Justin Martyr
I just finished the writings of Justin Martyr. Justin is known as being on of the first apologists. I thought I would share a few thoughts about his work. First of all, as important as Justin is, it must be acknowledged that Justin had some theological issues. He did not see Jesus as co-eternal with the Father. He accepted Jesus as God and had a high Christology, but he say Jesus as a God begotten of the Father. I was disappointed in his reply to Trypho. While an interesting dialog between a Christian and a Jew, I did not fully agree with his interpretations of the Old Testament. His interactions with the Greeks were more interesting, as philosophy was Justin’s background. Unfortunately, Justin has given some critics quotes about parallels between Jesus and pagan gods/heroes. However, this must be taken in context. Justin attempted to make Christian theology understandable by illustrating it with examples from myth, while at the same time working out the differences of the Christian faith from mythology. One of the things that I appreciated is that Justin took the time to interact with Greeks on their own terms, using their texts. I also quite liked his work on the resurrection. Justin is far from perfect, but he is still an important figure in helping us to figure out the ways to explain our faith to a skeptical world.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about Justin Martyr. I think your observation about Justin is true of most of the church fathers. They had important insights that can be of value to us today, but they weren’t perfect and often erred with some of their theology.
In regard to the parallels between Jesus and pagan gods/heroes, my thought is that mythology is probably often based on truth that has been distorted. Also, the father of lies often tries to mimic the truth. So it shouldn’t be surprising when we see some similarities between the two.
That is part of the reason for parallels but it is more complicated. I actually think that Justin gives too much credit to the myths in trying to make connections. My reading of the actual texts reveals that there are actually very few true parallels. I am working on an article dealing with this very issue.
I look forward to reading you next article dealing with this issue. Sadly, I must confess that I neglected church history for much of my Christian life. Only recently have I begun a true study of the history of Christianity. I recently finished reading Everett Ferguson’s Church History. Are there any books on church history that you would recommend? On my wish list, I have the following: Kenneth Scott Latourette’s “A History of Christianity,” Bryan M. Litfin’s “Getting to Know the Church Fathers,” Justo L. Gonzalez’s “The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation,” and Christopher A. Hall’s “With the Church Fathers” series. Any suggestions/recommendations would be very much appreciated! I’d love a compilation of the writings of the church fathers that includes an evangelical appraisal/commentary of their writings. Thanks!
I have read the Latourette and Gonzalez and they are quite good. I would recommend you read some primary sources. At the very least read the Apostolic Fathers and Eusebius’ Church History. You can get the multi-volume hardcover Ante-Nicene Fathers from CBD for about a $100.
Thanks for the recommendations! Much appreciated!
I am curious as to the claim Justin Martyr never makes mention of any of the gospels by name. If this is so, dosen’t it show none of the gospels were in widespread distribution during his life?
I don’t think it is surprising that he does not mention them by name. It simply means that they were not Known by the title “The Gospel According to Matthew” or at least it was not convention to refer them to such. Justin does cite the Gospels as do other contemporary literature. There is no reason to think that the Gospels were not in widespread distribution during that time.
I still do not understand why there would be no specific reference unless there was only one account.
Of course there was an oral tradition before the gospels were written. This is where things get hazy, at least for me. Was the oral tradition the basis of the lost ‘Q’? Were there separate oral traditions, from different communities, each of which became a different gospel? Or, after Mark, were the others written in part as an argument answering the others? If there were separate traditions, it seems odd that Justin would not make an individual reference, even though perhaps by a name other than what we know them by today.
And why does Paul, who wrote before the gospels were written, make little or no specific reference to them? I read F. F. Bruce many years ago and was under the impression his argument was that the oral traditions were virtually perfect, thus the written gospels reliable despite there relatively late appearance. If so, why didn’t Paul and Justin and other 1st and 2d Century Christian writers make more specific references?
You cannot start with the way you think Justin should have done it, but the conventions of the time. Look at how the NT quotes the OT. Sometimes its says what book it is from but most often it is just incorporated into the text. If the translators did not make note of it, many readers would not even know those verses in the NT were from the OT.
I am confused as to your question as to why Paul did not cite the Gospels even though he writes before they were written. Paul does cite the oral traditions, look especially at 1 Corinthians. I have written an article on that if you are interested.
Thank you. Yes I would like to read the article. That would probably help. But again I cannot help but ask the question whether we are referring to Justin or to Paul, if there were more than one oral tradition in circulation, I would think Paul and Justin would reference it in particular.
Without such differentiation am I safe in assuming there was only a single oral tradition?
I agree that with some NT references to the OT the reference is simply to scripture or ‘… for so it is written by the prophet….’ Other times there is a specific reference to a particular prophet, e.g. Matt 2:17 refers to Jeremiah.
I’m guessing that the NT authors and their audiences were very familiar with the OT scriptures and to which prophet said what. But with the gospels the situation is different since each gospel is dealing with the same time period and the same events.
Paul is very specific in terms of place and time and person in his letters. It strikes me as odd that he would not be specific as to which author or which oral tradition he is referencing when citing, unless there was only a single oral tradition he was aware of.
But perhaps your article will explain that.
Here is an example of Paul quoting the OT to the Galatians who were Gentiles. “Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?”
(Galatians 3:5–6 ESV)
Regarding Jewish Christians being familiar enough with the OT, the same could be said of the Jesus traditions. My article is here: http://www.mcmaster.ca/mjtm/pdfs/vol7/MJTM_7-1_Bedard.pdf
If you are really interested in this, I would encourage you to find contemporary documents and see how they refer to earlier texts.
I am also not sure that an oral tradition is something that would be quoted as such in terms of citing the source of the tradition. Paul is citing oral tradition in 1 Corinthians but does not identify the tradition. I just don’t think that was something that was done. I would also recommend Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses that does deal with some of this.