On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

[andrewcriddle]

Andrew

That 'Industrool' is just repeating a point I made VERBATIM in his own name. He is probably a robot.

I've corrected my post. Sorry.

Andrew Criddle

[Stephan Huller]

So 'confessing themselves to be Christians' does not mean 'martyring' but rather is the sudden change in topic - i.e. whether or not heretics are really Christians?

[andrewcriddle]

So 'confessing themselves to be Christians' does not mean 'martyring' but rather is the sudden change in topic - i.e. whether or not heretics are really Christians?

I think the passage in the Dialogue makes much better sense if 'confessing' primarily means 'claiming'. There are (according to Justin) all these weird people claiming to be Christians and people get confused about what 'real' Christianity is about.

Andrew Criddle

[Stephan Huller]

But the discussion begins with a reference to Christians being persecuted for refusing to eat meat sacrificed to idols. I can't see how this is to be read in any other way than these heretics were alive and faced persecution in an era of mass persecutions:

Justin: I venture to repeat what is written in the book of Kings as committed by him, how through a woman's influence he worshipped the idols of Sidon, which those of the Gentiles who know God, the Maker of all things through Jesus the crucified, do not venture to do, but abide every torture and vengeance even to the extremity of death, rather than worship idols, or eat meat offered to idols.

Trypho: I believe, however, that many of those who say that they confess Jesus, and are called Christians, eat meats offered to idols, and declare that they are by no means injured in consequence.

Justin: The fact that there are such men confessing themselves to be Christians, and admitting the crucified Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, yet not teaching His doctrines, but those of the spirits of error, causes us who are disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, to be more faithful and steadfast in the hope announced by Him ... Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names; each called after the originator of the individual opinion, just as each one of those who consider themselves philosophers, as I said before, thinks he must bear the name of the philosophy which he follows, from the name of the father of the particular doctrine. So that, in consequence of these events, we know that Jesus foreknew what would happen after Him, as well as in consequence of many other events which He foretold would befall those who believed on and confessed Him, the Christ. For all that we suffer, even when killed by friends, He foretold would take place

Not only does what Irenaeus says 'echo' this passage, Justin sounds more like Irenaeus than he does Justin. The 'confessing' is related to the act of being forced to eat pagan meats. I should remind you that Abu'l Fath preserves a report of Samaritans in the age of Commodus being force fed pork at the edge of a sword (while not 'meat sacrificed to idols' a very similar situation for which I can find no verifiable parallels elsewhere in the second century).

[andrewcriddle]

But the discussion begins with a reference to Christians being persecuted for refusing to eat meat sacrificed to idols. I can't see how this is to be read in any other way than these heretics were alive and faced persecution in an era of mass persecutions:

Justin: I venture to repeat what is written in the book of Kings as committed by him, how through a woman's influence he worshipped the idols of Sidon, which those of the Gentiles who know God, the Maker of all things through Jesus the crucified, do not venture to do, but abide every torture and vengeance even to the extremity of death, rather than worship idols, or eat meat offered to idols.

Trypho: I believe, however, that many of those who say that they confess Jesus, and are called Christians, eat meats offered to idols, and declare that they are by no means injured in consequence.

Justin: The fact that there are such men confessing themselves to be Christians, and admitting the crucified Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, yet not teaching His doctrines, but those of the spirits of error, causes us who are disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, to be more faithful and steadfast in the hope announced by Him ... Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other names; each called after the originator of the individual opinion, just as each one of those who consider themselves philosophers, as I said before, thinks he must bear the name of the philosophy which he follows, from the name of the father of the particular doctrine. So that, in consequence of these events, we know that Jesus foreknew what would happen after Him, as well as in consequence of many other events which He foretold would befall those who believed on and confessed Him, the Christ. For all that we suffer, even when killed by friends, He foretold would take place

Not only does what Irenaeus says 'echo' this passage, Justin sounds more like Irenaeus than he does Justin. The 'confessing' is related to the act of being forced to eat pagan meats. I should remind you that Abu'l Fath preserves a report of Samaritans in the age of Commodus being force fed pork at the edge of a sword (while not 'meat sacrificed to idols' a very similar situation for which I can find no verifiable parallels elsewhere in the second century).

Irenaeus on several occasions strongly condemns eating meat offered to idols and attacks heretics for being prepared to do so.

I can't see any indication in Irenaeus that Christians were actually being coerced into eating meat offered to idols.

Andrew Criddle

[Stephan Huller]

That's true Andrew. Irenaeus stops short of saying that 'meat' was the issue. It only says that the heretics don't feel that it is necessary to martyr themselves where as the orthodox do. We can speculate why that is so. But the parallels are there and the question becomes did Irenaeus merely allude to a pre-existent discussion in Justin or did he write it himself given - as we all agree - the Dialogue was edited sometime later than it was originally written. The allotment of Arabia to Syro-Phoenicia confirms the editing was likely done by Irenaeus (unless you argue that these are two separate editing jobs and/or that the text was continually edited i.e. some during Justin's lifetime and others after).

[Bernard Muller]

to Stephan,

The allotment of Arabia to Syro-Phoenicia confirms the editing was likely done by Irenaeus (unless you argue that these are two separate editing jobs and/or that the text was continually edited i.e. some during Justin's lifetime and others after).

Justin did not talk about allotment. He said that Damascus was and still is in Arabia (geographically), and at the same time (politically) is now part of Syrophoenicia.

And none of you can deny that Damascus was, and is, in the region of Arabia, although now it belongs to what is called Syrophoenicia.

(Trypho 78)
And, as spin noted, Syrophoenicia is not the same as Syria Phoenice.

Cordially, Bernard

[Stephan Huller]

Honestly is this old people's syndrome? Are the elders here at the forum REALLY arguing that the only way it could be a forgery is under the circumstance that the forger retained the name of the region in his age? I think old people need to remind themselves of the realities of life - in this case, when people lie they generally attempt at least to make those lies plausible. The issue isn't the use of Syrophoenicia but the identification of the transfer of Damascus from Arabia to Syrophoenicia:

And none of you can deny that Damascus was, and is, in the region of Arabia, although now it belongs to what is called Syrophœnicia.

The idea that someone living in 194 CE would only use the name of the province in his own time is something only old people could dream up. Here is a true story about lying and youth. I met my wife in a bar. Needless to say she was very pretty. She told me she was going to Venezuela to see family (even though she was born in Canada and her father was British). I pretended I had been there and told her all about the region, how there was a German population in Caracas, how the coffee was great, the kinds of food they ate (all this before the internet, just a product of a lot of reading and sophistication but no real life experience - I was only 21). A year later we were 'going out' and she said, 'Oh yes Stephan my mother and I are finally going on that trip to Venezuela where do you recommend we stay?' I was distracted with something else and quipped 'How the hell should I know I've never been there?' (forgetting the discussion which cemented her attraction to me and my alleged sophistication).

The point is that when people lie with the intention of gaining something they don't do it 'faithful to the facts.' If I had just told the truth I'd just seem like an egghead. That might score points with people at this forum but it's not going to get you laid. In order to get the prize I had to lie and in order to lie well I had seamlessly integrate facts I had read about (in the case of the Dialogue the fact that the province was called 'Syrophoenicia' in a previous age). Liars always get caught though. And Justin is filled with these kinds of lies. But it takes someone who can remember what it is like to have desire, and what it is like to have desire guide behavior (= to lie, to tell untruths etc) and that means not having old people being the arbiters of 'what a liar would do.'

[Stephan Huller]

Here is another take on the problem which the senior citizens here don't seem to grasp in its totality. It comes from a Jstor article by G. A. Harrer

Again, the anachronism would be explained if it could be shown that the Dialogue was not written by Justin, but by some other after the formation of the province of Syria Phoenice in 194. The suggestion that the Dialogue is not Justin's has been put forward by G. Kriiger, 66 on the ground that Justin in his Apology does not seem to have had as complete a text before him, in quoting a passage of Genesis, as the author of the Dialogue had. This explanation however can hardly be accepted in the face of good evidence to the contrary. In cap. CXX of the Dialogue, the author cites Justin's Apology in a way that shows plainly that it is his own work. Eusebius 67 mentions the Dialogue among the works of Justin, and modern scholarship has found no reason to doubt it. 68

The problem is more simply and naturally solved by supposing that the particular statement was not written by Justin, as it now stands in the Dialogue, rather than that the whole work is of different authorship. This explanation in fact alone remains as possible, if the others are now all shown to be untenable. The manuscripts do not give much help. There are but two of them, one a copy of the other, and the older one written in 1364. 69 For this present problem it is of interest to note that the latest editor of the Dialogue, G. Archambault, states that the text is to be emended only by conjectures based in part on historical probabilities. 70

Now it is possible to show with a fair degree of probability how this textual error could have crept in. A section of Tertullian Adv. Marc. Ill, 13, which was written soon after 207 A.D., 71 contains the statement — et Damascus Arabiae retro deputabatur, antequam transcripta esset in Syrophoenicen ex distinctione Syriarum. 72 The section in which this passage is found is based on Justin's Dialogue; 73 but it cannot be claimed that this passage is a copy in its entirety. The statement that Damascus "was transferred to Syrophoenicia on the division of the Syrias" simply notes an historical event which took place some fifteen years before the date of Tertullian' s work; but it is not based on Justin, and could not be, for the province was divided long after Justin's death. It is quite possible however that some one, studying the subject presented in both writers, jotted down in Justin a marginal note from Tertullian's statement. When such a note might have been written it is hard to tell. It may be suggested that if the vvv in the passage of the Dialogue could be read as part of the note it would seem very probable that it was
written in Roman times before the rearrangement of the provinces in the fourth century. But this is uncertain, and of little importance.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 5853,d.ZWU

And please, don't get me wrong. I enjoy having this continued discussion as it helps me develop this thesis to the level that a paper would require. But there are so far three examples that Justin's works were edited at a later date. I am sure that my elders will eventually get this through their heads once they stop to listen to what the implications of the text really are.

[Stephan Huller]

It is interesting that all the moderns who agree with Harrer never quote the work he did on the subject. Shame on Dunn and Evans.