This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Justin Martyr article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The description of Justin's writings is very odd for an encyclopedic page. Justin has three works that are universally recognized as genuine: the two Apologies, and the Dialogue with Trypho. Despite this, there is one subsection under 'Writings' called 'Apology' which only talks about the First Apology, and in just one sentence. Similarly, there is one brief sentence which describes the content of the Dialogue with Trypho, followed by a second sentence which contains a detail so specific that it is not even mentioned on the Dialogue with Trypho page. In any case, this detail is clearly incorrect (cf. Revelation 12:9) so I'm going to correct it. Most strange of all is the fact that the sub-section for 'On the Resurrection' is far longer than the other two, even though the majority of scholars do not regard this as an authentic work of Justin Martyr! Tjfarrar1983 ( talk) 16:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Am I missing something (if so I apologize)? Where is the information on the martyrdom of Justin Martyr? I see nothing about his trial and execution here. -- Daniel 12:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Having read and studied all of Justin's writings, this article has a point of view. I edited it about a year ago to add balance to it, but those edits were removed.
I also noticed that a couple of times during the year, others added a link to my article on Justin that was removed as well. Yet the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article always remains.
Justin clearly condemned mainstream Christians as well as distanced himself from the Judea-Christians of Asia Minor. This is either overlooked or glossed over in this article.
Is it possible that perhaps Wikipedia will one day be willing to keep edits to its early Christianity articles that will show the whole truth about the early Church?
One of the reasons I have not posted in about a year is that I believe that this will not happen with Wikipedia. Clearly many of its self-appointed police simply cannot consider that the way they want to portray early church history has a point of view, and a point of view that is not compatible with the facts of history. 209.247.21.235 16:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)COGwriter
References
Shouldn't this article be called 'Justin the Martyr'? As it is thus presented it appears to be his surname. I propose changing the name to what I stipulated. Doktor Waterhouse 10:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion as to whether the lost Midrash reconstructed by Saul Lieberman came from Justin Martyr or Raymond Martini. The currenct article on Justin Martyr says "Justin's self-perception of himself was that of a scholar, although his skills in Hebrew were either non-existent or minimal. His opposition to Judaism was typical of church leaders in his day, but does not descend to the level of anti-semitism. After collaborating with a Jewish convert to assist him with the Hebrew, Justin published an attack on Judaism based upon a no-longer-extant text of a Midrash. This Midrash was reconstructed and published by Saul Lieberman."
Yet the article on Saul Lieberman says his source for the Midrash was not Justin Martyr but Raymond Martini. "He also published a heretofore unknown Midrashic work that he painstakingly pieced together by deriving its text from an anti-Jewish polemic written by Raymond Martini, and various published lectures of Medieval Rabbis. This Midrashic text was lost on account of vigorous church censorship and suppression."
So which is it? Justin Martyr or Raymond Martini? Why all the confusion? The articles need to be revised and corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.239.94 ( talk) 12:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence as of 2009-09-21:
Saint Justin Martyr (also Justin the Martyr, Justin of Caesarea, Justin the Philosopher, Latin Iustinus Martyr or Flavius Iustinus) (100–165) was an early Christian apologist and saint.
Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to declare somebody a saint? The first and second dictionary.com definitions include the idea that a saint is a person of great holiness. It seems inappropriate that Wikipedia would be claiming that anybody has great holiness.
I think the claim about sainthood should be removed and a short sentence added that states what religious entities recognize Justin Martyr as a saint.
As an aside this is not the only place in this article that seems to have a religious slant. Davefoc ( talk) 16:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Mrhsj. I will defer to your judgment on this. The definitions of a word from a respected dictionary should have priority over what somebody has chosen to write about the word in a Wikipedia article IMHO. On that we may disagree. However, it turns out that the two dictionary definitions I looked at were not consistent with regards to saint. The dictionary.com definition tends to support my view. Its first definition is this: "any of certain persons of exceptional holiness of life, formally recognized as such by the Christian Church" and its second definition is even more supportive of my view: "a person of great holiness, virtue, or benevolence". But the Merriam Webster definition is consistent with the Wikipedia definition: "one officially recognized especially through canonization as preeminent for holiness". So while I disagree with you that the sentence is appropriate as written, the available evidence does not clearly support my view.
As to the religious slant: Here is the particular example I was thinking of when I wrote that:
"Flacius discovered "blemishes" in Justin's theology, which he attributed to the influence of pagan philosophers; and in modern times Semler and S.G. Lange have made him out a thorough Hellene, while Semisch and Otto defend him from this charge."
I thought that the use of the words defend and charge imply that it was bad that JM was a Hellene and this was a charge that could be defended in the way a person that commits a crime is defended from the charges. Davefoc ( talk) 19:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
One more small argument against the use of saint in the first sentence:
I do not believe that the Catholic church or any other religious body had canonization procedures at the time of Justin Martyr's life. It seems questionable at least to give people titles that they couldn't have had in their life. But I think you need to be dead for the Catholic Church to declare you a saint so this is a bit of a weak argument since if that criteria was used nobody could be declared a saint in Wikipedia (but as noted above I don't think anybody should be).
Davefoc (
talk)
19:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
OK my apologies but one more argument against the way the word, saint, is used in the first sentence:
The statement is ambiguous. What does "JM was a saint mean"? A reasonable reader might interpret it either of these ways:
If it means that he was a person of exceptional holiness I think we both agree that it would be an inappropriate statement for a Wikipedia article. But if it just means that he is a recognized saint by a particular religious entity then what entity is that? Does it mean Roman Catholic? Greek Orthodox? And if it means either of those does that mean that Wikipedia is implicitly accepting the notion of Roman Catholic priority over other religions that don't recognize saints at all?
With respect the answer to all this is to just eliminate "and saint" from the first sentence and include a second brief sentence to the effect that JM is recognized as a saint by the major religious entities that recognize him as such. Davefoc ( talk) 21:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I thought the edit by Roger Pearse of the opening section was appropriate and well done. I am not sure I understand the comment by Roger Pearse above. In fact, I don't think anybody should be called a saint in WIkipedia without an explanation of what group recognizes that individual as a saint, not because I don't agree with their religion but because I think WIkipedia is a secular site that shouldn't have a slant to any particular religion. Davefoc ( talk) 18:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The Logos section of this article is rambling and poorly written. It also betrays a clear POV. It is a matter of scholarly debate whether Justin considers the Logos/Son to be God in the same way as the Father. The article currently argues that he does not, and deal poorly with his material on the Logos as Angel and Apostle sent from the Father– it is inconsistent with the structure of Justin's argument, and therefore quite misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.89.216 ( talk) 09:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I have merged the Memoirs of the Apostles material from the Gospel of the Twelve article into this article. It became clear, after some investigation, that the material did not fit in the G12 article. The section entitled Memoirs of the Apostles was originally the Name section that reported on Justin's use of the term "memoirs of the Apostles" to refer to the gospels generally, and more specifically to the fulfillment of prophecy. The Composition section describes Justin's use of two testimony sources - a "kerygma source" believed to be circulating within Justin's school, which contained scriptural proof-texts demonstrating the proof from prophecy of the life and career of Jesus, and a "recapitulation source" used by Justin to create proofs from prophecy of the divinity of Jesus. The second source is almost certainly The Disputation of Jason and Papiscus. It was used only in the Dialogue as the main testimony source to demonstrate a preexistence Christology. Ovadyah ( talk) 03:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I moved the material on Charles Hill from the Scriptural Citations section and combined it with the opposing view articulated by Koester. The question is whether Justin regarded the gospels as being inspired writings on a par with the OT prophecies or accurate historical accounts of the fulfillment of prophecy that did not have the authority of Scripture. Hill says they did; Koester says no. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
While I still have the books checked out from the university library, I may expand this section a bit. I was focusing on the testimony sources because they contain the scriptural proofs that Justin refers to as the "memoirs of the Apostles". However, there are other examples that could be included of Justin's use of sources which were circulating within his school. The most important of these are the catechal source materials that Justin's school used for ethical instruction. Another example is Justin's use of a source, which is probably The Apology of Quadratus, that compared heroes of Greece and Rome to notable figures in the Hebrew Bible. Neither of these sources contain scriptural proofs, and Justin never refers to them as "memoirs", but excerpts from both sources are contained in the First Apology and the Dialogue.
Ovadyah (
talk)
15:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I may write a bit more about the Christology of The Disputation Between Jason and Papiscus, if I have time. Aristo of Pella appears to have fused a Wisdom Christology (Wisdom as the first-born of creation) similar to the Gospel of the Hebrews with a Second Adam Christology (the first Adam was defeated by Satan, but Christ, as the second Adam, in turn vanquished Satan) similar to Paul in Romans. Both of these Christologies were used by Aristo to argue for the preexistence of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Ovadyah ( talk) 17:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I created a new subsection for Scriptural sources (what Justin would have regarded as primary historical accounts) and consolidated the material on Koester's view of Justin's use of the gospels in the Scriptural Citations section to the new subsection. This subsection could be expanded by additional information on Justin's use of the individual Synoptic Gospels. For example, it's clear that Justin used source material from the Gospel of Matthew directly in the Dialogue and well indirectly as part of a gospel harmony. The evidence is much less clear for the other gospels. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I recovered the deleted references supporting the above quotations:
The above quotations were possibly excerpted from these 100-plus year old sources, but that is not clear from the content of the article. As it stands, they are devoid of any context, and therefore, useless for improving a biographical article on Justin Martyr. What would be more relevant to this article are modern reliable secondary sources that investigate how and why Justin utilized these sayings by understanding his aims and the organization of the material to achieve them. Ovadyah ( talk) 20:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this really an appropriate term for an encyclopedia? Who is in the position to judge an eschatology as primitive or not? I was under the impression that editors of Wikipedia were supposed to leave their personal oppinion on a topic out ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.196.171.210 ( talk) 19:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The remaining unsourced content from the Scriptural citations section has been moved here temporarily until reliable sources can be found (Wikisource is not a reliable source). At that point the material will be reintegrated into a Letters subsection of the new Scriptural sources section. There are also some pious OR editorial statements in here that need to be cleaned up. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The main content of this section:
appears to be copied directly from this blog. The same content is also found in Development of the New Testament canon minus the pious OR commentary. That article has the following source, which I will check out as a possible RS for this article: Everett Ferguson, "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) pp. 302–303; cf. Justin Martyr, First Apology 67.3. It's somewhat alarming to see how many Web articles have incorporated this unsourced commentary as though it were an obvious fact. Ignocrates ( talk) 16:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
A little more digging shows that the content was added on Dec. 7, 2001, and it was originally part of the Doctrine of the Logos section. It was copied directly from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religion, but it was never properly sourced in the article, so mystery solved. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I cleaned up the OR in this section and referenced it with Schaff as an encyclopedic tertiary source for now. I personally feel uneasy about relying on these old religious encyclopedias as sources, as they tend to be overtly POV. Consider this a placeholder until more current reliable secondary sources can be found. Ignocrates ( talk) 19:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
References
Nishidani edited the first sentence so that it contained the claim that Justin Martyr was an "was an early Palestinian thinker".
The claim was deleted by Luke 19 Verse 27 and Nishidani undid Luke 19 Verse 27's edit.
I don't understand the purpose of adding the claim to the article. What did Nishiand mean by the term, Palestinian, and what was the purpose of his addition? The use of the word here seems problematic to me since Palestinian has a variety of meanings and exactly what is intended by the addition isn't clear to me. From the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Definitions of Palestine: "The term Palestine has several overlapping (and occasionally contradictory) definitions". If the purpose of this edit is to make clear the fact that Martyr was from an area that is part of present day Palestine, then it seems unnecessary since that fact is included only one sentence below the sentence in question.
I also question the addition of the word thinker to the opening sentence. I don't see how new information is added to the article with the addition of this term. Almost all humans are in some way, thinkers. The term in the context of the way it is used here has an informal connotation that Martyr was more contemplative about issues beyond normal life than the average person. That seems to be both a subjective judgment and something which is probably true just from the nature of the individual described by the article. I don't see any added value by describing Martyr as a "thinker".-- Davefoc ( talk) 14:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the definition of Palestinian from the on-line Oxford English Dictionary:
A native or inhabitant of Palestine, in ancient or modern times. In early use also: a Philistine (cf. Philistine n. and adj.). Now usually: spec. an Arab born or living in the area of the former mandated territory of Palestine; a descendant of such an Arab.
So Martyr seems to be a Palestinian by the first definition however the definition provided suggests that as per current usage a Palestinian is an Arab living in the former mandated territory of Palestine.
The point here, Nishiandi, is not that there aren't reliable sources that describe Martyr as a Palestinian thinker. The point is that what those words mean isn't clear without the context of the source that you retrieved the words from.
The wording in the second sentence is absolutely clear. Martyr was from a city that lies within the area described in standard modern terminology as Palestinian. The meaning of the claim that Martyr was a Palestinian is not clear without the context of the reliable sources that you mentioned. What beyond the fact that Martyr lived in a city that lies within the borders of present day Palestine did you mean to convey?
Despite the fact that you have found reliable sources that state that Martyr was a "thinker", the use of the term conveys no information about Martyr without the additional context of what the author meant by the use of that word. Thinker, as used in the context of your addition is generally used informally in English and is not generally useful in an encyclopedic context. Can you point to the article of another individual that is described as a thinker in Wikipedia? -- Davefoc ( talk) 19:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Some research on the nationality of Martyr:
I see arguments there for describing him as Palestinian, Greek, or Roman. The winning argument, to me, is that without further information about what is meant by each of the terms he shouldn't be described as any of those nationalities since each of those descriptions would be misleading if used without further information.-- Davefoc ( talk) 19:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
These are the exact same anachronistic, revisionist arguments made by Nishidani and already refuted at Talk:Palestinian people#RfC: Was Jesus a "Palestinian"? As pointed out in that article, in his book Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, the well-known Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi argues that the modern national identity of Palestinians has its roots in nationalist discourses that emerged among the peoples of the Ottoman empire in the late 19th century, and which sharpened following the demarcation of modern nation-state boundaries in the Middle East after World War I. He cautions against the efforts of some Palestinian nationalists to "anachronistically" read back into history a nationalist consciousness that is in fact "relatively modern" - of course, that is exactly what is being attempted here. Most other reliable sources indicate that the modern identity "Palestinian" emerged at some point in the late 19th to mid-20th century. Jayjg (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani, thank you for your responses, but with respect I think your reliance on the reliable sources argument in this instance is wrong. I have not argued that your sources are wrong or unreliable, I have just argued that without additional information about what your sources meant your edits have added ambiguity to the article without adding additional information. There are reliable sources that claim that Martyr was Greek and I am not arguing that those sources should replace yours. I think if Martyr is identified as Greek in the article it would be necessary to describe what was meant by the use of that description.
With respect, I think you failed to answer my principal question to you. What information did you wish to convey by identifying Martyr as Palestinian? Your reliable sources are not editing the article. You are the one that has taken their thoughts out of the context of their work. It is reasonable to ask you what information that you wished to convey. Did you mean to convey more information than that Martyr was born in an area of present day Paletine? If not why isn't the unambiguous sentence immediately below this sentence adequate to convey that information? If you wished to convey additional information what is that information?
You have also not dealt with why Martyr should be described as a thinker. What information is the reader supposed to take away from this article as a result of that description? Are any of the other early Christian writers described as thinkers in the articles about them? Is Martyr a thinker and they weren't? Did the reliable source that you used give you any idea about what particularly distinguished Martyr as a "thinker" from other early Christian writers or other notable people? -- Davefoc ( talk) 20:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The fact that a fragment of information comes from a reliable source does not automatically make it appropriate for a Wikipedia article. That is just obvious fact and it doesn't need an explicit policy to make it so. What information from what sources goes into a Wikipedia article is at the discretion of the editors. I have requested that you supply the reason behind your edits in several ways. It does not appear that you intend to share with us what your reasons for the edit were. This is fine, of course, Wikipedia does not have any method to compel anybody to do anything, but hiding behind a misinterpretation of a reliable source argument is not useful if you are trying to support the idea that your edit to this article should be left in. I have made a serious effort to figure out what your intent was with goal of suggesting a compromise. You have not told us what information you meant to convey with your edit and as such I can't see any valid basis for a compromise. Your edit doesn't mean anything specific to me and as such I recommend that it be deleted.-- Davefoc ( talk) 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it appears an acrimonious edit war is underway. I hope I have not contributed to the acrimony and I apologize if people think I have. I think anybody that has gone there might pull back a bit. However, from my perspective, Nishidani's edit detracts from the quality of the article and its removal should stand. If Martyr lived in a political division that was known as Palestinian or if Martyr had known ethnic ties to a Palestinian people then I think those would be relevant facts to article and it might be appropriate to include those facts in the article, perhaps not in the lede though. As it stands it seems like Martyr was born in an area that might have been in a province the Romans designated as Samaria. It also seems like his ethnic background was Greek or perhaps Roman so if Palestinian was intended to describe Martyr's ethnic background it might be wrong. Is there any information to support the notion either that Martyr thought of himself as a Palestinian or that he would have been described as such by others at the time of his life?
For what it is worth, I have seen acrimonious discussion before about the nationality that is used to describe an individual. This largely stems, I think, from the ambiguous nature of nationality terms. The solution is to specify exactly what is meant by the nationality adjective. This was done exactly in the sentence below where the meaning of Palestine is made clear by context. Again, FWIW, I am very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but I don't think using the term ambiguously, promotes the Palestinian cause.
Frankly speaking, the use of the term thinker is obviously inappropriate in the edit by Nishandi. The OED provides many definitions for the word so that it just can't be determined what is meant by its use in this context. It's use in standard English is almost always informal and I think its use in an Encyclopedia where formal language is the norm is strange at best. -- Davefoc ( talk) 07:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Other sources describe his differently for example "Roman provincial, from the province known as Judaea until its name was changed by Hadrian as a part of his policy of trying to crush Jewish identity in the terrible aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132" [1]-- Shrike ( talk) 10:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I moved the disputed text to the talk page for further discussion:
This needs a content RfC before it goes back to decide if the content is appropriate to the scope of the article. Sorry Nishidani. Ignocrates ( talk) 03:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
'The tendency of Babylonina rabbis to see sages everywhere, we argued, is due in part to their greater detachment from non rabbinic society, in contrast to Palestinian rabbis who we argued are integrated into society., This distinction is in turn linked to tendencies in the contemporary non-Jewish world, with Babylonian rabbinic detachment corresponding to strict hierarchical divisions within Persian society, and Palestinian rabbinic integration corresponding to the somewhat more permeable boundaries between classes in the Roman empire. Differences between Palestinian and Babyulonian rabbinic storytelling, therefore, has much to do with the larger cultural context within which these two literatures were produced,' Richard Kalmin, 'Jewish Sources of the Second Temple Period in Rabbinic Compilations of Late Antiquity' in Peter Schäfer, (ed.)The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman culture, Mohr Siebeck, Tuebingen, 2002, vol.3 pp.17-54, p.53.
These are the first two paragraphs of a master's thesis by Kyle Pope:
In the text which is known to us as the First Apology, Justin introduces himself to the
emperor Antoninus Pius and his sons as “Justin, the son of Priscus, grandson of
Bacchius, of those from Flavia Neapolis, in Syria, of Palestine” [original Greek deleted from quote](1.1). This is our only source for Justin’s background. Flavia Neapolis,
modern Nablus, was a Greek colony named after Vespasian and organized in 70 A.D.
(Goodenough, TJ, p. 57). The name Syria Palestina dates to 132 A.D. after the close of
the Second Jewish war when Hadrian renamed the province of Judea (Appian, Syriaca
1.7,8).
Barnard suggests that both the names of Justin’s father and grandfather are Greek,
while his own is Latin (LT, p. 5). Goodenough feels this may indicate that they were
colonists (TJ, p. 57). Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho, in speaking of the Samaritans
of this region, refers to them as “of my race, I say of the Samaritans” – [original Greek deleted from quote] (120.6). While Barnard and Goodenough see no
evidence in Justin’s writings of any Samaritan religious training, P.R. Weis has outlined
some compelling examples of what he calls “Samaritanisms” in religious customs to
which Justin refers.1 Even so, Justin considers himself a Gentile (Dial. 29).2
Assuming that Pope is correct there is quite a bit of information in these paragraphs that goes to the ethnicity, culture and birth location of JM.
A lot of this seems relevant to article and some of it might be added where appropriate, although the Life section covers most of it already. Clearly summarizing any of the above by describing Martyr as Palestinian is going to be misleading for many readers. Martyr is not Palestinian by culture or ethnicity. From other sources we know that he didn't speak Hebrew and I don't believe there is any indication that he spoke Aramaic. It would be a very significant fact relevant to early Christian history if he was Palestinian by ancestry or ethnicity. There are no writings from the early Christian period that were unequivocally written first in Aramaic or Hebrew. Describing Martyr as Palestinian falsely suggests that he might have been such a writer.
The location of Martyr's birth in what is present day Palestine is unambiguously stated in first sentence of the Life section of the article. I think it might be desirable to expand that information a bit to include the fact that Flavia Neapolis was in the Roman province of Syria Palestina. I also don't see a problem with repeating a bit of the information about his birth location in the lede. What is problematic is using a single ethnic or nationality epithet to summarize a complicated situation. And it is particularly problematic to choose Palestinian, a term that a modern reader might assume implies ethnicity.
In addition, I remain opposed to the description of Martyr as a thinker. This is just a silly addition to the article. What information is the reader supposed to get from the use of an informal and ambiguous term like that? Which people that have Wikpedia articles about them were non-thinkers? -- Davefoc ( talk) 18:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Was the place he was born in Samaria or Judea at the time of his birth?-- Davefoc ( talk) 19:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
R. Akiba is the Palestinian rabbinic sage par excellence
Justin Martyr, .. was an early Palestinian thinker,
References
Nishidani: You just reverted to your preferred version [4] despite a clear consensus in opposition. What is your justification for this edit? Please respond directly on point (the point is our WP:CONSENSUS policy, nothing else). Thanks.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The Justin Martyr#Doctrine of the logos cites only primary source data (the writings of Justin himself), and appears to have a bias towards picking quotes that suggest Jesus to be an Angel, rather than a member of the Trinity. If Justin's writings suggest such a bias, a reputable researcher's opinion must be cited. I have labeled the section as "original research" for now. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 17:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Καὶ ὅτι κύριος ὤν ὁ Χριστὸς. . φαινόμενος πρότερον ὡς ἀνηρ καὶ ἄγγελος,. See W. Trollope (ed.) S. Justini philosophi et martyris, cum Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo dialogus, (1846), vol.2, J. Hall, Cambridge p.119.
On the other hand, Justin sees the Logos as a separate being from God and subordinate to him [citation needed]:
"For next to God, we worship and love the Logos who is out of the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing" (Second Apology, 13).
"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).
Professor X of Y University holds that Justin sees the Logos as a separate being from God and subordinate to him [Citation from Journal Z]. Professor X examined quotes such as:
"For next to God, we worship and love the Logos who is out of the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing" (Second Apology, 13).
"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).
Professor X explains that in Trypho's, Justin uses the terms such as "Angel" in the W philosophical construct, meaning [insert scholarly opinion here]. [citation from reputable journal]
All assertions in Wikipedia, particularly controversial ones, must be attributed to an outside reliable source. They can't be made in the editorial voice of the encyclopedia itself. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 20:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
In this edit on Nov 14, I've deleted the majority of the text in the Doctrine of the Logos section. I researched the history of this page, and the doctrine of the Logos section originated in a copy and paste from "Old Ency". I left intact the first paragraph, which has been preserved numerous years in roughly its current form, however removed the uncited/original research in the remainder. This content was not found in the original copy and paste, and expresses a controversial point of view without external substantiation. It does not discuss the validity of its argument, or discuss rhetorical devices that may have been used in Justin's works. It offers only a superficial interpretation of a few quotes pulled from a primary source. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 18:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I have included a brief paragraph based off the Old Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the origin of the logos, including its commentary that it was "unfortunate". More scholarly opinion will be need to discuss the significance of the Logos, and this this departure if it is significant.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 13:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Justin Martyr → Justin the Martyr – Martyr wasn't his last name. Nuff said p b p 04:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Was he known as "Justin Martyr" during his lifetime, or did he come to be known by that name after his death?
Surely I'm not the only person experiencing this confusion. The article should clear this up. 75.163.217.66 ( talk) 14:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
... or would it be better to call it simply "Teachings"? I see nothing in that section about his conversion. Shrommer ( talk) 22:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Justin Martyr/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Justin seems misrepresented about the Logos being a separate being, as though
a created angel to worship, but was more mainstream: "We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was." ("Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew," chap.61) "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." ("First Apology," 6) "Worship God alone." "Whence to God alone we render worship."("First Apology," 16 and 17)-- Glen1ster ( talk) 05:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC) |
Last edited at 05:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason his dates of birth and death are missing from the lead sentence? —[ AlanM1 ( talk)]— 15:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Justin Martyr article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The description of Justin's writings is very odd for an encyclopedic page. Justin has three works that are universally recognized as genuine: the two Apologies, and the Dialogue with Trypho. Despite this, there is one subsection under 'Writings' called 'Apology' which only talks about the First Apology, and in just one sentence. Similarly, there is one brief sentence which describes the content of the Dialogue with Trypho, followed by a second sentence which contains a detail so specific that it is not even mentioned on the Dialogue with Trypho page. In any case, this detail is clearly incorrect (cf. Revelation 12:9) so I'm going to correct it. Most strange of all is the fact that the sub-section for 'On the Resurrection' is far longer than the other two, even though the majority of scholars do not regard this as an authentic work of Justin Martyr! Tjfarrar1983 ( talk) 16:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Am I missing something (if so I apologize)? Where is the information on the martyrdom of Justin Martyr? I see nothing about his trial and execution here. -- Daniel 12:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Having read and studied all of Justin's writings, this article has a point of view. I edited it about a year ago to add balance to it, but those edits were removed.
I also noticed that a couple of times during the year, others added a link to my article on Justin that was removed as well. Yet the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article always remains.
Justin clearly condemned mainstream Christians as well as distanced himself from the Judea-Christians of Asia Minor. This is either overlooked or glossed over in this article.
Is it possible that perhaps Wikipedia will one day be willing to keep edits to its early Christianity articles that will show the whole truth about the early Church?
One of the reasons I have not posted in about a year is that I believe that this will not happen with Wikipedia. Clearly many of its self-appointed police simply cannot consider that the way they want to portray early church history has a point of view, and a point of view that is not compatible with the facts of history. 209.247.21.235 16:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)COGwriter
References
Shouldn't this article be called 'Justin the Martyr'? As it is thus presented it appears to be his surname. I propose changing the name to what I stipulated. Doktor Waterhouse 10:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion as to whether the lost Midrash reconstructed by Saul Lieberman came from Justin Martyr or Raymond Martini. The currenct article on Justin Martyr says "Justin's self-perception of himself was that of a scholar, although his skills in Hebrew were either non-existent or minimal. His opposition to Judaism was typical of church leaders in his day, but does not descend to the level of anti-semitism. After collaborating with a Jewish convert to assist him with the Hebrew, Justin published an attack on Judaism based upon a no-longer-extant text of a Midrash. This Midrash was reconstructed and published by Saul Lieberman."
Yet the article on Saul Lieberman says his source for the Midrash was not Justin Martyr but Raymond Martini. "He also published a heretofore unknown Midrashic work that he painstakingly pieced together by deriving its text from an anti-Jewish polemic written by Raymond Martini, and various published lectures of Medieval Rabbis. This Midrashic text was lost on account of vigorous church censorship and suppression."
So which is it? Justin Martyr or Raymond Martini? Why all the confusion? The articles need to be revised and corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.239.94 ( talk) 12:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence as of 2009-09-21:
Saint Justin Martyr (also Justin the Martyr, Justin of Caesarea, Justin the Philosopher, Latin Iustinus Martyr or Flavius Iustinus) (100–165) was an early Christian apologist and saint.
Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to declare somebody a saint? The first and second dictionary.com definitions include the idea that a saint is a person of great holiness. It seems inappropriate that Wikipedia would be claiming that anybody has great holiness.
I think the claim about sainthood should be removed and a short sentence added that states what religious entities recognize Justin Martyr as a saint.
As an aside this is not the only place in this article that seems to have a religious slant. Davefoc ( talk) 16:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Mrhsj. I will defer to your judgment on this. The definitions of a word from a respected dictionary should have priority over what somebody has chosen to write about the word in a Wikipedia article IMHO. On that we may disagree. However, it turns out that the two dictionary definitions I looked at were not consistent with regards to saint. The dictionary.com definition tends to support my view. Its first definition is this: "any of certain persons of exceptional holiness of life, formally recognized as such by the Christian Church" and its second definition is even more supportive of my view: "a person of great holiness, virtue, or benevolence". But the Merriam Webster definition is consistent with the Wikipedia definition: "one officially recognized especially through canonization as preeminent for holiness". So while I disagree with you that the sentence is appropriate as written, the available evidence does not clearly support my view.
As to the religious slant: Here is the particular example I was thinking of when I wrote that:
"Flacius discovered "blemishes" in Justin's theology, which he attributed to the influence of pagan philosophers; and in modern times Semler and S.G. Lange have made him out a thorough Hellene, while Semisch and Otto defend him from this charge."
I thought that the use of the words defend and charge imply that it was bad that JM was a Hellene and this was a charge that could be defended in the way a person that commits a crime is defended from the charges. Davefoc ( talk) 19:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
One more small argument against the use of saint in the first sentence:
I do not believe that the Catholic church or any other religious body had canonization procedures at the time of Justin Martyr's life. It seems questionable at least to give people titles that they couldn't have had in their life. But I think you need to be dead for the Catholic Church to declare you a saint so this is a bit of a weak argument since if that criteria was used nobody could be declared a saint in Wikipedia (but as noted above I don't think anybody should be).
Davefoc (
talk)
19:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
OK my apologies but one more argument against the way the word, saint, is used in the first sentence:
The statement is ambiguous. What does "JM was a saint mean"? A reasonable reader might interpret it either of these ways:
If it means that he was a person of exceptional holiness I think we both agree that it would be an inappropriate statement for a Wikipedia article. But if it just means that he is a recognized saint by a particular religious entity then what entity is that? Does it mean Roman Catholic? Greek Orthodox? And if it means either of those does that mean that Wikipedia is implicitly accepting the notion of Roman Catholic priority over other religions that don't recognize saints at all?
With respect the answer to all this is to just eliminate "and saint" from the first sentence and include a second brief sentence to the effect that JM is recognized as a saint by the major religious entities that recognize him as such. Davefoc ( talk) 21:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I thought the edit by Roger Pearse of the opening section was appropriate and well done. I am not sure I understand the comment by Roger Pearse above. In fact, I don't think anybody should be called a saint in WIkipedia without an explanation of what group recognizes that individual as a saint, not because I don't agree with their religion but because I think WIkipedia is a secular site that shouldn't have a slant to any particular religion. Davefoc ( talk) 18:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The Logos section of this article is rambling and poorly written. It also betrays a clear POV. It is a matter of scholarly debate whether Justin considers the Logos/Son to be God in the same way as the Father. The article currently argues that he does not, and deal poorly with his material on the Logos as Angel and Apostle sent from the Father– it is inconsistent with the structure of Justin's argument, and therefore quite misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.89.216 ( talk) 09:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I have merged the Memoirs of the Apostles material from the Gospel of the Twelve article into this article. It became clear, after some investigation, that the material did not fit in the G12 article. The section entitled Memoirs of the Apostles was originally the Name section that reported on Justin's use of the term "memoirs of the Apostles" to refer to the gospels generally, and more specifically to the fulfillment of prophecy. The Composition section describes Justin's use of two testimony sources - a "kerygma source" believed to be circulating within Justin's school, which contained scriptural proof-texts demonstrating the proof from prophecy of the life and career of Jesus, and a "recapitulation source" used by Justin to create proofs from prophecy of the divinity of Jesus. The second source is almost certainly The Disputation of Jason and Papiscus. It was used only in the Dialogue as the main testimony source to demonstrate a preexistence Christology. Ovadyah ( talk) 03:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I moved the material on Charles Hill from the Scriptural Citations section and combined it with the opposing view articulated by Koester. The question is whether Justin regarded the gospels as being inspired writings on a par with the OT prophecies or accurate historical accounts of the fulfillment of prophecy that did not have the authority of Scripture. Hill says they did; Koester says no. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
While I still have the books checked out from the university library, I may expand this section a bit. I was focusing on the testimony sources because they contain the scriptural proofs that Justin refers to as the "memoirs of the Apostles". However, there are other examples that could be included of Justin's use of sources which were circulating within his school. The most important of these are the catechal source materials that Justin's school used for ethical instruction. Another example is Justin's use of a source, which is probably The Apology of Quadratus, that compared heroes of Greece and Rome to notable figures in the Hebrew Bible. Neither of these sources contain scriptural proofs, and Justin never refers to them as "memoirs", but excerpts from both sources are contained in the First Apology and the Dialogue.
Ovadyah (
talk)
15:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I may write a bit more about the Christology of The Disputation Between Jason and Papiscus, if I have time. Aristo of Pella appears to have fused a Wisdom Christology (Wisdom as the first-born of creation) similar to the Gospel of the Hebrews with a Second Adam Christology (the first Adam was defeated by Satan, but Christ, as the second Adam, in turn vanquished Satan) similar to Paul in Romans. Both of these Christologies were used by Aristo to argue for the preexistence of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Ovadyah ( talk) 17:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I created a new subsection for Scriptural sources (what Justin would have regarded as primary historical accounts) and consolidated the material on Koester's view of Justin's use of the gospels in the Scriptural Citations section to the new subsection. This subsection could be expanded by additional information on Justin's use of the individual Synoptic Gospels. For example, it's clear that Justin used source material from the Gospel of Matthew directly in the Dialogue and well indirectly as part of a gospel harmony. The evidence is much less clear for the other gospels. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I recovered the deleted references supporting the above quotations:
The above quotations were possibly excerpted from these 100-plus year old sources, but that is not clear from the content of the article. As it stands, they are devoid of any context, and therefore, useless for improving a biographical article on Justin Martyr. What would be more relevant to this article are modern reliable secondary sources that investigate how and why Justin utilized these sayings by understanding his aims and the organization of the material to achieve them. Ovadyah ( talk) 20:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this really an appropriate term for an encyclopedia? Who is in the position to judge an eschatology as primitive or not? I was under the impression that editors of Wikipedia were supposed to leave their personal oppinion on a topic out ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.196.171.210 ( talk) 19:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The remaining unsourced content from the Scriptural citations section has been moved here temporarily until reliable sources can be found (Wikisource is not a reliable source). At that point the material will be reintegrated into a Letters subsection of the new Scriptural sources section. There are also some pious OR editorial statements in here that need to be cleaned up. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The main content of this section:
appears to be copied directly from this blog. The same content is also found in Development of the New Testament canon minus the pious OR commentary. That article has the following source, which I will check out as a possible RS for this article: Everett Ferguson, "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) pp. 302–303; cf. Justin Martyr, First Apology 67.3. It's somewhat alarming to see how many Web articles have incorporated this unsourced commentary as though it were an obvious fact. Ignocrates ( talk) 16:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
A little more digging shows that the content was added on Dec. 7, 2001, and it was originally part of the Doctrine of the Logos section. It was copied directly from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religion, but it was never properly sourced in the article, so mystery solved. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I cleaned up the OR in this section and referenced it with Schaff as an encyclopedic tertiary source for now. I personally feel uneasy about relying on these old religious encyclopedias as sources, as they tend to be overtly POV. Consider this a placeholder until more current reliable secondary sources can be found. Ignocrates ( talk) 19:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
References
Nishidani edited the first sentence so that it contained the claim that Justin Martyr was an "was an early Palestinian thinker".
The claim was deleted by Luke 19 Verse 27 and Nishidani undid Luke 19 Verse 27's edit.
I don't understand the purpose of adding the claim to the article. What did Nishiand mean by the term, Palestinian, and what was the purpose of his addition? The use of the word here seems problematic to me since Palestinian has a variety of meanings and exactly what is intended by the addition isn't clear to me. From the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Definitions of Palestine: "The term Palestine has several overlapping (and occasionally contradictory) definitions". If the purpose of this edit is to make clear the fact that Martyr was from an area that is part of present day Palestine, then it seems unnecessary since that fact is included only one sentence below the sentence in question.
I also question the addition of the word thinker to the opening sentence. I don't see how new information is added to the article with the addition of this term. Almost all humans are in some way, thinkers. The term in the context of the way it is used here has an informal connotation that Martyr was more contemplative about issues beyond normal life than the average person. That seems to be both a subjective judgment and something which is probably true just from the nature of the individual described by the article. I don't see any added value by describing Martyr as a "thinker".-- Davefoc ( talk) 14:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the definition of Palestinian from the on-line Oxford English Dictionary:
A native or inhabitant of Palestine, in ancient or modern times. In early use also: a Philistine (cf. Philistine n. and adj.). Now usually: spec. an Arab born or living in the area of the former mandated territory of Palestine; a descendant of such an Arab.
So Martyr seems to be a Palestinian by the first definition however the definition provided suggests that as per current usage a Palestinian is an Arab living in the former mandated territory of Palestine.
The point here, Nishiandi, is not that there aren't reliable sources that describe Martyr as a Palestinian thinker. The point is that what those words mean isn't clear without the context of the source that you retrieved the words from.
The wording in the second sentence is absolutely clear. Martyr was from a city that lies within the area described in standard modern terminology as Palestinian. The meaning of the claim that Martyr was a Palestinian is not clear without the context of the reliable sources that you mentioned. What beyond the fact that Martyr lived in a city that lies within the borders of present day Palestine did you mean to convey?
Despite the fact that you have found reliable sources that state that Martyr was a "thinker", the use of the term conveys no information about Martyr without the additional context of what the author meant by the use of that word. Thinker, as used in the context of your addition is generally used informally in English and is not generally useful in an encyclopedic context. Can you point to the article of another individual that is described as a thinker in Wikipedia? -- Davefoc ( talk) 19:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Some research on the nationality of Martyr:
I see arguments there for describing him as Palestinian, Greek, or Roman. The winning argument, to me, is that without further information about what is meant by each of the terms he shouldn't be described as any of those nationalities since each of those descriptions would be misleading if used without further information.-- Davefoc ( talk) 19:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
These are the exact same anachronistic, revisionist arguments made by Nishidani and already refuted at Talk:Palestinian people#RfC: Was Jesus a "Palestinian"? As pointed out in that article, in his book Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, the well-known Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi argues that the modern national identity of Palestinians has its roots in nationalist discourses that emerged among the peoples of the Ottoman empire in the late 19th century, and which sharpened following the demarcation of modern nation-state boundaries in the Middle East after World War I. He cautions against the efforts of some Palestinian nationalists to "anachronistically" read back into history a nationalist consciousness that is in fact "relatively modern" - of course, that is exactly what is being attempted here. Most other reliable sources indicate that the modern identity "Palestinian" emerged at some point in the late 19th to mid-20th century. Jayjg (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani, thank you for your responses, but with respect I think your reliance on the reliable sources argument in this instance is wrong. I have not argued that your sources are wrong or unreliable, I have just argued that without additional information about what your sources meant your edits have added ambiguity to the article without adding additional information. There are reliable sources that claim that Martyr was Greek and I am not arguing that those sources should replace yours. I think if Martyr is identified as Greek in the article it would be necessary to describe what was meant by the use of that description.
With respect, I think you failed to answer my principal question to you. What information did you wish to convey by identifying Martyr as Palestinian? Your reliable sources are not editing the article. You are the one that has taken their thoughts out of the context of their work. It is reasonable to ask you what information that you wished to convey. Did you mean to convey more information than that Martyr was born in an area of present day Paletine? If not why isn't the unambiguous sentence immediately below this sentence adequate to convey that information? If you wished to convey additional information what is that information?
You have also not dealt with why Martyr should be described as a thinker. What information is the reader supposed to take away from this article as a result of that description? Are any of the other early Christian writers described as thinkers in the articles about them? Is Martyr a thinker and they weren't? Did the reliable source that you used give you any idea about what particularly distinguished Martyr as a "thinker" from other early Christian writers or other notable people? -- Davefoc ( talk) 20:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The fact that a fragment of information comes from a reliable source does not automatically make it appropriate for a Wikipedia article. That is just obvious fact and it doesn't need an explicit policy to make it so. What information from what sources goes into a Wikipedia article is at the discretion of the editors. I have requested that you supply the reason behind your edits in several ways. It does not appear that you intend to share with us what your reasons for the edit were. This is fine, of course, Wikipedia does not have any method to compel anybody to do anything, but hiding behind a misinterpretation of a reliable source argument is not useful if you are trying to support the idea that your edit to this article should be left in. I have made a serious effort to figure out what your intent was with goal of suggesting a compromise. You have not told us what information you meant to convey with your edit and as such I can't see any valid basis for a compromise. Your edit doesn't mean anything specific to me and as such I recommend that it be deleted.-- Davefoc ( talk) 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it appears an acrimonious edit war is underway. I hope I have not contributed to the acrimony and I apologize if people think I have. I think anybody that has gone there might pull back a bit. However, from my perspective, Nishidani's edit detracts from the quality of the article and its removal should stand. If Martyr lived in a political division that was known as Palestinian or if Martyr had known ethnic ties to a Palestinian people then I think those would be relevant facts to article and it might be appropriate to include those facts in the article, perhaps not in the lede though. As it stands it seems like Martyr was born in an area that might have been in a province the Romans designated as Samaria. It also seems like his ethnic background was Greek or perhaps Roman so if Palestinian was intended to describe Martyr's ethnic background it might be wrong. Is there any information to support the notion either that Martyr thought of himself as a Palestinian or that he would have been described as such by others at the time of his life?
For what it is worth, I have seen acrimonious discussion before about the nationality that is used to describe an individual. This largely stems, I think, from the ambiguous nature of nationality terms. The solution is to specify exactly what is meant by the nationality adjective. This was done exactly in the sentence below where the meaning of Palestine is made clear by context. Again, FWIW, I am very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but I don't think using the term ambiguously, promotes the Palestinian cause.
Frankly speaking, the use of the term thinker is obviously inappropriate in the edit by Nishandi. The OED provides many definitions for the word so that it just can't be determined what is meant by its use in this context. It's use in standard English is almost always informal and I think its use in an Encyclopedia where formal language is the norm is strange at best. -- Davefoc ( talk) 07:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Other sources describe his differently for example "Roman provincial, from the province known as Judaea until its name was changed by Hadrian as a part of his policy of trying to crush Jewish identity in the terrible aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132" [1]-- Shrike ( talk) 10:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I moved the disputed text to the talk page for further discussion:
This needs a content RfC before it goes back to decide if the content is appropriate to the scope of the article. Sorry Nishidani. Ignocrates ( talk) 03:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
'The tendency of Babylonina rabbis to see sages everywhere, we argued, is due in part to their greater detachment from non rabbinic society, in contrast to Palestinian rabbis who we argued are integrated into society., This distinction is in turn linked to tendencies in the contemporary non-Jewish world, with Babylonian rabbinic detachment corresponding to strict hierarchical divisions within Persian society, and Palestinian rabbinic integration corresponding to the somewhat more permeable boundaries between classes in the Roman empire. Differences between Palestinian and Babyulonian rabbinic storytelling, therefore, has much to do with the larger cultural context within which these two literatures were produced,' Richard Kalmin, 'Jewish Sources of the Second Temple Period in Rabbinic Compilations of Late Antiquity' in Peter Schäfer, (ed.)The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman culture, Mohr Siebeck, Tuebingen, 2002, vol.3 pp.17-54, p.53.
These are the first two paragraphs of a master's thesis by Kyle Pope:
In the text which is known to us as the First Apology, Justin introduces himself to the
emperor Antoninus Pius and his sons as “Justin, the son of Priscus, grandson of
Bacchius, of those from Flavia Neapolis, in Syria, of Palestine” [original Greek deleted from quote](1.1). This is our only source for Justin’s background. Flavia Neapolis,
modern Nablus, was a Greek colony named after Vespasian and organized in 70 A.D.
(Goodenough, TJ, p. 57). The name Syria Palestina dates to 132 A.D. after the close of
the Second Jewish war when Hadrian renamed the province of Judea (Appian, Syriaca
1.7,8).
Barnard suggests that both the names of Justin’s father and grandfather are Greek,
while his own is Latin (LT, p. 5). Goodenough feels this may indicate that they were
colonists (TJ, p. 57). Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho, in speaking of the Samaritans
of this region, refers to them as “of my race, I say of the Samaritans” – [original Greek deleted from quote] (120.6). While Barnard and Goodenough see no
evidence in Justin’s writings of any Samaritan religious training, P.R. Weis has outlined
some compelling examples of what he calls “Samaritanisms” in religious customs to
which Justin refers.1 Even so, Justin considers himself a Gentile (Dial. 29).2
Assuming that Pope is correct there is quite a bit of information in these paragraphs that goes to the ethnicity, culture and birth location of JM.
A lot of this seems relevant to article and some of it might be added where appropriate, although the Life section covers most of it already. Clearly summarizing any of the above by describing Martyr as Palestinian is going to be misleading for many readers. Martyr is not Palestinian by culture or ethnicity. From other sources we know that he didn't speak Hebrew and I don't believe there is any indication that he spoke Aramaic. It would be a very significant fact relevant to early Christian history if he was Palestinian by ancestry or ethnicity. There are no writings from the early Christian period that were unequivocally written first in Aramaic or Hebrew. Describing Martyr as Palestinian falsely suggests that he might have been such a writer.
The location of Martyr's birth in what is present day Palestine is unambiguously stated in first sentence of the Life section of the article. I think it might be desirable to expand that information a bit to include the fact that Flavia Neapolis was in the Roman province of Syria Palestina. I also don't see a problem with repeating a bit of the information about his birth location in the lede. What is problematic is using a single ethnic or nationality epithet to summarize a complicated situation. And it is particularly problematic to choose Palestinian, a term that a modern reader might assume implies ethnicity.
In addition, I remain opposed to the description of Martyr as a thinker. This is just a silly addition to the article. What information is the reader supposed to get from the use of an informal and ambiguous term like that? Which people that have Wikpedia articles about them were non-thinkers? -- Davefoc ( talk) 18:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Was the place he was born in Samaria or Judea at the time of his birth?-- Davefoc ( talk) 19:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
R. Akiba is the Palestinian rabbinic sage par excellence
Justin Martyr, .. was an early Palestinian thinker,
References
Nishidani: You just reverted to your preferred version [4] despite a clear consensus in opposition. What is your justification for this edit? Please respond directly on point (the point is our WP:CONSENSUS policy, nothing else). Thanks.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The Justin Martyr#Doctrine of the logos cites only primary source data (the writings of Justin himself), and appears to have a bias towards picking quotes that suggest Jesus to be an Angel, rather than a member of the Trinity. If Justin's writings suggest such a bias, a reputable researcher's opinion must be cited. I have labeled the section as "original research" for now. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 17:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Καὶ ὅτι κύριος ὤν ὁ Χριστὸς. . φαινόμενος πρότερον ὡς ἀνηρ καὶ ἄγγελος,. See W. Trollope (ed.) S. Justini philosophi et martyris, cum Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo dialogus, (1846), vol.2, J. Hall, Cambridge p.119.
On the other hand, Justin sees the Logos as a separate being from God and subordinate to him [citation needed]:
"For next to God, we worship and love the Logos who is out of the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing" (Second Apology, 13).
"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).
Professor X of Y University holds that Justin sees the Logos as a separate being from God and subordinate to him [Citation from Journal Z]. Professor X examined quotes such as:
"For next to God, we worship and love the Logos who is out of the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing" (Second Apology, 13).
"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).
Professor X explains that in Trypho's, Justin uses the terms such as "Angel" in the W philosophical construct, meaning [insert scholarly opinion here]. [citation from reputable journal]
All assertions in Wikipedia, particularly controversial ones, must be attributed to an outside reliable source. They can't be made in the editorial voice of the encyclopedia itself. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 20:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
In this edit on Nov 14, I've deleted the majority of the text in the Doctrine of the Logos section. I researched the history of this page, and the doctrine of the Logos section originated in a copy and paste from "Old Ency". I left intact the first paragraph, which has been preserved numerous years in roughly its current form, however removed the uncited/original research in the remainder. This content was not found in the original copy and paste, and expresses a controversial point of view without external substantiation. It does not discuss the validity of its argument, or discuss rhetorical devices that may have been used in Justin's works. It offers only a superficial interpretation of a few quotes pulled from a primary source. -- Zfish118 ( talk) 18:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I have included a brief paragraph based off the Old Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the origin of the logos, including its commentary that it was "unfortunate". More scholarly opinion will be need to discuss the significance of the Logos, and this this departure if it is significant.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 13:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Justin Martyr → Justin the Martyr – Martyr wasn't his last name. Nuff said p b p 04:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Was he known as "Justin Martyr" during his lifetime, or did he come to be known by that name after his death?
Surely I'm not the only person experiencing this confusion. The article should clear this up. 75.163.217.66 ( talk) 14:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
... or would it be better to call it simply "Teachings"? I see nothing in that section about his conversion. Shrommer ( talk) 22:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Justin Martyr/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Justin seems misrepresented about the Logos being a separate being, as though
a created angel to worship, but was more mainstream: "We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was." ("Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew," chap.61) "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." ("First Apology," 6) "Worship God alone." "Whence to God alone we render worship."("First Apology," 16 and 17)-- Glen1ster ( talk) 05:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC) |
Last edited at 05:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason his dates of birth and death are missing from the lead sentence? —[ AlanM1 ( talk)]— 15:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)