Any theories as to who Marcus Pompeius is?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Any theories as to who Marcus Pompeius is?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

At the end of chapter 141 of Dialogue With Trypho, Justin addresses the intended recipient as follows:

When I had said this, dearest Marcus Pompeius, I came to an end.

One thing I have noticed in Dialogue is the anachronistic way references to the bar Kochba revolt are made. Observe:

"Trypho, I am called; and I am a Hebrew of the circumcision, and having escaped from the war lately carried on there I am spending my days in Greece, and chiefly at Corinth."


... those with Trypho, having seated themselves on the one side, conversed with each other, some one of them having thrown in a remark about the war waged in Judæa.

There is certainly something amiss here. Justin's First Apology is typically dated to roughy 155-160 ad, with Dialogue making casual reference to it. Yet the discourse contained therein is written to have taken place ca. 135-145 ad. Indeed, in chapter 80, Justin tells of Trypho his intent of recording their debate in a book. Could this have taken him upwards to fifteen years to accomplish? The Dialogue is nearly three times the length of his First Apology, so the time needed to compose must be taken into account.

But then, as has been noted by others, the narrative appears at times contrived, and even fictional. Indeed, had this talk occurred during or close to the tumultuous upheaval of bar Kochba, Trypho must have been a very patient man. Many times Justin devolves into, what can only be considered, antisemitic attacks and blasphemous doctrines, going so far as to call Christians the true Israelites; and Trypho gets visibly upset, and at one point goes to take leave of Justin. But he stays to the end. This characteristic has led some to speculate that Trypho is merely a literary device.

But where does that leave the identity of Marcus Pompeius? Surely he would have to have had some importance for Justin to write down this discussion for him, and would have to be active, either during the forties or fifties.

I have one possible suspect, but that is only taking for granted that Justin's works are compilations of various other sources from different times, something that I can't say for absolute certainty as of now. Thoughts, anyone?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Any theories as to who Marcus Pompeius is?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:45 pm At the end of chapter 141 of Dialogue With Trypho, Justin addresses the intended recipient as follows:

When I had said this, dearest Marcus Pompeius, I came to an end.

One thing I have noticed in Dialogue is the anachronistic way references to the bar Kochba revolt are made. Observe:

"Trypho, I am called; and I am a Hebrew of the circumcision, and having escaped from the war lately carried on there I am spending my days in Greece, and chiefly at Corinth."


... those with Trypho, having seated themselves on the one side, conversed with each other, some one of them having thrown in a remark about the war waged in Judæa.

There is certainly something amiss here. Justin's First Apology is typically dated to roughy 155-160 ad, with Dialogue making casual reference to it. Yet the discourse contained therein is written to have taken place ca. 135-145 ad. Indeed, in chapter 80, Justin tells of Trypho his intent of recording their debate in a book. Could this have taken him upwards to fifteen years to accomplish? The Dialogue is nearly three times the length of his First Apology, so the time needed to compose must be taken into account.

But then, as has been noted by others, the narrative appears at times contrived, and even fictional. Indeed, had this talk occurred during or close to the tumultuous upheaval of bar Kochba, Trypho must have been a very patient man. Many times Justin devolves into, what can only be considered, antisemitic attacks and blasphemous doctrines, going so far as to call Christians the true Israelites; and Trypho gets visibly upset, and at one point goes to take leave of Justin. But he stays to the end. This characteristic has led some to speculate that Trypho is merely a literary device.

But where does that leave the identity of Marcus Pompeius? Surely he would have to have had some importance for Justin to write down this discussion for him, and would have to be active, either during the forties or fifties.

I have one possible suspect, but that is only taking for granted that Justin's works are compilations of various other sources from different times, something that I can't say for absolute certainty as of now. Thoughts, anyone?
Justin's dates are not firmly set in concrete. Perhaps an identity for Marcus Pompeius may help, if you have a suggestion.

R. Joseph Hoffmann sums up the dating question in note 125, p. 62, of Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity:
Cf I Apol. 46: 'Christ was born 150 years ago under Quirinus'; thus H. Colson, 'Notes on Justin Martyr's Apology 1', JTS, 23 (1922), 161-71; Blackman, Influence, 21; but cf. E. Barnikol, Entstehung, 1-33, who argues a date of 138-39 for the Apology, against Harnack's dating of 150-53 (Chronologie, 284). The case for an earlier date is based on Jutln's use of the term verissimus instead of Caesar jn referring to Aurelius (I.1), who received the title in the year 139; and the reference to the Jewish war as 'recent' (en to nun gegenemeno chronu I Apol. 31), which would seem to suggest a date not long after 135. Neither of these considerations is decisive, however. Ouasten (Patrol. I, 199) believes the first Apology to have been written between 148 and 161. C. Andresen's opinion that the work dates from as late as 180 (RGG 3/3, 891) is not generally accepted.
Of course, it is quite possible that Justin is taking some literary licence in saying that Trypho (whether a real person or literary foil we have no way of knowing) only recently emerged from the Jewish War of Bar Kochba and has no interest in passing on historical certitudes for our benefit.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Any theories as to who Marcus Pompeius is?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Hey Neil.

I do have someone in mind, but the methodology in reaching that conclusion may appear contrived to you, but I'll go a head and lay bare my suspicion.

I think Marcus Pompeius is the figure otherwise known as Peregrinus, or Mark, the first Gentile Bishop, with his secretary, Aristo of Pella, (or Luke--I also note that Marcion had a student named Lucas) composing the first layer, Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus. There have been arguments against Aristo writing Jason and Papiscus, but if indeed the Marcus in Justin's text can be inferring Mark, then perhaps that could alleviate some doubt. (Yes, I realize that is circular, and presuming. My hypothesis that Justin and his works are in fact compilations, perhaps edited together by Athenagoras--another philosopher turned Christian--which I think goes along with Hoffmann's summation.)
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Any theories as to who Marcus Pompeius is?

Post by DCHindley »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:45 pmThere is certainly something amiss here. Justin's First Apology is typically dated to roughy 155-160 ad, with Dialogue making casual reference to it. Yet the discourse contained therein is written to have taken place ca. 135-145 ad. Indeed, in chapter 80, Justin tells of Trypho his intent of recording their debate in a book. Could this have taken him upwards to fifteen years to accomplish? The Dialogue is nearly three times the length of his First Apology, so the time needed to compose must be taken into account.
It was not uncommon in antiquity to take notes of encounters and discussions in a sort of dairy format, which are then worked up into a treatise suitable for "publication" (i.e., read to friends privately for feedback and later publically in the agora, allowing those who enjoyed it to make a copy). Often they are published later in life, maybe 20 years or so after the events described have passed.
I have one possible suspect, but that is only taking for granted that Justin's works are compilations of various other sources from different times, something that I can't say for absolute certainty as of now. Thoughts, anyone?
I believe that at least one scholar (of what century I am not sure) has suggested that the "recent war" was the first rebellion of 66-73 CE, and that a dialogue between a Judean and a gentile existed as a source, which Justin reworked into his dialogue with all the usual Christian twists on things.

If this was the case, I'd be interested in whether this source dialogue was even Christian at all, but an exchange over the nature of Judean beliefs about an anointed end-times leader, much like we have been having here on this list of late. However, I do not recall hearing much about this recently so I'll assume that it has not gained much traction.

So, it seems to me that it was the latest rebellion (ca. 135) that was referenced and it just took Justin a while to polish his notes into a full treatise.

DCH
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Any theories as to who Marcus Pompeius is?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:30 am It was not uncommon in antiquity to take notes of encounters and discussions in a sort of dairy format, which are then worked up into a treatise suitable for "publication" (i.e., read to friends privately for feedback and later publically in the agora, allowing those who enjoyed it to make a copy). Often they are published later in life, maybe 20 years or so after the events described have passed.
My issue with this is that Justin announces his intention in chapter 80 to publish their discussion.

But something else that is odd is he is writing this for the benefit of Marcus Pompeius.

This implies to me that there are two different motives here, possibly indicating the hand of two different authors.

I believe that at least one scholar (of what century I am not sure) has suggested that the "recent war" was the first rebellion of 66-73 CE, and that a dialogue between a Judean and a gentile existed as a source, which Justin reworked into his dialogue with all the usual Christian twists on things.

If this was the case, I'd be interested in whether this source dialogue was even Christian at all, but an exchange over the nature of Judean beliefs about an anointed end-times leader, much like we have been having here on this list of late. However, I do not recall hearing much about this recently so I'll assume that it has not gained much traction.

So, it seems to me that it was the latest rebellion (ca. 135) that was referenced and it just took Justin a while to polish his notes into a full treatise.

DCH
Post Reply