Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-18-2008, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

No memoirs are identified to be of Peter in Dialogue 106, the memoirs are of Jesus in that chapter, 106.

Are you asserting? Or are you asking?

To be clear, the ANF translation (with a capital H in the pronoun Him) is possible, but not probable. The nearest antecedent is Peter, not Jesus, and Peter as the source of a memoir is in agreement with the usual practice of Justin to call the memoirs apostolic (of the apostles), not dominical (of the Lord).

But you say my translations are suspect. So I give you Helmut Koester:

"His Memoirs" in this text must mean "Peter's Memoirs" (not "Christ's Memoirs").

And I give you Charles Hill:

The latter, he says, is written in 'his', that is, Peter's, memoirs.

And I could give you many, many more.

Ben.

I read Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" 106, and there are no "memoirs of the apostles" called "memoirs of Peter".

You cannot show me anywhere in Dialogue 106 where there are the words "memoirs of Peter". Never.

Ben C Smith · 02-18-2008, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I read Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" 106, and there are no "memoirs of the apostles" called "memoirs of Peter".

You cannot show me anywhere in Dialogue 106 where there are the words "memoirs of Peter".

Here it is again:

And when it says that he changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter, and it is written in his memoirs that this also happened....

Quote:

Never.

Is it your position, then, that the Greek pronoun for his in this sentence cannot refer back to Peter, that it has to refer back to Jesus?

Ben.

mountainman · 02-18-2008, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Papias is just an Eusebian strawman, post Marcion and post Justin.

Hey Klaus,

Who in antiquity predating Eusebius is either not a
Eusebian strawman, or a Eusebian forgery, or indeed
has not been interpolated by Eusebius?

That is, is there any author in antiquity before Eusebius
in your opinion who mentions "christianity" but who has
not been mutilated by Eusebius?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

neilgodfrey · 02-20-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Apparently some time between Justin and Irenaeus the gospels had acquired the names we use for them today. There is no known evidence to point to any other conclusion.

What about Papias? Certainly not without problems but the rumors he shares about texts attributed to Mark and Matthew are evidence that points to another conclusion.

You're right.

To my mind all the evidence points to Papias being a creation of a writer some time between Justin and Irenaeus, but that's another story.

One of my fav quotes I've used elsewhere:

Quote:

With regard to the recurrent inclination to pass off Papias’s remarks about the first two Synoptists as “ancient information” and to utilize them in some fashion or other, a somewhat more general observation may not be out of place. The history of classical literature has gradually learned to work with the notions of the literary-historical legend, novella, or fabrication; after untold attempts at establishing the factuality of statements made it has discovered that only in special cases does there exist a tradition about a given literary production independent of the self-witness of the literary production itself; and that the person who utilizes a literary-historical tradition must always first demonstrate its character as a historical document. General grounds of probability cannot take the place of this demonstration. It is no different with Christian authors. In his literary history Eusebius has taken reasonable pains; as he says in the preface he had no other material at his disposal than the self-witness of the books at hand . . . . how much more is this not the situation in the case of the Gospels, whose authors intentionally or unintentionally adhered to the obscurity of the Church, since they neither would nor could be anything other than preachers of the one message, a message that was independent of their humanity? . . . .

This is from an academic paper delivered in 1904 by E. Schwartz: “Uber den Tod der Sohne Zebedaei. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Johannesevangeliums” (= Gesammelte Schriften V, 1963,48-123). It is cited in a 1991 chapter by Luise Abramowski titled “The ‘Memoirs of the Apostles’ in Justin” pp.331-332 published in “The Gospel and the Gospels” ed. Peter Stuhlmacher.

neilgodfrey · 02-20-2008, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Some points to ponder about Justin and the ascription of the gospels or memoirs by name:

1. It has been said that Justin never identifies the memoirs by name, but that is not strictly true. In Dialogue 106.3 he mentions the memoirs of Peter. Now, it seems to me that there are two possibilities here. First, perhaps he means the gospel of Peter and the Boanerges detail given was present in the part of that gospel that we no longer have. Second, he may have meant the gospel of Mark under the assumption that, as per the Papian tradition, Mark was writing according to Peter in some way. In any case, he does seem to identify one of these memoirs with the apostle Peter by name.

2. Justin does not often differentiate between the different memoirs in this manner (indeed, the mention of Petrine memoirs may be the only time), but he does know that they are plural and that they are called gospels (plural), according to Apology 1.66.3.

3. So long as Justin calls them the apostolic memoirs in general instead of mentioning one of them by name, most of them (the Petrine being the exception) can remain either anonymous or collective in the same way that the Epistula Apostolorum or the Apostolic Constitutions are either anonymous or collective. But what if Justin attributes the memoirs to people other than the apostles? In Dialogue 103.8 Justin does just that, writing that the memoirs were written down by the apostles and by those who followed them. Interestingly, the detail in question in this instance is from the (western text of the) gospel of Luke. I am unsure exactly how far to press this. On the one hand, the statement does not name names, least of all the name of Luke. On the other hand, to specify that some of the memoirs derive from the followers of the apostles seems a bit too specific without knowing some names; how would one know that followers were responsible for some of them without knowing the names? Would the story circulate that gospel X was written by a follower, not by an apostle, but we are not sure which follower? And is it a mere coincidence that this information comes in conjunction with a text that comes from a gospel attributed to one of the followers? Did the later fathers read this line in Justin and make sure that the gospels were attributed both to apostles and to followers, and that the gospel immediately implied in context was one of the latter? Even if so, how did Justin himself come by the idea without knowing any names?

Luise Abramowski in a chapter in Stuhlmacher's "The Gospel and the Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk)" is also convinced that Justin is speaking of a memoir "of Peter". That does make sense but I don't know the basis of the argument against that -- there clearly has been one, or was there only an assumption? -- for Abramowski to find it necessary to make the point so strongly.

To my mind the simplest explanation for Justin's differentiating between writings by apostles and others by their successors is the fact that some are first person narratives (Peter, James -- both quite likely known to Justin) and others are third person stories.

Amaleq13 · 02-20-2008, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

To my mind all the evidence points to Papias being a creation of a writer some time between Justin and Irenaeus, but that's another story.

A future thread, perhaps?

Or have you already written about it elsewhere?

It amazes me (despite having, in the past, a couple "noteworthy" regulars here argue quite strenuously otherwise) that his writings weren't preserved and your suggestion would certainly address that concern.

Ben C Smith · 02-20-2008, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

To my mind the simplest explanation for Justin's differentiating between writings by apostles and others by their successors is the fact that some are first person narratives (Peter, James -- both quite likely known to Justin) and others are third person stories.

That is a very good point. Thanks.

I wonder where exactly this would leave the gospel of John. On the one hand, it is not told in the first person. On the other, chapter 21 claims that the beloved disciple himself wrote these things. Of course, there are those who do not think Justin even knew that gospel. (I am not exactly one of them; I think he knew something that looks something like John.)

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 02-20-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

It amazes me (despite having, in the past, a couple "noteworthy" regulars here argue quite strenuously otherwise) that his writings weren't preserved and your suggestion would certainly address that concern.

Eusebius was one of the most used and respected authors in Christian history, and I think Papias suffered irrecoverable damage from Eusebius having called him an idiot (his overt chiliasm would not have helped matters much, either).

Of all the Christian texts I wish we could find in some Egyptian garbage heap, Papias is chief.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 02-20-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

To my mind the simplest explanation for Justin's differentiating between writings by apostles and others by their successors is the fact that some are first person narratives (Peter, James -- both quite likely known to Justin) and others are third person stories.

On your blog you write:

Justin Martyr as late as 150 c.e. discusses writings that appear to be at least similar to our gospels but he does not know them by any authorial names. ....

Apparently some time between Justin and Irenaeus the gospels had acquired the names we use for them today.

There seems to be some tension between your statement here and your statement on this older blog post (a slight change of mind, perhaps?). On the one hand, Justin very likely knows the gospels of Peter and of James, which identify themselves by those names right in their texts, and thus writes of apostles as authors of the memoirs; on the other hand, Justin does not even know the names of the other gospels he uses. If Justin knows of the gospel of James, yet does not actually give it that name, why can he not know of, say, the gospel of Matthew without actually giving it any name? IOW, is there something other than his silence on the names (which apparently does not work in the case of James, at least) that causes you to say that the names postdate Justin?

BTW, I do remain intrigued by the possibility that the apostles are James and Peter and the followers are the others.

Ben.

aa5874 · 02-20-2008, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Luise Abramowski in a chapter in Stuhlmacher's "The Gospel and the Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk)" is also convinced that Justin is speaking of a memoir "of Peter". That does make sense but I don't know the basis of the argument against that -- there clearly has been one, or was there only an assumption? -- for Abramowski to find it necessary to make the point so strongly.

To my mind the simplest explanation for Justin's differentiating between writings by apostles and others by their successors is the fact that some are first person narratives (Peter, James -- both quite likely known to Justin) and others are third person stories.

There are no epistles or letters named Peter or James in Justin Martyr's extant writings, in fact Justin did not mention any James at all. Justin mentioned only three epistles by name in all of his extant writings, the epistle of Adrian, the epistle of Antoninus and the epistle of Marcus Aurelius.

And it is hardly likely that Justin made any reference to the epistle of Peter since I have not found any scriptures mentioned by Justin from the epistle called Peter. Justin quoted scriptures extensively from what is called gMatthew, followed by gLuke, and then gMark. There are a few verses from what is called Hebrews and Romans, but some of these verses are also found in the OT, so it is not certain of the true source.

And further, in his extant writings, Justin made no mention at all of any epistles to any of the seven Churches.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.