spin

The complaint was about the useless adjective, not the fact that the story says the Romans did the crucifying. As I said, "There is little particularly Roman about it." We tend to have a warped idea about crucifixion, as though the only person ever crucified was Jesus (whether that was real or not). Crucifixion was known for centuries prior to the reputed time of Jesus. We just need a better understanding of that reality. The Jews were well aware of crucifixion because it had been happening in their country on and off from the time of Antiochus IV, who is first on record for having done so in Judea.


spin

Amaleq13

It would still have been carried out by the Romans, though, right? If the Jews killed him, he would have been stoned to death.

If only for the sake of subsequent Christian jewelry, I would hope they still would have chosen the former.

Amaleq13

Agreed.

neilgodfrey

No. This is an assumption. It's a mistake to read modern historical understanding into the narratives, including into the noncanonical gospels and the writings of the fathers. I agree with mountainman to the extent that we need to read the extracanonical literature a lot more carefully than we often do, without reading the canonicals into it.

Both sources I quoted say he was crucified by the Jews. It is the Sanhedrin who kills him. It is the Jews who nail him. It is Pilate who lets Herod have his way to do all of this.

Of course we are not talking history. That is how the story is told in Gospel of Peter and Justin. Unless we force-read the canonical gospels into it.

Gospel of Peter:

One has to really force-read the text to allow for the Romans to do the crucifying there. Everything is a fulfilment of Jewish scriptures -- they, the Jews, push Jesus along to crucify him (in fulfilment of Psalm 118) -- not the orderly procession led by Roman soldiers. It is the Jews who boast or fear for what they have done -- the text clearly points to them just having crucified Jesus under Herod's orders. Herod does not order Roman soldiers.

It is a Jewish crucifixion built around the Jews fulfilling the Jewish scriptures. They push the son of man as per Psalms 118:12-13; and they spit and beat and pierce him as per Zechariah and Isaiah. I have a complete table of all this -- comparing the GPeter with the canonicals and the Jewish scriptures -- here.

Ditto for Justin:

The Jewish synagogue -- not Pilate -- sentenced him to crucifixion (Trypho, 104)

The Jews pierced Jesus, Herod being responsible for the crucifixion, "under Pilate" (Trypho32,85,104 and First Apology 13)

Over and over it is the Jews who pierce Jesus (Trypho 14,32,64,97,98,104,118, and First Apology 13)

Those who crucified him shook head, distorted lips, twisted noses to each other, mocking his claim: “He was the Son of God….!" (Trypho 101) -- obviously the Jews, not the Romans here.

All this happened "under Pilate" -- at the time of Pilate's jurisdiction. But Pilate gave over the whole shebang to Herod -- just as in the Gospel of Peter.

I've uploaded a full comparison table here.

Justin is assumed to be drawing on the canonical gospel narratives but the more closely I read him the less I find to support that assumption.

Amaleq13

I agree.

Does Justin relying on GPeter carry any significant implications or would it just be interesting?

neilgodfrey

One man's fish is another man's poisson. But most discussions of Justin I've read at least acknowledge some use of noncanonical gospels. But I have not seen the question raised about why, if he knew the canonical gospels, he expressed no conflict over the thought of rejecting them for other narratives. Justin's narrative leaves no room for a Judas character, and has Jesus instituting the eucharist after his resurrection. Mere details.

Amaleq13

With enough faith, I suppose so.

So a story allegedly written by Peter's secretary eventually beats out a story allegedly written by Peter even though at least some Christians apparently preferred the latter.

Any recommendations on reading about Justin?

neilgodfrey

Gospel of Peter appears to have had no Judas (there are twelve disciples sticking together during the crucifixion); no special Petrine denial (Peter is mourning with his friends over the fate of Jesus, not alone over his own failure); disciples fleeing only at the time the mob was crucifying Jesus, not at his arrest; -- all have echoes in Justin's narrative bytes.

So why would it suit the orthodox to acquire in the end a Judas and a flawed Peter? Alternately who benefited from reforming Peter and Judas and distancing Roman involvement?

No recommendations except for the Justin texts online -- I just pick up bits and pieces wherever footnotes and serendipity lead me....

Bellinzoni's Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr, also his Influence of GMatthew
Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels
Abramowski's Memoirs of the Apostles in Justin -- in Gospel and the Gospels (ed Stuhlmacher)
Osborn's Justin Martyr
Mattila's A Question Too Often Neglected .... in NTS, 41, 1995
Aland et al's Gospel Traditions in the second century
Petersen's Textual evidence of Tatian's dependence ... in NTS, 36, 1990
Boyarin's Justin Martyr invents Judaism .... in Church History, 70, 2001
Hofer's Old Man as Christ in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho .... in Vigiliae Christianae, 57

almost forgot: Most of the above looks at sayings, very little appears on narrative details. My frustration led to my own notes (comparing gospels, comparing church history) distilled from hours of fun dissecting Justin's writings. Well I'm sure it's a healthier pastime than dissecting flies.

The main texts on Justin argue mainly for canonical textual sources behind Justin, but some of the journal articles raise questions about the assumptions behind those studies.

andrewcriddle

Several scholars have argued that Justin knew the Gospel of Peter there is a discussion in Raymond Brown's Death of the Messiah appendix on Gospel of Peter pps 1317-1349 particularly page 1341 referencing Pilhofer Justin und das Peterusevangelium ZNW 81 (1990) 60-78. Apart from the general resemblances mentioned earlier by neilgodfrey there is also the same Greek expression "throw a gamble" used in the Gospel of Peter http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ter-brown.html and Dialogue with Trypho 97 However even if Justin knew the Gospel of Peter it was not his only source. From the Dialogue compared to and from the Dialogue ommitted in Gospel of Peter.

Andrew Criddle

ETA

The ANF translation of Dialogue with Trypho doesn't make clear the parallel with the Gospel of Peter. Lukyn Williams translates .

neilgodfrey

Thanks. I had completely forgotten the Raymond Brown discussion.

On the surface it looks like Justin is taking bits from the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Peter, Proto-gospel of James, etc, but very often he declares that this or that detail comes from the Jewish scriptures. Only a few refs to that curious Memoirs of the Apostles. And his rare references to the "Gospel" have been questioned as interpolations.

How does one get one's head around a collection of gospels as contradictory as Matthew and Peter being lumped together as part of a single collection titled "Memoirs of the Apostles"?