DCHindley

I thought it odd that Wolfson would give the phrase in Latin, not Greek.

The passage runs as follows in BibleWorks:

PHE Quaestiones in Genesim (fragment. 2:62 Why is it that he speaks as if of some other god, saying that he made man after the image of God, and not that he made him after his own image? [Genesis 9:6]. 62. Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of man should bear before it the type of the divine Word; since in his first Word God is superior to the most rational possible nature. But he who is superior to the Word holds his rank in a better and most singular pre-eminence, and how could the creature possibly exhibit a likeness of him in himself? Nevertheless he also wished to intimate this fact, that God does rightly and correctly require vengeance, in order to the defense of virtuous and consistent men, because such bear in themselves a familiar acquaintance with his Word, of which the human mind is the similitude and form.

PHI Quaestiones in Genesim (fragment. 2:62 διά τί ὡς περὶ ἑτέρου θεοῦ φησι τὸ "ἐν εἰκόνι θεοῦ ἐποίησα τὸν ἄνθρωπον", ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ; παγκάλως καὶ σοφῶς τουτὶ κεχρησμῴδηται. θνητόν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἀπεικονισθῆναι πρὸς τὸν ἀνωτάτω καὶ πατέρα τῶν ὅλων ἐδύνατο, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸν δεύτερον θεόν, ὅς ἐστιν ἐκείνου λόγος. ἔδει γὰρ τὸν λογικὸν ἐν ἀνθρώπου ψυχῇ τύπον ὑπὸ θείου λόγου χαραχθῆναι, ἐπειδὴ ὁ πρὸ τοῦ λόγου θεὸς κρείσσων ἐστὶν ἢ πᾶσα λογικὴ φύσις· τῷ δὲ ὑπὲρ τὸν λόγον ἐν τῇ βελτίστῃ καί τινι ἐξαιρέτῳ καθεστῶτι ἰδέᾳ οὐδὲν θέμις ἦν γενητὸν ἐξομοιωθῆναι.

In the first case he refers to a "different" God, and the second refers to "a second God, which is that certain word/reason". "Second God" is indeed what "secundus deus" means in Latin. All that crap that follows, "of the Supreme being," is not really there in the Greek. Yong is just being flowery with his language.
DCH

stephan huller

Which is why Runia always reminds me not to use Yonge. The difficulty is that Yonge is ubiquitous on the internet and everything else costs money. Sort of like ... let's think of a safe example ... buying the cow when you can get the milk for free

Maklelan

Actually ὅς ἐστιν ἐκείνου λόγος is "which is the word of that one." The genitive ἐκείνου does refer back to God, although "of the Supreme Being" is certainly overdoing it.

aa5874

"Dialogue with Trypho" may be the first and only apologetic source of antiquity in which a Jew and a Christian are documented to argue about the historicity and existence of a Jewish Messiah called Jesus.

It is absolutely fascinating that Justin Martyr ADMITS to Trypho the Jew that he may have FAILED to show that Jesus pre-existed.

"Dialogue with Trypho" "Dialogue with Trypho" and "First Apology" also corroborate the finding that "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 are forgeries.

Neither Justin Martyr nor Trypho the Jew used the writings of Josephus to show Jesus did exist and was known as Christ during the time of Pilate.

Amazingly, Justin Martyr used a writing called the Acts of Pilate by some UNKNOWN writer instead of Antiquities of the Jews written by Josephus whose writings were known to Justin Martyr.

"First Apology" Justin Martyr did NOT know of the forgeries in Antiquities even though Justin was aware of Josephus.

Examine Hortatory Address to the Greeks" The writings of Justin Martyr are EXTREMELY significant. They show that the Pauline writings are bogus and that "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 and 18.3.3 are forgeries.

stephan huller

The Disputation of Papiscus and Jason was another (cf. Contra Celsum 4.52). There were many more written throughout the ages. I have a copy of one written in sixth century. This was a popular genre. The Disputation between Nachmanides and Pablo Christiani is another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputation_of_Barcelona

Maklelan

I don't think that's particularly fascinating. Christ's pre-existence was not a very early doctrine.

Oddly enough, several Christian authors from after Eusebius' day (including Augustine) also argue for Christ's existence, cite Josephus numerous times, and never mention the TF. Jerome cites Josephus over 90 times, but he only cites the TF once. It seems assumptions about what authors would have done had they access to certain information are not as helpful as you think. We also have Origen rather clearly referring to a version of the TF resembling the Agapius version rather than Eusebius'. The notion that Eusebius manipulated Origen's text would be hard to support, since it would basically incriminate Eusebius' version of the TF.

The Acts of Pilate provide quite a bit more detail than the passing acknowledgment of the earliest TF.

That's not really the best synthesis of your observations. You're just arguing by assertion.

No, they do no such thing. Again, you try to make an assumption about what an author would have done bear far more evidentiary weight than any assumption can be made to bear. Many other explanations are available that actually track with all the other observations we can make about Christian use of Josephus from Martyr down to Luther.

lpetrich

I think that you ought to look at what the original words were, because translations can be misleading and even erroneous.

Remember the mistranslation of Hebrew almah as parthenos ("virgin") in the Septuagint, rather than "young woman". It's important to avoid making similar mistakes.

Maklelan

While it is important to look at the original primary sources, I wouldn't call parthenos a mistranslation of almah. Neither word unilaterally refers exclusively to virginity. While parthenos obviously has stronger associations with virginity than does almah, it is used in reference to Dinah in the Greek translation and it also renders almah elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Deities in the ancient Near East were also referred to with terms cognate to the Hebrew bethulah ("virgin"), despite explicitly conceiving and birthing children to other deities. There is closer semantic overlap between bethulah and parthenos, and almah is a bit more dynamic than formal, but it's not a mistranslation. The notion of virgin birth, as extrapolated by later Christians, is certainly not intended by the translation, though.

aa5874

Lucian, a non apologetic source, used the same word "President". There is ZERO evidence that Lucian and Justin Martyr made any mistake.

aa5874

Well, I don't really care about what you think when you have nothing credible to support you.

Look at Mark 6.48-49, the EARLIEST Jesus was a PHANTOM--he was witnessed as he walked on sea water.

Look at Mark 9.2-4, the EARLIEST Jesus was a PHANTOM--he was witnessed as he Transfigured with the resurrected Moses and Elijah.

The EARLIEST Jesus was a PHANTOM, without a birth narrative, without a known human father, without human flesh and unconstrained by the anatomy and biology of normal human beings.

The EARLIEST Jesus only appeared human but ACTED like a PHANTOM.

The Jesus in "Dialogue with Trypho" had no known human father.

Justin's Jesus was no different to those Myths of the Greeks and Romans as Justin himself admitted.