Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:38 pm All scholars have this problem. Sexify or not to sexify. It's not as sexy to say here's what the evidence is. Maybe.
It sounds like you are saying that Roth avoided Harnack's trap of making textual decisions based on what he thought Marcion would or would not like, but that Roth also fell into other traps. Is that a fair assessment of what you are saying?
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by perseusomega9 »

But did SA also avoid those traps? This isn't a criticism, external box thinking is a good thing.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Secret Alias »

I said I don't think papers should be published on Marcion so by not publishing...
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Secret Alias »

Roth still acts as if Marcion's text is lurking in the weeds. I am saying that the situation is too complex for even that.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Peter Kirby »

I am sympathetic to this project, as I've also wondered whether Justin might not have knowledge of canonical Luke, for similar reasons. I still have some notes.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:58 pm Besides the infancy narrative in Luke 1-2, which is reflected quite often in Justin Martyr, what passages does Justin quote or allude to which would reflect what we know as (chapters 3-24 of) canonical Luke over and against the Marcionite Gospel?
PS 2: Justin referring to something which we find in canonical Luke but which remains unattested in either direction for Marcion will not help a lot, either. It really needs to be something that we have good reason to think was not in Marcion but which we find in Luke.
We should include serious investigation of passages that are often argued not to have been in the "Marcionite Gospel," for some kind of good reason, even if there isn't explicit attestation of their absence from that text. If it seemed a probable conclusion when we didn't have this specific hypothesis in mind, as we do now, the judgment back then is likely to be a more sober and less tendentious assessment of how good the reasoning was.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:58 pmAlso, evidence based on what one thinks must or must not have appeared in Marcion's Gospel, based on Marcionite theology, will do me no good, either.
Some arguments are based on what Tertullian and Epiphanius were claiming to be Marcionite theology (and so would probably cite against it). This point is a bit independent of what the actual Marcionite theology was.
Peter Kirby wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:49 pm Justin references Luke 22:44, which is a likely (but not explicit) shorter reading.
For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, `If it be possible, let this cup pass: '
Notes on this verse as a shorter reading (BeDuhn, The First New Testament):
Luke 22:42-44 - "Luke 22.42-44 is unattested for the Evangelion and appears to have been absent from P69. Verses 22.43-44 would have been useful for Epiphanius or Tertullian in making a point of Jesus' physicality. They are lacking in many Greek manuscripts, including P75, along with the SSyr, the SCopt, OL ms f, and were stricken out by the first corrector of the Gk ms Sinaiticus. But no other witness to Luke lacks v. 42 except P69, which may be crucial in identifying it as a fragment of the Evangelion." (p. 188)
"Unattested either way for Marcion"? I'm not completely comfortable with dismissing this that easily.

This one is complicated by concerns over authorship, but it can also be mentioned:
An alleged fragment of Justin references Luke 24:32, which is a likely (but not explicit) shorter reading.

Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection (?)
Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not know whether to believe He had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, "Ye have not yet faith, see that it is I; "
Luke 24:27 - "Luke 24.27-29 is unattested. Verse 27 would surely have been commented upon by Tertullian or Epiphanius if they found it in Marcion's text. It is somewhat surprising that Epiphanius does not note the textual variance. The same verse is likewise lacking in Gk ms 1313 (possibly due to haplography), and goes unmentioned in Ephrem, Comm. Diat. Some of the content of vv. 28-29 was probably present, since it is needed to advance the narrative to a meal setting." (p. 196)

Luke 24:32 - "Luke 24.32 is unattested for the Evangelion. It is coordinated to v. 27, also unattested for the Evangelion, and would certainly have been cited by our sources if it appeared. It is not mentioned in Ephrem, Comm. Diat." (p. 196)
Andrew makes an interesting point here:
andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:15 am The allusion to Luke 3:21-22
For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, ‘Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,’ is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him,
is specifically Western Lukan (and non-Marcionite). Matthew Mark and most manuscripts of Luke read with thee I am well pleased instead of this day have I begotten thee,

Andrew Criddle
You mention that it's also found in the Gospel of the Ebionites:
The highlighted portion, however, is very interesting. That is a famous textual variant from Luke (refer to Psalm 2.7) which is not found in Matthew or Mark. It is also, however, found in the Gospel of the Ebionites. Nevertheless, this reference is definitely one I need to examine.
There are a couple possible references to Luke 3:23 and following.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:57 am
Luke 3:23 is in reference to Dialogue with Trypho 88
for even at His birth He was in possession of His power; and as He grew up like all other men, by using the fitting means, He assigned its own [requirements] to each development, and was sustained by all kinds of nourishment, and waited for thirty years, more or less, [τριάκοντα ἔτη ἢ πλείονα ἢ καὶ ἐλάσσονα] until John appeared before Him as the herald of His approach, and preceded Him in the way of baptism, as I have already shown.
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about [ὡσεὶ] thirty [τριάκοντα] years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli
Only Luke mentions that Jesus was thirty years of age. Both Justin and Luke qualify this figure somehow ("about", "more or less"). This seems like it really is a point of contact between the Gospel of Luke and Justin.

My notes have this as an explicit shorter reading:
Luke 3:21-38 - Marc. 4.7.1-6, Pan. 42.11.4-5
To be fair: The statement about Jesus being 'about thirty' could definitely be in the Gospel used by Marcion. It has the ring of authenticity in my opinion. Much is made of the fact that Jesus had the age of 30, which becomes associated with the number of aeons. It's the geneaology that is absent, not necessarily this phrase in Luke 3:23.
This is the most promising reference so far!
The vagueness is almost antithetical to the Gospel of Luke's redactional aims: is the same author who gave us "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness" really content to shrug and say that Jesus was "about thirty"?
Not sure, but the gimmick of qualifying a numerical figure with "about" (ὡσεί) is pretty common in Luke-Acts (refer also to Luke 9.14, 28; 22.41, 59; 23.44; Acts 1.15; 2.41; 10.3; 19.7).
Interesting. Let me know if you find anything further on this.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:57 am
Luke 3:38 is in reference to Dialogue with Trypho 100
He said then that He was the Son of man, either because of His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham; or because Adam was the father both of Himself and of those who have been first enumerated from whom Mary derives her descent. For we know that the fathers of women are the fathers likewise of those children whom their daughters bear.
If this is an early reference to an interpretation of Luke 3:23 - "being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli" - as actually presenting the genealogy of Mary, then this would be an additional reference of Justin to Luke 3:23 and following. Unless there's another enumeration of the descent of Mary that Justin has in mind? (Hard to be sure, really, with various apocryphal infancy gospels and a book actually titled "Descent of Mary.")
This one bears looking more closely into, as well.
Hmm. I didn't really think much of it, but let me know if you find anything further.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:57 am
Trypho 50 is possibly referring to Luke 24:27:
And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
But I'm not so sure.
Unattested either way for Marcion.
Here are the notes on Luke 24:27-29, from BeDuhn:
Luke 24:27 - "Luke 24.27-29 is unattested. Verse 27 would surely have been commented upon by Tertullian or Epiphanius if they found it in Marcion's text. It is somewhat surprising that Epiphanius does not note the textual variance. The same verse is likewise lacking in Gk ms 1313 (possibly due to haplography), and goes unmentioned in Ephrem, Comm. Diat. Some of the content of vv. 28-29 was probably present, since it is needed to advance the narrative to a meal setting." (p. 196)
This also has to be taken more seriously as something that is likely absent from the text referenced by Tertullian and Epiphanius.

So far, to my mind, these are the references that require some further consideration:

Luke 3:22 textual variant (this day have I begotten Thee) // Trypho 103
Luke 3:23 (about 30) // Trypho 88
Luke 3:38 (descent of Mary) // Trypho 100
Luke 22:44 (bloody sweat) // Trypho 103
Luke 24:27 (beginning with Moses and all the Prophets) // Trypho 50
Luke 24:32 (see that it is I) // On the Resurrection (?), fragment 9

At this point, it might be helpful to ask you to elaborate a bit on the hypothesis you're proposing. It might help clarify how we are to treat the passages (Luke 22:44, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32) that are often argued to be absent from the text of the gospel used by Marcion.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:17 pmWe should include serious investigation of passages that are often argued not to have been in the "Marcionite Gospel," for some kind of good reason, even if there isn't explicit attestation of their absence from that text. If it seemed a probable conclusion when we didn't have this specific hypothesis in mind, as we do now, the judgment back then is likely to be a more sober and less tendentious assessment of how good the reasoning was.
Agreed.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:17 pmAt this point, it might be helpful to ask you to elaborate a bit on the hypothesis you're proposing. It might help clarify how we are to treat the passages (Luke 22:44, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32) that are often argued to be absent from the text of the gospel used by Marcion.
It basically comes down to raising my own awareness. On the one hand, it seems very possible to me that Luke 1-2 were once their own text, or perhaps part of a text which was not our canonical Luke. On the other, my working assumption with regard to Justin Martyr had been that he knew something like our canonical Luke (as opposed to something more like Marcion's gospel); yet I realized that my main basis for thinking so was the number of parallels to Luke 1-2 in Justin Martyr. Well, if Luke 1-2 once stood alone, then those parallels can no longer count as evidence that Justin knew our canonical Luke, can they? So more information was called for, and I thought that perhaps someone on this forum had information available which might speak to the matter (and it turns out I was right on that point).
Some arguments are based on what Tertullian and Epiphanius were claiming to be Marcionite theology (and so would probably cite against it). This point is a bit independent of what the actual Marcionite theology was.
Yes, valid distinction.
Justin references Luke 22:44, which is a likely (but not explicit) shorter reading.
For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, `If it be possible, let this cup pass: '
Notes on this verse as a shorter reading (BeDuhn, The First New Testament):
Luke 22:42-44 - "Luke 22.42-44 is unattested for the Evangelion and appears to have been absent from P69. Verses 22.43-44 would have been useful for Epiphanius or Tertullian in making a point of Jesus' physicality. They are lacking in many Greek manuscripts, including P75, along with the SSyr, the SCopt, OL ms f, and were stricken out by the first corrector of the Gk ms Sinaiticus. But no other witness to Luke lacks v. 42 except P69, which may be crucial in identifying it as a fragment of the Evangelion." (p. 188)
"Unattested either way for Marcion"? I'm not completely comfortable with dismissing this that easily.
Yes, good point.
An alleged fragment of Justin references Luke 24:32, which is a likely (but not explicit) shorter reading.

Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection (?)
Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not know whether to believe He had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, "Ye have not yet faith, see that it is I; "
If I thought that this were Justin writing, this would mean more to me.
Andrew makes an interesting point here:
andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:15 am The allusion to Luke 3:21-22
For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spake to Him, ‘Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,’ is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him,
is specifically Western Lukan (and non-Marcionite). Matthew Mark and most manuscripts of Luke read with thee I am well pleased instead of this day have I begotten thee,
You mention that it's also found in the Gospel of the Ebionites:
The highlighted portion, however, is very interesting. That is a famous textual variant from Luke (refer to Psalm 2.7) which is not found in Matthew or Mark. It is also, however, found in the Gospel of the Ebionites. Nevertheless, this reference is definitely one I need to examine.
This seems like a genuine connection to the canonical Lucan text over and against Matthew, Mark, John, and Marcion, at least. Justin himself seems actively engaged in applying scripture, especially the Psalms, to the life and death of Jesus, so it occurs to me to check for directionality. For example, the crucifixion scene in Matthew 27.33-44 = Mark 15.22-32 = Luke 23.32-43 (John 19.17b-24) has passersby shaking their heads at Jesus, just as we find in Psalm 22.7, but there is nothing in these gospels about those passersby turning their lips at Jesus, an act of mockery which 22.7 also describes; yet Justin has the lip turning in 1 Apology 38.7-8 and in Dialogue 101.3; it sure looks like he did exactly what the gospel authors themselves did, crafting details from scripture. By the same token, was it perhaps Justin himself who first imported Psalm 2.7 into the baptismal scene, and then canonical Luke and the Ebionite Gospel both took their cue from him?

Still thinking about the 30 years, and also about all of the chronological notices both in Luke and in Justin Martyr. I have felt things to be a bit tangled in that area before.
Here are the notes on Luke 24:27-29, from BeDuhn:
Luke 24:27 - "Luke 24.27-29 is unattested. Verse 27 would surely have been commented upon by Tertullian or Epiphanius if they found it in Marcion's text. It is somewhat surprising that Epiphanius does not note the textual variance. The same verse is likewise lacking in Gk ms 1313 (possibly due to haplography), and goes unmentioned in Ephrem, Comm. Diat. Some of the content of vv. 28-29 was probably present, since it is needed to advance the narrative to a meal setting." (p. 196)
This also has to be taken more seriously as something that is likely absent from the text referenced by Tertullian and Epiphanius.
Yes, I was too quick on this one.
So far, to my mind, these are the references that require some further consideration:

Luke 3:22 textual variant (this day have I begotten Thee) // Trypho 103
Luke 3:23 (about 30) // Trypho 88
Luke 3:38 (descent of Mary) // Trypho 100
Luke 22:44 (bloody sweat) // Trypho 103
Luke 24:27 (beginning with Moses and all the Prophets) // Trypho 50
Luke 24:32 (see that it is I) // On the Resurrection (?), fragment 9
Solid summary. Thanks.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I think I can dispense of the Lucan genealogy as a factor:

Justin Martyr, Dialogue 43.1: 1 “As, then, circumcision began with Abraham, and the Sabbath and sacrifices and offerings and feasts with Moses, and it has been proved they were enjoined on account of the hardness of your people’s heart, so it was necessary, in accordance with the Father’s will, that they should have an end in Him who was born of a Virgin, of the family of Abraham and tribe of Judah and of David, in Christ the Son of God, who was proclaimed as about to come to all the world, to be the everlasting law and the everlasting covenant, even as the forementioned prophecies show.” / 1 «Ὡς οὖν ἀπὸ Ἀβραὰμ ἤρξατο περιτομὴ καὶ ἀπὸ Μωυσέως σάββατον καὶ θυσίαι καὶ προσφοραὶ καὶ ἑορταί, καὶ ἀπεδείχθη διὰ τὸ σκληροκάρδιον τοῦ λαοῦ ὑμῶν ταῦτα διατετάχθαι, οὕτως παύσασθαι ἔδει κατὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς βουλὴν εἰς τὸν διὰ τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ φυλῆς Ἰούδα καὶ Δαυεὶδ παρθένου γεννηθέντα υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ Χριστόν, ὅστις καὶ αἰώνιος νόμος καὶ καινὴ διαθήκη τῷ παντὶ κόσμῳ ἐκηρύςσετο προελευσόμενος, ὡς αἱ προλελεγμέναι προφητεῖαι σημαίνουσι.»

Justin Martyr, Dialogue 100.3b: 1 3b “He said then that He was the Son of man, either because of His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham; or because Adam was the father both of Himself and of those who have been first enumerated from whom Mary derives her descent. For we know that the fathers of women are the fathers likewise of those children whom their daughters bear.” / 3b «Υἱὸν οὖν ἀνθρώπου ἑαυτὸν ἔλεγεν, ἤτοι ἀπὸ τῆς γεννήσεως τῆς διὰ παρθένου, ἥτις ἦν, ὡς ἔφην, ἀπὸ τοῦ Δαυεὶδ καὶ Ἰακὼβ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἀβραὰμ γένους, ἢ διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν τὸν Ἀβραὰμ πατέρα καὶ τούτων τῶν κατηριθμημένων, ἐξ ὧν κατάγει ἡ Μαρία τὸ γένος· καὶ γὰρ πατέρας τῶν γεννωμένων ταῖς θυγατράσιν αὐτῶν τέκνων τοὺς τῶν θηλειῶν γεννήτορας ἐπιστάμεθα.»

Justin, just a bit later, in Dialogue 43.5, appears to derive Mary's Davidic lineage quite naturally from the Isaianic prophecy to which he refers so often:

Isaiah 7.10-16: 10 Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11 “Ask for a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I put the Lord to the test!” 13 Then he said, “Listen now, house of David! Is it too trivial a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? 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. 15 He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16 For before the boy knows enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be abandoned.

If so, then Justin does not need the exegetical magic that attempts to turn Luke 3.23-38 into a genealogy for Mary instead of for Joseph. The possible doubt expressed in verse 23 attaches, not to Joseph being the son of Eli, but rather to Jesus being the son of Joseph (υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, Ἰωσὴφ). The most natural reading, then, being that Joseph's genealogy is the one being traced, and Justin neither referring to this genealogy nor requiring it for what he asserts about Mary, I find this point to be moot as a possible indicator of Justin knowing Luke over and against Marcion:
So far, to my mind, these are the references that require some further consideration:

Luke 3:22 textual variant (this day have I begotten Thee) // Trypho 103
Luke 3:23 (about 30) // Trypho 88
Luke 3:38 (descent of Mary) // Trypho 100
Luke 22:44 (bloody sweat) // Trypho 103
Luke 24:27 (beginning with Moses and all the Prophets) // Trypho 50
Luke 24:32 (see that it is I) // On the Resurrection (?), fragment 9
Unless I have missed a trick.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by Peter Kirby »

Luke 3:22 textual variant (this day have I begotten Thee) // Trypho 103
Luke 3:23 (about 30) // Trypho 88
Luke 3:38 (descent of Mary) // Trypho 100
Luke 22:44 (bloody sweat) // Trypho 103
Luke 24:27 (beginning with Moses and all the Prophets) // Trypho 50
Luke 24:32 (see that it is I) // On the Resurrection (?), fragment 9
I also read a bit on this, and there seems little question that the fragments "On the Resurrection" didn't come from Justin.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:38 pm ... there seems little question that the fragments "On the Resurrection" didn't come from Justin.
  • So, it did come from Justin?
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Justin Martyr, the Gospel of Luke, and Marcion.

Post by rgprice »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:17 pmWe should include serious investigation of passages that are often argued not to have been in the "Marcionite Gospel," for some kind of good reason, even if there isn't explicit attestation of their absence from that text. If it seemed a probable conclusion when we didn't have this specific hypothesis in mind, as we do now, the judgment back then is likely to be a more sober and less tendentious assessment of how good the reasoning was.
I've got a similar question that I could use help with as well, but its in regard to Mark. It's posted here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7691&p=118754

Basically it comes down to: How strong really is the case that Rom 11:7-8 wasn't present in Marcion's letters?

I think its safe to conclude that Rom 13:6 and 1 Thes 5:2-6 could have been present in Marcion's letters.

Essentially, I'm comparing the references to Paul's letters that I've identified in the Gospel of Mark to Marcion's Apostolikon to see if its possible to determine that the writer of Mark used Marcion's version of the letters or not. If it can be confirmed that Mark used the orthodox version of the letters, then it would be a point in favor of the orthodox versions being based on originals that predate Marcion's versions. But, I've come down to 3 passages that pose challenges. Of those three, really only one presents a significant challenge: Rom 11:7-8. I'm pretty confident that Mark 4:11 is derived from Rom 11:7-8. So, if Rom 11:7-8 definitively wasn't in Marcion's version of the letter then Mark would be a witness to different version of Romans than Marcion's (and I make a case that Mark precedes Marcion). If not, then it remains possible that Mark was using a version of Paul's letters that match those of Marcion's.
Post Reply