Justin Martyr

[ReformedBaptist]

Found a weird quote by Justin Martyr:

Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and[believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines[delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this[truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist , Meristae,Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews(do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are[only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

Anyone know the historical background here? Supposedly this was written in 150AD? lol Why would Justin Martyr be talking about baptists? Is this just a bad translation?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Found a weird quote by Justin Martyr:



Anyone know the historical background here? Supposedly this was written in 150AD? lol Why would Justin Martyr be talking about baptists? Is this just a bad translation?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

 

[ReformedBaptist]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

I meant to include that. Thanks. So...?

 

[Zenas]

This is just a wild guess. It seems that John the Baptist had followers long after his death. See Acts 19. Maybe the "Baptists" spoken of by Justin were some of these people. Justin (b. 100, d. 165) lived close enough to the time of John that this sect could have still been around.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

This is just a wild guess. It seems that John the Baptist had followers long after his death. See Acts 19. Maybe the "Baptists" spoken of by Justin were some of these people. Justin (b. 100, d. 165) lived close enough to the time of John that this sect could have still been around.

That's a good guess, that's what I was thinking too...

 

[Johnv]

That's a good guess, that's what I was thinking too...

I remember readins something of this in college. Baptist fellowships as we understand them today did not exist at the time of this writing. IIRC, Justin Martyr was referring to loose adherents to John the Baptist, often consisting of Jews still waiting for the Messiah, or of those who thought of John the Baptist as the return of Elijah or other OT prophet. They would have been seen by Justin Martyr in a similar manner that we might view Mormons or Jehovahs' Witinesses today.

 

[rsr]

Justin is describing sects related to Judaism, not Christianity. His argument is that one would not "admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist, Meristae, Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews ... but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him."

So it appears that, whatever Baptists Justin is talking about, they are not Christians.

In addition, there are differences in translating this particular passage. Thomas B. Falls and others render it as "Baptist Pharisees," not as "Baptists, Pharisees."

This makes a good deal of sense. Pharisees, far from being on the fringe of Jewish life at the time of Justin (as were the Sadducees, who had lost their power base and reason for existence with the destruction of the Second Temple) their practices would have been considered the norm.

However, if the term is indeed Baptist Pharisees, then their inclusion in a list of Jewish heretics would be reasonable; that is, they had departed from orthodox Phariseeism by their peculiar beliefs and practices.

Epiphanius of Salamis describes a sect of Hemerobaptists.

... But this sect had this added characteristic, that they were always baptized every day in spring, fall, winter, and summer ... For this sect made the claim that there is no life for a man unless he is baptized daily with water, and washed and purified from every fault.

— Epiphanius, The Panarion, translated by Frank Williams.

Williams, like others, sees a link with the Essenes, and perhaps with John the Baptist, but it is very difficult to prove.

J.B. Lightfoot (1875) thinks the Hemerobaptists (or Baptists) probably arose from a late first century sect of Judaism, some of whose adherents appropriated John's name for their religion but were not in fact followers of John. (Unlike the disciples mentioned in Acts, perhaps.)

The Gospel of St. John was written, according to all tradition, at Ephesus in the later years of the first century. Again and again the Evangelist impresses on his readers, either directly by his own comments or indirectly by the course of the narrative, the transient and subordinate character of John’s ministry. He was not the light, says the Evangelist, but came to bear witness of the light (John 1:8). He was not the sun in the heavens: he was only the waning lamp, which shines when kindled from without and burns itself away in shining.

... From such notices it is plain that in the interval between the preaching of St. Paul and the Gospel of St. John the memory of the Baptist at Ephesus had assumed a new attitude towards Christianity. His name is no longer the sign of imperfect appreciation, but the watchword of direct antagonism. John had been set up as a rival Messiah to Jesus. In other words, this Gospel indicates the spread of Hemerobaptist principles, if not the presence of a Hemerobaptist community, in proconsular Asia, when it was written.

... In the latter half of the first century, it would seem, there was a great movement among large numbers of the Jews in favour of frequent baptism, as the one purificatory rite essential to salvation. ... But when or how they first connected themselves with the name of John the Baptist, and whether this assumption was made by all alike or only by one section of them, we do not know. Such a connexion, however false to history, was obvious and natural; nor would it be difficult to accumulate parallels to this false appropriation of an honoured name. Baptism was the fundamental article of their creed; and John was the Baptist of world-wide fame. Nothing more than this was needed for the choice of an eponym. From St. John’s Gospel it seems clear that this appropriation was already contemplated, if not completed, at Ephesus before the first century had drawn to a close. ...