Yustinus Martir: Perbedaan antara revisi

 

=== Sumber-sumber kesaksian ===

 

Yustin kadang-kadang menggunakan Injil Matius langsung sebagai sumber nubuat-nubuat Perjanjian Lama untuk melengkapi sumber kesaksiannya.<ref name="Skarsaune 1987 pp. 130,163">Skarsaune (1987) ''The Proof From Prophecy'' pp.&nbsp;130,163; p.&nbsp;130 – "Yustin sometimes had direct access to Matthew and quotes OT texts directly from him.&nbsp;... (The direct borrowings are most frequent in the ''Dialogue''; in the ''Apology'', Mic 5:1 in ''1 Apol''. 34:1 may be the only instance.)" p.&nbsp;163 note: Diagram of the internal structure of the putative "kerygma source", showing the insertion of scriptural quotation of Mic 5:1 from Mt. 2:6</ref><ref name="Koester 1990 pp. 382–383">Koester (1990) ''Ancient Christian Gospels'' pp.&nbsp;382–383 – "In the discussion of the prophecy for the place of Jesus' birth (''1 Apology'' 34), Yustin only quotes the prophecy of Micah 5:1 and then remarks that Jesus was born in this 'village in the land of Judah which is 35 stades from Jerusalem' (''1 Apol''. 34:2). No actual narrative material from a gospel is quoted.&nbsp;... However, the quotation of the text of Micah 5:1 is not given in the text of the LXX; rather, Yustin follows the form of the text quoted in Matt. 2:6.&nbsp;... The form of the quotation that appears in Matt 2:6 departs considerably from both the LXX and the Hebrew text. It is, in fact, a combination of Micah 5:1 and 2 Sam 5:2; only the latter speaks of the prince's function as the Shepard of Israel. The conflated quotation was wholly the work of Matthew. There can be no question that Yustin is quoting this Matthean text."</ref> Namun, kutipan-kutipan penggenapan dari sumber-sumber ini lebih sering berbentuk harmonisasi Injil Matius dan Lukas.<ref name="Koester 1990 p. 365">Koester (1990) ''Ancient Christian Gospels'' p.&nbsp;365 – "Mayoritas besar perkataan yang dikutip dalam tulisan-tulisan Yustin adalah harmonisasi teks Matius dan Lukas. Harmonisasi ini bukan sekadarnya atau kebetulan, melainkan sistematis dan konsisten, (ini tentunya tidak termasuk ...kutipan dari ingatan quotation from memory as an explanation for Yustin's harmonizations) and they involve the composition of longer sections of parallel sayings from both gospels."</ref>

 

Koester berpendapat bahwa Yustin telah menyusun suatu harmoni Injil awal sejalan dengan baris-baris harmoni Injil karya muridnya, [[Tatian]], yaitu ''[[Diatessaron]]''.<ref name="Koester 2000 p. 344">Koester, (2000) ''Introduction to the New Testament: History and literature of Early Christianity.'' 2nd ed., 1982 1st ed., p.&nbsp;344 – "On the basis of the gospel quotations of the First Apology and the Dialogue with Trypho, one can conclude with great certainty that Yustin also had composed a harmony of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (he did not know the Gospel of John), which is lost but was used by his student Tatian for the composition of his famous and influential four-gospel harmony known as the Diatessaron."</ref> <!-- However, the existence of a harmony independent of a collection of sayings for exposition purposes has been disputed by scholar [[Arthur Bellinzoni]].<ref name="Bellinzoni 1967 p. 141">Bellinzoni (1967) ''Sayings of Jesus in Justin Martyr'' p.&nbsp;141 – "It must, however, be emphasized that there is absolutely no evidence that Yustin ever composed a complete harmony of the synoptic gospels; his harmonies were of limited scope and were apparently composed for didactic purposes. Whether the thought of a full gospel harmony ever occurred to Yustin can only be conjectured, but he apparently never undertook to compose such a work."</ref><ref name="Koester 1990 p. 370">Koester (1990) ''The Ancient Christian Gospels'' p.&nbsp;370 footnote 2: "Bellinzoni (''Sayings of Jesus in Justin Martyr'' p.&nbsp;100) collapses stage (1) [a systematic harmonization of the texts of Matthew and Luke] and (2) [the composition of a cluster of sayings that warn against false prophets] of this process. He assumes that the harmonizations were made specifically for the composition of a catechism. This assumption, however, cannot explain why also the narrative materials quoted by Yustin were drawn from a harmonized gospel text."</ref> The question of whether the harmonized gospel materials found in Yustin's writings came from a preexisting gospel harmony or were assembled as part of an integral process of creating scriptural [[prooftext]]s is an ongoing subject of scholarly investigation.<ref name="Koester 1990 p. 378">Koester (1990) ''Ancient Christian Gospels'' p.&nbsp;378 – "The question is whether Yustin composed these harmonizations and inserted additional phrases just for the purpose of his demonstration of scriptural proof or whether he drew on a written gospel text that was already harmonized and expanded. It seems to me that we are not witnessing the work of an apologist who randomly selects pieces of various gospels and invents additional phrases for the purpose of a tight argument of literal fulfillment of scripture; nor can one solve the complex problems of Yustin's quotations of gospel narrative materials by the hypothesis of a ready-made, established text of a harmonized gospel as his source. Rather, his writings permit insights into a school of scriptural exegesis in which careful comparison of written gospels with the prophecies of scripture endeavored to produce an even more comprehensive new gospel text."</ref>

-->

==== "Sumber kerygma" ====

<!--

According to Skarsaune, the harmonized gospel narratives of Matthew and Luke were part of a tradition already circulating within Yustin's school that expounded on the life and work of Jesus as the Messiah and the apostolic mission. Yustin then rearranged and expanded these testimonia to create his ''First Apology''.<ref name="Skarsaune 1987 pp. 143,425">Skarsaune (1987) ''The Proof From Prophecy'' pp.&nbsp;143,425; p.&nbsp;143 – "Taking as a working hypothesis that Yustin in ''1 Apol''. 32/35 and ''Dial''. 52–54 is using a source containing OT prophecies, expositions and fulfillment reports, it is easy to recognize the different procedure in the ''Apology'' and the ''Dialogue''. In the ''Apology'', Yustin reproduces the source rather faithfully, only rearranging the material... In the ''Dialogue'' Yustin is much more independent in his handling of his (kerygma) source. He has turned to the primary sources behind the testimony source, that is, he has turned to the LXX and Matthew." p.&nbsp;425 – "The prooftexts themselves were presented in a free, targumizing version of the standard LXX text, closely adapted to Christian exegesis and polemic concerns.&nbsp;... Yustin may have become heir to ''Schriftbeweistraktate'' which were part of a school tradition. These tracts probably also comprised brief fulfillment reports. We encounter this tradition of texts and exposition in its purest form in ''1 Apol''. 31–53. Here Yustin is still almost entirely dependent on the received texts and the adjacent exegesis.&nbsp;... Yustin's main modification is a rearrangement within the series, motivated by Yustin's fear that his readers might not recognize some of his prooftexts as real prophecies."</ref><ref name="Skarsaune 2007 pp. 381–85">Skarsaune (2007) ''Jewish Believers in Jesus'' pp.&nbsp;381–85; p.&nbsp;381 – "The reason I have called this hypothetical source the "kerygma source" is twofold. First, it share some striking parallels with the lost writing ''The Kerygma of Peter'' (ca. 125) of which a few fragments are quoted in Clement of Alexandria. Second, it seems to have had a creed-like enumeration of Jesus' messianic career, a christological "kerygma", as its basic structure.</ref> The "kerygma source" of [[prooftext]]s (contained within ''1 Apol''. 31–53) is believed to have had a [[Second Coming|Two Parousias]] Christology, characterized by the belief that Jesus first came in humility, in fulfillment of prophecy, and will [[Son of man#Daniel|return in glory]] as the [[Supersessionism|Messiah to the Gentiles]].<ref name="Skarsaune 1987 pp. 154–56">Skarsaune (1987) ''The Proof From Prophecy'' pp.&nbsp;154–56; p.&nbsp;156 – "In the ''Apology'', the idea is the following: Since the prophecies covering the first coming of Christ can be shown to have been fulfilled in great detail, we may safely conclude that those prophecies which predict His glorious second coming will also be fulfilled."</ref> There are close literary parallels between the Christology of Yustin's source and the ''[[Apocalypse of Peter]]''.<ref name="Skarsaune 2007 pp. 388–9">Skarsaune (2007) ''Jewish Believers in Jesus'' pp.&nbsp;388–9 – "The Christology is clearly messianic in function: the 'Son of God' concept is demonstrated functionally as the Messiah being enthroned at God's right hand, ruling, and coming to judge the living and the dead, thus acting in a divine role. On the whole, this Christology is very close to that of Matthew, but also to the Christology of Yustin's source in ''1 Apol''. 31–53.</ref>

==== ''Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus'' ====

 

:"And when Jesus came to the Jordan, and being supposed to be the son of [[St. Joseph|Joseph]] the carpenter..., the Holy Spirit, and for man's sake, as I said before, fluttered down upon Him, and a voice came at the time out of the heavens – which was spoken also by [[David]], when he said, impersonating Christ, what the [[God the Father|Father]] was going to say to Him – 'You are [[Son of God|My Son]], [[Gospel of Luke#Disputed verses|this day I have begotten you]]'." (''Dial''. 88:8)<ref name="Skarsaune 1987 p. 198">Skarsaune (1987) ''The Proof From Prophecy'' pp.&nbsp;197–198,391–392; p.&nbsp;197 – "Yustin's narrative is a harmonization of the Synoptic accounts. There are other non-synoptic details in the context, however, which may indicate a non-synoptic source besides the Synoptic Gospels." pp.&nbsp;391–392 – "I have argued above that the narrative of Jesus' baptism in ''Dial''. 88:3 derives from the "recapitulation" source.&nbsp;... Men believed that Jesus was the son of Joseph, but the heavenly voice proclaimed him as God's son. Perhaps the mention of the fire is related to this idea: It may have been conceived of as a purifying or testing fire.&nbsp;... Jesus at his baptism was tested as God's son by the fire, but not made God's son at his baptism. This, I gather, is also the idea embodied in Yustin's narrative: Jesus was not made or established as God's son in his baptism, but he was proved to be God's son – proved by testing, or by conquering the fire."</ref>