Originally Posted by Duvduv

Do you or aa5874 think anything in the Dialogue goes back really to the 2nd century?

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It's rather funny that the text is called a dialogue between Justin Martyr and Trypho. As dialogues go, there should be a back-and-forth between them. However, the bulk of the text is merely rhetorical pronouncements where poor Trypho can't get a word in edgewise, even if it's all merely a literary device to promote certain views.

Justin Martyr (if that's who wrote it, and I have my doubts) expects his reader to take his word for it that everything he claims is true. He bases the vast majorit of his arguments on the Jewish scriptures except for a couple of chapters where he uses citations of statements that could just as easily be interpolations.

He doesn't even claim any sources for his metaphors such as the idea that the lamb of Passover on the two spits represents Christ on the "tree" or that the two goats of Yom Kippur represent the first and second comings.

He never represents any sources in the names of any Christians at all. The term "memoirs of the apostles" doesn't make sense anyway because the gospels are GOOD NEWS, the divinely inspired theology and not just memoirs. And he would never explain which memoir he was referring to. I suppose it could be argued that he was referring to such sources that were not yet considered sacred writ or "holy gospels" but just sources.

Then of course we see that many if not most of his references that are also found in Matthew (and a couple in Luke) are not exact renditions of those sources either.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I suppose it could be argued that he was referring to such sources that were not yet considered sacred writ or "holy gospels" but just sources.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It was GJohn who was more confused than the aurhor of Dialogue. I didn't mean that Justin saw the lamb as atoning for sin.

Originally Posted by Maklelan

I see that now. That was my misunderstanding. I apologize. On the other hand, having looked at John, I really don't see an issue. To begin with, mixing metaphors is not particularly uncommon or unwelcome in early Jewish and Christian literature. Metaphors of adoption are explicitly mixed with ideas of begetting all the time, for instance, in both Jewish and Christian texts. Next, the word "lamb" is used twice in John:



John does not specifically refer to the Day of Atonement or Pesach, and there are Old Testament texts that describe lambs as atoning for sin, and in ways unrelated to the Day of Atonement or the Pesach. Ezek 45:15, for instance, has God give a general command to take a lamb for a meat offering, burnt offering, and peace offering, "to atone for them (לכפר*עליהם)." Using a lamb as a sin offering, or to otherwise atone for sin, is describing in Lev 4:32–35; 5:6–7; 12:6–8; 14:12–18. I see nothing incompatible with John's notion that Christ, as the Lamb of God, could atone for the sins of the world.

On Martyr, though, you said that he was wrong to use the lamb on the spit and the two goats as prefiguring Christ on the cross and in his suffering. Since his metaphor really doesn't violate the Jewish tradition, why is his metaphor inappropriate? You seemed to suggest that it was because no one used it that way before him, but certainly religious metaphors are not required to have precedents.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What does Justin know about the concept of apostolic succession from "Peter"as part of the so-called Christian tradition of his alleged period in the mid-second century??

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I think that Duvduv makes a point that despite the "Dialogue" featuring a Jew and Justin, it cannot be simply assumed that Justin (or the author whoever it was) accurately represents Jewish beliefs of his time when he places them in Trypho's mouth.

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Was the author thinking of something like the "son of man" of the Parables of Enoch (date unknown, and not found among the DSS), or Metatron of the Hackaloth literature (which is believed to have developed 4th-6th century CE, and often equated with the glorified Enoch)?

Originally Posted by DCHindley

If anyone wants to explore this further, there is a 1st rate introduction to this kind of literature and its traditions in the article "3 (Hebrew Aoocalypse of) Enoch: (Fifth-Sixth Century AD)," by Philip Alexander, in Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (or via: amazon.co.uk) vol 1, p 223ff. 3rd Enoch is a Hebrew work that describes heavenly ascents and features Enoch as a transformed heavenly figure of very high repute in the Heavens around God's throne. This work has scenes where Metatron is lashed with fiery noodles if anyone even get the thought that he was in some way equal to god. It is uncertain how far back these "two powers" ideas go.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Individual offerings can atone for individuals. But the atonement of the public is only through the Yom Kippur sacrifice, and there is certainly no atonement for future generations.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

But anyway it is a goat. Justin's metaphor about the spits being the crucifix, etc. is very creative however, but GJohn doesn't share it.