Thoughts on Martijn's book?

[rgprice]

Are there any existing threads discussing Martijn's new book, Gospels, Epistles, Old Testament? I've mostly completed it and I find it both fascinating and frustrating. A lot of good primary research, but the conclusions are challenging. Nevertheless, he raises many good points.

[Leucius Charinus]

Are there any existing threads discussing Martijn's new book, Gospels, Epistles, Old Testament?

There appear to be two major threads:

(1) Prima facie observations on Gospels, Epistles, Old Testament: The order of books according to Jesus Chri st
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11365

(2) Gospels, Epistles, Old Testament: the order of books according to Jesus Chri st
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11365

I've mostly completed it and I find it both fascinating and frustrating. A lot of good primary research, but the conclusions are challenging. Nevertheless, he raises many good points.

I too have now completed a first reading of his book. Thread (2) above contains a review by Russell Gmirkin with which I am in full agreement. The review is located here (and quoted below) the link:
viewtopic.php?p=164138#p164138

I find Martijn’s book to contain an impressive body of research! I don’t know anywhere else where one can find such a systematic and detailed analysis of the nomina sacra.

If one divides his presentation into the four stages of Facts, Hypotheses, Arguments and Conclusions (as I do), his book is well worth reading for his presentation of Facts, especially in the Kindle version, in which you can drill down to sources by following his convenient and ubiquitous links.

Some people judge a book only by its Hypotheses and/or Conclusions, especially if they differ from the consensus view. I appreciate novel hypotheses, if they are well argued. Martijn hypothesizes that the chronological order of the Gospels, the remainder of the NT, the “Christian” LXX, and the Nag Hammadi Library can be determined by their respective use of the nomina sacra. For instance, the Gospels are remarkable for their relative lack of christos/anointing language that abounds in the epistles. Martijn presents very clear arguments that lead to his novel conclusions regarding the order of these texts.

This would perhaps be more convincing if these different bodies of literature were all directly related and could be arranged diachronically, and authored by an essentially homogenous if evolving group down through time. But these literatures may have been to one degree or another synchronic, authored by different groups in different regions who may have been to some extent contemporary and possibly not directly aware of other writings. One may perhaps distinguish between Jewish (“Jamesian”) Chrestianity/Christianity, Gentile (“Pauline”) Christianity, and the Marcionites and other semi-independent groups (including those at Nag Hammadi whose writings uniquely emphasized the Spirit). So I question this line of argument and some of the historical conclusions that follow.

Nevertheless, I would say Martijn’s book is remarkably successful in a second line of argument supporting a subsidiary hypothesis of great originality and significance, namely: that much of which has been routinely translated as Christ (Christos) and Christian in actuality refer to Chrestus (the Good, Goodness) and Chrestian. I personally find his facts and argument throughout quite persuasive on first read. If this result holds up to critical review, a large segment of the early movement(s) responsible for the NT literature and para-literature were devoted to Jesus the “Good” (or Chrestus) rather than Jesus the "Anointed" (or Christ). This is shown not only by the NT and related literature(s) that Linssen discusses but by the secondary testimony from Patristic and Roman historical sources. To my mind this is a game-changer that forces us to read the data with new eyes. Well worth the read, IMHO.

It is IMHO most important to understand that Martijn is proposing multiple hypotheses which involve the chronological history of the three major strands of Christian literature: namely the canonical literature (including the LXX), the apocryphal literature (including the NHL) and the literature of ecclesiastical history (ie: the "Fathers" of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene epochs).

IMO his transcriptions of the NHL are ground-breaking both in their presentation of the ligatures (nomina sacra) present in these ancient manuscripts and in their clear and undisputable reflection of the term "Chrestos" in preference to the term "Christos". Most if not all of the previous scholars involved in transcriptions and translations of the NHL manuscripts have glossed over this data. Martijn's analyses of this data adds a brand new dimension to the understanding of these NHL manuscripts and whichever group of people it was who produced them.

[Peter Kirby]

Fascinating and frustrating sounds about right.

I agree with Gmirkin to the extent that the appropriate reaction is probably to glean whatever in it is factual and move on to forming new hypotheses.

This is what I have done.

[Peter Kirby]

Also, and I have said this before, but Martijn unintentionally discourages candid discussion of his work by his toxicity.

In many ways, a work of criticism and critique is an act of generosity and kindness. It's also an investment. We choose where to spend our time.