Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:03:12.302Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What is Christian orthodoxy according to Justin's Dialogue?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2010

Michael J. Choi
Michael J. Choi*
Affiliation:
Evangelische Theologische Faculteit Leuven, 3001 Leuven, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article suggests that Christian orthodoxy according to Justin's Dialogue can be understood if one considers Justin's christology as stemming not merely from an opposition to Judaism (as Boyarin argues), but rather from the recognition of inadequate soteriology according to rabbinic teachings of Justin's time. This is most clearly delineated in Trypho's response as well as Justin's emphasis on the inclusive salvific efficacy of the crucifixion. Trypho's most enduring objection is not that there is another god explicated by Justin through Logos theology, nor that the Messiah is divine. Trypho resists the Christian message because he is most troubled by Justin's assertion that this Messiah died the death cursed by the Law of Moses.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 63 , Issue 4 , November 2010 , pp. 398 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Boyarin, Daniel, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See James C. Paget, review of Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, by Boyarin, Daniel, Journal of Jewish Studies 56/2 (Autumn 2005), pp. 338–41Google Scholar, and more recently, by Dunn, James D. G., Journal of Theological Studies 57/1 (April 2006), pp. 229–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Boyarin (Border Lines, p. 146) says, ‘I suggest that an important motivation for Justin's expenditure of discursive energy is not so much to convince the Jews to accept the Logos, but rather to deny the Logos to the Jews, to take it away from them, in order for it to be the major theological center of Christianity, with the goal of establishing a religious identity for the believers in Christ that would, precisely, mark them off as religiously different from Jews.’

4 Ibid., p. 39.

5 See also Skarsaune, Oskar, The Proof from Prophecy (SupNovT 56; Leiden: Brill, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Quotations from Justin are taken from Marcovich's, M. critical edn of Dialogus cum Tryphone (PTS 47; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994)Google Scholar. Translations are my own.

7 Apart from the prologue (1–9), the thematic groupings into three parts are generally similar although their boundaries are disputed. Skarsaune, Proof, divides them into 11–47, 48–108 and 109–42; Marcovich, PTS 47, gives the following division: 10–47, 48–108 and 109–42.

8 See Marcovich, Dialogus, p. 36.

9 Justin takes up here Trypho's challenge to demonstrate that Jesus is not reverenced as another one of the numerous deities of the Gentiles. Indeed, Justin shows awareness of Dionysus, Herakles, Alcmene (D 69.1–3, 70) and Simon (1 Apol. 26); and he asserts the unique identity of Christ as not only different from them, but also as one who received worship by Abraham, Jacob, and Moses.

10 Unlike Origen who reserved ὁ θϵός only to designate the Father, Justin employs ὁ θϵός as well as θϵός in reference to Christ; this is true even when Justin is not citing scripture. See esp. D 56.10 and 59.3 in our present section, but also 61.3 and 113.4.

11 D 128.4; at D 61.2 Justin uses the same illustration of the utterance of a word, but at D 128.3–4 it is significant that his response to the false teaching that angels were the result of some emanation from the Father is given in the same context in which he is refuting the false teaching on the identity of the Son; thus Justin indicates that the Son, though called an Angel, is to be clearly set apart from all actual angels who do not come from the ‘substance’ of the Father.

12 Cf. D 62.4; Eric Osborn, Justin Martyr (BZHT 47; Tübingen: Mohr, 1973), p. 29, notes that Justin differentiates between ‘offspring γϵννήματα and things made ποιήματα pointing to the priority of the former’.

13 The unity of thought and will between the Father and the Son finds fuller expression among the Cappadocians in their defence of the Trinity based on the same operation of the Persons, e.g. cf. Greg.Nyss. Quod non sint tres dei (PG 45:121C; GNO III, 1.43–4).

14 Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S. and McKenzie, R., A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996)Google Scholar, s.v. ‘γνώμη’.

15 Justin makes even clearer at D 93.4 this distinction of γνώμη as a faculty rather than its product as in opinion.

16 Eth.Nic. 6.11.

17 Ad Eph. 3.2. Similar ideas are found also in Herm. 55.8. Justin's contemporary Athengoras, while using different terms, combines this dual idea of intelligence and volition for the unity between the Father and the Son (Leg. 10.2): ‘But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation (νδϵ ´ᾳ καὶνϵργϵίᾳ)’. For further developments up to Maximus the Confessor, see Lampe, G. W. H., Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), pp. 317–78Google Scholar.

18 See West, M. L., ‘Towards Monotheism’, in Athanassiadi, Polymnia and Frede, Michael (eds), Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), pp. 23–4Google Scholar.

19 D 7.3; 16.4; 35.5; 38.2; 48.2; 55.1, 2; 56.1, 4, 10, 14, 23; 57.3; 60.2, 3; 67.6; 102.6; 116.3; 117.5; 34.7; 56.3, 16; 58.1; 60.2, 3; 68.3; 84.2.

20 Later, when Justin cites Ps. 96:1–13, Trypho objects that it refers to the Father (D 74.1). But Justin replies that the Holy Spirit exhorts people to ‘recognize that he is to be praised and feared, and that he is the maker of heaven and earth (ποιητὴς το τϵ οὐραvο кαὶ τς γς), who effected this salvation in behalf of the human race, who also dying after he was crucified, and was deemed worthy by him [the Father] to reign over all the earth’ (D 74.3; Marcovich, 198). Outside the Dialogue an explicit reference to Christ as participating in creating everything is found in 2 Apol. 6.

21 The lack of triadic formulations in this treatise and esp. of D 68.3 seems to present a binitarian view; but adducing proof for the deity of the Holy Spirit would compound the apologetic task for Justin. Also, Stanton, G. N., ‘The Spirit in the Writings of Justin Martyr’, in Stanton, G. N., Longenecker, B. W. and Barton, S. C. (eds), The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), p. 331Google Scholar, persuasively notes: ‘When one considers all the references to the Spirit in the Apology . . . Justin attaches considerable importance to earlier Christian traditions and shows himself to be heir (however indirectly) to triadic passages such as Matt. 28.19 and 2 Cor. 13.14.’

22 Danielou, J., The Theology of Jewish Christianity (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964), p. 68Google Scholar, suggests that Justin has in mind a Jewish heterodoxy related to Cerinthus, who taught that the world was created by angels.

23 Skarsaune, Proof, p. 389, n. 31.

24 Boyarin, Border Lines, p. 105.

25 Philo calls logos τὸν δϵύτϵρον θϵόν only once (QG 2.62); however, it is disputed among scholars whether Philo clearly spoke of the Logos as a divine hypostasis. As Runia, David T., Philo in Early Christian Literature (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), p. 41Google Scholar, notes, ‘the Logos . . . in Philo's thought may be described as that aspect of God which is turned toward creation’. For a similar judgement of Philonic logos as ‘merely an aspect’ see Weiss, H.-F., Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des hellenistischen und palästinischen Judentums (TU 97; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966), p. 320Google Scholar. For the difference between Philo's logos and Justin's logos, see esp. Barnard, L. W., Justin Martyr, his Life and Thought (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp. 92–6Google Scholar.

26 In this vein, Rokéah, D., Justin Martyr and the Jews (Leiden: Brill, 2002), p. 27Google Scholar, notes BT Sanhedrin 38b reporting a debate in which a Jewish Christian claims that Gen. 1:26, 11:7 and 19:24 refer to two gods. Here, R. Ishmael b. R. Jose's denial is based on a sermon given by R. Meir, who is a contemporary of Justin and a prominent supporter of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Admittedly, the record is anachronistically noted, yet its historical veracity cannot be completely ruled out.

27 Also, Skarsaune, ‘Is Christianity Monotheistic? Patristic Perspectives on a Jewish/Christian Debate’, Studia Patristica, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone, vol. 36 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), pp. 357–8, remarks, ‘On this point, and on this point only, [Trypho] declares himself fully convinced’.

28 Prigent, Pierre, Justin et l'Ancien Testament (Paris: J. Gabalda & Cie, 1964), pp. 212 ff.Google Scholar, thinks that the Isaiah materials in D 63, 66–7 and 77–8 were together in Justin's source.

29 While in his Apologies, θϵραπϵία (1.9 and 1.12) and θρησκϵυ ´ω (1.62) are two other terms used to denote worship or service, Justin limits himself to three different terms and their derivatives to express the idea of worship in the Dialogue: σϵ ´βομαι, λατρϵύω and προσκυνϵ ´ω. Based on his high regard for the LXX (D 68.7, 71.1, 84.3), Justin is probably following the LXX usage on the meaning of each of these terms: σϵ ´βομαι (15 occurrences in the entire Dialogue), and its derived form θϵοσϵ ´βϵια ‘worship of God’ is used most widely in the context of general piety to God. It is noteworthy that Justin reserves this word only for God the Father or the Son and never to idols or demons. Moreover, different forms of λατρϵύω (23 occurrences in the Dialogue), which also denotes cultic worship of the God of Israel, are directed either to God or Christ; on the other hand, Justin's most frequent use of this term is the derivative form, ϵδωλολάτρϵυω, when he has demons/idols as objects. But clearly his most frequent term is προσκυνϵ ´ω occurring more than the other two words combined (41 occurrences in the Dialogue). He also takes its sense in the usual LXX terminology for worship of the true or false God. He narrowly designates this term and all of its derivative forms to indicate worship either to a true God, i.e. the Father and the Son, or to false gods, idols and demons. H. Greeven, ‘προσκυνϵ ´ω’, in Gerhard Kittel, G. Bromiley and G. Friedrich (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–76), vol. 6, p. 758, notes: ‘Almost three-quarters of the instances of προσκυνϵν in the LXX relate to veneration and worship of the true God and Lord or to that of false gods’. Cf. Acts 10:25–6; Rev. 19:10; 22:9.

30 Of 29 προσκυνϵ ´ω references to Christ in the Dialogue, 17 references are used here.

31 D 32.2; Trakatellis, Demetrius C., The Pre-existence of Christ in the Writings of Justin Martyr (Harvard Dissertations in Religion, ed. Bynum, Caroline and Rupp, George, 6; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976)Google Scholar, identifies this idea of reversal as the lynchpin of Christology for all of Justin's extant works.

32 See D 32.1 and 38.1.

33 A similar postponement of a reply to Trypho until a more fitting place occurs in 36.2. This method seems to help organise an otherwise more disorderly arrangement apparent in the Dialogue.

34 Stanton, G. N., ‘The Two Parousias of Christ: Justin Martyr and Matthew’, in de Boer, M. C. (ed.), From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), p. 194Google Scholar, notes: ‘In Matthew, Justin and Origen, the two parousias schema is a response to the sharp criticisms of Jewish opponents who insisted that Christian claims about the Davidic Messiahship of Jesus were not in accordance with the prophets.’ As Skarsaune, Proof, p. 285, notes, the New Testament uses parousia for the Second Coming only, but Ignatius is the first to use the term for Christ's earthly life.

35 Here we only refer to passages which Justin labels μυστήριον. Other symbols and types of the cross are also enumerated, e.g. in D 86. Three other ‘mystery of Christ’ passages refer to the virginal birth (D 68.6), Christian's new birth (D 85.7) and Christ's calling of believers from every race (D 139).

36 In fact, the entire section on the identity of Christ thus far (D 55–83) followed the chronological order of the life of the Son, beginning from the pre-existent state to the virgin birth and ending with the millennium, except the crucifixion. Thereafter, we have a recapitulation for second-day listeners (D 84–8) before proceeding to the last topic, the crucifixion; clearly Justin seems to delay it as the climax of the debate.

37 Boyarin, Border Lines, p. 38, mistakenly takes this passage to be Justin's confession via Trypho's mouth of his personal ‘identity crisis’. This interpretation would seriously distort the meaning of the context because Justin immediately answers (D 11.1–2) that this precise charge of disregarding ritual segregation is now nullified.

38 In fact, this salvation, inclusive of the Jews, is further demonstrated in Justin's positive reply to Trypho's query whether a believer in Christ but also an observer of Mosaic Law would be saved (D 47.1–4). The only injunction is that the person in question does not, out of his fervour for the Old Law, become someone who denies Christ and dies without repentance (D 47.4).

39 This catchy term for describing the fluid nature of one's mixed ‘situated-ness’ first gained prominence in ethnic and postcolonial studies (Bhabha, Homi K., The Location of Culture, London: Routledge, 1994)Google Scholar, and its concept continues to be in flux.