stephan huller

I think the present Dialogue is preserved in a very corrupt form and dates to first half of the second century. I wouldn't be surprised if Trypho were a corruption of Tarphon (=טרפון). I think it is Tarphon who gives us the best description of the dyplastoon Jewish house of worship in Alexandria. This points to him having contact with non-Jews from outside Palestine. I have always been suspicious that Justin might be one and the same with the “Justus” in Alexandria in the list of successors of St Mark. Who knows

Duvduv

1) The sacrifice for expiating sins is NOT the lamb of Passover, but the goat of Yom Kippur. At least "Justin" didn't go as far as GJohn with this mistake.

2) Official doctrine is that the FIRST gospel was Matthew.

3) Citations are "incorrect" because many of them do not closely resemble the source.

4) I am not an expert in detecting interpolations and do not know Greek, but I have this suspicion that there are at the very least marginal glosses or interpolations in Justin in the Dialogue.

Duvduv

If Trypho were Rebbe Tarfon something Pharisaic/Rabbinic would come through. Absolutely nothing rabbinic comes through the little bit of the Jewish part of the dialogue. All the writer wanted to do was brag about his own interpretations of the Jewish scriptures without allowing "Trypho" even the slightest opportunity to challenge any of them.

Personally I don't even think the Dialogue is from the 2nd century at all. The small significance of "Christians" available in the 2nd century would mean that the average rabbinical Jew would have had no exposure or interest in this little sect if it existed in the 2nd century.

And I don't think anyone that early would have bothered putting together a whole reinterpretation of Jewish scriptures to show the new religion to be the SUCCESSOR religion of Judaism. It's just way too early.

arnoldo

An alleged theological concept referenced by Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho is used by James F. McGrath and Jerry Truex ‘Two Powers’ and Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism" Journal of Biblical Studies 4.1 (2004): 43-71. to provide support for an earlier rather than later dating for Justin’s writings.

IIRC, the “Two Powers” theological construct was at first tolerated, perhaps even accepted by “orthodox” Judaism beginning in the first to second century but was later determined to be a heretical belief. On the other had it does appear to be an argument from silence that Justin’s stance re the two powers concept supports that Justin wrote in the second century.

Duvduv

This would ONLY be valid IF it could be argued that educated Jews had any contact with "Christians" as early as the middle of the 2nd century, as I mentioned before. And if Justin's sect was so small, it is highly unlikely that he would have had the opportunity to interact to such an extent with such Jews, even for the purpose of tooting his own horn.
In the fourth or fifth centuries, yes, but not in the second.

stephan huller

I thought you just said that Dialogue isn't a dialogue because it is so one sided Trypho can't be heard? Now suddenly we get enough information to know the exact identity of Trypho

Duvduv

IF IT WERE Rebbe Tarfon. But even if it isn't, it still isn't a real dialogue with a rabbinic Jew. Does Trypho even once mention anything he ever heard from any of his teachers or traditions? Of course Justin may not give him the opportunity since he won't let him have a word in edgewise.

stephan huller

Tarphon would be an Aramaic rendering of the Greek name Τρύφων. I am not sure how certain we can be of Tarphon's religious beliefs. His name was certainly Greek. As I said he seems to have visited Alexandria at least once. This would imply he spoke Greek. The rabbinic tradition of the period after the Jewish temple cannot simply be equated with the tradition of the Pharisees. I don't have a clue what Judaism looked like in the period between the two Jewish revolts. No one does.

Duvduv

The Pharisees were not monolithic, going way back. Essentially they followed the oral tradition of the sages, but some did to a greater extent and others to a lesser extent. That is a reason why in the gospels it says that some Pharisees were hypocrites, but that also praises them as in Matthew 5:19 and Matthew 23:2. Although it sounds funny that he says that those who are hypocrites sit in Moses' seat. A little confusion there.
Contemporary Orthodox Judaism sees a constant thread running all the way back of the same system.

Maklelan

I see. This is what Justin says about Jesus as the lamb (the discussion of the goats is in italics):

Now, I see Justin discussing the lamb of the passover representing Christ insofar as its blood is put on the doors of the house, so that the destroying angel passes over it, and as it is roasted in a likeness to Christ's suffering on the cross. I see him then discuss Christ as prefigured in the two goats of "the fast," which refers not to Pesach, but to the Day of Atonement. He refers to the goat sacrificed for sin and the scapegoat, which symbolically took upon it the unintentional sins of Israel. Here is the statement from Leviticus 16 regarding the goats:

Martyr later references both the lamb of the Pesach and the goats of the Day of Atonement as actions not able to be carried out in just any place. He also compares Christ to the passover lamb in the following way:

I don't ever see Martyr refer to Christ as a passover lamb whose blood atones for sins. I see him refer to Christ as a passover lamb whose blood diverts God's destruction, which is a perfectly accurate description. I also find Martyr describing Christ in terms of the goats used on the Day of Atonement. Where do you find a reference to Christ as a passover lamb whose blood atones for sins?

And where is this established?

And why do you reject the notion that the he had textually divergent sources in front of him, and that the differences arise from his Vorlagen and not his exegesis? Have you even considered that notion?

I see. I know a lot of text-critical work has been done with Martyr's text, and there are certainly glosses and interpolations, but many of them are actually subsequent to the original composition of his text. Have you considered that?