Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

These verses (Lk 22:42,44) are (certainly?) not in Marcion but are referenced by Justin (Dial 103.8) as being in the memoirs. If the Dialogue is circa 160 I'm not sure this helps much in terms of determining priority between Marcion and Luke, but it at least shows Justin is familiar with Lucan non-Marcion content as having equivalent pedigree to the rest of the gospel quotations Justin sources from the memoirs. It is also worth noting that in the majority of Justin's quotations and allusions to the gospels, he does not specifically mention their source (presumed to be the memoirs).

gmx wrote:These verses (Lk 22:42,44) are (certainly?) not in Marcion....

I believe it is simply unattested for Marcion.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

gmx wrote:These verses (Lk 22:42,44) are (certainly?) not in Marcion....

I believe it is simply unattested for Marcion.

But unlikely to have suited Marcion's theological purpose?

gmx wrote:But unlikely to have suited Marcion's theological purpose?

There are lots of verses in Marcion's gospel that don't suit his "theological purpose".

Ulan wrote:

gmx wrote:But unlikely to have suited Marcion's theological purpose?

There are lots of verses in Marcion's gospel that don't suit his "theological purpose".

True, but from what I can divine from google, opinion seems to favor the absence of these verses in Marcion. The question is... if they are absent in Marcion, present in Luke, and cited by Justin as sourced from the memoirs, would there be any broader implications?

I will attempt to identify other verses that fit the criteria...

gmx wrote:

Ulan wrote:

gmx wrote:But unlikely to have suited Marcion's theological purpose?

There are lots of verses in Marcion's gospel that don't suit his "theological purpose".

True, but from what I can divine from google, opinion seems to favor the absence of these verses in Marcion. The question is... if they are absent in Marcion, present in Luke, and cited by Justin as sourced from the memoirs, would there be any broader implications?

It would imply that Justin knows Lucan materials that were not present in Marcion. But we know that already. Justin mentions several incidents from the nativity narratives, and some of the details are Lucan, not Matthean; and one of the most certain things we know about the Marcionite gospel is that it lacked nativity materials altogether.

Here is just one example. Apology 1.33.4-5:


The underlined portions are Lucan and not Matthean. (I have not checked thoroughly; there may be more even in this brief passage.)

One more example, this one from the baptism. Dialogue 103.6a:


The underlined phrase is known in the synoptic baptism accounts only from a ("Western") variant in Luke 3.22. Marcion lacked the baptism altogether.

So yes, granted, Justin knows more of our extant Luke than what Marcion's gospel contained.

Ben.

gmx wrote:These verses (Lk 22:42,44) are (certainly?) not in Marcion but are referenced by Justin (Dial 103.8) as being in the memoirs. If the Dialogue is circa 160 I'm not sure this helps much in terms of determining priority between Marcion and Luke, but it at least shows Justin is familiar with Lucan non-Marcion content as having equivalent pedigree to the rest of the gospel quotations Justin sources from the memoirs. It is also worth noting that in the majority of Justin's quotations and allusions to the gospels, he does not specifically mention their source (presumed to be the memoirs).

That date is almost certainly wrong, and in the form we have the Dialogue by at least a century. The date is dependent on a passage in Irenaeus, which may be a later interpolation, possibly post Eusubius. This assumes Irenaeus is also correctly dated in the late 2nd century, which is suspect, and could easily fit in the first half of the 3rd century. Nothing in Eusubius can be taken at face value, especially supposed historical timelines. This makes any serious investigation have to begin with an examination of the genre of the Dialogue and the Apology to determine the era when they appear and their objectives. Justin appears to be a century early for the Dialogue form (Eg., Adamatius, and the Clementia). That alone should raise red flags about the document's dating.

But I also think this is too harsh a view. The content and construction of the Dialogue suggest a compilation of sources. The fact that the NT is not quoted until well into the document is one such hint. The Memoirs section is another hint of another source document. We probably are looking at something similar to DA or the psCl Reg/Hom where a smoothing dialogue form is placed upon earlier sources. Some of the Dialogue may well be from the 2nd century. But it's highly improbable that any of it was from Justin. More likely the name of Justin was legendary and borrowed by the author of the document in the same way Adamantius was both the hero and supposed author (although today discounted as author) of the work. Adamantius was easy to dismiss because it is not considered a critical in the traditional dating program. Justin however is a critical stake in the ground, and one of the last standing.

There is an opportunity for somebody to do a critical analysis of the Justinian writings, similar to what Hermann Detering recently did in exposing the myth of Augustinian authorship of "his" writings.