"The ease and frequent use of “Logos: as a title for The Son came to Justin not from Greek philosophy but from the constant mention of the “word of God” in the Old Testament as transmitted to him in the Greek of the Septuagint and developed by such Jewish biblical commentators as Philo. It is because his debt is to this tradition rather than to the cosmological speculations of the Platonist that for Justin the Son is, above all, the Revealer, being called Logos “because he brings to mankind the discourses of the Father” (Dialogue 128.2).
"In describing the relationship between the Logos of God as the source of knowledge and rationality, and the knowledge enjoyed by the human mind as itself inherently rational, Justin, as we all know, use the term “the spermatic Logos” - the Logos who “sows the seed” (sperma) of knowledge in the human mind (2 Apology 8, 13). Attempts have been made to find a direct source for this in Stoicism or Platonism. Neither are convincing .... The solution is that by Justin's time the metaphor of the sown seed had become a standard way to refer to innate knowledge of divine truth, without expressing any particular philosophical loyalties."
R.M. Price, "Hellenization" and Logos Doctrine in Justin Martyr Vigiliae Christianae Vol. 42, No. 1 (Mar., 1988), pp. 18-23 [above from p.20].
I’m reading an article for my MA course by RM Price called “hellenization” and logos doctrine in justin Martyr, he’s arguing Justin was inspired less by platonic ideas of logos and instead was inspired by already Hellenistic judiasm. I’ve not read much so I’m swayed by price but idk if it’s actually a sound argument he’s making and I’m struggling to find more articles about the topic. Would love to hear if anyone is familiar with this idea and thoughts about it
Justin Martyr claimed that the Jews of his day (150 CE) were changing the text of their own Tanakh (a.k.a Old Testament) to counter the connection with Jesus Christ and Old Testament prophecy.
>Justin's use 'proof from prophecy' was entirely appropriate as regards his Christian audience as 'mainstream'Christians accepted the validity of the prophets and recognised the Old Testament as Scripture.
>468 In the mind of Justin, there are so many prophecies fulfilled by Christ, that the Jews resort to mutilating their Scriptures, excising those passages that obviously refer to him: Osborn, Justin Martyr, p.90. Justin shows astonishment at the Jewish claim that no words have yet been fulfilled (Dial. 110. The Jews argue contentiously when proof is obvious( Dial. 118), and do not admit knowledge that damages their case(Dial. 125).
See page 155 of the PDF document, section which is titled "Appropriateness of the Argument":
https://researchbank.acu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=theses
>"I went on: “[The Scripture], speaking by David about this Christ, my friends, said no longer that ‘in His seed’ the nations should be blessed, but ‘in Him.’ So it is here: 'His name shall rise up [ἀνατέλλω] for ever above the sun; and in Him shall all nations [ethnos, ἔθνος] be blessed.' [reflecting Psalm 72:17]
>
>"... God formerly gave the sun as an object of worship [Deut 4:19], as it is written [Τὸν μὲν ἥλιον ὁ Θεὸς ἐδεδώκει πρότερον εἰς τὸ προσκυνεῖν αὐτὸν, ὡς γέγραπται], but no one ever was seen to endure death on account of his faith in the sun; but for the name of Jesus you may see men of every nation who have endured and do endure all sufferings, rather than deny Him. For the word of His truth and wisdom is more ardent and more light-giving than the rays of the sun, and sinks down into the depths of heart and mind. Hence also the Scripture/ Word said,
>
>> Ὅθεν καὶ ὁ λόγος ἔφη· Ὑπὲρ τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατελεῖ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. Καὶ πάλιν, Ἀνατολὴ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, Ζαχαρίας φησί
>>
>> = 'His name/Logos shall rise up above the sun.' And again, Zechariah says, '*His name is Rising / East [anatolḗ].' [Zech 6:12]
The references to God formerly giving the sun "as an object of worship, as it is written" and "no one ever was seen to endure death on account of his faith in the sun" are interesting.
The move to "His truth and wisdom is more ardent and more light-giving than the rays of the sun" is also noteworthy, as is 'His name shall rise up above the sun' and 'His name is anatolḗ [Rising/East],' partly b/c it invokes Philo's exegesis of Zech 6:12 in de Conf. 62-3 and 146-7.
Sun worship was a feature of aspects of Roman polytheism. A couple of emperors a century or so after Justin Martyr worshipped the sun primarily; Elagabalus (r. 218-22) and Aurelian (r. 270-7), with Aurelian said to have made the Roman Empire monotheistic for Sol Invictus.
I heard that Justin never quoted John but I never really looked into it but I would find it weird considering Justin’s Christology.
St. Justin Martyr [100-165], the First Apology of Justin, Chapter 6, "Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught."
What a clear and early Christian support for the glorious and holy doctrine of the Trinity.
"With respect to the most true God, the Father of Righteousness... and the Son... and the Prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore"
Justin’s Logos and the Word of God, Chapter 3 in Christians, Gnostics and Philosophers in Late Antiquity by Mark Edwards, London, Routledge,2012.
This chapter "presents that the womb of Justin's Logos-doctrine was the Dialogue [with Trypho], where the term is used to confer on Christ the powers that were already attributed in Jewish literature to the spoken and written utterance of God. Carl Andresen, in a famous study, traces back this doctrine to the Middle Platonism in which Justin, by his own account, was schooled."
The description for the whole book is interesting, too, -
>Gnosticism, Christianity and late antique philosophy are often studied separately; [yet] when studied together they are too often conflated. These articles set out to show that we misunderstand all three phenomena if we take either approach. We cannot interpret, or even identify, Christian Gnosticism without Platonic evidence; we may even discover that Gnosticism throws unexpected light on the Platonic imagination. At the same time, if we read writers like Origen simply as Christian Platonists, or bring Christians and philosophers together under the porous umbrella of "monotheism", we ignore fundamental features of both traditions. To grasp what made Christianity distinctive, we must look at the questions asked in the studies here, not merely what Christians appropriated but how it was appropriated ... What did Paul quote when he thought he was quoting Greek poetry? What did Socrates mean to the Christians, and can we trust their memories when they appeal to lost fragments of the Presocratics? When pagans accuse the Christians of moral turpitude, do they know more or less about them than we do? What divides Augustine, the disenchanted Platonist, from his Neoplatonic contemporaries? And what God or gods await the Neoplatonist when he dies?
>
> https://www.routledge.com/Christians-Gnostics-and-Philosophers-in-Late-Antiquity-1st-Edition/Edwards/p/book/9781138115682
For the sake of the question, put aside the dubious dates portrayed in Luke for the census of Quirinius. I'm more interested in the documentary / preservation aspect of it. Could those records still have existed in Justin's day and would anybody have been able to go view them? Or is he just blowing smoke?
The text in question is in Justin Martyr's First Apology:
> CHAPTER XXXIV -- PLACE OF CHRIST'S BIRTH FORETOLD.
> And hear what part of earth He was to be born in, as another prophet, Micah, foretold. He spoke thus: "And thou, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a Governor, who shall feed My people." Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea.
>and the stable of Angles, cleansed by Hercules in his sixth labor, corresponds to the cave in Capricorn, which is the cave of Mithra and of the other saviors. Abba Udda, the Akkadian name of the tenth month, answering roughly to Dec, the month of Capricorn, denotes the cave of light. The cave or winter solstice in Capricorn was the birthplace of the Mithraic Messiah from 2410 to 255 BC and this was continued as the cave or birthplace of the Christ after it had ceased to be applicable to the solar god. Justin, however (determined to include both), asserts that Christ was born in the stable and afterwards took refuge in the cave." But no messiah, whether called Mithra, Horus or Christ could have been born in the stable of Augias, or the cave of Abba Udda, on the 25th of Dec, after the date of 255BC because the solstice had passed out of that sign into the constellation of Sagittarius.”
— Robert Shaw (1904), Sketch of the Religions of the World (pg. 209); elaborated re-quote of Gerald Massey (c.1890) in The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ (pg. 41)
Was Justin Martyr troubled by Jesus seemingly mimicking other gods? Its a view that Jesus mythers often mention; however, I think the argument is based on a misreading of Justin. Here is my argument for Justin in fact saying the opposite, that Jesus is not like other gods.
We will begin with Perseus supposedly being a virgin, but there are no Greek myths of him being born a virgin. That myth simply doesn't exist. The Greek makes it clear that his mother was either seduced, or had sex with Zeus.
Moving to the idea that the sons of Zeus were crucified. None of the sons of Zeus were crucified. These sons, as Justin later lists, are Hermes, Asclepius, and Dionysus. All of them were born from sexual union. And Justin continues by saying they died in different manners. Asclepius was struck by lightening. Dionysus torn to pieces. And Hermes, well he wasn't said to have died. So Justin tells us directly that no, they weren't crucified like Jesus.
More so, if we just read Chapter 22, we see that Justin flat out says: Since their (the sons of Zeus) fatal sufferings are narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse- indeed I will, as I have undertaken, show, as the argument proceeds, that he was better.
Justin tells us flat out his purpose and that the deaths were different. He's says that point blank.
Now going back to the birth of Perseus. The historian Apollodorus describes the birth of Perseus as his mother being seduced by Proetus, as some say, while others say his mother had sex with Zeus. Apollodorus makes it clear that Perseus wasn't born of a virgin.
As for the Devil did it. Not at all. What Justin actually says is that when the demons heard, through the prophets, that Christ would come, they put forward a number of so-called sons of Zeus. The intention was to make men suppose that what was said about Jesus was just mere tales. However, as Justin will argue, or as he says, make clear, the demons did not understand what the prophets were saying, and thus made mistakes in imitating what was told about Christ.
Its not saying they copied the story of Christ, but that they tried to copy what the Jewish scripture told about the coming Christ. But they got it all wrong.
Justin quotes or references at least three of the canonical gospels, probably four. Are there any other traditions he quotes? (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, etc.) If so, could you please cite both the relevant passage(s) of Justin’s and what he’s quoting/referring to? Thanks.
