stephan huller

I posted this discussion in our other thread. I thought it would also be appropriate here:


Hi AA.

You wrote:

And you also say:

You also give me a long list of things that you feel represent manipulations that are found in Irenaeus which are not in the writings of Justin.

Fine. I can now see where you are coming from. Irenaeus's writings contain ideas, scriptural references and other signs of what I would presume you would identify as 'false beliefs' that are not found in Justin's writings.

There are differences to be sure. I have never actually considered the idea that the writings of Justin might represent some 'oasis' in the corrupt landscape of the early Church. Yet, maybe there is a reason for that.

Let's just go through what we know about the physical manuscripts of the writings of Justin Martyr.

As noted before there is only one surviving MS. I cited the information from Schaff a few days ago:

Justin would be known to us only by a few spasmodic quotations had not a Byzantine scribe copied an invaluable, if defective, MS., in the year 1364. This is now Codex Regius 150 (now 450) at Paris, and is the almost exclusive source for editions of Justin, supplemented only by the quotations of Eusebius and John of Damascus and three chapters (65 to 67) in a manuscript at Rome (Codex Ottobonianus Graecus 274).

I will leave aside the issue of the manner in which the Second Apology has been edited now to appear as an introduction to the 'First' Apology (which necessarily implies editorial 'manipulation' on some level. This wasn't accomplished by Justin's hand.

Let's just deal with the fact that bundled together with the Apology (1 and 2 bundled together) and the Dialogue are a number of works which most scholars think are spurious including:

Letter to Zenas and Serenas
Exhortation to the Pagans
On the Sole Rule of God
Exposition of the Right Faith
Refutation of Certain Teachings of Aristotle
Questions of the Christians to Pagans
Questions to the Orthodox
Questions of the Pagans to the Christians
On the Resurrection

Argent gr 9 also contains two other works attributed to Justin:

Against the Pagans
Letter to Diognetus

Though all of these works were often included in early editions of Justin, most are now rejected by scholars on theological and stylistic grounds.

There is another work attributed to Justin which survives in fragmentary form called On the Resurrection preserved by John of Damascus.

Eusebius refers to a number of works of Justin:

Two Apologies (which aren't necessarily our surviving texts)
Against the Pagans (now identified as spurious)
Against the Pagans "which he also called Refutations" (now identified as spurious) Photius suggests this is also the Refutations
On the Sole Rule (now identified as spurious)
The Harpist (=Psaltes)
On the Soul

Irenaeus makes references to an Against Marcion (see below)
There is also the Handbook (Syntagma) Against All Heresies which is referenced in 1 Apology 26.8 which most scholars identify in some form with the text added to the First Book of Irenaeus Against the Heresies chapter 23 - 31 (or some section thereof).

What I am trying to demonstrate by this list is that throughout the history of the Church there are examples of Church Fathers identifying various works of being from Justin's hand which were clearly not by Justin. The fact that scholars have settled on the Apology and the Dialogue as authentic is hardly reassuring given that there is such a consistent effort by Irenaeus and Eusebius to cite Justin as a witness for orthodoxy.

If there were false attribution of material in early Christian antiquity is it really to be believed that these were all accidental. And if they were DELIBERATELY misidentified by Irenaeus or Eusebius what would stop them from making Justin seem more orthodox than he was with works that might actually have originally been penned by him.

So here in my preliminary statement on the question of the authenticity of the Apology, given that you don't accept Irenaeus's surviving writings how do you accept Justin's surviving writings when surviving material associated with Irenaeus continually reinforces that Justin was 'just like' Irenaeus:

For as we do direct our faith towards the Son, so also should we possess a firm and immoveable love towards the Father. In his book against Marcion, Justin does well say: "I would not have believed the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher. But because the only-begotten Son came to us from the one God, who both made this world and formed us, and contains and administers all things, summing up His own handiwork in Himself, my faith towards Him is steadfast, and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us."[Irenaeus AH iv.6.2]

Truly has Justin remarked: That before the Lord's appearance Satan never dared to blaspheme God, inasmuch as he did not yet know his own sentence, because it was contained in parables and allegories; but that after the Lord's appearance, when he had clearly ascertained from the words of Christ and His apostles that eternal fire has been prepared for him as he apostatized from God of his own free-will, and likewise for all who unrepentant continue in the apostasy, he now blasphemes, by means of such men, the Lord who brings judgment [upon him] as being already condemned, and imputes the guilt of his apostasy to his Maker, not to his own voluntary disposition. Just as it is with those who break the laws, when punishment overtakes them: they throw the blame upon those who frame the laws, but not upon themselves. In like manner do those men, filled with a satanic spirit, bring innumerable accusations against our Creator, who has both given to us the spirit of life, and established a law adapted for all; and they will not admit that the judgment of God is just. Wherefore also they set about imagining some other Father who neither cares about nor exercises a providence over our affairs, nay, one who even approves of all sins. [Irenaeus v.26.2]

So given that Irenaeus's writings are - according to you - manipulated 'fictions' isn't the fact that those 'spurious writings' of Irenaeus reference the writings of Justin a clear sign that the 'same hand' that 'forged' or (I don't know how you explain Irenaeus's 'fictional status') manipulated Irenaeus HAD TO HAVE HAD A HAND IN RESHAPING JUSTIN. It is impossible to imagine that this 'black hand' that was so interested in using Justin as a spokesperson for all his 'fictions' and was so willing to including his name in the 'manipulations' of Irenaeus and moreover develop spurious works in his name would somehow stop short of 'touching' the Apology and the Dialogue.

Indeed when you speak of 'fictions' it is hard not to notice that Eusebius (whom I assume you also feel is a manipulator) links Justin's martyrdom with the attack against Crescens at the end of the 2 Apology. The blurring of distinction between 'surviving texts of Justin' and the orthodox tradition you despise so is even more clear when you remember that the Dialogue cites from the 1 Apology and more significantly:

- a third century editor (one could I guess make the case that it was Irenaeus who did it too) took Justin's Syntagma and just dropped part or all of it to form the last half Book One of Against All Heresies.

- that part of Justin's Syntagma was developed into the Philosophumena

- that a lost work of Justin MUST be behind the material developed by Tertullian (or a third century editor) into two separate works, Against the Jews and Against Marcion Book III

The point then is that everywhere you look there seems to be examples of original 'authentic' material associated with Justin being appropriated into new works. Indeed I have never actually read the pseudo-Justin material but one might also see signs (if one looked carefully) for an authentic core that similarly got systematically expanded into an ultimately spurious work.

I hope you will at least acknowledge that I have demonstrated that there are more than enough reasons to suspect that ALL material associated with Codex Regius 450 are the furthest thing from being reliable sources. There is a nexus of citations inside and outside the surviving body of Justin which does everything it can to argue for a very specific understanding of Christianity.

You point to the manner in which the canonical gospels are never cited, nor the authority of Peter and the like but I think there is a very good explanation for this. Tatian was viewed as a much greater authority on the teachings of Justin than Irenaeus was (Purvis's arguments in no way contradict any of this). Tatian used a Diatessaron therefore it would be impossible for Irenaeus to convince anyone that Justin did not.

Any any event if you would like me to follow this post up with a systematic exposition of corruptions and manipulations in the Apology and the Dialogue I will be more than happy to do so.

aa5874

Again, Justin Martyr writings have demonstrated that the Jesus cult was relatively small and little known at around the middle of the 2nd century.

Justin Martyr before his conversion did NOT name a single person who was a known philosopher like him and who was a PROMINENT Jesus believer. Justin Martyr happened to meet an un-named OLD MAN who told him about some religion.

aa5874

When the writings of Justin Martyr are examined it is revealed that he is a HOSTILE witness to the Church. Justin Martyr’s writings contradict many Church writers including writers under the name of Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and others.

When the writer under the name Eusbeius wrote Church History he did discuss the attribution and order of the four Gospels..
Church History 6.14.5-6Now, when the writings of Justin Martyr are reviewed there is no mention of any Gospel according to Matthew, according to Luke or according to Mark.
Justin Martyr ONLY mentioned the Memoirs of the Apostles.

If the writings of Justin Martyr were manipulated by the Church then it would be EXPECTED that the Gospels called the “Memoirs of the Apostles” would have been simply removed and replaced with the associated Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

There seem to have been NO ATTEMPT by the CHURCH to harmonise the “Memoirs of the Apostles” in Justin Martyr with the named Gospels of Clement as stated by Eusebius.

But, there is a MASSIVE problem.

Eusebius is claiming that at least three of the four named Gospels were known to have been attributed to an apostle called Matthew, and followers of Paul and Peter, Luke and Mark, for about 100 years before Justin Martyr and that a Gospel was attributed to an apostle called John at least 50 years before Justin.

Justin did NOT mention any Gospel writers called Mathhew, Mark, Luke or John even though the four named Gospels should have had a 50-100 year circulation period within the churches before him.

He ONLY mentioned the “Memoirs of the Apostles”.

But, not ONLY that, Justin Martyr IDENTIFIED the “Memoirs of the Apostles” as being read and accepted as Scripture in the churches in the middle of the 2nd century.
Papias, Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Eusebius mentioned Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as Gospel writers but did NOT write about the “Memoirs of the Apostles”

Justin Martyr’s “Memoirs of the Apostles” was left unharmonised and the information supplied by Papias, Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, and Eusebius about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as Gospel writers has turned out to be totally wrong in attribution, dating and chronology.

Not a single Church writer is even close.

They are ALL TOTALLY WRONG.

Justin Marty’s “Memoirs of the Apostles” has not suffered the same fate.

Even with almost 100 years of supposed prior circulation of the four Gospels, Justin appear not to know who exactly or when the “Memoirs” were written.

Based on Justin, the “Memoirs of the Apostles” appear to be the first well-known Gospels since the information from the Church about the attribution, dating and chronology of the four named Gospels has turned out to be BOGUS.