Canonical Paul, Acts, and Justin VS Paul, Valentinus, and Marcion

[Peter Kirby]

1 Corinthians 8
8:1Now concerning things sacrificed to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth. 8:2If any man thinketh that he knoweth anything, he knoweth not yet as he ought to know; 8:3but if any man loveth God, the same is known by him. 8:4Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no God but one. 8:5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; 8:6yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him. 8:7Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge: but some, being used until now to the idol, eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8:8But food will not commend us to God: neither, if we eat not, are we the worse; nor, if we eat, are we the better. 8:9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to the weak. 8:10For if a man see thee who hast knowledge sitting at meat in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 8:11For through thy knowledge he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 8:12And thus, sinning against the brethren, and wounding their conscience when it is weak, ye sin against Christ. 8:13Wherefore, if meat causeth my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I cause not my brother to stumble.

1 Corinthians 10
10:23All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify. 10:24Let no man seek his own, but each his neighbor's good. 10:25Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake, 10:26for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. 10:27If one of them that believe not biddeth you to a feast, and ye are disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake. 10:28But if any man say unto you, This hath been offered in sacrifice, eat not, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: 10:29conscience, I say, not thine own, but the other's; for why is my liberty judged by another conscience? 10:30If I partake with thankfulness, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 10:31Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 10:32Give no occasions of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God: 10:33even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved.

Romans 14
13Therefore let us stop judging one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.
14I am convinced and fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed by what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother, for whom Christ died.
16Do not allow what you consider good, then, to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18For whoever serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19So then, let us pursue what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to let his eating be a stumbling block. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything to cause your brother to stumble.
22Keep your belief about such matters between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the one who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that is not from faith is sin.

1 Corinthians 10 (10:1-22 often identified as an interpolation)
[10:13There hath no temptation taken you but such as man can bear: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation make also the way of escape, that ye may be able to endure it. 10:14Wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 10:15I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 10:16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? 10:17seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we are all partake of the one bread. 10:18Behold Israel after the flesh: have not they that eat the sacrifices communion with the altar? 10:19What say I then? that a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 10:20But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have communion with demons. 10:21Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons. 10:22Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?]

1 Timothy
4:3 They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from certain foods that God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4:4 For every creation of God is good, and nothing that is received with thanksgiving should be rejected, 4:5 because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Acts 15:22-29
[22] Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
[23] And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
...
[27] We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
[28] For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
[29] That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
...

Acts 21:18-26
[18] And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
[19] And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
[20] And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
[22] What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
[23] Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
[24] Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
[25] As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
[26] Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purifcation, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

Dialogue 34-35
'Nay, also, I venture to repeat what is written in the book of Kings as committed by him, how through a woman's influence he worshipped the idols of Sidon, which those of the Gentiles who know God, the Maker of all things through Jesus the crucified, do not venture to do, but abide every torture and vengeance even to the extremity of death, rather than worship idols, or eat meat offered to idols.'
'And Trypho said, "I believe, however, that many of those who say that they confess Jesus, and are called Christians, eat meats offered to idols, and declare that they are by no means injured in consequence." And I replied, "The fact that there are such men confessing themselves to be Christians, and admitting the crucified Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, yet not teaching His doctrines, but those of the spirits of error, causes us who are disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, to be more faithful and stedfast in the hope announced by Him."'

A. H. 1.6.3 (on Valentinus and his disciple Ptolemy)
'Wherefore also it comes to pass, that the "most perfect" among them addict themselves without fear to all those kinds of forbidden deeds of which the Scriptures assure us that "they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." For instance, they make no scruple about eating meats offered in sacrifice to idols, imagining that they can in this way contract no defilement. Then, again, at every heathen festival celebrated in honour of the idols, these men are the first to assemble; and to such a pitch do they go, that some of them do not even keep away from that bloody spectacle hateful both to God and men, in which gladiators either fight with wild beasts, or singly encounter one another.'

A. H. 1.25.5 (on Basilides)
'He attaches no importance to [the question regarding] meats offered in sacrifice to idols, thinks them of no consequence, and makes use of them without any hesitation; he holds also the use of other things, and the practice of every kind of lust, a matter of perfect indifference.'

A. H. 1.26.3 (on Nicolas)
'The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practise adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.'

A. H. 1.28.2 (on others)
'Others, again, following upon Basilides and Carpocrates, have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives, and are indifferent about eating meats sacrificed to idols, maintaining that God does not greatly regard such matters. But why continue? For it is an impracticable attempt to mention all those who, in one way or another, have fallen away from the truth.'

Against Celsus, 8.24
But since it would require a whole treatise to set forth fully all that is contained on this subject in the Epistle to the Corinthians, we shall content ourselves with this brief statement of the argument; for it will be evident to any one who carefully considers what has been said, that even if idols are nothing, nevertheless it is an awful thing to join in idol festivals.

Some observations:

(1) Against Heresies, Book 1, at several places raises a polemic against those who eat meat offered in sacrifice to idols. In no place does it reference the place of 1 Corinthians in this controversy, which supplied specific proof texts for the practice among the libertine Christians. This would be a strange procedure if Irenaeus were the first one to take up the pen, as illustrated by comparison to the way that Origen must swiftly move on to mention the interpretation of 1 Corinthians. This suggests that the argument of Against Heresies, Book I, belongs largely to an earlier author, such as Justin.

(2) This can be further illustrated by seeing that, in Book I, the apostle Paul is referenced as an authority only in the outermost frame of the text, connecting one subject to another. Paul is never quoted in any substantial way as refuting the so-called gnostics. Half of these references (2 out of 4) are merely the customary invocation of Peter and Paul, together, as apostles. In one of them, Irenaeus quotes only the saying "after a first and second admonition, to avoid." Finally, Irenaeus accuses Marcion of redacting the epistles of Paul. Here are these uses of Paul by Irenaeus in his redaction.

Some of his disciples, too, addicting themselves to the same practices, have deceived many silly women, and defiled them. They proclaim themselves as being "perfect," so that no one can be compared to them with respect to the immensity of their knowledge, nor even were you to mention Paul or Peter, or any other of the apostles. They assert that they themselves know more than all others, and that they alone have imbibed the greatness of the knowledge of that power which is unspeakable.

I well know, my dear friend, that when thou hast read through all this, thou wilt indulge in a hearty laugh over this their inflated wise folly! But those men are really worthy of being mourned over, who promulgate such a kind of religion, and who so frigidly and perversely pull to pieces the greatness of the truly unspeakable power, and the dispensations of God in themselves so striking, by means of Alpha and Beta, and through the aid of numbers. But as many as separate from the Church, and give heed to such old wives' fables as these, are truly self-condemned; and these men Paul commands us, "after a first and second admonition, to avoid." And John, the disciple of the Lord, has intensified their condemnation, when he desires us not even to address to them the salutation of "good-speed; "for, says he, "He that bids them be of good-speed is a partaker with their evil deeds; " and that with reason, "for there is no good-speed to the ungodly," saith the Lord.

This idea has raised them to such a pitch of pride, that some of them declare themselves similar to Jesus; while others, still more mighty, maintain that they are superior to his disciples, such as Peter and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, whom they consider to be in no respect inferior to Jesus.

In like manner, too, he dismembered the Epistles of Paul, removing all that is said by the apostle respecting that God who made the world, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord.

Otherwise, Paul is referenced only indirectly, by way of how the other sects of Christians use Paul (11 of 15 references), and the flow of the argument doesn't attempt to dispute the interpretation of Paul:

The thirty Aeons are indicated (as we have already remarked) by the thirty years during which they say the Saviour performed no public act, and by the parable of the labourers in the vineyard. Paul also, they affirm, very clearly and frequently names these Aeons, and even goes so far as to preserve their order, when he says, "To all the generations of the Aeons of the Aeon."

They moreover affirm that the Saviour is shown to be derived from all the Aeons, and to be in Himself everything by the following passage: "Every male that openeth the womb." For He, being everything, opened the womb of the enthymesis of the suffering Aeon, when it had been expelled from the Pleroma. This they also style the second Ogdoad, of which we shall speak presently. And they state that it was clearly on this account that Paul said, "And He Himself is all things; " and again, "All things are to Him, and of Him are all things; " and further, "In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead; " and yet again, "All things are gathered together by God in Christ."

Moreover, they affirm that the Apostle Paul himself made mention of this cross in the following words: "The doctrine of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God." And again: "God forbid that I should glory in anything save in the cross of Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world."

And that the Saviour appeared to her when she lay outside of the Pleroma as a kind of abortion, they affirm Paul to have declared in his Epistle to the Corinthians [in these words], "And last of all, He appeared to me also, as to one born out of due time." Again, the coming of the Saviour with His attendants to Achamoth is declared in like manner by him in the same Epistle, when he says, "A woman ought to have a veil upon her head, because of the angels." Now, that Achamoth, when the Saviour came to her, drew a veil over herself through modesty, Moses rendered manifest when he put a veil upon his face.

For, according to their teaching, the woman represented Sophia; the three measures of meal, the three kinds of men-spiritual, animal, and material; while the leaven denoted the Saviour Himself. Paul, too, very plainly set forth the material, animal, and spiritual, saying in one place, "As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; " and in another place, "But the animal man receiveth not the things of the Spirit;" and again: "He that is spiritual judgeth all things." And this, "The animal man receiveth not the things of the Spirit," they affirm to have been spoken concerning the Demiurge, who, as being animal, knew neither his mother who was spiritual, nor her seed, nor the Aeons in the Pleroma. And that the Saviour received first-fruits of those whom He was to save, Paul declared when he said, "And if the first-fruits be holy, the lump is also holy," teaching that the expression "first-fruits" denoted that which is spiritual, but that "the lump" meant us, that is, the animal Church, the lump of which they say He assumed, and blended it with Himself, inasmuch as He is "the leaven."

Her name, too, was indicated by the Saviour, when He said, "Yet wisdom is justified by her children." This, too, was done by Paul in these words," But we speak wisdom among them that are perfect." They declare also that Paul has referred to the conjunctions within the Pleroma, showing them forth by means of one; for, when writing of the conjugal union in this life, he expressed himself thus: "This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church."

Moreover, he styled life (Zoe) the light of men, because they are enlightened by her, that is, formed and made manifest. This also Paul declares in these words: "For whatsoever doth make manifest is light." Since, therefore, Zoe manifested and begat both Anthropos and Ecclesia, she is termed their light.

Paul, too, they declare, has often set forth, in express terms, the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; and this was the same which is handed down by them in so varied and discordant forms.

Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.

(3) The tradition that considered it permitted to eat meat sacrificed to idols appears to be quite broad: Valentinus and Ptolemy, Basilides, Nicolas, and unnamed "others" all considered it to be permitted to eat meat sacrificed to idols. This is indeed found in Paul, and it is likely to be how the letters of Paul were originally interpreted:

8:4 Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no God but one. 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; 8:6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him. 8:7 Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge: but some, being used until now to the idol, eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8:8 But food will not commend us to God: neither, if we eat not, are we the worse; nor, if we eat, are we the better. 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to the weak.

Summed up again as advice that it is permitted but to try not to cause others to stumble:

10:23 All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify.

Romans 14 argues similarly:

All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to let his eating be a stumbling block.

There emerges a consistent position in the letters of Paul to allow eating of all meat (regardless of Jewish prohibitions on unclean meat) and to allow eating of meat sacrificed to idols. There's nothing inherently wrong, Paul says, but because some find it unconscionable (as Jews) or regard the eating of food from the pagan temples as idolatry (including some Gentiles who think this way), it's good practice to avoid it if it would cause difficulties with another believer. This original position would be taken in three different directions.

(a) First, a libertine interpretation, leaning heavily on the words of Paul -- namely, there is no issue with eating meat sacrificed to idols for those who "know that no idol is anything" and who have "that knowledge" that there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ -- there is an emphasis on bringing all Christians to share in "that knowledge," so that there would not be a stumbling block for anyone. If everyone had that knowledge, that there would be no weak to be bothered by the practice, and Paul's words become a strong endorsement that "all things are lawful" among those who know the truth. This appears to be the broadly accepted interpretation of Paul, prior to Justin, given that almost everyone referenced accepts it, and given that Justin himself both rejects the idea and is reluctant to take Paul as authoritative.

(b) Second, there is an ascetic interpretation, which finds support in the words "It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything to cause your brother to stumble." (Romans 14:21) Perhaps with reference to gospel stories about eating fish (as Eznik suggests), they become vegetarians, or, in modern parlance, pescatarians. Since meat is frequently associated with the offering of sacrifices, and since the false god that is the Creator of this world is one of those which is particularly concerned with sacrifices in his law, it certainly makes sense that those who reject this Creator would avoid that which could potentially honor that false god or otherwise meaningfully act on a degenerate desire for carnal activity, such as the eating of meat could.

(c) Third, there is an interpretation that is both pragmatic (like the libertine interpretation) and moralizing (like the ascetic interpretation), which permits all foods to be clean but which strictly does not allow eating meat sacrificed to idols, going well beyond Paul's suggestions to that effect. This is found in several places: in the epistle of 1 Timothy (a canonical pseudepigraph attributed to Paul), in 1 Corinthians 10:21 (a canonical interpolation into the letters of Paul), in Acts 15 and 21, and in Justin Martyr. All of these -- 1 Timothy, the interpolation, Acts, and Justin -- came after the earlier interpretations were well-known and established. The first three all attempt to make it look like Paul supported this position, even when he didn't and when the text of Paul supported the opposite. The last one of these, Justin, shows no respect to Paul at all, not being able to draw on Paul for a refutation of the other ideas, further confirming that this interpretation of Paul belongs to a later layer in the formation of the Pauline texts and the understanding of Paul.

All of this being the case, we form a picture of Christians in the middle of the second century being dominated by the kind of teaching being identified (in modern times) as "Valentinian." But Justin/Irenaeus himself is unable to trace back every teaching and teacher that we might consider "Valentinian" to Valentinus. Instead, there is an incoherent mashup of different teachers, according to Justin/Irenaeus, all appearing and teaching in similar ways: Valentinus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Nicolas, and innumerable "others." And Justin is obliged to recognize them all as styling themselves "Christians," whereas his attempt to label them according to various recent teachers is just a negative rebranding campaign (Dialogue 35).

Marcion, with the prohibition of marriage and of eating meats, stands out against this backdrop. This is a new interpretation among the Christians (but I can't rule out pre-Christian influences), as is evident from the fact that it is traced back to one person, Marcion, instead of being attributed to all and sundry. Given that Justin knows about Marcion as a contemporary, Marcion's interpretation appeared no earlier than the first half of the second century (sometime 100-150 CE).

Notably, Tatian is described as a hearer of Justin, but he didn't find it too far gone to interpret both the ideas of Valentinus and Marcion (A. H. 1.28.1). This suggests that the ideas of Valentinus and of Marcion both had broad appeal and that Justin's approach was as sectarian as any other.

The correction of Marcion's interpretation has to be later than Marcion. Therefore, all of the reactionary texts -- 1 Timothy, Acts, and of course Justin -- belong to the second century.

But which came first, Justin's approach, of ignoring the apostle Paul, or the canonical approach, rehabilitating Paul and recasting his message? If the canonical approach were well established, it's hard to imagine Justin rejecting it or not being influenced by it, being a more powerful way to refute those that he considered wrong. That it was considered a more powerful refutation to use Paul against the heretics is illustrated from the way that it is the approach taken ever after (except where others are copying from Justin). Marcion apparently did not know of the pastorals or Acts when publishing the texts that he used. Basilides also did not use the pastorals. Even after Justin, Tatian can reject 1 and 2 Timothy, accepting only the epistle to Titus. This suggests that, if 1 Timothy and Acts had existed, they had not existed long enough to be taken up by Justin as a matter of course. They may have appeared in the time period of 140-175 CE, contemporary to Justin and before the use of Titus by Tatian.

[Ben C. Smith]

One of your extracts from Irenaeus mentions the Apocalypse of John, and I have suggested before that Revelation 2.14 and 2.20 are reactions against the Pauline position, and that Revelation 2.2 and 21.14 are ways of suggesting that Paul is not an apostle, even though he calls himself one: most notably in every one of his letters. I suggest that the seven letters in Revelation are, in fact, a reclaiming of Asia Minor from (some kind of) Paulinism, the treatment of food sacrificed to idols being one of the main points of contention.

[Stuart]

Justin, like the Pauline letters, is layered. You may have identified some earlier strata. Justin, like the pseudo Clementia lies outside the Pauline schools. But that doesn't necessarily place the work in the 2nd century.

I am generally of the opinion that Valentinus didn't exist. Rather his name is like that of Ebion, one made up to describe a group of Christians who became known as the Valentinians. There really isn't any biography of Valentinus, rather of his disciples, who seem more like sect leaders than followers, each with their own views that vary quite a bit.

We don't know what they actually called themselves. But I think Valentinians came from the Latin "Valens"; an adjective that depending upon context can mean "String" or "Powerful" or "Healthy" or "Nutritious" or "Vigorous." The Valentinians are really the "Strong" sect, which is what you see in the dietary discussions in Paul. Those Christians not part of the movement are deemed "weak".

In the ancient world people only ate meat every once in awhile if they were not nobility. It was expensive. Festivals are rather like Chinese New Years, when people use it as an excuse to splurge a bit and have a huge meal, with all the foods they don't eat during the year (due to cost). Passover (or Easter) would have filled the same role. I rather doubt Christians had their feasts all that often, probably a few times a year. So going without meat at one of these meant you might not eat meat for another month or so.

[rgprice]

Good stuff Peter, thank you. I'm of the mind that Luke/Acts had to have come after Justin but before Irenaeus, giving a pretty narrow window, which is as you say, between about 140 and 175. I agree with that entirely. To me, the big question is Matthew. Was Matthew also produced in this window between 140 and 175? Justine does of course seem to know Matthew or at least traditions or texts that depend on Matthew. But how long might Matthew have been in existence? Justine seems to know and use the Infancy Gospel of James. Surely that hadn't been around long. How long might a document have been around before Justin made use of it? How did Justin even know how long a document had been around?

It seems to me that Irenaeus actually knew the New Testament, but Justin did not. If Justine came across a Gospel writing, how would he know how long ago it was originally composed? From everything I've seen, at this time in the Roman empire the dating of written works was a disaster, with fraud and forgery running rampant, most notably among religious texts. Many religious texts were created in order to appear to have been written earlier than they really were. And we know that many, if not most, readers were unable to detect or fully appreciate such deceptions.

So, if a work were produced 2 years ago, and put into circulation in the Roman book market at that time, but the work was written to appear as if it were authored 100 years ago, how many people even knew? The book sellers found it beneficial to go along with the deception and to portray writings as older than they really were, because this brought prestige and increased sales.

Anyway, I get back to, how long did Matthew really need to be "in circulation" for Justin to think it reliable?

[MrMacSon]

Justine does of course seem to know Matthew or at least traditions or texts that depend on Matthew.

Or Justin knew traditions Matthew either relied on or used ... +/- Matthew used Justin ...

Justine seems to know and use the Infancy Gospel of James.

There certainly seems to be common themes /tropes in Dial. Trypho 78, the Protoevangelium / Infancy Gospel of James, and G.Matthew
eg. viewtopic.php?p=119008#p119008

[Jax]

Justin, like the Pauline letters, is layered. You may have identified some earlier strata. Justin, like the pseudo Clementia lies outside the Pauline schools. But that doesn't necessarily place the work in the 2nd century.

I am generally of the opinion that Valentinus didn't exist. Rather his name is like that of Ebion, one made up to describe a group of Christians who became known as the Valentinians. There really isn't any biography of Valentinus, rather of his disciples, who seem more like sect leaders than followers, each with their own views that vary quite a bit.

We don't know what they actually called themselves. But I think Valentinians came from the Latin "Valens"; an adjective that depending upon context can mean "String" or "Powerful" or "Healthy" or "Nutritious" or "Vigorous." The Valentinians are really the "Strong" sect, which is what you see in the dietary discussions in Paul. Those Christians not part of the movement are deemed "weak".

In the ancient world people only ate meat every once in awhile if they were not nobility. It was expensive. Festivals are rather like Chinese New Years, when people use it as an excuse to splurge a bit and have a huge meal, with all the foods they don't eat during the year (due to cost). Passover (or Easter) would have filled the same role. I rather doubt Christians had their feasts all that often, probably a few times a year. So going without meat at one of these meant you might not eat meat for another month or so.

I wonder how true this is. I know this is said a lot but the ancient world was for the most part agrarian based and centered around water with it's cities.
Right now I am in search of a type of bone from a calf leg called the metacarpus which was the most popular material for sword handles back then as I am trying to make a replica gladius. One of the most obvious reasons that it was so popular was probably the high rate of death among calves back then either from disease, birth defects, or because calves have softer bones that break easier and without antibiotics the animals survival would be problematic, or even because it is easier and quicker to just fatten up a calf to bring to table than a full grown cow. A calf is smaller than an adult cow as well making it easier to consume in a timely manner that is necessitated by lack of refrigeration. This holds for foals as well. Cows and horses are necessary to have but they consume resources and so you need to control the amount of animals you have on hand and the best control is simply to eat them. Cows, goats, and horses are great sources of milk for cheese and other uses but to get them to lactate you need to keep them supplying offspring. Offspring that is a drag on your resources unless you consume them.

And you also have pigs and chickens, both that reproduce rapidly and need not become full grown to be ready for the table. Pigs are natural garbage disposals and chickens are good for eggs and insect control. Chickens especially are able to forage much of their feed needs and don't need a lot of attention from the farmer. You would keep good egg layers but most of the cocks you would harvest early as they are just annoying (trust me, I know this for a fact). You keep a few cocks for breeding and your producing hens but all the rest become dinner when you want one. Pigs, not hogs, are preferable as they take up little space and grow to eating size rapidly.

The first animal that joins us out into space will probably be something like the Guinea pig as they are fast breeders and grow to eatable size rapidly thereby supplying fresh meat from little in the way of consumable sources.
Which brings us to dogs and rats. We know that dormouse was a food item so we know that they had no problem eating rodents, and rats and other rodents would have been in plentiful supply back then, including rabbits etc. And I know for a fact that dog is quite yummy and they must have been a real problem before modern animal control. Both rodents and canines can be kept in small spaces and are small enough that they can be eaten without spoilage in the absence of refrigeration.

This is just a small sample of possibilities for meat in the ancient diet that doesn't even address wild meat sources, birds, and food from the sea, lakes and streams.

I think meat in the ancient world was much more common than we moderns give them credit for. I imagine that the ancients had diets very similar to diets in places like China today where variety is large and everything is game as a food source.

[Peter Kirby]

How did Justin even know how long a document had been around?

Dialogue with Trypho:

Then he told me frankly both his name and his family. "Trypho," says he, "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."

While this is not a transcript, at a sort of minimum, unless Justin is completely lying about how long he has been a Christian, it seems to imply at least that Justin was a convert by 135 CE (the end of the war). I imagine that Justin had some fairly good ability to know about new Christian texts appearing after 135 CE (and otherwise would only have hearsay).

[rgprice]

How did Justin even know how long a document had been around?

Dialogue with Trypho:

Then he told me frankly both his name and his family. "Trypho," says he, "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."

While this is not a transcript, at a sort of minimum, unless Justin is completely lying about how long he has been a Christian, it seems to imply at least that Justin was a convert by 135 CE (the end of the war). I imagine that Justin had some fairly good ability to know about new Christian texts appearing after 135 CE (and otherwise would only have hearsay).

Maybe, but let's say for the sake of argument, that Justin had converted by 130. And Matthew was written in 136. Justin become aware of it in 138. Would he have known in 138 that Matthew only came into existence in 136? Would anyone know (other than the author)?

Clearly Tertullian didn't really know if the Gospel of Luke pre-dated Marcion or not. He inferred it based on the fact that he believed Marcion had claimed to have "corrected a gospel", which Tertullian took to mean that Marcion made corrections to an existing work, which he believed was canonical Luke. But he didn't actually know when either work came into existence.

Even if Matthew came on the scene in 136, would anyone question that it originated 100 years prior? I don't know the answer, I'm just posing the question. What I do know is that many, many works came onto the Roman book market that were claimed to have been written hundreds of years prior to their actual authorship, and many works were presented to the Roman Senate were claimed to have been hundreds of years old, which were actually recently produced, but they were almost universally accepted as ancient writings.

It seems that people had a very difficult time determining when a work was originally produced, and this was a root cause of many problems related to prophetic forgery. From the 3rd century BCE through the 3rd or 4th century CE thousands of fraudulent prophecies were written, mostly relying on the ability of writers to present their works as much older than they actually were, so that they were able to fool people into thinking that the prophet had been able to accurately predict many elements of the future.

So, it seems that relying on ancient witnesses to know the origin of works beyond the time when they saw them with their own eyes isn't actually reliable. It seems that something written yesterday could have been taken as something written 300 years ago by many people.

[Peter Kirby]

How did Justin even know how long a document had been around?

Dialogue with Trypho:

Then he told me frankly both his name and his family. "Trypho," says he, "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."

While this is not a transcript, at a sort of minimum, unless Justin is completely lying about how long he has been a Christian, it seems to imply at least that Justin was a convert by 135 CE (the end of the war). I imagine that Justin had some fairly good ability to know about new Christian texts appearing after 135 CE (and otherwise would only have hearsay).

Maybe, but let's say for the sake of argument, that Justin had converted by 130. And Matthew was written in 136. Justin become aware of it in 138. Would he have known in 138 that Matthew only came into existence in 136? Would anyone know (other than the author)?

Clearly Tertullian didn't really know if the Gospel of Luke pre-dated Marcion or not. He inferred it based on the fact that he believed Marcion had claimed to have "corrected a gospel", which Tertullian took to mean that Marcion made corrections to an existing work, which he believed was canonical Luke. But he didn't actually know when either work came into existence.

Even if Matthew came on the scene in 136, would anyone question that it originated 100 years prior? I don't know the answer, I'm just posing the question. What I do know is that many, many works came onto the Roman book market that were claimed to have been written hundreds of years prior to their actual authorship, and many works were presented to the Roman Senate were claimed to have been hundreds of years old, which were actually recently produced, but they were almost universally accepted as ancient writings.

It seems that people had a very difficult time determining when a work was originally produced, and this was a root cause of many problems related to prophetic forgery. From the 3rd century BCE through the 3rd or 4th century CE thousands of fraudulent prophecies were written, mostly relying on the ability of writers to present their works as much older than they actually were, so that they were able to fool people into thinking that the prophet had been able to accurately predict many elements of the future.

So, it seems that relying on ancient witnesses to know the origin of works beyond the time when they saw them with their own eyes isn't actually reliable. It seems that something written yesterday could have been taken as something written 300 years ago by many people.

I think there are two slightly different questions:

Would Justin be critical enough to reject a claim that a work was written much earlier than it was? No. He was accepting of the idea that he had the memoirs of the apostles. Unless we think these are apostolic books, he was uncritical about that.

Would Justin be deceived by a text that presented itself as having been "hidden" and only recently known, but actually older than it would seem? Possibly. There are a few texts that seem to try to offer an explanation of why there stories or texts weren't known until now. The Gospel of Mark, with its messianic secret and silent women, could have been trying to explain why its stories were not previously known.

I don't think the Gospel of Matthew has any cover story for it being "hidden" or any tradition of that either. Some kind of synoptic gospel also seems fundamental to the type of Christianity that Justin believed in. While it may have looked different to canonical Matthew, it seems reasonable to say that Justin's use makes it likely that a synoptic gospel preceded the Bar Kochba war.

[hakeem]

So, it seems that relying on ancient witnesses to know the origin of works beyond the time when they saw them with their own eyes isn't actually reliable. It seems that something written yesterday could have been taken as something written 300 years ago by many people.

If what you say is true then why are people relying on the supposed writing of Tertullian called "Against Marcion" to determine what Marcion wrote when it is claimed there are three versions in existence and when the very existing writing contains bogus claims about the authorship and date of authorship of virtually every NT writing?

It appears that things supposedly written c 200 CE may have been written c 400 CE or later.

What I find extremely fascinating is that when the supposed history of the Church was written the author did not remember to write anything about Tertullian's "Against Marcion" but instead made reference to Justin's remarks about Marcion.

In effect, the supposed Eusebius had the very same details about Marcion's preaching 200 years earlier in Justin's Apology.

Eusebius' Church History

Justin's First Apology

4.11. 9. He speaks as follows: And there is a certain Marcion of Pontus, who is even now still teaching his followers to think that there is some other God greater than the Creator. And by the aid of the demons he has persuaded many of every race of men to utter blasphemy, and to deny that the maker of this universe is the father of Christ, and to confess that some other, greater than he, was the creator. And all who followed them are, as we have said, called Christians, just as the name of philosophy is given to philosophers, although they may have no doctrines in common.

XXVI And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them.

How is it that the supposed Eusebius in the History of the Church wrote nothing of the 5 books of "Against Marcion" by Tertullian but only a few sentences made by Justin?

It must be true that writings believed to have been written by Christians in any century were really composed hundreds of years later.