The two (or three) main possibilities for gospel origins IMO

[mlinssen]

Justin uses the phrase Evangellion in Dialogue with Trypho 10:2, even as "so-called gospel" (First Apology 66:3)

“This is what we are amazed at,” said Trypho, “but those things about which the multitude speak are not worthy of belief; for they are most repugnant to human nature. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them;

Yes, and it is this singular term "Gospel" (Justin is not the only very early source to use the term this way) is what intrigues me. Why the singular?

One often reads that Justin knew a range of gospels and this conclusion is based on his references to scenarios we find in a host of other gospels, canonical and noncanonical. The problem is that Justin's references to those scenes very often vary from what we read in other gospels so significantly and consistently that we have a real problem if we try to imagine Justin reading the gospels we know today.

What I think explains the overlaps better is that Justin knew writings that documented events in Jesus' life that were "midrashically" derived from OT passages and that the creators of our canonical gospels also used that source/those sources known to Justin.

But as for "the Gospel" known to Justin, I wonder if it was something more akin to a "popular philosopher's treatise" describing the advent of the Word/Logos into the world to reveal the Father, that is, a document that was produced from the ranks of Hellenized Jews and proselytes, not far removed from the thinking of Philo. (Forget the Gospel of Mark and the Synoptics -- I can't imagine Justin's "Gospel" being much like those at all.)

Justin introduces the Jesus of this gospel as "Jesus Christ" as if that is his actual name (another clue to the philosophical origin and character of the "Gospel") and equates him with Reason/Logos/Word.

Now that has for some reason suddenly reminded me of Troels Engberg-Pedersen's and others analysis of Paul's letters demonstrating their Stoic structure and methods. Stoicism, we know, was a philosophy that sought some kind of "salvation" through submission to and identification with Reason/Logos -- the same type of thinking Paul calls on Christians to apply to Jesus Christ.

But I'm getting way ahead of myself now.... that's enough.

Funny thing is, in Trypho he uses the singular! Check the Red line

JustinMartyr_DialogueWithTrypho-Chapter10.png (784.37 KiB) Viewed 1424 times

But in First Apology it's become plural:

JustinMartyr_DialogueWithTrypho-Chapter10.png (784.37 KiB) Viewed 1424 times

Vinzent, like me, argues that this must be *Ev that he is referring to, which fits very, very nicely with his "us Chrestians who are so very-very-good".
So unlike you I don't think of "a "popular philosopher's treatise" describing the advent of the Word/Logos into the world to reveal the Father, that is, a document that was produced from the ranks of Hellenized Jews and proselyte" and it would be fun to do a Justin-*Ev parallel study

[davidmartin]

Yes, and it is this singular term "Gospel" (Justin is not the only very early source to use the term this way) is what intrigues me. Why the singular?

Because 'the gospel' is what Paul appears to have named his system?
Not referring to any gospels at all but to the belief system, as per Paul?
Note: maybe this doesn't have to mean JM is completely dependent on Paul only that somehow he is familiar with 'the gospel' as the technical term for the belief system?
'The Gospel' could have been a summary of beliefs not a piece of scripture? Just like when you visit a Christian website you find 'the gospel' explained?

[mlinssen]

Yes, and it is this singular term "Gospel" (Justin is not the only very early source to use the term this way) is what intrigues me. Why the singular?

Because 'the gospel' is what Paul appears to have named his system?
Not referring to any gospels at all but to the belief system, as per Paul?
Note: maybe this doesn't have to mean JM is completely dependent on Paul only that somehow he is familiar with 'the gospel' as the technical term for the belief system?
'The Gospel' could have been a summary of beliefs not a piece of scripture? Just like when you visit a Christian website you find 'the gospel' explained?

No, there is no Paul in Justin. The very first occassion where evangellion is named is when they talk about Marcion.
Justin doesn't speak of a collection either, something which klinghardt thought in his 2015 German edition but revised in the English 2021 one.
Justin speaks of "so-called evangel" in Dialogue with Trypho 10:2, "good message for the poor" in Dialogue with Trypho 12:2 and of "so-called evangels" in First Apology 66:3

Once more, with feeling: not one single time does Justin Martyr mention either Paul or his letters

[MrMacSon]

[edited: replaced 'gospel' with 'good news']
εὐηγγελίσατο via https://biblehub.com/greek/eue_ngelisato_2097.htm = 'preached [or] proclaimed the good news' as in Ephesians 2:17 and Acts 8:35 (and is among many variations)

Acts 5:42 (NAS)
And every day, in the temple and from house to house,
they kept right on teaching "and preaching Jesus as the Christ" : καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι ῾Ιησοῦν τὸν Χριστόν

Although

Matthew 11:5
Πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται : “The poor are evangelized,” or “have the gospel preached unto them”

Luke 4:18
εὐαγγελίζεσθαι πτωχοῖς : "to preach the gospel to the poor”

Hebrews 4:6
᾿Επεὶ ου῏ν ἀπολείπεταί τινας εἰσελθεῖν εἰς αὐτὴν , καὶ οἱ πρόΤερον εὐαγγελισθέντες οὐκ εἰσῆλθον δι ᾿ ἀπείθεια·
Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience

eta
Fragment 27 of Heracleon
She returned to the world proclaiming the coming of Christ to the calling
ὑπέστρεψεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον εὐαγγελιζομένη τῇ κλήσει τὴν Χριστοῦ παρουσίαν

εὐαγγέλιον is supposedly in these Coptic texts*

1. Gospel of Truth 16.31, 17.2, 18.11;
2. Treatise on the Resurrection 48.7;
3. Gospel of Philip 86.18 : at the very end : ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲡⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲫⲓⲗⲓⲡⲡⲟⲥ

* according to Geoffrey Smith, Valentinian Christianity, University of California Press, 2020
(maybe in their Greek versions/fragments)^

^ maybe not: Smith gives the Coptic and English translations.

FWIW, the 'Gospel of Truth' is only called that b/c it opens "the good news/gospel of truth is a joy" : ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲛ̅ⲧⲙⲏⲉ ⲟⲩⲧⲉⲗⲏⲗ ⲡⲉ (I think) : and the opening is numbered 16.31

[MrMacSon]

.
Dialogue c Trypho 12 has
πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται
"to the poor the gospel/good news is preached"

(which Gildersleeve, 1877, says is an allusion to the fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah 35:5, 6; 61:1)

Isaiah 61:1
'The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,
'because the Lord has anointed me
'to proclaim good news to the poor.'

Isa 35:6 and 6 are about the blind, deaf and mute
.

[MrMacSon]

More from the Gospel of Truth

17:1b The name [of] 2 the gospel is the appearance 3 of hope, discovery 4 for those who search for him

....... ⲉⲡⲓⲣⲉⲛ ⲇⲉ [ⲙ]- 2 ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ̅ ⲁ- 3 ⲃⲁⲗ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ϯϩⲉⲗⲡⲓⲥ, ⲉⲡϭⲓⲛⲉ ⲡⲉ 4. ⲛ̅ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲛ̅ⲥⲱϥ

18:11b-12 This <is> the 12 good news of the one who is sought

........... ⲡⲉⲉⲓ <ⲡⲉ> ⲡⲉⲩ- 12 ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲙ̅ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲛ̅-

[Giuseppe]

No, that is not the origin. The origin is the necessity of world denunciation following from the anti-demiurgism of pre-Christian gnosis. The difficulty to keep them is some of the motivation behind subsequent euhemerization and Judaization.

we are saying the same thing, indeed. In the "so-called Gospel" there was the euhemerizing evolution in a marcionite sense of what you have described justly as "world denunciation following from the anti-demiurgism of pre-Christian gnosis", i.e. a Marcionite Jesus with his too much radical exhortations to abandon all, etc.

[MrMacSon]

the Treatise on the Resurrection 48:4-19

What 4 then is the resurrection? 5 It is the revelation on every occasion of 6 those who have risen. For if you 7 remember reading in the Gospel 8 that Elijah appeared 9 along with Moses, 10 do not consider the resurrection 11 to be an illusion. 12 It is not an allusion; 13 it is true. It is more 14 suitable to say that 15 the world is an allusion 16 rather than the resurrection, which 17 has come about through 18 our Lord, the Savior, 19 Jesus Christ.

ⲉⲩ 4 ϭⲉ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲁⲛⲁⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ; ⲡϭⲱⲗⲡ̅ .5 ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲡⲉ ⲛ̅ⲟⲩⲁⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲛ̅- 6 ⲛⲉⲧⲁϩⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ. ⲉⲓϣⲡⲉ ⲁⲕⲣ̅ .7 ⲡⲙⲉⲩⲉ ⲛ̅ⲅⲁⲣ ⲉⲕⲱϣ ϩⲙ̅ ⲡⲉⲩ- 8 ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ϫⲉ ⲁϩⲏⲗⲉⲓⲁⲥ ⲟⲩ- 9 ⲱⲛϩ̅ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲙⲱⲩⲥⲏⲥ 10 ⲛⲙ̅ⲙⲉϥ, ⲙ̅ⲡⲱⲣ ⲁⲙⲉⲩⲉ ⲁⲧⲁ- 11 ⲛⲁⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ ϫⲉ ⲟⲩⲫⲁⲛⲧⲁⲥⲓⲁ 12 ⲧⲉ. ⲟⲩⲫⲁⲛⲧⲁⲥⲓⲁ ⲉⲛ ⲧⲉ, ⲁⲗⲗⲁ 13 [ⲟ]ⲩⲙⲏⲉ ⲧⲉ ⲛ̅ϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲛ̅ⲇⲉ ⲟⲩ- 14 ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲥϣⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲁϫⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲟⲩ- 15 ⲫⲁⲛⲧⲁⲥⲓⲁ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ 16. ⲛ̅ϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲁⲧⲁⲛⲁⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ, ⲧⲉⲉⲓ 17 ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲟ- 18 ⲟⲧϥ̅ ⲙ̅ⲡⲉⲛϫⲁⲉⲓⲥ, ⲡⲥⲱ- 19 ⲧⲏⲣ, ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ ⲡⲉⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ.

[mlinssen]

More from the Gospel of Truth

17:1b The name [of] 2 the gospel is the appearance 3 of hope, discovery 4 for those who search for him

....... ⲉⲡⲓⲣⲉⲛ ⲇⲉ [ⲙ]- 2 ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ̅ ⲁ- 3 ⲃⲁⲗ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ϯϩⲉⲗⲡⲓⲥ, ⲉⲡϭⲓⲛⲉ ⲡⲉ 4. ⲛ̅ⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲛ̅ⲥⲱϥ

18:11b-12 This <is> the 12 good news of the one who is sought

........... ⲡⲉⲉⲓ <ⲡⲉ> ⲡⲉⲩ- 12 ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲙ̅ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲛ̅-

Your Coptic is getting pretty great Mac!
I couldn't help noticing ⲕⲱⲧⲉ - https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C1416

This certainly is a bogus translation, the verb indicates "tossing and turning" and "seek" definitely is not a proper translation. I know the CDO has it, yet ranked as number 6 - and the Crum examples in https://coptot.manuscriptroom.com/crum- ... &tla=C1416 all show different words in most dialectic variants

Argh, don't let me get interested in Truth!!!

[rgprice]

A few thoughts.

1) I am convinced that the first narrative about the ministry and death of Jesus, whatever it was, was based on some version of Pauline letters. The Jesus figure in every Gospel we have today is based on Paul.

2) The big question is: What was the nature of the original Pauline letters? Were they Jewish in character at all? Did the original letters make any case about the inclusion of Gentiles through the promise of Abraham or not? I strongly suspect that the logic about Abraham's promise actually originated with Justin Martyr and was later interpolated into the orthodox Pauline letters. Did Paul actually say he had persecuted "the church" (Christians)? I don't think so. I think that is a mix of misinterpretation and later interpolations.

3) There are striking similarities between Ascension of Isaiah, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, and works found at Qumran that can be decisively dated to the first century BCE or prior.

4) There are striking similarities between Paul's description of Jesus and the Beloved found in Ascension of Isaiah. The Jesus described by Paul is more similar to the Beloved in Ascension of Isaiah than to the Jesus of the Gospels.

5) This leaves me with two somewhat opposed views of how the earliest recognizable Gospels may have developed.

The first begins with a narrative like what we find in Vision of Isaiah, which describes a heavenly figure who descend through the heavens in disguise in order to fool Beliar/Satan. This figure tricks Beliar/Satan into executing him so that he can enter into his domain to defeat him and save the souls of the righteous that Beliar/Satan has captured. I can see such a figure in the Pauline letters.

If the Pauline letters were written by someone with knowledge of this Vision of Isaiah type narrative about the Lord Jesus, it necessarily implies that the Pauline letters have an origin in the Jewish scriptures and the Jewish community. Like the Pauline letters, Ascension of Isaiah also seems to challenge the authority of Moses, but certainly does not go so far as to be Gnostic in character.

I can see how the fist Gospel, potentially proto-Mark (which may have been read by JM), could have been derived from a Vision of Isaiah type narrative and the Pauline letters. If the original narrative portrays the savior as a figure who deceives the minions of Satan and is unrecognized by them, then it seems that proto-Mark is addressing that claim, having Jesus instead by recognized by the minions of Satan but unrecognized by the Jews. He's transferring the blame for Jesus' death from Satan to the Jewish people. It wasn't Satan that killed the Savior, it was the Jews, and this is why the Jews were punished by the Romans with the destruction of the Temple.

This scenario implies a Jewish origin of Jesus worship. The origin go back to concepts that we find in the Qumranic works, perhaps developing into the Jesus story we recognize after the First Jewish-Roman War and the collapse of the Qumranic community. I'm conflicted about what to think of the Pauline letters, since they make no mention of the war or the destruction of the Temple. I've long held that the Pauline letters must have originated before the war.

BUT, what about a scenario where Jesus worship begins among Gnostics? Firstly, we have to recognize that "Gnosticism" has its origins in Judaism, so of course there are still Jewish connections.

The Gospel of Mark contains two important features. #1) Many, many scenes in the Gospel of Mark are based on Jewish scriptures. #2) Many passages also allude to the Pauline letters.

The question is, did the first recognizable Gospel (proto-Mark or Marcion's Gospel or some other Gospel) contain both of these features? I feel very confident that the first recognizable Gospel contained at least the second feature, allusions to the Pauline letters. In my mind there is no question that the earliest recognizable Gospel was derived from the Pauline letters. The question is whether it also had scenes based on the Jewish scriptures like we find in the Gospel of Mark.

What we know is that whatever Gospel or Gospels Justin was reading contained many scenes based on the Jewish scriptures. Indeed, the apparently prophetic relationships between the Jewish scriptures and the account of Jesus' ministry and death are what Justin touts as the proof that Jesus is "the real deal". So we know that whatever account of Jesus that Justin was reading, it contained scenes that were derived from the Jewish scriptures, just like the Gospel of Mark.

Justin may have read multiple accounts, but I think that its very likely that one of the accounts Justin read was proto-Mark. But was proto-Mark derived from Marcion's Gospel or was Marcion's Gospel derived from it?

The fact that Justin read an account that must have contained scenes derived from scriptures again supports the idea that proto-Mark came before Marcion's Gospel. This again points toward something like Vision of Isaiah (style narrative) > Paul > proto-Mark > Marcion.