Justin Martyr’s Knowledge of the Gospel of John

Justin Martyr was a Christian apologist writing primarily around 150-160 AD. He refers to the gospels as the “memoirs of the apostles” and once describes them as “the memoirs which… were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them” (Dialogue with Trypho 103). Many scholars take for granted that Justin does not include the Fourth Gospel in his “memoirs”. [1] That Justin regarded Revelation as the work of “John, one of the apostles of Christ” and resided in Ephesus, the same city in which John resided, while writing his Dialogue only makes this apparent silence all the more surprising. Justin cites the Gospels around 170 times, but by far most of these quotations come from the synoptic Gospels. However, a number of lines of evidence show that Justin did, in fact, know the Fourth Gospel and regarded it as part of his “memoirs”.    

First, in First Apology 1.61.4 Justin quotes from what looks like a variation of John 3:3: 

For Christ also said, “Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven [Ἂν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν].” Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all.

This text is not a verbatim quote of John 3:3. Justin uses the word ἀναγεννηθῆτε (“born again”) instead of John’s ἄνωθεν (“again” or “from above”); οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε (“you shall not enter”) is used instead of John’s phrase οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν (“he cannot see”); Justin’s τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν (“kingdom of heaven”) varies from John’s βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ (“kingdom of God”). In fact, the entirety of the second half of Justin’s phrase, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, matches exactly the second half of Matthew 18:3. Some manuscripts and patristic works read “kingdom of heaven” for John 3:3, so it is possible that Justin could have known the verse in this form. [2] Nevertheless, Justin’s quotation appears close enough to John 3:3 that there was likely some degree of influence from the Fourth Gospel.

   

Second, John’s Christology is an influence on Justin’s theology. Justin speaks of Christ “becoming man” (ἄνθρωπος γέγονεν), “having been made flesh” (σαρκοποιηθείς), and “becoming man according to his [God’s] will” (καὶ τῇ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος). More explicitly, in Dialogue 105.1 Justin says the following:     

For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs.

Justin’s statement here is loaded with Johannine Christology: Jesus was the “only-begotten”, he was begotten as “Word”, and he afterward “became man”. Moreover, Justin says that Christians have learned this from the memoirs. The implication of this passage is that Justin included the Fourth Gospel in his “memoirs”. 

Third, that Justin calls the Gospels the memoirs drawn up by Jesus’ apostles and those who followed them suggests, at minimum, that Justin knew four Gospels. The most natural reading of this statement is that he refers to Matthew and John in the first half and Mark and Luke in the second half. 

A final argument for Justin’s inclusion of the Fourth Gospel within his “memoirs” is one defended by Charles Hill. [3] Hill argues that Justin’s phrase “the Acts which took place under Pontius Pilate” (ἐκ τῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου γενομένων ἄκτων) is used interchangeably with “the memoirs of the apostles”. In support of this he cites two cases in which Justin uses these phrases interchangeably. In First Apology 35 and 38 Justin cites Psalm 22:16 and 18 and tells the emperor that he can read the fulfillment of this prophecy in “the Acts which took place under Pontius Pilate”, but in Dialogue with Trypho 104 he tells Trypho that he can read about this fulfillment in “the memoirs of the apostles”. In another instance, Justin says that Psalm 22:7 was fulfilled in the “Acts” (First Apology 38) but elsewhere says that it was fulfilled in the “memoirs” (Dialogue 101.1-4). 

After establishing the link between Justin’s “memoirs” and “Acts”, Hill proceeds to show how Justin uses John’s Gospel as one of the “Acts”. Of the four examples he gives, here is just one. In First Apology 35:4, Justin says that Isaiah 58:2 was fulfilled when “they tormented him [Jesus], and set him on the judgment-seat [αὐτὸν ἐκάθισαν ἐπὶ βήματος]”. John’s Gospel alone mentions the judgment-seat, and Justin’s wording matches John 19:13 (αὐτὸν ἐκάθισαν ἐπὶ βήματος). In First Apology 35:9 Justin tells the emperor that he can learn about the fulfillment of Isaiah 58:2 in “the Acts which took place under Pontius Pilate.” 

Therefore it is very likely that Justin includes the Fourth Gospel in his “memoirs”, and probably considered it to be the work of an apostle. However, the relative paucity of direct quotes from the Fourth Gospel throughout Justin’s work still deserves explanation. One proposal is that Justin did not quote the Gospel frequently because there were doubts about it’s apostolic status in Rome. Another is that Justin was hesitant to quote it because of its abuse by the Gnostics at this time. Lastly, as Martin Hengel has written, “the Fourth Gospel provided little for practical paraenesis and ethics, which were essential for the life of the church and for apologetics.” [4] Given the relatively poor attestation for any substantially widespread doubt concerning the authority of the Fourth Gospel in Rome, I judge the first proposal to be the weakest. 

References

[1] E.g., J.W. Pryor, “Justin Martyr and the Fourth Gospel.” The Second Century: a Journal of Early Christian Studies 9, issue 3, (1992): 153-169; C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 13.

[2] Graham Stanton, Jesus and the Gospel. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 102. 

[3] Charles E. Hill, “Was John’s Gospel Among Justin’s Apostolic Memoirs?” In Justin Martyr and His Worlds, eds. Sara Parvis and Paul Foster. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007).

[4] Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question, trans. John Bowden. (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), 13. Similarly Stanton, Jesus, 76, adding that Justin’s hesitation to cite the Fourth Gospel extensively “may be related to his strong interest in infancy narratives” and “futurist eschatological sayings”.

MerionWest's Bad Article On Jesus

 I don't prefer spending my time on Jesus mythicism, but when media decides to take on religious subjects with misleading information, I can revise my policy. Last week, Peter Clarke of MerionWest (and of "Jokes Review") published an article arguing that mythicism is about to go mainstream. This article calls for correction on several points

To start off: 

"according to a Church of England poll, only 60% of the English hold that view [that Jesus existed]."

This is quite concerning. I believe this reflects the tendency of our modern world to not research topics that matter and have eternal consequences. Instead video games, sports and partying take up all of the free time.

Continuing:

"It stands to reason that as the United States becomes less Christian, it will become less tied to the historicity of Jesus."

Perhaps, but there is, as far as I am aware, no data to suggest this, other than perhaps the secularization of America.

Continuing:

"While Christians need Jesus to be historical, non-Christians do not have any particular reason to care either way."

For the sake of seeking truth alone, they should care. They should also care about researching the individual responsible for undergirding western culture as we know it today.

Back to the Clarke:

"Notably, for people who have not had much exposure to Christian history, Jesus seems like a fictional character. For example, I have a friend who has never once gone to church and more or less lives her life entirely oblivious to the existence of any world religion. I told her recently that I am starting to come around to the idea that Jesus was entirely fictional. “No kidding!” she responded. “I could have told you that!”

Um, so what? Unfortunately, your friend's intuitions aren't proper historical analysis. I hope this is Clarke merely giving us an anecdote--and not giving it as an argument!

Back to Clarke,

"Meanwhile, his story (we often hear) parallels those of other mythical figures who offer salvation after dying and coming back, such as Osiris, Adonis, Romulus, and Inanna."

For someone that is seeking to probe scholarly consensus, Clarke sure is out of touch. To quote T.N.D Mettinger:

“There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religion.” The Riddle of Resurrection, p. 221

Continuing:

"This point is important because more and more people are growing up like my friend, with next-to-no exposure to the Jesus story beyond the mythical bits. To these people, the mythicist view will be the default view."

According to Clarke's one off experience with a friend.

Clarke then says,

"Then, he rose up into the sky and conveniently never came back down."

I would be curious to see Clarke interact with this argument.

Continuing:

"Over the past few years, a number of in-depth, well-researched books have come out arguing for mythicism. These include: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt by Richard Carrier, Jesus: Mything in Action by David Fitzgerald, and The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems by Robert M. Price."

Since time doesn't permit me to review 3 books at the moment, I'll just link some of what the scholars have to say about Carrier. See here, here and here. As for the Fitzgerald and Price books, I strongly encourage the reader to (1) look at the publishers and (2) look at the "scholarly" endorsements. Not all too good for them.

Clarke then states,

"The list of legitimate scholars who openly doubt the historicity of Jesus has grown rapidly during the past decade."

Given the comments of the scholars I linked up above, this seems quite unlikely. It's not as if the mythical position hasn't been given a fair hearing amongst scholars.

Back to Clarke: 

"Here is Richard Carrier’s case for mythicism, as he presented it in three simple points on a recent episode of the MythVision Podcast"

Anyone else seeing a pattern? Over-reliance on Richard Carrier and a lack of any original research on the scholarship from Clarke himself.

Now, let's take discuss Clar...I mean Carrier's 3 points that suggest mythicism.

1: Paul doesn't place Jesus on earth.

- Paul knew Jesus was born and raised as a Jew (Gal. 4:4) and that he descended from Abraham and David (Gal. 3:16; Rom. 1:3). Paul was in contact with Jesus' brother, James (Gal. 1:19). He knew Jesus' disciples, and even knew that the apostle Peter was married (1 Cor. 9:5)! I could go on and on, but I'll stop here.

2: Jesus only appears as a real person in texts that are highly mythological, i.e., the Gospels.

-Except the genre of the Gospels is that of Ancient biography. Ancient biographers investigated events, examined witnesses, and travelled to various sites in question. For citations and more in-depth study, see Craig Keener, Christobiography. 

2a: This basically means we only have one book that talks about Jesus as a real person, which is the book of Mark. The other gospels were written after Mark by authors who embellished the story while clearly lifting significant portions directly from Mark. And Mark is written by an unknown author who cites no sources for his information.

I've done several posts discussing these objections. See here and here. 

2b: Notably, a lot of ancient mythical characters were also given elaborate biographies that placed them in history with parents, siblings, birth-places, etc. This includes characters like Moses, Romulus, and Dionysus. In contrast, figures in history who are known to be real people either did not begin as revelatory beings, or we have clear evidence of their historicity.

Yes, there are plenty of fictional biographies in the Greco-Roman world. However, this isn't the type of biography the Gospels are, rather, they are closer to those written about real, historical figures when much information about the figures were available. Again, see Keener's Christobiography, as he states “…My interest is primarily in information-based biographies” p. 33.

3: "Attempts to get around these two points do not hold up. For example, there is an argument that Jesus must have really come from Nazareth because there is no other reason to attribute such an unlikely origin to him (Christopher Hitchens, for instance, finds this argument convincing). But the premise of this argument is false because there are many good reasons why that specific town would have been contrived for a mythical messiah. Also, many mythical figures were given obscure towns as their origin. For example, Romulus and Remus, the mythical founders of Rome, were given the birthplace of Alba Longa, an ancient city in Central Italy."

Can Clarke cite anything for me to work with here? All I have is assertion. As for Nazareth, I'd invite Clarke to consult John 1:46. Hardly mythmakers trying to make their subject seem like a mighty ruler. 

Returning to Clarke: 

Slate, for instance, provides five reasons for questioning the historicity of Jesus.

Slate is not a reputable academic institution, unfortunately. Also, take a look at who authored it. Valerie Tarico of the Center for Inquiry. You'll notice her PhD is not in a field remotely relevant to the academic Biblical studies.

Clarke goes on to cite Carrier's book, but see the links I provided earlier, wherein scholars discuss Carrier's work.

Returning to Clarke:

"As mythicist author Earl Doherty shows in a survey, historians rely on the consensus view to brush aside the mythicist theory rather than to examine it."

I think this happens with several topics in Biblical studies, such as authorship of the Gospels (although that certainly has more adherents than mythicism in contemporary New Testament studies.), so, fair enough.

Continuing:

"Carrier has also observed that most scholars who study Jesus are biased against the mythicist view because they are essentially trained to presuppose that Jesus existed as a real person."

Could this not just be to due to the fact that scholars are aware of the evidence and find mythicism wanting? Furthermore, if scholars found the evidence for mythicism compelling, who's to say that they wouldn't just begin treating the New Testament as a classicist does with, say, The Odyssey or The Iliad?

Clarke then cites a talk by Carrier:

"In a 2017 talk, Carrier explained, “Even secular experts in this field have been trained with a body of Christian faith assumptions that are this lens through which you look at this evidence and select which evidence to look at.”

This is just patently untrue. It's not as if public universities have faith commitments. Isn't the story of the Christian going off to college and returning an atheist all too common? Relevant here, again, is my response to the previous point by Carrier.

He goes on to discuss a quote by Ehrman, but that is an in-house debate for the anti-apologists and Ehrmanites. I'll let them hash that out so I can refute whatever final product they come out with.

Continuing:

"When Carrier recently debated Dennis R. MacDonald on the question of mythicism, no one in the comments section was laughing at Carrier (as Ehrman might have worried). Rather, I am seeing highly engaged comments that lean skeptically against historicity."

Given that the channel is mythvision, and the channel hosts many prominent mythicist that have a following, it's not at all surprising that you would find a large number of mythicists there.

Back to Clarke:

"It only makes sense that Jesus mythicism would find a growing audience online: The Internet loves a good contrarian view! And unlike many contrarian views that are potentially harmful to society (such as anti-vax conspiracies), I do not see any practical harm from speculating about whether or not a character from the first century was a real person or not."

1: This, however, cuts both ways. Internet access also gives people an opportunity to see how strong the evidence for Jesus is. People can access primary sources, academic books and responses to their favorite mythicists.

2: There are potential spiritual consequences, though. For Christians, Jesus is the foundation of their faith and for atheists, if Christ is indeed who the Gospels say he is, wouldn't you want to know? I can't see why self-proclaimed truth seekers wouldn't want to know.

Continuing:

"For the rest of us, Jesus mythicism is a harmless YouTube rabbit hole to venture down."

Notice a theme? For Clarke (and many of his fellow online atheists) this isn't a process of reading primary sources, scholarship and thinking through the data, it's mere leisure time on Youtube.

Continuing:

"This point is validated by the fact that many outlets discussing Jesus mythicism—such as the MythVision Podcast and the David C. Smalley Podcast—are responsible channels that do not feed off conspiracy theory hype."

I appreciate Clarke validating a former point of mine before my response was even written! 

To anticipate an objection (already given to me by Clarke on Twitter); yes, I know the primary goal of his article was to demonstrate that mythicism can gain more adherents as time goes on. However, in doing so, he has presented a lot of misleading information, which unfamiliar readers of his column can fall prey to. 

Dale Allison And The Maximal Facts vs. Minimal Facts Debate

 I am finally getting around to reading Dale Allison's recent book on the resurrection (The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History). In his discussion of the empty tomb, Allison makes a valuable point about defending the Gospels as it relates to the empty tomb. Before I provide the quote, it should be noted that Allison doesn't fall into either the minimal facts or maximal data camp. He thinks that several naturalistic theories can explain the minimal facts. As for the Gospels, he states, “Although the Gospels contain mythical elements, they are not on the whole mythological constructs” (p. 21). Of course, this doesn't mean that Allison doesn't believe we can learn a lot about the historical Jesus from the Gospels, but it's not the type of confidence that could get you to a maximal data approach. With that aside, here is the relevant quote:

“As a footnote, I should observe that the immediately preceding paragraphs assume, for the sake of argument, what so many modern scholars take for granted, namely, that those whose names are now attached to the canonical Gospels did not write them. If, however, as some still hold, that John Mark known from Acts… Who is named as a coworker of Paul in Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; and Phlm. 24, wrote the second gospel, and/or if the Luke mentioned in Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11; and Phlm. 24 composed Luke-Acts, everything changes. If Paul’s close associates included the author of Mk. 16:1-8 or of Lk. 24:1-12 or both men, the odds that the apostle was unacquainted with a story about an empty tomb approach zero.” p. 145

A lot of skeptics tout the argument that Paul didn't believe in an empty tomb because it isn't mentioned in 1 Cor. 15. Of course, the minimal facts crowd can point out (correctly) that Paul's usage of "egeiro" in 1 Cor. 15 necessitates that Paul would have believed in an empty tomb (see here for more on "egeiro" and 1 Cor. 15). However, this does not mean that Paul was familiar with the same empty tomb narratives in the Gospels. Although, yes, this is still inferential when defending the Gospels, it makes Paul's knowledge of the empty tomb traditions in the Gospels much more likely.

For more on the maximal data approach, see this playlist put together here, by Lydia McGrew. This playlist includes multiple videos from Lydia herself and Erik Manning of Testify.