Background: Judaism
CHAPTER IV
BACKGROUND: JUDAISM
Justin MaRrTyr was born in Samaria, but he was brought up as a Gentile and had a Greek education. He tells us that he was uncircumcised! and had no knowledge of Judaism until he was an adult when he came to know Moses and the prophets. From this we may infer either that he left Palestine at an early age or that there were no contacts, on a theoretical level, with Judaism in Hellenistic-Samaritan cities.
What kind of Judaism did Justin know later in life? Our only source of information about this is the Dialogue with Trypho which Justin probably composed ¢. A.D. 160. We have already suggested? that this Dialogue has behind it an original historical debate between Justin and a Jew, Trypho, which occurred soon after A.D. 132—which Justin has subsequently elaborated from oral and written material known to him. Any discussion of the Jewish background of the Christian Apologist must take its start from Trypho himself.
Trypho was a Jew who had fled from the war in Palestine,' no doubt in company with many of his compatriots. He was apparently spending much time in Greece and Corinth* although, at the time of the debate with Justin, he was in Ephesus.® His culture was Gentile, for he states that he was taught in Argos by Corinthus of the School of Socrates.* Trypho distinguishes himself from 'our teachers'? and includes himself among those who have been warned against entering into discussions with Christians. He was therefore a layman and not a Jewish rabbi—a fact corroborated by his lack of knowledge of Hebrew. It is thus very improbable that he was the learned
R. Tarphon who was of the second generation of Mishna teachers—and in any case R.Tarphon was strongly antiChristian while Trypho argues from a real desire to ascertain the truth.® It is all the more interesting that Trypho was a 1 Dial. xxviii.
2 Pp. 23-4.
2 IDE se GY ube Br ain OP (ABU, By 22Dial tas:
© Dials Ara:
$ Dial. 1,2.
7 Dial. xciv. 4.
8 Dial. xxxviil. 1.
9 Dial. Ixxxvii. 1. See pp. 24-5. oo
JUSTIN MARTYR
layman as his conception of Judaism will represent a position different from the strict Palestinian Pharisaic orthodoxy which was being enforced following on the reconstruction of Judaism at Jamnia after A.D. 70.
Trypho's character is only too human. His manners are genial and better than those of his friends.1 Yet he thinks that Justin is deranged? and accuses him, not without justice, of quoting only Old Testament passages which support his arguments.? He loses his temper* and says roundly that Justin's explanations are artificial and even blasphemous. Yet the debate finishes on a friendly note.® These personal touches preclude, I believe, the view that the figure of Trypho is an ideal construction which Justin has created to embody the best of both schools of Judaism.® If this was the case we should have expected the picture of Trypho to have been more uniform.
On the whole the Debate, as recorded in the Dialogue, was conducted in an amicable spirit which says much, considering what was at stake, for both the characters of Justin and Trypho.
It is superior in tone to the majority of Christian writings in the Corpus Anti-Fudaicum.
The Dialogue with Trypho is an important source for Jewish knowledge of Christianity as well as for Christian knowledge of Judaism and implies a closer intercourse between Christians and Jews in the first half of the second century than has usually been supposed. It would appear that the rabbis of Jamnia were not wholly successful in enforcing on the diaspora the pattern of Pharisaic orthodoxy which forbad contacts with the Minim, i.e. Christians.'
Trypho's arguments against Christianity reveal by contrast his conception of Judaism. In general he is anti-Christian
(vili. 3 f.) and finds in the moral teaching of Jesus too high a standard to keep (x. 2). Trypho particularly objects to Justin's arguments about the torah and asks whether Justin thinks that the torah unfits men for salvation (xlv. 1 f.). He is surprised that ED igh ads ke tie Onn vill nex Outs SIDA). So8s0%, 33 Did eccvileat Se Dial aixxixeans 5 Dial. cxlii. 1.
6 The view of Goodenough: see p. 23.
7 See the benediction composed by Samuel the Small at Jamnia ¢. A.D. 100 given in H. Strack, Jesus, die Haretiker und die Christen, pp. 66f., and G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel According to St Matthew, p. 109.
Justin knew of this—see Dial. xvi. 4, Ac *
BACKGROUND: JUDAISM
Christians do not separate themselves from the heathen! and eat things offered to idols (viii. 4, x. 3, xix. I, xx. 2, xlvi. 2, xxxv. 1). He asks whether Christians are allowed to keep the sabbath and to be circumcised (xlvi. 1-4, xlvii. 1), although he realises that certain precepts of the torah can only be observed in Palestine. Trypho and his friends are worried by Justin's remark that Gentile Christians are the children of God (cxxiv. 1) and Israel itself (cxxiii. 7). They assert that Isa. xlii.
6 f. refers to proselytes and not to Gentile Christians (cxii. 4).
Trypho even infers that Justin means that no Jew shall have an inheritance in the holy mountain of God, which Justin corrects by making this dependent on repentance (xxv. 6).
Trypho particularly objects to the Incarnation on the grounds that it is incredible (Ixviii. 1). The pre-existence of Jesus he asserts is impossible as he lacked the powers of the Holy Spirit at first (Ixxxvii.
1 f.). He wants proof that there is another God (Ixv. 1) and that he was born of a virgin (Ixiii. 1).
Trypho disputes the use made by Justin of certain passages in the LXX such as Gen. xviii, Ps. xcvi, Isa. vii. 14, Isa. xi. 1-3,
Isa. xl. 1-17. He is even shocked when Justin says that Christ spoke to Moses at the burning bush (xxxviii. 1, lx. 1, 3).
The Christian doctrine of the Messiah is a major stumbling block. Trypho says that the Christians 'shape a kind of Messiah for themselves' (viil. 4.). He agrees, however, that the Messiah is to be born of the race of David (xviii. 5), but is to be only a man who will become Messiah (xlix. 1, lxvii. 2). And even if the Messiah is to suffer he cannot suffer by crucifixion (Ixxxix. 2, xc. 1). Justin, in any case, has first to prove that Jesus was called a Stone (xxxvi. 1).
It is significant for the understanding of Trypho's conception of Judaism that he accepts many of Justin's statements. Thus:
'All our race expects the Messiah, and we acknowledge that all the passages of scripture which you have cited have been spoken of him' (Ixxxix. 1). Trypho holds that it is right to look for a reason in God's commands (xxviii. 1) and states that the torah was, in fact, given because of the hardness of Israel's heart. It was not necessary to salvation as is seen from the case of the patriarchs (Ixvii. 7 f.). He grants that Justin's LXX
1 Note the difference between Justin and Ep. Barnabas which is more Jewish in ethos and outlook.
JUSTIN MARTYR
quotations are such as to point to his interpretation, but he wants more information—especially concerning Isa. vii. 14
(Ixxvii. 1). Such is Trypho's liberalism that he confesses that he is charmed with the debate, having found more than he expected
(cxlii. 1).
Trypho's interpretations of certain passages in the LXX are interesting. He regards the 'Son of Man' mentioned in Dan. vii. 13 as the Messiah (xxxii. 1). With regard to the ' three men' in Gen. xviii.
2 he grants that God appeared to Abraham, though before the three 'men', who were really angels, came
(Ivi. 4 f.); but he afterwards acknowledges that they were not angels, though the passage does not show that there was another
God (lvi. 9). Yet the third angel was God, and yet not the God in heaven, although his 'eating' is difficult, if not metaphorical
(Ivii. 1, 3). Trypho accepts Justin's explanation of Isa. xlii. 8
'My glory will I not give to another' (Ixv. 7). He agrees that a new Covenant is foretold (Ixvii. g-11) and that Isa. xi. 1-3 does refer to the Messiah, although not to Jesus (Ixxxviil. 1 f.). A friend of Trypho's who joins in the debate on the second day says he can give no reason against Justin's interpretation of the incident of the Brazen Serpent—and neither could his teachers:
'So say what you will, for we are paying heed to you as you reveal the mystery of things that cause even the precepts of the prophets to be attacked' (xciv. 4).
Trypho was a Hellenistic-Jewish layman who combined the culture and inquiring spirit of the Hellenistic world with a knowledge of traditional Jewish exegesis and haggadah. He has no knowledge of the Hebrew language but knows accurately the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. His is not the Judaism of Philo and Alexandrian-Hellenistic Judaism, nor that of the Palestinian rabbinic schools. Trypho represents a mediating
Judaism, perhaps having Palestinian roots, which cannot be strictly classified. Judaism, even after A.D. 70, was not a monolithic structure and had a number of facets, as recent discoveries have shown. Trypho represents one of these facets. He warns us against identifying the linguistic frontier between the Greek and Semitic worlds with the cultural frontier between Hellenism and Judaism.
What of Justin Martyr himself? Was he qualified to conduct 1 See.p. 25.
42 ™
BACKGROUND:
JUDAISM a controversy with such a Jew as Trypho? What knowledge did he possess of Jewish post-biblical traditions and haggadah?
Again we should be in error if we assumed that Justin, because he wrote in Greek, only knew the Hellenistic Judaism of Alexandria. Indeed, as will be seen in the chapters discussing his doctrine of God and the logos, it is very doubtful if Justin was familiar with Philo, although he certainly knew the Jewish
Wisdom literature. His knowledge of Judaism was derived directly from the LXX and from post-biblical practices, doctrines and exegetical methods with which he was apparently familiar. We must now discuss this in more detail.
(a) Fustin's dependence on Greek version(s) of the Old Testament It will be as well to give three examples which show his ignorance of the Hebrew text of the Bible:
(i) In Dial. xlix his argument based on Exod. xvii. 16 'A hand upon the throne of the Lord' is derived from the LXX which has a reading different from the Hebrew text.
(ii) Justin's quotation in Dial. | from Isa. xxxix. 8-xl. 18 presents several verbal variants from the LXX, yet it agrees with the LXX and Vulgate, and differs from the Hebrew, in adopting the masculine, instead of the feminine, gender in verse 9,
& evayyEAlzouEVvos.
(iii) In Dial. cxiii Justin states that the Jews, although taking no account of the change of Oshea into Joshua, yet made it a theological question why a was added to the name of Abraham
(ABpadcu for "ABpay) and a second 7 inserted in the name of Sarah (2é66a for Zépa). It is difficult to imagine that this could have been said by anyone who knew that the real change in Hebrew was the addition of the letter (h) in the name of Abraham and the change of (i) into (h) in that of Sarah
(i.e. Sarah for Sarai).
It is interesting that Justin not only in general follows the LXX< in his quotations! but he charges the Jews with corrupting those copies of the LX X which, it appears, were in use in some synagogues. In Dial. lxviii. 7 he says that the Jewish teachers
1 Recent study has shown that Justin pre-dates any general norms for judging types of LXX text. See the important work of D. Barthélemy,
Les Devanciers d' Aquila: Suppl. to V.T. x (1963) for Justin's text of the Minor
Prophets. See further Appendix 3.
JUSTIN MARTYR
'presumed to affirm that the translation made by the seventy elders in the time of Ptolemy, the King of Egypt, was in some respects untrue'. In Dial. lxxi Justin repeats the same charge and alleges that the Jewish teachers did not allow that the translation of the LXX was well done, and that they endeavoured to make a translation (or to give interpretations) themselves (GAA' avtol e€nyeio8ai teipdvtat).
It is just possible that this is an allusion to the version of Theodotion who, according to Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. iii. 24), was a Jewish proselyte and whose version was made in the first half of the second century.
More interesting are the references which Justin makes in Dial. \xxii to certain expurgations from the LXX text alleged to have been made by the Jews. There is no certain evidence that these in fact ever existed—indeed in the case of one passage, the quotation from Jer. xi. 19, all MSS both Greek and Hebrew retain it.? Justin himself acknowledges that the quotation still existed in some copies found in the synagogues of the Jews (Ixxii. 3). It is remarkable that Trypho, whom Eusebius describes as 'the most distinguished of the Hebrews of his time'
(H.E. iv. 18), instead of insisting on direct evidence for so grave an accusation, was content to regard it as merely incredible.
The almost certain conclusion is that neither Justin nor Trypho knew Hebrew nor the Hebrew version of the scriptures and this led them into errors of interpretation. But in this ignorance they were joined by large numbers of Greek-speaking Jews who heard the LXX read in the synagogue service.
(bd) Fewish post-biblical practices Justin was acquainted with certain Jewish practices which are not found in the Old Testament. In Dial. xvi. 4, cf. xlvii. 4, cvili. 3, he refers to the cursing of Christians in the synagogues.
This accords with the Palestinian form of the Twelfth Benedic1 It is still an open question whether Theodotion's adaptation was based on the LXX or on another Greek version. See B. J. Roberts in Peake's Commentary on the Bible (revised ed.), p. 81. It is interesting that Justin himself, in his quotations from Daniel in Dial. xxxi, shows a knowledge of Theodotion's readings.
* This text seems to have been used in the Christian testimony collections, for both Lactantius (iv. 18), Cyprian (Test. ii.
15, 20), Gregory Nyssa (Test. adv. ud. vi) and Dionysius Bar Salibi (iv. 19, vi. 8) have it.
44 ~
BACKGROUND: JUDAISM
tion in the Shemoneh 'Esreh which prayed that Christians (nétzrim) may perish and be wiped out of the book of life.1 It is arguable that ndtzrim strictly refers to Nazarenes, i.e. Jewish
Christians, but Justin assumes that it refers to all Christians, Gentile as well as Jewish. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of his information, although equally many Jews seemed to have remained in friendly contact with Christians in spite of the command of the rabbis not to hold discussions with Christians, to which Justin refers in Dial. xxxviii.
1 and which is confirmed by T.B. Aboda Zara 27 B: 'Let a man have no dealings with the heretics (minim) nor get healing of bodily diseases from them—for heresy (minith) attracts.'
In Dial. xl. 4-5 Justin refers to the scapegoat in the ritual of the Day of Atonement:
And the two goats at the Fast that are commanded at the Fast, which by God's command must be alike, of which one became the Scapegoat, and the other an offering, were an announcement of the two Advents of Christ;? of one Advent, in which the elders of your people and the priests, laying their hands on him and putting him to death, sent him off as a scapegoat; and of his second Advent, because in the same place of Jerusalem you will recognise him who was dishonoured by you... Now that there is no permission for the offering of the two goats which were commanded to be brought at the Fast to take place anywhere save in Jerusalem, you are fully aware.
The basis of this account is to be found in Lev. xvi. 5-10, 21-2. But it is significant that in these passages there is no mention that the goats are to be alike nor that the elders and priests laid hands on the scapegoat—according to Lev. xvi. 21 the goat is sent into the wilderness by the hand of one man after Aaron, the High Priest, had laid his hands on the goat's head confessing the sins of Israel. Neither is there any mention of Jerusalem. Justin's additions to the biblical account are not merely due to his obvious desire to find typological fulfilments of the ritual of the Day of Atonement in the Advent of Christ.
They also appear to reflect fresh details concerning the ceremonies observed on that Day found in the Mishna Tractate
Yoma which in its present form dates from c. A.D. 200. This Tractate may well reflect genuine earlier traditions as the 1 See T. B. Berakoth 29a.
2 So Tertullian, Adv. Fud. xiv.
JUSTIN MARTYR
Temple ritual, at the time Yoma was written, was no longer applicable to Jewish life and therefore had been less overlaid with comment by later tannaim and less exposed to the possibility of revision (cf. Yoma xvi a).
In Yoma vi. 1 f. we are explicitly told that the two goats are to resemble one another as closely as possible. The words of the High Priest's confession over the goat were: 'O God, thy people, the house of Israel, have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before thee. O God, forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which thy people, the house of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before thee; as it is written in the law of thy servant Moses. For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you: from all your sins shall ye be clean before the Lord.' The goat was then led away, accompanied by some of the nobles of Jerusalem and later by a single man, to a place called Suk where it was thrown backwards over a cliff and dashed to pieces among the rocks. It is also interesting that, according to Yoma iil. 9, the two goats used in the ritual were solemnly chosen by lot in the temple area, and this practice seems to be alluded to by Justin who clearly has a knowledge of these post-biblical Jewish practicesin this passage.
In Dial. cxxxiv. 1 Justin refers to Jewish teachers who permit Jews to have four and even five wives apiece. This is attested by Josephus who says that it is an ancient practice for the Jews to have many wives at the same time (Ant. xvii. 1. 2-3). In the Talmud polygamy is not ruled out: 'While one rabbi says that a man may take as many wives as he can support—Raba in Yeb. 65 A—it was recommended that no one should marry more than four women—ibid. 44."
(c) Jewish post-biblical beliefs Justin, in a number of passages, shows a knowledge of beliefs held by the rabbis but not found in scripture. Thus in Dial. viil. 4 Trypho is recorded as saying: 'But Messiah, if indeed he has ever been and now exists anywhere, is unknown, and does
1 Ep. Barn. vii. 6-11 likewise shows familiarity with the Mishnaic account.
Barnabas also alludes to the thread of scarlet wool tied to the head of one of the goats. See my article in Folklore, Lxx (1959), 443-9.
® Jewish Encyclopaedia, x, 121. Western Jews have been monogamists since the time of R. Gershom ben Judah, c. a.D. 1000.
BACKGROUND: JUDAISM
not even know himself at all nor has any power, until Elijah shall have come and anointed him, and shall have made him manifest to all.' The doctrine of a Messiah as existing on earth, although unknown, is attested by IV Esdras xiii. 52, by R. Nachman (fourth century a.p.) and by Rab (T.B. Sanh.
98s). According to T.B. Sanh. 98a, the Messiah might even be among the lepers at the gates of Rome. The details concerning the relationship of Elijah to the Messiah are also significant.1
According to later Jewish traditions Elijah, in the Messianic age, will restore to Israel a flask of oil for anointing the King
Messiah [Kerithoth 5ab; Horayyoth 11b; Siphra, Tsav. 1. 9
(ed. Weiss 41a) ].? In several Talmudic traditions Elijah is not only a prophet but also a High Priest whose custom it was to anoint the kings. Justin's reference to the anointing of the Messiah by Elijah in the Messianic age is, in Klausner's opinion, the earliest reference to this Jewish belief.3
In Dial. xliv. 1 Justin refers to the belief that the Jewish nation is sure of salvation because they are Abraham's seed.4 And in Dial. lxiv.
1 Trypho says that only Gentiles need Christ— not the Jews. In lxix. 7 there appears the Jewish belief that Jesus was a magician and a deceiver—a belief held by Celsus® and referred to in T.B. Sanh. 434, 'On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus, and a herald went out before him for forty days,
(crying) let him be stoned, for he has committed sorcery, and has deceived Israel, and led it astray.'
In Dial. cxxiii.
1 Justin speaks of a proselyte who undergoes circumcision 'with the object of joining the people is like one who is native-born'. This is an undoubted reference to the Jewish belief that a proselyte is like a newborn child® in that his former family connections had ended and that he had begun a new life.
(d) Fewish post-biblical exegesis In a number of passages Justin shows a knowledge of Jewish methods of exegesis and interpretation although these are not 1 Cf. also Dial. xlix.
2 Cf. also the Ethiopic book Kebra Nagast 98.
3 Messianic Idea in Israel, p. 4.56.
4 See Strack—Billerbeck on Matt. iii. g.
5 Orig. c.Cels. i. 28, ii. 48; cf. Clem. Rec. 1. 58; Lact. Inst. Div. v. 3.
¢°T.B. Yeb. 624.
JUSTIN MARTYR
so prominent as in the Epistle of Barnabas. Justin sometimes quotes passages of scripture in an ascending order ofimportance, for instance, Hagiographa, Prophets and finally the Law. A good example of this is found in Dial. xxix. 2: 'For the words have not been fitted together by me, nor adorned by human art, but they were sung by David, proclaimed as good news by Isaiah, preached by Zechariah, written down by Moses. You recognise them, Trypho? They are laid up in your scriptures, or rather not in yours but in ours, for we obey them, but you, when you read, do not understand their sense.' The order David,
Isaiah, Zechariah and Moses no doubt would have appealed to Trypho.
In Dial. xxxii. 1 Trypho accepts the Son of Man of Dan. vi.
13 as the Messiah. This exegesis was well known among the Jews; cf. Similitudes of Enoch xxxvii-lxxi, II Esdras xiii.
R. Akiba spoke of the 'thrones' of Dan. vii. 9 as prepared for God and for David (T.B. Sanh. 388—apparently alluding to this exegesis).
In Dial. xxxvi. 2-6 Ps. xxiv is referred to Solomon. This was common among the Jews; e.g. T.B. Sabb. 304 reads: 'when
Solomon built the sanctuary he sought to bring the ark into the Holy of Holies. The gates clave together. Solomon said twenty-four forms of prayer, but no answer was given. He began to say, Lift up your heads, O ye gates...'
Further illustrations of Jewish exegesis occur in Dial. lvi. 5
(the interpretation of Gen. xviil. 2, xix. 1); in Dval. lvii. 2 (the question how one of the angels could be God when he ate); in Dial. \xii. 2 f. (the interpretation of Gen. i. 26); in Ixv.
(Isa. xlii. 8); in Ixvii. 1 (Isa. vii. 14); in cxii. 4 (the camels), inter alia.
Justin also appears to have been familiar with a quantity of syncretistic exegesis of Gen. i. This is shown in J Apol. lxiv:
From what has been said you can understand why the daemons contrived to have the image of the so-called Kore erected at the springs of waters, saying that she was a daughter of Zeus, imitating what was said through Moses. For Moses said, as I have quoted:
'In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and the Spirit of God was borne over the waters.' In imitation of the Spirit of God, spoken of as borne over the water, they spoke of Kore, daughter of Zeus.
BACKGROUND: JUDAISM
This linking of Gen. i with the pagan goddess of springs is compared by Professor H. Chadwick with Numenius of Apamea who links the same text with Egyptian representations of the gods as sea-borne.! It would seem that both Justin and Numenius drew on a Jewish syncretistic tradition of Gen. i possibly
Syrian in origin.?
(e) Justin's knowledge of Fewish sects Justin's knowledge of Judaism is, in the main, revealed in his discussion and controversy with the Jew Trypho—and particularly in their respective uses of the LXX; only incidentally does Justin refer to aspects of Jewish life not strictly germane to the controversy. But in Dial. lxii. 1-3 he refers to a heretical party among the Jews which held that in Gen. i. 26 ('Let us make man') God was speaking to the angels and that the human body was the creation of angels. There is a good Tannaitic tradition which states that God spoke to the angels at the creation® and Goldfahn states that such passages are frequently found—but in no orthodox Jewish tradition were the angels represented as creators of the human body. This belief was undoubtedly the crux of the heresy to which Justin refers and it would seem that this was some form of Jewish gnosticism.
Certainly Philo knew of this belief, for, in speaking of the angel of Gen. xlvii. 16, he says Moses 'mentions man alone as having been made by God in conjunction with other assistance
(Gen. i. 26). Here, therefore, the Father is conversing with his own powers, to whom he has assigned the task of making the mortal part of our soul. ..He thought it necessary to assign the origin of evil to other workmen than himself.' Recent discoveries have shown that gnosticism was allied to Judaism at an early date and fragments of Jewish syncretistic interpretation appear to have been known.
1 7.T.S. x1v (1963), 495-6. The reference is to Numenius ap. Porph. de Antro Nympharum io.
2 See C. C. Richardson, Early Christian Fathers (London, 1953), p. 285.
3 Mish. Gen. Rabba 8, from A. H. Goldfahn, Justinus Martyr und die Agada (Breslau, 1873), p. 245.
4 De Fuga xiii. 68-70; cf. De Opif. Mundi xxiv. No other Jewish writer seems to know of this belief. Justin does, however, refer to the orthodox Jewish belief that the permanent angels were rays from the Glory of God which it was the will of God not to recall. See Dial. cxxviii; cf. T.B. Chagiga 14.4.
ie:
JUSTIN MARTYR
Justin makes another mention of Jewish groups in Dial.
Ixxx. 4 when he enumerates seven heretical Jewish sects which no orthodox Jew would acknowledge. After referring vaguely to certain Christian heresies, presumably Marcionism, Justin adds: '...do not suppose that they are Christians, any more than if one examined the matter rightly he would acknowledge as Jews those who are Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistae, and Meristae, and Galileans, and Hellenians, and Pharisees and Baptists (pray, do not be vexed with me as I say all I think), but (would say) that though called Jews and children of Abraham, and acknowledging God with their lips, as God
Himself has cried aloud, yet their heart is far from Him.'
This list is difficult to interpret. Certainly Justin believed himself to be describing Jewish heresies, and not respectable
Jews. It is just possible that Genistae is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word minim which was a term for all heretics and not only for the Jewish Christians who had been banned from the synagogues since the time of the Birkath-ha-Minim ¢. A.D. 100.
The Meristae may be Jewish Gnostics who 'divided' the person of the deity—perhaps the same group as that referred to in Dial.
Ixii. 1-3 and mentioned above. The Galileans are unlikely to have been Jewish Christians, as Pere Milik thought! (Justin is not describing Christian heretical groups in this passage), but a Jewish schismatic group which originated with Judas of Galilee and his revolt against the Romans in A.D. 6 or 7. This movement of revolt became quite widespread if Josephus' frequent references toit are any guide." Justin's mention of the Hellenians as a Jewish heretical sect is difficult to interpret unless this is a mistake for the followers of Hillel ("EAAnviavédv being read for "EAAnAiaAdv) 2
The crux interpretum of the list is however the inclusion of the Sadducees and Pharisees. It seems totally incomprehensible that Justin, in view of his knowledge of biblical and post-biblical
Judaism, could describe these as heresies. Perhaps that is why he inserts the parenthesis (pray, do not be vexed with me as I say all I think). Is it significant that the Sadducees are placed first in his list and the Pharisees near, or at the end, as if the 1 R. Bibl. Lx. 4, pp. 526 f., quoted in M. Black, 'The Patristic Accounts of Jewish Sectarianism', B.7.R.L. xi1 (1959), 287.
* Anite xvill. 1.163 XX. 5. O5°B. J. 1, O. Taleo. Os Vion:
3 Cf. Epiph. Pan. 30.4.
BACKGROUND: JUDAISM
word Pharisees is to be taken with Baptists, i.e. PhariseeBaptists? The Sadducees of history seem to have disappeared with the destruction of the Temple in a.p. 70, yet Justin is describing Jewish heresies as is indicated by the phrase 'or similar sects of Genistae, etc.'. Professor M. Black! holds that Justin by Sadducees means Zadokites or Qumran Essenes and he quotes good Jewish tradition for this identification. Thus
Maimonides, in his Commentary on Pirke Aboth I, states that the Karaites called themselves Saddoukim and were known by this name to their rabbis. The strength of this theory lies in the fact that Justin nowhere mentions the Essenes in his list—which is rather strange in a list of this kind. On the other hand Justin must have known (from the New Testament if nowhere else) of the historical Sadducees. Possibly there has been some corruption in the text.
Justin's references to the Pharisees and Baptists present great difficulties. If the link word xai is retained then the Baptists are presumably the Hemero-baptists or 'morning bathers'—a division of the Essenes who bathed every morning before the hour of prayer in order to pronounce the name of God with a clean body." Professor Black has however made the brilliant suggestion® that the kai before Batttiotdév is a conjectural insertion and that the two words Pharisees, Baptists should be taken together, the second in opposition to and qualifying the first. This Jewish sect, Black believes, was one of 'baptizingPharisees'. Recent investigations have shown that the baptismal cult was widespread in Judaism in the first two Christian centuries, especially in the diaspora, and that it had spread into the ranks of the Pharisaic teachers, some of whom were prepared to accept proselyte baptism as alone constituting a convert Jew.
One argument was that as baptism was the decisive rite in the case of a woman it ought to be in the case of a man.* Such views were bound to be pronounced heretical by the main body of Pharisaic orthodoxy in the period after A.D. 70.
The merit of Professor Black's theory is that he manages to 1 'The Patristic Accounts of Jewish Sectarianism', p. 290.
2 Tosef. Yad., end.
3 'The Patristic Accounts of Jewish Sectarianism', p. 289.
4 See D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, p. 109, quoted in Black, 'The Patristic Accounts of Jewish Sectarianism', p. 289.
4-2
JUSTIN MARTYR
explain Justin's list as six (and not seven)* known Jewish heretical groups. His explanation, with the possible exception of the Sadducees which may reflect textual corruption, may be accepted as the best explanation of this difficult passage which has yet been given.
The evidence assembled in this chapter will have shown that Justin had a good working knowledge of post-biblical Judaism such as would stand him in good stead in his controversy with a Jew who also knew no Hebrew and, like Justin, apparently used the Old Testament in its Greek form. Justin's errors are, on the whole, remarkably few. Trypho represented a liberal, mediating type of Judaism not strictly Philonic nor Palestinianrabbinic in character. Justin, with his cosmopolitan culture and wide interests and footing in the Greek world, was well able to cope with the arguments of his adversary—indeed the Dialogue is proof that, in certain circles, there was a close intercourse between Christians and Jews even after the promulgation of the Birkhath-ha-Minim which forbad such contacts. Justin's knowledge of Judaism is in general accurate. He has a good knowledge of the LXX, and of Jewish post-biblical practices, beliefs and exegetical methods, and also is familiar with Jewish-Gnostic syncretistic exegesis of Gen. i. There is surprisingly little in Justin to suggest a close acquaintance with Philo and Hellenistic
Judaism. It is, I believe, not now possible to ascertain when or how Justin acquired his knowledge of Judaism, although this was probably, in the main, before his confrontation with Trypho.
1 But note that Hegesippus gives a list of seven sects 'opposed to the tribe of Judah and the Christ' (Eus. H.E. iv. 22). This, however, may be a catalogue of heresies of the Church. Lietzmann, The Beginnings of the Christian
Church, pp. 181-2, believes that the Jewish Christians who fled to Pella before the catastrophe of A.D. 70 came into contact with Jewish sects of various kinds in the region east of the Jordan as well as east and south of the Dead Sea.
CHAPTER V
BACKGROUND:
THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION
J USTIN wrote primarily as a Christian. His acquaintance with Greek philosophy—and especially with Middle Platonism—his familiarity with post-biblical Judaism and his obvious desire to share common ground with his readers should not blind us to this fact. For Justin, Christianity was the highest truth to which the Old Testament prophetic writers, as well as the Greek philosophers, dimly bore witness. It was then natural that he should appeal to the basic documents of the Christian religion in the cause of his apologia for the faith. Yet these documents themselves presuppose the continuous worshipping life of the Church, as recent study has been concerned to emphasise,!_ as well as preserving catechetical and paraenetical material used in the instruction of converts. Moreover, in the earliest age of the Church a strong oral tradition existed in some centres, which preserved sayings and narratives of Jesus which are not found in the Canonical Gospels. In addition testimonia, or collections of proof texts from the Old Testament, were collected which were thought to find fulfilment in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. Some of these ¢estimonia are found embedded in the New Testament. Yet the process of selecting and collecting ¢estimonia was not limited to the New
Testament period and continued for some centuries. Cyprian's or Pseudo-Cyprian's monumental TJ estimonia, divided into headings, is in a sense the final stage of this process.
Justin Martyr is of great importance for the understanding of the second-century Church. He is the first post-apostolic author whose writings are of any considerable size. He was acquainted with the Church at Rome, as well as with other
Christian centres, at a time when Christian oral and written tradition still existed side by side although slowly the written documents alone were coming to be held as authoritative. As a witness to what was a transition stage Justin Martyr's Christian
1 See especially: C.F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, pp. 11-32.
JUSTIN MARTYR
background, as far as it can be recovered from his writings, is of no little interest. Our investigation in this chapter will be concerned with (i) his use of the New Testament; (ii) his use of oral tradition and an uncanonical Gospel or Gospels; and (iii) his use of testimonia.
JUSTIN AND THE NEW TESTAMENT
The problem of Justin's knowledge of the New Testament is closely bound up with the formation of the Canon of New
Testament writings. If it could be shown that an authoritative list of books of the New Testament, or groups of books, did not come into existence until the last quarter of the second century, i.e. until the time of Irenaeus and the author of the Muratorian
Canon (c. A.D. 200), then clearly Justin antedates the process of forming a Canon. And in any case he may have written before or around the time that Marcion drew up a collection of books witnessing to hzs version of the Gospel which, it used to be held, was the first attempt to form a Canon.! Ifitwas Marcion who stimulated the Church to form its own Canon of the New
Testament then Justin pre-dates this attempt. However, recent discoveries have radically changed this picture, and the assumption that Marcion was the stimulus to the Church's occupation with a Canon of authoritative writings is now seen to be precarious in the extreme. Dr R. P. C. Hanson, in his fully documented Tradition in the Early Church (London, 1962), has discussed the early stages in the drawing up of the Canon? and he shows that II Peter iii. 16 (which is to be dated between A.D. 120 and 150) refers to a collection of St Paul's letters and to 'other writings'. He also shows that the recently discovered
Gnostic Gospel of Truth, found at Nag Hammadi, which is probably the work of Valentinus, used the four Canonical
Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Book of Revelation, although not the Pastoral Epistles. As this Gospel is to be dated between a.p. 140 and 145, and emanated from Rome, it is probable that the author drew on an already existing list of Christian writings. Marcion was then
* The formation of Marcion's collection is usually dated a.p. 150-60.
2 Pp. 187-236.
* Hanson hazards the opinion that this was the collection to which II Pet. iii. 16 refers (ibid. p. 190).