Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 33.4-5, & parallels.

Covering all topics of history and the interpretation of texts, posts here should conform to the norms of academic discussion: respectful and with a tight focus on the subject matter.

Moderator: andrewcriddle

Post Reply
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 33.4-5, & parallels.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I have two very different purposes for this thread, but will be using the same subject matter to approach them both.

First, a question. What is the best way to present a passage synoptically on this forum, do you think? If two to four passages basically run alongside each other like the gospels, tables can work, but there are kinds of passages, such as those in Justin Martyr, which can kind of pick and choose from various sources or locations within those sources.

I have used the code function before to go line by line (the sample text is Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 33.4-5):

Code: Select all

JM: ἰδοὺ, ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει
Is: ἰδοὺ, ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει
 M: —
 L: —
PJ: —

JM: ἀλλὰ δύναμις       θεοῦ   ἐπελθοῦσα τῇ παρθένῳ ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτήν
Is: —
 M: —
 L: καὶ  δύναμις    ὑψίστου | ἐπελεύσεται |        ἐπισκιάσει σοι
PJ:      δύναμις γὰρ   θεοῦ                        ἐπισκιάσει σοι

JM:   ἄγγελος   θεοῦ
Is: —
 M:   ἄγγελος κυρίου
 L: ὁ ἄγγελος       Γαβριὴλ
PJ:   ἄγγελος

JM:     ἰδοὺ,  συλλήψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ        ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου
Is: —
 M:             εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου
 L: καὶ ἰδοὺ, συλλήμψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ
PJ:           συνλήμψῃ                  ἐκ           λόγου αὐτοῦ

JM:     καὶ τέξῃ           υἱόν,  καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται,  καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν
Is:     καὶ τέξεται        υἱόν                                 καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ
 M:         τέξεται δὲ     υἱόν,                                καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν
 L:     καὶ τέξῃ           υἱὸν | καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται | καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν
PJ: διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον       κληθήσεται υἱὸς ὕψίστου,  καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν

JM: αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν
Is: —
 M: αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν
 L: —
PJ: αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ  ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν
Scrolling can be a pain, so of course the text can be broken up into smaller bits:

Code: Select all

JM: ἰδοὺ, ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει
Is: ἰδοὺ, ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει
 M: —
 L: —
PJ: —

JM: ἀλλὰ δύναμις       θεοῦ   ἐπελθοῦσα τῇ παρθένῳ ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτήν
Is: —
 M: —
 L: καὶ  δύναμις    ὑψίστου | ἐπελεύσεται |        ἐπισκιάσει σοι
PJ:      δύναμις γὰρ   θεοῦ                        ἐπισκιάσει σοι

Code: Select all

JM:   ἄγγελος   θεοῦ
Is: —
 M:   ἄγγελος κυρίου
 L: ὁ ἄγγελος       Γαβριὴλ
PJ:   ἄγγελος

JM:     ἰδοὺ,  συλλήψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ        ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου
Is: —
 M:             εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου
 L: καὶ ἰδοὺ, συλλήμψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ
PJ:           συνλήμψῃ                  ἐκ           λόγου αὐτοῦ

Code: Select all

JM:     καὶ τέξῃ           υἱόν,  καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται,  καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν
Is:     καὶ τέξεται        υἱόν                                 καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ
 M:         τέξεται δὲ     υἱόν,                                καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν
 L:     καὶ τέξῃ           υἱὸν | καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται | καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν
PJ: διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον       κληθήσεται υἱὸς ὕψίστου,  καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν

JM: αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν
Is: —
 M: αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν
 L: —
PJ: αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ  ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν
Or the code can be turned into a screenshot:

1 Apology 33.4-5.png
1 Apology 33.4-5.png (37.55 KiB) Viewed 4814 times

The vertical bars | mark spots at which a word or phrase is given out of order. A screenshot, naturally, does not allow for copying and pasting by other users.

Finally, I can (with some effort) give the relevant paragraph in Greek and use a color and formatting code to mark overlaps with the possible source texts:

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 33.4-5: 4 τὸ οὖν, «Ἰδοὺ, ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει,» σημαίνει οὐ συνουσιασθεῖσαν τὴν παρθένον συλλαβεῖν· εἰ γὰρ ἐσυνουσιάσθη ὑπὸ ὁτουοῦν, οὐκ ἔτι ἦν παρθένος· ἀλλὰ δύναμις θεοῦ ἐπελθοῦσα τῇ παρθένῳ ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτήν, καὶ κυοφορῆσαι παρθένον οὖσαν πεποίηκε. 5 καὶ ὁ ἀποσταλεὶς δὲ πρὸς αὐτὴν τὴν παρθένον κατ’ ἐκεῖνο τοῦ καιροῦ ἄγγελος θεοῦ εὐηγγελίσατο αὐτὴν εἰπών, «Ἰδοὺ, συλλήψ ἐν γαστρὶ ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ τέξ υἱόν, καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν,» ὡς οἱ ἀπομνημονεύσαντες πάντα τὰ περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδίδαξαν, οἷς ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ διὰ Ἠσαίου τοῦ προδεδηλωμένου τὸ προφητικὸν πνεῦμα τοῦτον γεννησόμενον, ὡς προεμηνύομεν, ἔφη.

Isaiah.
Matthew.
Mark.
Luke.
Matthew + Mark.
Matthew + Luke.
Mark + Luke.
Matthew + Mark + Luke.
James (Protevangelium).

I know this presentation is not very pretty, but the point is to be functional. The main disadvantage to this approach is that changes of word order are not apparent. For example, Justin Martyr and the Protevangelium share a longish stretch of text with only two differences:

Code: Select all

JM: υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν
PJ: κληθήσεται υἱὸς ὑψίστου, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ  ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν
The color coding shows the difference between ἐκ and ἀπό just fine, but it misses the difference between κληθήσεται υἱὸς ὑψίστου and υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται.

None of the above would be a substitute for also just laying out the relevant texts in my customary manner; the synopsis would be a supplement:

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 33.4-5: 4 This, then, “Behold, the virgin shall conceive” (= Isaiah 7.14), signifies that the virgin should conceive without intercourse. For if she had had intercourse with anyone whatever, she would no longer have been a virgin; but the power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive (= Luke 1.34-35). 5 And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time brought her good tidings, saying, “Behold, you shall conceive of the Holy Spirit, and shall bear a Son, and He shall be called the Son of the Highest, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins” (= Luke 1.31-32; Matthew 1.18, 21), as those who have memorialized all things concerning our Savior Jesus Christ have taught, whom we believed, since by Isaiah also, whom we have now adduced, the Spirit of prophecy declared that He should be born as we intimated before. / 4 τὸ οὖν, «Ἰδοὺ, ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει,» σημαίνει οὐ συνουσιασθεῖσαν τὴν παρθένον συλλαβεῖν· εἰ γὰρ ἐσυνουσιάσθη ὑπὸ ὁτουοῦν, οὐκ ἔτι ἦν παρθένος· ἀλλὰ δύναμις θεοῦ ἐπελθοῦσα τῇ παρθένῳ ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτήν, καὶ κυοφορῆσαι παρθένον οὖσαν πεποίηκε. 5 καὶ ὁ ἀποσταλεὶς δὲ πρὸς αὐτὴν τὴν παρθένον κατ’ ἐκεῖνο τοῦ καιροῦ ἄγγελος θεοῦ εὐηγγελίσατο αὐτὴν εἰπών, «Ἰδοὺ, συλλήψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν, καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν,» ὡς οἱ ἀπομνημονεύσαντες πάντα τὰ περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδίδαξαν, οἷς ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ διὰ Ἠσαίου τοῦ προδεδηλωμένου τὸ προφητικὸν πνεῦμα τοῦτον γεννησόμενον, ὡς προεμηνύομεν, ἔφη.

Isaiah 7.14: 14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will name Him Immanuel.” / 14 διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον· ἰδοὺ, ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ.

Matthew 1.18-23: 18 Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, since he was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. 20 But when he had thought this over, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a Son; and you shall name Him Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this took place so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled, 23 “Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son, and they shall name Him Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” / 18 τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν. μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου. 19 Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι, ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν. 20 ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος, ἰδοὺ, ἄγγελος κυρίου κατ᾽ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων, «Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυίδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου· τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου. 21 τέξεται δὲ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν· αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.» 22 τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, «Ἰδοὺ, ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ,» ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός.

Luke 1.26-38: 26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” 29 But she was very perplexed at this statement, and was pondering what kind of greeting this was. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” 34 But Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the holy Child will be called the Son of God. 36 And behold, even your relative Elizabeth herself has conceived a son in her old age, and she who was called infertile is now in her sixth month. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.” 38 And Mary said, “Behold, the Lord’s bond-servant; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. / 26 ἐν δὲ τῷ μηνὶ τῷ ἕκτῳ ἀπεστάλη ὁ ἄγγελος Γαβριὴλ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας ᾗ ὄνομα Ναζαρὲθ 27 πρὸς παρθένον ἐμνηστευμένην ἀνδρὶ ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰωσὴφ ἐξ οἴκου Δαυὶδ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς παρθένου Μαριάμ. 28 καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν, «Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.» 29 ἡ δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ διεταράχθη καὶ διελογίζετο ποταπὸς εἴη ὁ ἀσπασμὸς οὗτος. 30 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτῇ, «Μὴ φοβοῦ, Μαριάμ, εὗρες γὰρ χάριν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ. 31 καὶ ἰδοὺ, συλλήμψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν. 32 οὗτος ἔσται μέγας καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὸν θρόνον Δαυὶδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, 33 καὶ βασιλεύσει ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰακὼβ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.» 34 εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον, «Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;» 35 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ, «Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σὲ καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι· διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς θεοῦ. 36 καὶ ἰδοὺ Ἐλισάβετ ἡ συγγενίς σου καὶ αὐτὴ συνείληφεν υἱὸν ἐν γήρει αὐτῆς καὶ οὗτος μὴν ἕκτος ἐστὶν αὐτῇ τῇ καλουμένῃ στείρᾳ· 37 ὅτι οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πᾶν ῥῆμα.» 38 εἶπεν δὲ Μαριάμ, «Ἰδοὺ, ἡ δούλη κυρίου· γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου.» καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς ὁ ἄγγελος.

Protevangelium of James 11.1-3: 1 And she took the pitcher and went out to draw water, and behold, a voice said, “Hail, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; you are blessed among women.” And she looked around to the right and to the left to see where this voice came from. And trembling she went to her house and put down the pitcher and took the purple and sat down on her seat and drew out the thread. 2 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before her and said, “Do not fear, Mary, for you have found grace before the Lord of all things and shall conceive by his Word.” When she heard this she considered it and said, “Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God, and bear as every woman bears?” 3 And the angel of the Lord said, “Not so, Mary, for the power of the Lord shall overshadow you, wherefore that Holy One who is born of you shall be called the Son of the Most High. And you shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins” (= Matthew 1.21; Luke 1.31, 35). And Mary said, “Behold, the handmaid of the Lord before him: be it to me according to your word” (= Luke 1.31). / 1 καὶ ἔλαβεν τὴν κάλπιν καὶ ἐξῆλθεν γεμίσαι ὕδωρ. καὶ ἰδοὺ, [αὐτῇ] φωνὴ λέγουσα <αὐτῇ>, «Χαῖρε, κεχαριτω<μένη· ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ· εὐλογη>μένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν.» καὶ περιέβλεπεν τὰ δεξιὰ καὶ τὰ ἀριστερὰ Μαρία πόθεν αὕτη εἴη ἡ φωνή. καὶ ἔντρομος γενομένη εἰσῄει εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτῆς καὶ ἀναπαύσασα τὴν κάλπιν ἔλαβεν τὴν πορφύραν καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ ἧλκεν τὴν πορφύραν. 2 καὶ ἰδοὺ, ἔστη ἄγγελος ἐνώπιον <αὐτῆς> λέγων, «Μὴ φοβοῦ, Μαρία· εὗρες γὰρ χάριν ἐνώπιον τοῦ πάντων δεσπότου. συνλήμψῃ ἐκ λόγου αὐτοῦ.» ἡ δὲ ἀκούσασα Μαρία διεκρίθη ἐν ἑαυτῇ λέγουσα, «Ἐγὼ συνλήμψομαι ἀπὸ κυρίου θεοῦ ζῶντος ὡς πᾶσα γυνὴ γεννᾷ;» 3 καὶ ἰδοὺ, ἄγγελος ἔστη [αὐτῇ] λέγων αὐτῇ, «Οὐχ οὕτως, Μαρία. δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐπισκιάσει σοι· διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς ὕψίστου, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν· αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει <τὸν> λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.» καὶ εἶπε Μαρία, «Ἰδοὺ, ἡ δούλη κυρίου κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ. γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου.»

Arabic Diatessaron 1.27-39: 27 And in the sixth month Gabriel the angel was sent from God to Galilee to a 28 city called Nazareth, to a virgin given in marriage to a man named Joseph, of the 29 house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel entered unto her and said unto her, “Peace be unto thee, thou who art filled with grace. Our Lord 30 is with thee, thou blessed amongst women.” And she, when she beheld, was agitated 31 at his word, and pondered what this salutation could be. And the angel said unto 32 her, “Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God. Thou shalt now conceive, 33 and bear a son, and call his name Jesus. This shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give him the throne of 34 David his father, and he shall rule over the house of Jacob for ever; and to his 35 kingdom there shall be no end.” Mary said unto the angel, “How shall this be to 36 me when no man hath known me?” The angel answered and said unto her, “The Holy Spirit will come, and the power of the Most High shall rest upon thee, and therefore shall he that is born of thee be pure, and shall be called the Son 37 of God. And lo, Elizabeth thy kinswoman, she also hath conceived a son in her old 38 age; and this is the sixth month with her, her that is called barren. For nothing is 39 difficult for God.” Mary said, “Lo, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be unto me according unto thy word.” And the angel departed from her.

Arabic Diatessaron 2.1-8: 1 Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah was on this wise. In the time when his mother was given in marriage to Joseph, before they came together, 2 she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband was a just man and did not wish to expose her, and he purposed to put her away secretly. 3 But when he thought of this, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, and said unto him, “Joseph, son of David, fear not to take Mary thy wife, for that 4 which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit. She shall bear a son, and thou shalt 5 call his name Jesus, and he shall save his people from their sins.” And all this was that the saying from the Lord by the prophet might be fulfilled, 6 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel,” 7 which is, being interpreted, “With us is our God.” And when Joseph arose from his 8 sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife; and knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son.

Second, an observation. That shared line between Justin and the Protevangelium, while obviously a possible indication that Justin knew and used that text (though the reverse option would have to be dealt with), also appears to be a harmonization of Matthew and Luke. I have suggested before that the relationship between the Protevangelium, on the one hand, and Matthew and Luke, on the other, is one of conflation by the former of the latter two. In other words, as strongly suggested by the patterns, the Protevangelium combined Matthew and Luke; Matthew and Luke did not draw their separate stories from the Protevangelium. This means that the shared line between the Protevangelium and Justin Martyr, while always derived from the lips of an angel, is a combination of two such angelic conversations with two different people: Mary (in Luke) and Joseph (in Matthew).

That this harmonization is not just a one-off thing that the Protevangelium engaged in and then Justin Martyr copied over is demonstrated by the rather many other, similar harmonizations present in Justin which are not even within the purview of the Protevangelium. There are also similar harmonizations in the gospel of the Ebionites, as well as (of course) across the manuscript record of the gospels themselves, as scribes harmonized the text of each one with that of one or more of its peers. I have been looking into some of these harmonizations of late, always with an eye toward the opposite process (a single, longer text being broken up into multiple shorter texts), and with rare exceptions the process seems to progress from separate to integrated or harmonized, and not vice versa. The culmination of such a process would be the so called Diatessaron, or any of the other similar gospel harmonies which seem to have been crafted.

Christians seem to have become literally embarrassed at their riches: multiple gospel texts spell multiple opportunities for contradiction and tension between the various accounts. One solution to this problem is harmonization, and it appears that a cottage industry took up the challenge, probably motivated at least in part by the desire for lectionary readings in Christian meetings (Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 67.3), but also by the desire to keep various subgroups from exploiting the differences between the different accounts and to present a unified front against Jews and pagans.

One idea I am currently testing is a somewhat old one, to wit, that Justin Martyr used a gospel harmony of some kind, but one which concentrated on the synoptic gospels and texts of a similar nature (suggestions have been the Protevangelium of James, the Gospel of Peter or one of its sources, and the Gospel of the Hebrews, among others), to the exclusion of the Johannine tradition, which entered the harmonistic stream only later, with the Diatessaron and its kin. The whole idea makes sense to me: the synoptics and their cousins were pretty easy to harmonize, whereas John was a more difficult task. The stakes remained high with John, whereas intersynoptic issues do not seem to have been as volatile. But, as I said, I am still in the process of testing this idea. Part of the test is the potential recognition that gospels like Matthew and Luke may have already been harmonizations of texts which came before them (Mark, Q if it existed, others); Luke almost seems to tell us as much in his prologue, 1.1-4, promising an orderly account which, to my ears, sounds like an attempt to reconcile texts or traditions which, when put together, may have yielded disorder at first sight. And, then again, maybe Mark was also such a harmonization of things which came before him (as suggested by Wrede, for example). In other words, how broad was the trend? Was it just the province of scribes copying texts, or was it a driving force behind huge swaths of the gospel record, from humble beginnings all the way up through the very latest synopses, harmonies, and lectionary cycles? How many threads does it potentially tie together?

Ben.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8892
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 33.4-5, & parallels.

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben wrote:First, a question. What is the best way to present a passage synoptically on this forum, do you think? If two to four passages basically run alongside each other like the gospels, tables can work, but there are kinds of passages, such as those in Justin Martyr, which can kind of pick and choose from various sources or locations within those sources.
I like looking at all three methods of presentation you've used. I guess the "color and formatting code to mark overlaps with the possible source texts is most useful (though enlarged text as you used is likely necessary), -

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 33.4-5: 4 τὸ οὖν, «Ἰδοὺ, ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει,» σημαίνει οὐ συνουσιασθεῖσαν τὴν παρθένον συλλαβεῖν· εἰ γὰρ ἐσυνουσιάσθη ὑπὸ ὁτουοῦν, οὐκ ἔτι ἦν παρθένος· ἀλλὰ δύναμις θεοῦ ἐπελθοῦσα τῇ παρθένῳ ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτήν, καὶ κυοφορῆσαι παρθένον οὖσαν πεποίηκε. 5 καὶ ὁ ἀποσταλεὶς δὲ πρὸς αὐτὴν τὴν παρθένον κατ’ ἐκεῖνο τοῦ καιροῦ ἄγγελος θεοῦ εὐηγγελίσατο αὐτὴν εἰπών, «Ἰδοὺ, συλλήψ ἐν γαστρὶ ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ τέξ υἱόν, καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν,» ὡς οἱ ἀπομνημονεύσαντες πάντα τὰ περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδίδαξαν, οἷς ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ διὰ Ἠσαίου τοῦ προδεδηλωμένου τὸ προφητικὸν πνεῦμα τοῦτον γεννησόμενον, ὡς προεμηνύομεν, ἔφη.

Isaiah.
Matthew.
Mark.
Luke.
Matthew + Mark.
Matthew + Luke.
Mark + Luke.
Matthew + Mark + Luke.
James (Protevangelium).

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 33.4-5, & parallels.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 5:56 pm
Ben wrote:First, a question. What is the best way to present a passage synoptically on this forum, do you think? If two to four passages basically run alongside each other like the gospels, tables can work, but there are kinds of passages, such as those in Justin Martyr, which can kind of pick and choose from various sources or locations within those sources.
I like looking at all three methods of presentation you've used. I guess the "color and formatting code to mark overlaps with the possible source texts" is most useful (though enlarged text as you used is likely necessary)....
I was afraid that method might be the one chosen, it being the one that takes the most raw work. :cheeky: Good feedback, though. Thanks.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8892
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 33.4-5, & parallels.

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 4:58 pm
Second, an observation. That shared line between Justin and the Protevangelium, while obviously a possible indication that Justin knew and used that text (though the reverse option would have to be dealt with), also appears to be a harmonization of Matthew and Luke. I have suggested before that the relationship between the Protevangelium, on the one hand, and Matthew and Luke, on the other, is one of conflation by the former of the latter two. In other words, as strongly suggested by the patterns, the Protevangelium combined Matthew and Luke; Matthew and Luke did not draw their separate stories from the Protevangelium. This means that the shared line between the Protevangelium and Justin Martyr, while always derived from the lips of an angel, is a combination of two such angelic conversations with two different people: Mary (in Luke) and Joseph (in Matthew).

That this harmonization is not just a one-off thing that the Protevangelium engaged in and then Justin Martyr copied over is demonstrated by the rather many other, similar harmonizations present in Justin which are not even within the purview of the Protevangelium. There are also similar harmonizations in the gospel of the Ebionites, as well as (of course) across the manuscript record of the gospels themselves, as scribes harmonized the text of each one with that of one or more of its peers. I have been looking into some of these harmonizations of late, always with an eye toward the opposite process (a single, longer text being broken up into multiple shorter texts), and with rare exceptions the process seems to progress from separate to integrated or harmonized, and not vice versa. The culmination of such a process would be the so called Diatessaron, or any of the other similar gospel harmonies which seem to have been crafted.

Christians seem to have become literally embarrassed at their riches: multiple gospel texts spell multiple opportunities for contradiction and tension between the various accounts. One solution to this problem is harmonization, and it appears that a cottage industry took up the challenge, probably motivated at least in part by the desire for lectionary readings in Christian meetings (Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 67.3), but also by the desire to keep various subgroups from exploiting the differences between the different accounts and to present a unified front against Jews and pagans.

One idea I am currently testing is a somewhat old one, to wit, that Justin Martyr used a gospel harmony of some kind, but one which concentrated on the synoptic gospels and texts of a similar nature (suggestions have been the Protevangelium of James, the Gospel of Peter or one of its sources, and the Gospel of the Hebrews, among others), to the exclusion of the Johannine tradition, which entered the harmonistic stream only later, with the Diatessaron and its kin. The whole idea makes sense to me: the synoptics and their cousins were pretty easy to harmonize, whereas John was a more difficult task. The stakes remained high with John, whereas intersynoptic issues do not seem to have been as volatile.

But, as I said, I am still in the process of testing this idea. Part of the test is the potential recognition that gospels like Matthew and Luke may have already been harmonizations of texts which came before them (Mark, Q if it existed, others); Luke almost seems to tell us as much in his prologue, 1.1-4, promising an orderly account which, to my ears, sounds like an attempt to reconcile texts or traditions which, when put together, may have yielded disorder at first sight. And, then again, maybe Mark was also such a harmonization of things which came before him (as suggested by Wrede, for example). In other words, how broad was the trend? Was it just the province of scribes copying texts, or was it a driving force behind huge swaths of the gospel record, from humble beginnings all the way up through the very latest synopses, harmonies, and lectionary cycles? How many threads does it potentially tie together?
Great post again, Ben.

Can we really consider Mark as a harmonization (other than of Paul and various OT passages, and perhaps aspects of accounts of the Roman-Jewish War/s)? (as rg price and Tom Dykstra (among others?) have proposed?) +/- some final harmonization with the other canonical gospels (+/- other texts) near 'final canonization'?

The issues of harmonization and which directions text 'flowed' to and from (or both!) are interesting ones, especially when looking at Martyr's 1 Apology 33.4-5 use of short passages that also appear in two or three other texts - the underlined text in Protevangelium of James and (i) Matthew (blue), (ii) Luke (yellow), and (iii) both Matthew and Luke (green).

I often wonder if the likes of Justin Martyr was right in the middle of it (even if just present when harmonizing texts were developed).

You mention the Diatessaron above and I remember seeing something once proposing it being a key or even the proto-gospel ...

[I have a drafted another post for this forum in which I will ask about a chapter of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 78 ie. how much it is a reflection of or is reflected in extant NT texts, or of tropes therein in general.]
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 33.4-5, & parallels.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:25 pmGreat post again, Ben.
Thanks. :cheers:
Can we really consider Mark as a harmonization (other than of Paul and various OT passages, and perhaps aspects of accounts of the Roman-Jewish War/s)? (as rg price and Tom Dykstra (among others?) have proposed?) +/- some final harmonization with the other canonical gospels (+/- other texts) near 'final canonization'?
Well, I mentioned Wrede in that connection, and the following is part of what I meant:

William Wrede, The Messianic Secret, pages 124-125: 124-125 The public nature of the miracles does not accord with the command to keep silence about certain miracles. .... How are we to explain the fact that in the Gospel the activity and so the nature of Jesus comes so much into the limelight and is so widely known, if he is constantly concerned to conceal it? The most obvious idea is that [Mark] the evangelist has taken over traditional materials in which the idea of the secret messiahship was not present....

William Wrede, The Messianic Secret, page 145: 145 Is the idea of a messianic secret an invention of Mark's? The notion seems quite impossible. This can be seen from Mark itself. In it, the entire life of Jesus is shot through with the various motifs of this idea. The individual conceptions occur in a multiplicity of variants. In them there is much that is unresolved. Material of this kind is not the work of an individual.

The notion I have in mind is that the so called Messianic Secret was the result of Mark (or a tradent) harmonizing two differing views of Jesus as the Messiah. According to one view, represented by the actual Marcan narratives themselves, Jesus was appointed Son of God at his baptism and thereafter enjoyed a career of healing, exorcising, preaching to and teaching large crowds, and working wondrous miracles. According to the other view, represented at least in part by Paul, Jesus was appointed Son of God only at his resurrection, having lived a life of obscurity in the form of a slave (Philippians 2.7). The result was a text which harmonized the two disparate strains by having Jesus work the miracles but then enjoin silence about them both upon the crowds and upon his own disciples; in this manner Jesus both lives humbly in the (metaphorical) role of a slave, since he does not enjoy the fruits that fame ought to lend him, but simultaneously lives gloriously (but necessarily in secret), fulfilling his role as Messiah.

This proposed Marcan harmonization of theological views dovetails with a similar harmonization of a more epistemological kind. Jesus holding his followers and the crowds to silence can help explain why people up to that point — whether Jew or gentile or pagan — had heard of a Jesus crucified but had never heard of a Jesus magnified by such a career.

What this harmonization process wrought as a side effect, however, was a loss of historical plausibility, as Wrede points out throughout his book.
I often wonder if the likes of Justin Martyr was right in the middle of it (even if just present when harmonizing texts were developed).
It has been suggested that Justin Martyr composed his own gospel harmony (of the synoptic three plus other texts, but not of John), and then Tatian, his pupil, added John into the mix to create the Diatessaron. That the Diatessaron should have been built upon a harmony like Justin's, which incorporates some details which do not hail from the canonical gospels, might explain why the Diatessaron seems to contain certain details which do not hail from the canonical gospels. But I am not to the stage yet of truly being able to test this thesis fully.
You mention the Diatessaron above and I remember seeing something once proposing it being a key or even the proto-gospel ...
I am, however, at the point at which I can affirm that I do not think the Diatessaron is a proto-gospel which was later split out into the canonical four + spare change. The parallels suggest the exact opposite process.
Post Reply