics) if they don't say so, a very pastoral statement. It is anyway redundant, except catholic (an example of adding a verse rather than rewriting a verse).

The passage 15:12-19 basically says everything Christians believe hinges on the dead being resurrected and Christ being resurrected is the key to it. The Catholics agree, except that point about who raised Christ. This is an early belief.

Verses 15:20-22 (note ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων is removed from verse 15:20; not explained here) brings in the concept of Adam which you so much object to being in Marcion. But it concerns man being born in a physical body, "the first Adam." Man has death, which is a property of the Demiurge. Christ of the Good God has life. When you die to the flesh you live to the spirit which is Christ. This is symbolized in Baptism, which is when you become an initiated Christian. So far we are dealing merely with allegory. Adam is drawn from Genesis, but that is again the contrast between the Demiurge and Christ.

15:29 is the question of the entire chapter, Baptizing the Dead. Chrysostom (Homilie 40) says of the Marcionite practice

when any Catechumen departs among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath says in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed

The story is a facetious, and sounds more like parody than the actual practice, but the point is the practice of Baptizing in the name of a deceased (like to Mormons today) was common and part of their practices. It was done because their God was not announced, and so nobody before they became (Marcionite) Christians could rise and have life. Thus deceased loved ones and relatives had to be baptized as dead. It is quite likely the author is defending the practice here.

It should be noted the Marcionites did not believe in the body's resurrection, rather the spirit. This is debated in Adamantius and repeated by many Patristic accounts including Tertullian in AM 5.10.3

For Marcion does not in any wise admit the resurrection of the flesh, and it is only the salvation of the soul which he promises

This gets back to the spirit versus the flesh theme.

Verses 15:35-41 take up the issue - obviously challenged by Paul's rivals - of what kind of body is resurrected. The parable of the wheat in Matthew and Mark comes to mind. But really its just a common sense agricultural allegory. The seeds are dormant, which qas understood as dead, and could be so for many months or even years before panting. Then they come to life and a new body is sown. There is nothing to esoteric in this.

What does get esoteric is the earthly animals having bodies (σὰρξ), which correspond to the fleshy things, and the things of the earth (Demiurge). But the heavens have glory. Differing glories but glory all. This really maps to the Roman belief in the heavens, likely shared by the peoples of the empire, that when you died you became one of the Stars in the sky if you were good enough to earn it. See Cicero from 54 BC, De Re Publica 6.14-26, which I give a relevant passage

They have taken their flight from the bonds of the body as from a prison. Your so-called life is really death.
... 'Unless that God whose temple is the whole visible universe releases you from the prison of the body, you cannot gain entrance here. For men were given life for the purpose of cultivating that globe, called Earth, which you see at the centre of this temple. Each has been given a soul, [a spark] from these eternal fires which you call stars and planets, which are globular and rotund and are animated by divine intelligence, and which with marvellous Velocity revolve in their established orbits. Like all god-fearing men, therefore, Publius, you must leave the soul in the custody of the body, and must not quit the life on Earth unless you are summoned by the one Who gave it to you; otherwise you will be seen to shirk the duty assigned by God to man.

and specifically in 6.16

'But Scipio, like your grandfather here, like myself, who was Your father, cultivate justice and the sense of duty, which are of great importance in relation to parents and kindred but even more in relation to one's country. Such a life [spent in the service of one's country] is a highway to the skies, to the fellowship of those who have completed their earthly lives and have been released from the body and now dwell in that place which you see yonder' (it was the circle of dazzling brilliance which blazed among the stars), 'which you, using a term borrowed from the Greeks, call the Milky Way.' Looking about from this high vantage point, everything appeared to me to be marvelous and beautiful. There were stars which we never see from the Earth, and the dimensions of all of them were greater than we have ever suspected. The smallest among them was the one which, being farthest from Heaven and nearest the Earth, shone with a borrowed light [i.e., the Moon]. The size of the stars. however, far exceeded that of the Earth.

The Christian/Marcionite view is not much different. The glories in the sky, the stars and such are where saints go.

Verses 15:42-29 need to be understood in the context of allegory. Where your body is the first Adam your spirit the last (the Lord). repeating Tertullian in AM 5.10.3

For Marcion does not in any wise admit the resurrection of the flesh, and it is only the salvation of the soul which he promises

The flesh is from the Creator and is dishonorable, the Spirit has honor when it is chosen to belong to Christ. The spirit is the light, the stars even.

Verses 15:50-57 is something of an elaboration of the magical transformation process, hinted at in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 (also mentions those who have passed already). All of it fits the Marcionite theology. The flesh and the Demiurge himself are perishable, the spirit and Christ have life forever, and so you defeat death. You become like Angles in heaven (the Romans would say "Gods"; see Luke 20:34-36). The hymn is a bit of a victory dance, using the Creator's own words to mock him. That the Creator is view as holder of death is in the words

But the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the Law;
but thanks be to God, the one giving us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 10:4 comes to mind that Christ is the end of the Law. this is what is defeated by Paul's Gospel. The consequences of following the Law and not the Gospel aretold in the story of Lazarus in Luke 16:19-29 (verses 16:30-31 not in Marcion, verse 16:29 is the concluding) when Abraham says

'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'

Verse 15:58 ties back to 15:2 about holding fast to the Gospel preached by Paul, so not to be in vain. 16:23 the closing benediction.

The Marcionite theology has no conflict with any of the text presented above. Your Justin is unnecessary, completely irrelevant.

[DCHindley]

You^ would do well to write some papers to submit to peer-reviewed journals, Stephan

Retirement but thank you. It's a theory that has grown little by little. The difficulty with Book Five is that - as you know - there is some disagreement as to whether Justin knew Paul. This exercise today has helped me explain that a little. Did Justin think Marcion was the author of what we call the Pauline corpus? Of course it's hard to know for certain what belongs where. Source criticism is a murky science if can even be called science.

I will say that I like the idea of Justin arguing against Marcion all the while assuming that bits and pieces of the Pauline writings that are familiar to us (for instance 1 Corinthians 15:50 - 52) were by Marcion. I am not sure if that is enough though. But the idea that Justin's treatises were somehow fused to the Marcionite corpus and perhaps rearranged to obscure any trace of the original Marcionite doctrine has some attractiveness to it. I am not sure we can just draw a line and say - the Patristic writings are like this but not the Pauline letters. Why is there some magical barrier here?

It just seemed to me that a remark by Neil that he recalled Justin did or did not refer to the memoirs of the Apostles did not naturally lead to composite nature of his writings. What I was interested in when compiling my list of words having approximately the same meaning as Memoirs, and how they are used by various authors who can be assumed either influenced, or were influenced, by Justin.

As you may recall, I am interested in Eusebius' accounts of Hegesippus' ὑπομνήματ, or (Memoirs (pl), but this same term is also used to refer to Justin's works that he knew of, and that other accounts of times past preserved in his time were also called Memoirs. I am also interested in Eusebius' use of the term for the "Acts" of Pilate which are supposed to be extracts of official notes of proceedings (also known as "Commentaries") maintained by every Roman official with judiciary powers.

Eusebius says that Clement, in his lost "Outlines" (Hypotyposes), calls his recollections "Memoirs" so as not to be lost to his own fading memory. However, in his Exhortation to the Greeks, Clement only uses to the term once, for a sacred Phallus periodically displayed in certain cities, as a memorial to Dionysus.

Justin is the one who likes to call the Gospels ἀπομνημονεύματα "Memoirs" in the sense that they capture their thoughts as the things being described actually happened.

So, the terminology seems to have been rather loose, and sometimes the different words are used interchangeably.

As to whether the two Apologies in his name are composite or not, I think scholarship has come to the conclusion that they are heavily edited which leaves open the possibility of composition from various sources no longer extent. I do not believe that his Dialogue with Tyrypho is composite, but may be Justin's redaction of his own notes of a conversation he had with a Judean of the Diaspora.

DCH (physical therapy awaits!)