Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
When it came to christology, what did Justin Martyr consider essential, as in, you’re not a Christian unless you believe it? The answers may surprise you. (Hint.)
In this episode we explore the christology of Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho. Is Jesus, for Justin, God himself? One third of a triune God? “Fully divine?” Eternal?
I also critically interact with some comments on Justin by Dr. Paula Fredriksen, who says that for Justin, as for Marcion and Valentinus, “the god of the Bible, the god of the Jews, was not the High God.” I argue against this that for Justin, the pre-human Jesus isn’t the god of the Jews, though he is the “god” seen and heard by ancient Jews.
You can also listen to this episode on stitcher or itunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both). It is also available on youtube (scroll down – you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
Links for this episode:
- Alvan Lamson’s The Church of the First Three Centuries (pdf)
- John Biddle’s Testimonies is reprinted in The Faith of the One God (1691)
- William Christie, Dissertations on the Unity of God (pdf)
- Dr. Paula Fredriksen
- This episode’s thinking music is “Slow Burn” by Kevin MacLeod.
I am so very glad I found this. I am a huge fan of Fredriksen’s, and to be honest about my own biases, I wanted what she has said about Justin’s thought to be true since I wanted to throw a wrench into the common idea of strict, plain, simple orthodoxy (another story for another time). I have tried to confirm this reading since earlier this year in my own research, and I am now in a class at Emory University on Earliest Christian Belief about the Holy Spirit, reading tons of primary sources, including Justin Martyr in whom I am specializing. And I can now say that you are absolutely right in your critiques of Fredriksen’s argument. Lumping him in with Valentinus and Marcion just doesn’t work. Wonderful job.
Dale, thanks for your interesting analysis of Justin’s Christology. I think you’ve made a strong case that he didn’t hold a fully developed Chalcedonian (or even Nicene) Christology. However, I’ve got a few criticisms of the section from 4:30 to 11:00 about the ‘man of men’ Christology passage (Dialogue 48.2-4).
1. You (or your sources) describe Justin’s ‘concession’ that Jesus could have been Christ even if a man of men as based perhaps on doubts about his own Christology. I would argue that, instead, Justin’s ‘concession’ is not an expression of doubt but is part of a divide-and-conquer rhetorical strategy. He first seeks to show that Jesus is the Christ independent of questions of virgin birth and pre-existence. If he can get Trypho/the reader to at least admit this much, he will have an easier time persuading them of the virgin birth and pre-existence.
2. In this passage Justin assumes virgin birth and pre-existence to be inextricably linked, and his Trypho regards them as equally preposterous. A ‘man of men’ Christology implies rejection of both of these ideas. Justin shows no awareness of a Christology which accepts Jesus’ Messiahship and virgin birth but rejects his pre-existence. Hence this passage furnishes no evidence for proto-biblical unitarian Christology. The proponents of the ‘man of men’ Christology probably either rejected the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, or were unaware of them. In neither case is it likely that they represented the dominant view of the mid-second century church.
3. One of your sources says that we do not find Justin appealing to former writings on the subject, but only to his interpretation of the Scriptures. Yet Justin’s justification for opposing the ‘man of men’ Christology is, “we were enjoined by Christ himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by himself.” This is a clear appeal to the scriptures as well as the Jesus tradition (for which Justin’s source is the written ‘memoirs of the apostles’, probably some form of our canonical Gospels). Justin clearly regards himself as bound by tradition on the fundamentals of his Christology. (Elsewhere, in 1 Apology 46, Justin refers to the pre-existence of Christ as something “we have been taught”.) It is therefore puzzling that your source could suggest Justin may have invented his Christology himself. It is also unclear which sources your source thought Justin ought to have appealed to, other than the Scriptures and the Jesus tradition.
4. It is less than clear that Justin regards proponents of the ‘man of men’ Christology as fellow Christians in good standing. The reference to ‘those who have the same opinions of myself’ could refer to (a) all those who currently share Justin’s high Christology; or (b) all those who share Justin’s opinion that Jesus is the Christ (contra Trypho). In neither case is it a value judgment about those who hold the ‘man of men’ Christology. I’ve analysed the issue of Justin’s view of this matter in a blog post: http://blog.dianoigo.com/2014/08/justin-martyr-and-man-of-men_26.html . My own conclusion is that he viewed this group with considerable suspicion but was not prepared to classify them as outright heretics.
I am not entirely sure about the accuracy of my transcript of this section of the podcast, but I tried my best. I hope other commenters will find it useful, anyway.
Here are some comments/questions, corresponding to the note marks
interspersed in the transcript.
[1] The very expression “when it was time to create” presupposes that
time ticked, apart from creation: a very … Newtonian fallacy.
[2] Did God need an “intermediary” for creation? Why? Only the Platonic
God would not get (nay, would not even be capable of getting) his hands dirty with creation. Nothing scriptural, here.
[3] This is an interesting expression: “some later trinity theories”. So
there was a development, after all and Dale is caught implying that he doesn’t really believe that the “co-eternal, co-equal, tri-personal” doctrine
of the Cappadocians came out of the blue.
[4] Where, precisely, does Justin say that “Jesus is called Son, God and
Lord … because he does God’s will and owes his existence to God’s will”?
Anyway, if Justin really said that, it would be an idiocy, because it would apply also to all God’s faithful angels and prophets.
[5] What Dale calls (for the umpteenth time …) “nonsense” is, in fact very similar to the Stoic doctrine of the logos prophorikos (“the uttered word”) vs logos endiathetos (“the word remaining within”) – BTW adopted also by Philo.
[6] And why, pray tell, not? Especially bearing in mind that this is the
most straightforward reading of the Prologue to the Gospel of John?
2nd Apology Chapter 6.3
The Son Gk., ( ????????? ) “came into existence” [= Codex Claromontanus reading] at a temporal point in time = Gk., ( ??? ??? ????? ) “when at the beginning”.
Both the Codex Regius Parisinus Graecus 450, or Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, gr. 451, (= not available online yet), and the Codex Claromontanus, (a direct copy of the Regius), read Gk., ( ??? ).
Gk., ( ??? ) = “when” or: “at the time when”.
See Codex Claromontanus 82, later Mediomontanus, now British Library MS Add. 82951.
Folio 152r
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_82951_f152r
There is more supporting evidence in the context, in Justin’s reasoning.
Justin Martyr, reasoned that the Father cannot have a proper name. As he goes on to explain, this is, (according to his own personal opinion or philosophy). Why? Because He, (according to Justin’s logic), would have to have someone who is older than He is, in order for Him to be, (or have been), given such a name.
Yet, in comparison, (both in the Bible and in Justin’s theology), the Son, does indeed have, and has been given a name.
What are the obvious implications of this reasoning?
Implications = Justin is effectively saying that:
[1.] There is no person that is Gk., ( ??????????? ) older than the Father.
[2.] This is because the Father is Gk., ( ???????? ???? ) translated either: “an un-generated (or begotten) Being” or perhaps: “by [reason of Him] being an un-generated [Person]”.
[3.] Therefore, there was, and is, no prior existing person who could have caused or
generated the Father’s life or existence, (let alone a name), i.e. He is not “generated” or “begotten” out of, from, or of someone else.
[4.] Life only comes from, or is CREATED (of, from, out of, or by) pre-existing life, or a prior, (i.e. Gk., ??????????? “older”), living Person.
Therefore, we must conclude that the Father is older than the Son in Justin’s reasoning.
Because, (to Justin), the Son, (= implied and/or direct comparison), has been given a name.
See the immediate context in 2nd Apol. 6.4(A), Gk., ( ?????? ) “Jesus”, 2nd Apol. 6.6(C), Gk., ( ??? ???????? ????? ??????? ) “of the name of Jesus Christ”.
To Justin, the Son is Gk., ( ????????? ?????? ) “rightly called” such.
Because the Son Gk., ( ????????? ) “began existence” or “came into existence” or “was created”, according to the Codex Claromontanus, (later Mediomontanus now British Library MS Add. 82951), reading.
The Son came into existence at a temporal point in time Gk., ( ??? ??? ????? ) “when at the beginning”. Gk., ( ??? ) = “when” or: “at the time when”.
JUSTIN MARTYR (circa. 110-165 C.E.): “…But for the Father of all, being Un-Born, there is no set name; for whoever has a name – has an OLDER person who – gave them the name. But the word “Father,” and “God,” and “Creator,” and “Lord,” and “Master,” are not names, but designations drawn from His beneficial acts. But His Son, the only one rightfully called “Son,” the Logos, existing [ = present tense ] with Him and being brought forth before the things made – ( when ) – ( He ) [ = the Father ] – had created and arranged all things through Him, was called “Christ” with reference to His being anointed and God having arranged{12} all things through Him. The name itself holds an unknown significance, just as the title “God” is not a name but a notion about a thing hard to describe implanted in the nature of men…” – (Chapter 6:3, 2nd Apology, Page 23-24, “The Second Apology of Justin Martyr: with Text and Translation,” By Kyle Pope, Ancient Road Publications, © 2001.)
[FOOTNOTE 12]: Justin appears to suggest a two-fold etymology for the name Christ: 1. The word kechristhai meaning “to be annointed,” and (the unusual suggestion,) 2. The word kosmesai meaning “to have arranged.”
Good Job Dale, and thanks
Dale,
at some point in the podcast (ca. 11:00) you say:
As usual, what you don’t say is that you consider the notion of Trinity to entail, essentially, “being fully divine” for the “pre-existing son” (and the “holy spirit”).
As usual, you have a blind spot for the divinity of Jesus being the consequence of his being the Incarnation of God’s eternal logos. No “personal pre-existence” attached.
Your limits, your problems …
It’s not a blind spot, as you haven’t yet even attempted to make that odd view intelligible. Until you do, there’s nothing to see.
SG, your comments, in their utter irrelevance, will be utterly ignored.
Pretty lame. You can’t make your view intelligible, and so you simply ignore requests that you do so, and you do so with unmitigated arrogance, no less.
[snip]
Hi Dale,
I’m enjoying these reviews of the opinions of the Church Fathers. Thank you for taking the time to do the podcasts.
Comments are closed.