Talk:Justin Martyr

Oddities in Description of Justin's Writings

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)

Missing

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)

Inaccurate POV

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

This morning I added quotes from Justin which I believe adds balance to the article and reduces the POV. Someone else apparently restored the link to the COGwriter article on Justin. Presuming my comments and the link remain, the article will better reflect Justin overall. HistoryThD 16:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The point of view remains. In its current form, the section that contains "controversial" quotes makes the matter worse, reading like a debate in which Justin's controversial statements are defended one by one drawing on scripture. This is not a neutral point of view. Durandir05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The controversial quotes section takes things out of context, misrepresenting Justin and possibly his challengers. One example is the statement about the eighth day having a mysterious quality. As reflected in this entry, JM appears to espouse an eight day week or something off-the-wall like that. In context, however, he trounces the import of the eighth day in his discussion on circumcision, saying that, from a Christion POV, the Jewish circumcision is obsolete. See: CCEL. If anything the controversial quotes section should be binned unless the precise points of disagreement can be shown one-by-one. Otherwise, this section simply serves to confuse readers. Therefore, I have removed the section part and parcel, posting the Wiki-code here for archiving and further consideration:

==Some of Justin's controversial statements==

It should be pointed out that Justin made a variety of statements that have been viewed by some as controversial.

"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."

Jesus said whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 10. "Christians who do not admit this truth" lines up with his words.

Concerning Christ, Justin taught, "And He was predicted before He appeared, first 5000 years before, and again 3000, then 2000, then 1000, and yet again 800; for in the succession of generations prophets after prophets arose."

Luke 24- Jesus said all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. The prophet Micah (5:2) stated that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and that his going forths have been from old from everlasting.

Justin also claimed, "And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan" It should be noted that there is no fire in mentioned in any biblical account of Jesus' baptism (see Matthew 3:1-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34).

The disciples on the day of Pentecost describe the Holy Spirit as Fire. Acts 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Justin wrote, "Now, sirs," I said, "it is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain mysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess, and which was promulgated by God through these rites..."

This quote is pertaining to the 1000 year millenial reign in the Book of Revelation.

Because of several statements that Justin made, Sabbatarian groups, such as the Living Church of God have considered that Justin was not a true saint, but a heretic.

Jesus himself was accused of being demon possesed and a blasphemer. Matthew 12 / Mark 14

Please do not repost this unless you can do it with fair balance to all sides of each debate. As a specialist in this area (Christian Origins and the Early Church), I shall plan to revisit this page. Alas, at the moment, I simply do not have the time to give it. I therefore count it better to have a slightly incomplete entry than to have a misleading one. //Alukasz 18:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Name of Article/Person

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)

I disagree. "Justin Martyr" is the name used by every present-day historian and theologian who references him. I'm not sure why or how this name developed, but that is what it is. (I do agree, however, that it sounds a little confusing!) David aukerman ^talk 15:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. "Justin Martyr" has become his name in fact. That is how everybody refers to him. Mrhsj (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if no one knows why or how he was got the name, this article should state that that is indeed his name. Currently it leaves readers wondering why this odd choice of name is never mentioned. Is it possible he referred to himself as "Justin Martyr" in his own writings? It sounds like he was quite inspired by the Christian martyrs and may have greatly desired martyrdom. Ben (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Justin Martyr or Raymond Martini?

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)

Is it appropriate to claim that Justin Martyr was a Saint in the first sentence?

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)

The leading "Saint" was incorrect per naming policy, as it was not required for disambiguation. I've removed it. As to stating that he is a saint, the pertinent definition is the one given in the linked WP article: "a human being who is believed to have been 'called' to holiness or has, consciously or unconsciously, fulfilled the criteria set for sainthood by a religious institution." JM clearly fulfills the second half of the definition. That said, I note that the descriptions of early Christian saints are rather inconsistent. It might be a good topic to bring up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Saints. Finally as to the article "having a religious slant" I'm not sure what you mean. A quick skim through the article didn't turn up anything inappropriate to me. It is an article about religion after all... so please be more specific. Mrhsj (talk) 17:34, 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:

1. JM was a person of exceptional holiness.
2. JM has been recognized as a saint by a religious entity.

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)

The objection really seems to be "I don't want anyone called a saint because I don't agree with their religion." I don't think that is helpful to Wikipedia. Roger Pearse (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2011 (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)

Logos section

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)

Merged MA material from the G12 article

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)

Composition section

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 decided to be conservative and refrain from naming Justin's tracts comparing Greek mythology to OT prophecies and Plato's dependence on Moses. These may well be from a lost Apology, but there is nothing in Eusebius' report on the Apology of Quadratus to suggest it is the same work used by Justin. P. Nautin was engaging in pure speculation, which Skarsaune reported in a footnote without comment. Ovadyah (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The section on catechetical sayings sources is largely complete. It could be mentioned that the four logia in Dial. 35:3 probably came from a different sayings source than the catechism used to create 1 Apol. 15-17 and parallels in the Dialogue. However, this would only supplement the main point that Justin was dependent upon source materials that were already circulating within his school. Ovadyah (talk) 16:56, 21 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 added a bit more about the Christology of the Disputation. I didn't push any possible similarities to the GH or Romans 5, as these are very indirect at best. That completes the work on the Composition section. Ovadyah (talk) 16:32, 22 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)

Moved from Jewish-Christian gospels

may be someone thinks worth including? moving rather than simply deleting In ictu oculi (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Love your enemies. Be kind and merciful as your heavenly Father is.
• "To him that smites you on the one cheek offer also the other, and him that takes away your cloak or coat forbid not. And whosoever shall be angry shall be in danger of the fire. And everyone that makes you go with him a mile follow him two. And let your good works shine before men, that they, seeing them, may glorify your Father who is in Heaven.
• "Give to him who asks, and from him that would borrow, turn not away. For if you lend to them of whom you hope to receive, what good thing do you do? Even the publicans do this. Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust corrupt and where thieves break through, but lay up for yourself treasure in Heaven, where neither moth nor rust corrupts. For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world and lose his own soul? And what shall a man give in exchange for it? Lay up, therefore, treasure in Heaven, where neither moth nor rust corrupts.
• "You shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy strength, and thy neighbor as thyself.
• "Swear not at all, but let your yes be yes, and your no, no; for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil.
• "If you love them that love you, what good thing do you do? For even the sexually immoral do this. But I say to you, pray for your enemies, and love them that hate you, and bless them that curse you, and pray for them that spitefully use you.
• "There are some who have been made eunuchs of men and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying.
• "If thy right eye offend you, cut it out; for it is better for you to enter the Kingdom of Heaven with one eye than having two eyes to be cast into everlasting fire.
• "He who looks on a woman lustfully commits adultery with her in his heart before God.
• "Whosoever shall marry her who is divorced from another husband commits adultery.
• "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
• "Fear not them that kill you and after that can do no more, but fear him who after death is able to cast both soul and body into hell.
• "Except you be born again, verily you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
• "The children of this world marry and are given in marriage, but the children of the world to come neither marry nor are given in marriage, but shall be like the angels in Heaven.
• "Many false Christs and false apostles shall arise and shall deceive many of the faithful.
• "Beware of false prophets, who shall come to your clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
• "And he overthrew the money-changers, and exclaimed, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you pay a tithe of mint and rue but do not observe the love of Most High and justice. You whitewashed sepulchres, appearing beautiful outwardly, but are within full of dead men's bones. Woe unto you Scribes, for you have the keys, and you do not enter in yourselves, and them that are entering in, you hinder. You blind guides, you are the Children of Hell times twice over.
• "The Law and the Prophets were until John the Baptist. From that time the Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. And if you can receive it, he is Elijah who was to come. He that has ears to hear let him hear.
• "Elijah must come and restore all things. But I say to you, Elijah has already come, and they knew him not, but have done to him whatever they chose. Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them about John the Baptist.
• "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the Pharisees and Scribes, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
• "Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that does the will of my Father who is in Heaven. For whosoever hears me and does my sayings, hears him that sent me. And many will say to me, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten and drunk in your name and done wonders? And then will I say to them, 'Depart from me, you workers of iniquity. Then shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth, when the righteous shall shine like the sun, and the wicked are sent into everlasting fire. For many shall come in my name clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly being ravening not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.
• "I give you power to tread on serpents and on scorpions and on all the might of the enemy.
• "They shall come from the East and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven.
• "There is none good but God only, who made all things.
• "No man knows the Father but the Son, nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son reveals himself.
• "An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign shall be given it save the sign of Jonah.
• "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
• "In whatsoever things I shall apprehend you, in those also will I judge you."

no idea about the source In ictu oculi (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I recovered the deleted references supporting the above quotations:

A soldier in the British Army in India Arthur Lillie (1893) (ref Arthur Lillie The Influence of Buddhism on Primitive Christianity 1893 section excerpted and retailed as The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005. pp 111 - 134 /ref) argued that when Justin Martyr is quoting from the Memoirs of the Apostles these sayings are really from the Gospel of the Hebrews (ref Rev. Sabine Baring-Gould, The Lost And Hostile Gospels, 1874 POD reprint Nabu Press, 2010. p 122 - 129 /ref) (ref Waite Burlingame (1824-1909) History of the Christian Religion, to the Year Two Hundred, 1881 POD reprint BiblioBazaar, 2009. p 278 /ref)

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)

'primitive eschatology'

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)

Moved unsourced content to talk

Justin's attitude toward the Pauline epistles generally corresponds to that of the later Church. In this area, his polemics against Marcion were in accord with the emergent mainstream Catholic views. In Justin's works, distinct references are found to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy. It seems likely that he also knew Hebrews and 1 John. The apologetic character of Justin's habit of thought appears again in the Acts of his martyrdom, the genuineness of which is attested by internal evidence.

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:

"distinct references are found to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy. It seems likely that he also knew Hebrews and 1 John."

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

Justin Martyr was a Palestinian thinker?

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)

Well said. I believe Nish is attempting to make a link between the modern day Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza strip, and Martyr. On the Palestinian People article he has been working to cement Jesus Christ and Martyr as "Palestinians." I don't think Matyr should be called that until the debate at the other page is complete. As it stands, it is POV pushing.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, gentlemen. I always edit according to reliable sources. There are two that describe Justin Martyr as a 'Palestinian thinker', and since experts on him use that language, the text reflects RS. All of your suspicions about my motives are just that. Address the edit, not the person. 'I' don't 'mean' anything by the edit other than enriching its narrative by precisely what scholarly sources say, and since they use that term, neither you nor me nor anyone else, as an editor, can exercise a right of censure. We follow sources, we don't sit, as many of you do, in judgement on them according to contemporary partisan misprisions about the meaning of words. I'm a classicist and have been reading on that area for 50 years, and 'Palestinian' means exactly what it is defined as meaning in the Oxford English Dictionary, i.e., it means a native or inhabitant of that area since Biblical times to the present day. You can try and gerryrig, as happened on the other page by the usual alerts off-line, a blow-in majority who give a thumbs down but unfortunately a majority of editors' opinions do not outweigh the primary importance of what scholars write. Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 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:

• He was born in what is present day Palestine.
• He was probably pagan in a largely Jewish area
• He spoke Greek and it sounds like he was probably a descendant of the Greeks that conquered the area under Alexander the Great.
• Flavea Napolis where he was born and Epheseus where he moved to were areas that were formerly controlled by the Greeks but were now under Roman Control.
• He moved to Rome where he established a Christian school.

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)

You are using WP:OR to challenge WP:RS. That is forbidden.

My native language is English. My profession is scholarship. I know that when a source writes 'Palestinian thinker' of some subject, and the OED writes that 'Palestinian' refers to a native or inhabitant of Palestine in ancient and modern times, that these texts say what they mean. I made the edit. If you have serious objections, state them. It is not our job to challenge sources because we disagree with them. 'I', if you look at my record, add information to articles exclusively from academic sources, I don't question them. My opinion doesn't count, neither does yours. The word Palestinian' in the same sense is used of numerous people from Maximus the Confessor, to Sozomen by academic specialists. This is no exception. Policy advises us to shut up about what we think, and just write articles according to the best available sources, with rigorous fidelity to their content and language. Blame the sources, not me.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 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)

Okay, also on this page the boys in the control room have emailed around and . . .By the way, you always accuse me of stalking you if I appear on a page you happen to have worked before I show up (the diffs aren't hard to find). So? What is your interest in this page? Please reread WP:RS and policy. The text is cited word perfectly, and no amount of wikilawyering or stacking, as on the other page, the talk forum alters the fact that one of our foremost experts on this man calls him 'a Palestinian thinker'. It's quite common, and is a scholarly convention for writing on this period. Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A lead is a summary of info from the body. The second sentence of the first body paragraph says he was born in Palestine. The rest of the paragraph makes plain that he spent a good deal of time in thought.

The lead does not need to mention this info. His birthplace is not an important part of his encyclopedic signifigance. Additionally, the body saying he was "born in Palestine" is far clearer than saying he "was a Palestinian."Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is in a primitive state. The lead needs, as does the article, development. So develop it. Articles aren't written by people making objections to additions. They are written by people reading up on the subject. I happened to read Justin Martyr for my course work forty-five years ago, and will oblige to do so provided you show some interest in reading a book on him and adding substance to the article, rather than showing an ideological unease with terms that are normal for that period. One can invent any number of objections for what one dislikes, but please try to restrict yourself to policy. Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 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)

Where is your textual evidence for your objections? On what policy do you base your evident intention to remove an impeccable reliable source. This is not a talk shop. We work, and work has guidelines. Please follow them.Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 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)

That a man is a thinker, or philosopher or theologian is not a 'fragment of information'. It defines his identity, and Justin Martyr, if you read sources, was not just a 'Christian apologist'. You ask my reasons for the edit? What are the reasons you or anyone else edits on wikipedia. That kind of question is not within the scope of wikipedian's remit. You have no right to ask 'what information' I meant to convey by an edit. Your remit, as mine, is to add verifiable information from reliable sources. Full stop. We all have our suspicions about what others are doing here, but they have no part in how we judge edits. Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It is reasonable to think you have a personal grudge in this decision. Your user page contains over a dozen uses of the word "Palestinian." You use it to triumph your opinions about the I-P conflict.

It is reasonable to think that you are an WP:activist here. You are taking a piece of info near and dear to your heart (people born in Palestine) and increasing the prominence of that info in a purposefully ambiguous way.

It is reasonable to think you are WP:edit warring here because you are doing it on Palestinian People too.

It is reasonable to think that the fancy pants classics degree you got 45 years ago means nothing. "That a man is a thinker... defines his identity" also doesn't mean anything.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 22:17, 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)

Stop edit-warring. Since this is getting a lot of people, with unfortunately little familiar with the period, or its scholarship, upset because when they see the word 'Palestinian' they think of contemporary terrorists, could I ask you and a few other editors here to familiarize yourself with scholarly conventions on writing of that period. Sources count in wikipedia, not politics or personal opinions.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added two new sources so that readers understand precisely that scholars of Justin Martyr use 'Palestinian' to define his background. Only a moron, at this point, will be misled to think he was a member of the PLO, if that is the 'concern'.Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem forgot WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor"--Shrike (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No you misread. No one here has said Justin Martyr was a member of the PLO, and the expression was ironic. But iof WWP:NPA interests you, please review this thread, where two editors repeatedly tried to personalize and psychologize my motives for an edit that was notably technical, and impeccably sourced. Let's stick to policy by all means, which says we should write articles according to what the best sources say, and on this, the best sources do not regard the challenged definition as controversial.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that the "Palestinian" pov-push is inappropriate, as outlined above. It is unfortunate that edit warring was resorted to, especially because there is a clear consensus against this on multiple talk pages, including this one of course.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The page doesn't need off-the-cuff impressionistic opinions, and were I rude, I would mirror your sentence, replacing /"Palestinian" pov-push/ with "Israeli"pov-push. But I won't. The point is, are you familiar with the topic, have you read widely in the scholarly literature of that period where 'Palestinian' is normative. Just coming in to express an opinion, without understanding issues, looks like vote-stacking or gaming. Address the merits of the evidence for Justin Martyr, who was born in Nablus/Shechem in what was called, and know as, Palestine. Are the technical sources I cite cited correctly, or are they unreliable, or are they in error? Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact is that calling Martyr a Palestinian is less clear than saying he was "born in Palestine." Our article talks about his birth place in the body where biographic info goes. It doesn't belong in the lede IMHO because it doesn't warrant that much emphasis.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved the disputed text to the talk page for further discussion:

His work is beloved by scholars and Palestinian people alike because he was a Palestinian thinker.

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)

There is an Rfc on whether or not 'Palestinian' can be used on the 'Palestinian people' page which, a group insists, is a page limited to the contemporary Palestinians. There is no RfC, though I am preparing one, on whether 'Palestinian', which is omnipresent in scholarly texts on Palestine and its peoples through early to late antiquity, can be used on wiki articles for that period. The objection therefore is not the same. No one disputes that the leading scholars of Justin Martyr's period use the noun, and the adjective, to describe the culture, people and milieu of the people born in Palestine. You are deeply read in this area, and, since I trust your good faith, I expect you will agree that, for antiquity, in scholarly usage, the terms are not controversial. Of course, we shall RfC this as well. But it is a separate issue. In the meantime, I do not think responsible editors should confuse and prejudge the matter. By the way, since you are, unlike several here, thoroughly au courant with the scholarly literature of this period and its terminology, I would appreciate your call on this, which, I assume, may be negative, but I also assume, will be adequate to the technical requirements for an informed judgement. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I would leave it out for now just for reasons of scope. If someone ever adds a section to the article about the reception of Justin Martyr in popular culture, that can be summarized in the lede. With respect to his historical origins, Justin claimed he was from Samaria, so that's the way we should report it. If this goes to an RfC, I'm fine with whatever the Community decides. Best. Ignocrates (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, Ignocrates, he hailed from Shechem/Neapolis in Samaria, but I think his own descriptor, in addressing formally the Roman Emperor in the opening words of his Apology confirm the propriety of this designation. 'I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine,' The First Apology ch.1.1. I'll put the original Greek text, with translation, into a note in the meantime. Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, the truth is in your words. You think that Palestinian people should be more than just contemporary Palestinians. Please let my edit stand. It keeps everything you want from the sources, but makes it less confusing.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec with Ignocrates who beat me to the button)

We don't deal in 'truth' here, we deal in verifiability, and the words aren't mine, but those of Justin. My principle has always been to use source language, and you prefer the primary source to the secondary source, whereas secondary sources are generally our best guide. The secondary source says 'Palestinian thinker' (I have many examples of that kind of usage, which I will present when my list exceeds a 100, for this period). A 'thinker from Palestine' is, frankly, inept. 'Aristotle was a thinker from Greece': 'Kant was a thinker from Prussia'; 'Descartes was a thinker from France': 'Hume was a thinker from England'. See, now? That is just question-begging, besides being stylistically awkward. Secondly, 'Palestinian' defining 'thinker' is not just a matter of indicating his birthplace. 'Palestinian' here indicates above all the cultural and social milieu into which he was born. He was born in Neapolis/Nablus, but you can't say 'Neapolis thinker' because 'Neapolis' is, in that sense, 'indeterminate'. If you say 'Palestinian Talmud' or 'Palestinian Jew', you do not only define the country of birth, you indicate the specific milieu of Judaism (as distinct from Babylonian Judaism, or Alexandrian/Egyptian Judaism, which had distinct theological and cultural traditions. What is so distressing to me, were I stressable, is the way the wretched word 'Palestinian' is so fixated in some editors' minds as somehow a political term, that they fail to see how the grammar of meaning functions, i.e., that 'Palestinian' here is not an ethnic term, but a signifier of cultural and territorial force. So, I'm afraid, it should be verted back to what the RS source specifically uses. The more source language we use, the less margin is there for subjective misapprehensions, and editorial misprisions.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to be difficult, but what, exactly, is a "thinker"? The reference doesn't identify Justin as a thinker; rather, it is the people in Palestine who would understand his allegories. Isn't it enough to say he was an apologist? I believe someone else asked the same question. The content doesn't accurately report what the source says. Ignocrates (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

See, once you tinker with source language, problems arise. The primary source, Yadin, says he was a 'Palestinian thinker'. The other quotes are there because people think this is somehow odd.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the 5th source says he was born in Palestine. The rest call him "Palestinian," by which they mean he was from Palestine. The disagreement here was whether or not Martyr's birthplace is mentioned enough in the article.

I would argue that the mention in the body's first paragraph, as well as the infobox's mention of his birthplace, would be enough. But I readded the info to the lede until we finish deciding if this is enough mention or not.

I agree that "thinker" doesn't add any value to the lede, but Nishidani said its an important part of his identity. Darn it, we are going to respect Nishi's Good Faith that he is right and we are all wrong.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No, 'thinker from Palestine' can't stand because it is dreadful English. Since you created the problem, and now admit 'thinker' doesn't add anything to the lead (I never said it was an 'important part of his identity'), you are suggesting only out of respect for me a clumsy piece of phrasing be retained. This place doesn't work like that. The source Yadin says 'Palestinian thinker'. Are you all saying that a textual expert in that period is not competent to judge compared to yourselves?Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani said, "That a man is a thinker... defines his identity" Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Luke 19 verse 27 wrote:' "thinker" doesn't add any value to the lede,'. Leads WP:LEDE does not allow valueless, supererogatory phrasing in leads. The adjectival qualification, with the word, makes eminent sense. Neither the adjective alone, nor the substantive, alone, are of value. My wife teaches this distinction to her Italian class in primary school.Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the English translation is loose and idiomatic (which I copied and pasted), and gave rise to misapprehensions, Justin did not write: 'I am from Palestine'. He wrote that he was of(a family of a city of Palestine). In any case, as noted above, it is meaningless to leave the word 'thinker' unqualified, as the prior edit did. To repeat 'Palestinian thinker' signals that his thinking is to be contextualized within the intellectual culture of that area, and not elsewhere, an area where Stoic/rabbinical/Christian/Platonic traditions had a different mix, and weight from, for example, the same currents in Egypt in places like Alexandria. Since two editors fail to understand this, I shall give an illustrative example:

'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.

I hope that, one of dozens of examples, makes it clear that scholars use the word 'Palestinian' also to refer to cultural milieu as a factor in intellectual formation, and thus 'Palestinian thinker' is not only not 'ethnic' or simply 'territorial'. It defines the kind of thinker Justin was, which cannot be expressed better than in the simple phrase our Justin Martyr scholar provides us with. Reverting without significant reasons, or efforts to understand, is not appropriate wikipedian behaviour.Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So now we are discussing Martyr's place as a Palestinian thinker? That isn't a summary of information from the body. Christian Apologist seems a much better description. It belongs in the lede because it is supported by the body.

Would it be acceptable to move "Palestinian thinker" to the body?Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Leads note the date of birth, and place of birth but the fact does not summarize a section in the article dealing with arguments about the date of birth, or the place where he was born. Obvious. Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The place of birth is Judaea (Roman_province)[2]--Shrike (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work. Justin's self-descriptor, and the secondary source I quote, are not invalidated by that, since you can find sources to say 'in Palestine', 'in Samaria' in 'Judaea', in Neapolis, for his place of birth, but the point of the edit you question lies in a different descriptor which speaks of him as a 'Palestinian thinker' not a 'Judean thinker', which would have a completely different connotation, since scholars in the past, like Heinrich Graetz, used that phrase to refer to certain schools of Jewish thinkers in the post-exilic period, and later scholarship preferred 'Palestinian' for the Roman period.Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

1. He was born in Flavia Neapolis (present day Nablus).
2. Flavia Neapolis was part of the Roman province of Syria Palestina that had been named by the Romans after the end of the second Jewish War.
3. His ethnicity and culture were Greek (his father and grand father was Greek and he spoke Greek and his birth place Flavia Neapolis was probably a Greek colony)
4. He considered himself to be a gentile.
5. He was given a Roman name despite the Greek ancestry of his parents.
6. He seems to have identified himself as Samaritan which was the area that he was from but other information contradicts his self identity on this point.

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)

A master's thesis is not RS. Weis's theory has been challenged, like most interpretations of anything ancient. The matter cited there is in many books by the authors cited in the thesis, that may be consulted. Opposition to a RS source, which happens to be an autoritative account, can't rest on dislike or opinion. It must be grounded in policy.

He was born in Judea the name was changed during his life.--Shrike (talk) 18:40, 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)

He was born is Samaria region [3] that is in Judaea (Roman_province)--Shrike (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

He was born in the Greek town of Neapolis, in the region of Samaria, in the province of Judaea. Therefore he was born both in Samaria and Judaea, depending on point of view, just as he was born in Palestine, which is the usual term in historian discourse for the area, a choice of term that avoids the slippery ambiguities and distinctions partisan usage tends to engender, like saying Judea, meaning Judea Province between 6 CE and 135 CE, when the reader will think of Judea as distinct from Samaria. In any case, a major scholar of Justin says 'Palestinian thinker', and no one has given a policy-based reason for not allowing this to be entered onto the page. Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It has been objected to based on policy again and again. You are violating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The above conversation shows that support is against the inclusion of your edit, at least for now.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

But I got one more for you. The Reinhold Plummer book that Nishidani brought to the page has some great info on Martyr. That scholarly text refers to Martyr as a Samaritan, over and over. It says his background and philosophical basis is "Samaritan." The book uses the phrase "Palestinian" over a dozen times, but never in regards to Martyr. The phrase "Palestinian thinker" never appears.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If it the case he should be described as Samaritan that was born in Judea province.Nishidani edits a clear violation of WP:CONSENSUS.--Shrike (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. RS can be found to quote an endless number of points about a historical figure's life and times. But an editor can only quote or paraphrase a source if it is going to help the article. Just like you can't take any journalist's word as the final word, neither does any scholarly RS make a quote like "Palestinian thinker" worthwhile when the details of this long-since-wormfood individual's background are lost in the haze of history.

What I'm trying to say is, the only important thing about Justin Martyr is that he is an early Christian Apologist. The body of the article can rumminate on the scholarly opinion of what his father might have done and who told him about Jesus, who might or might not have been his cousin, but I think we all know who's not wearing clothes around here.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your argument make sense.--Shrike (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You are apparently trying to muscle out edit by numbers, and spurious policy. Luke's edits are (a) full of bad spelling which does not inspire confidence over his familiarity with books (b) aimed at the removal of RS material that he prefers not to be mentioned on the page. (c) The RS on a, to most (even the editors here) obscure historical thinker, are few and far between, unlike RS on raging contemporary political issues. On Justin Martyr the RS can be counted on the fingertips of four hands. (d) WP:CONSENSUS no where entitles a group of editors patently unfamiliar with an argument to enter a page and, on the basis of sheer opinionizing, question and then systematically remove the content RS whose academic standing is impeccable. You can challenge edits of this material if, in the transition from the RS text to the page, the editor including that material has misrepresented the source. All I see so far is a political objection to the use of the word 'Palestinian', while none here challenge the fact that the word is a frequent denominator of theologians, thinkers and other figures of that period in established scholarly usage (e) Before Justin became a Christian Apologist, he was a pagan, and educated in pagan thought. Beyond his Christian apologetics, this fact of his early life, defined by the cultural peculiarities of his era, is deemed important in RS. (f) 'the body of the article cannot 'ruminate' on anything. It must simply include material bearing on his life and thought. (g) Luke checked my source in Plummer, and saw that it dealt with Samarians/Samaritans (this is subject to extensive scholarly debate). So he elided my contributions from Plummer that did not bear on Samarians/Samaritans, with an edit summary that gives, not a policy reason, but a purely subjective argument against my utilization of Plummer's remarks. In other words, he is trying to dictate what can and cannot be harvested from RS about Justin Martyr, without developing the article (a proof of bona fides would be to develop a subsection on the history of scholarship regarding the Samarian /Samaritan controversy, for example). The article is not being improved. It is being edit-warred over, and I am being challenged everywhere, simply because I transcribed faithfully the words used in an impeccable scholarly source, words several of you do not want to see on the page because, apparently, you can only read history with contemporary spectacles, unlike the historians who actually do history. For these reasons, I have been left with no option but to revert. Please stick to policy, do not elide whimsically material on Justin because I happened to have included it, which is, on the face of it a personal provocation contemptuous of proper wikipedia procedures.Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that hit about spelling. But I'm not allergic to any particular word. I removed the speculation about his ancestors because the RS you quoted says:

His grandfather's name, Bacchius, was Greek, and that of his father, Priscus, as well as his own name were Latin. Attempts to draw conclusions about his ancestry from this meager evidence include the inferences that his ancestors may have been "colonists who settled in Flavia Neapolis soon after its establishment," or that "Justin's family was part of a 'diplomatic' community sent from Rome to Neapolis. <bolded by Luke>

The scholar is belittling these adademic thought experiments in his book because he's gotta fill up the Justin Martyr chapter. But we got just one Wikipedia article and it doesn't take every scholar's opinion to fill it up. Just the main ones. I could use Pummer's book to add to the lede "Martyr denied ever having his genitals ritualistically mutilated" but I won't because the websurfer who just saw a Justin Martyr quote on Youtube and wants to know who that geezer is won't be served by vague info like "he was a Palestinian thinker, and his family used Greek and Latin names so maybe he was like a diplomat's kid." Now I'm no big city lawyer with a keen familiarity of books, but the rule of he who first smelt it, did usually dealt it implies that the one throwing accusations of Israelphilia around is probably the one with shit in his pants.

A Haiku

The lede, doesn't need

Anymore nonsense besides

Xian A-gist

Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't blather. Plummer says 'uncircumsized' not 'ritually mutilated' which would be a POV non-neutral travesty. Your second point violates wiki principles. You are making a judgement from Plummer's use of 'meagre evidence' that the summation he makes of the inferences in RS refers to theories with fragile evidence to back them. Most facts and descriptions of events in ancient history are based on 'meagre evidence', because little has survived. Historians are at homed with meagre evidence, and make inferences. The various theories they develop from them constitute the record of scholarly interpretations which forms the basis for our narratives. If we were to restrict the article on Jesus Christ, or Moses, to abundant factually verifiable evidence we wouldn't be able to write articles on them. So please think before using this page as a pastime for idle reflections. Ands by the way, that is not a haiku. You screwed up the syllable count in two of the three 'verses'. Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No, my haiku was correct. The|lede, does|nt|need (5) An|y|more|non|sense|be|sides (7) X|i|an|A|-gist (5)

But my Japanese poetry isn't important right now. I put that there as an epitaph on this conversation. You have fought valiantly, but you will not get to christen Martyr with your crest. Do an RfC or shut up. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Make no threats, stop the abusive orders ('shut up'), learn to count Chinese syllables, but above all, respond to each objection, which has been precisely worded, reflects sources, and is based on some knowledge of the subject (there are quite a few patents errors here, and I don't see newbies fixing them, which suggests they are not familiar with the topic, except for the use of one adjective). Since you have about 100 edits to your name, I think you should examine wiki policy, and not swagger about menacing experienced editors, brandishing dictatorial fiats like the one above.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

My request that you do an RfC or shut up is compliant with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You have been beating a dead horse, and you've been doing it all by yourself. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have moved on from this dispute, but in the interests of stopping this needless tit-for-tat edit warring let me offer a perspective. Anyone can submit a request for a content RfC at any time, and there's no way another editor or even a "consensus" of editors can block it. To do so would trigger an almost automatic trip to AN/I. So, file the request yourself rather than asking Nishidani. Just keep in mind if you choose to go down this road that he will be bringing his "A" game. Ignocrates (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I reverted back because the edit summary described as 'silly' an edit that was fully sourced, and academically grounded. Whim is not a right, and the editor in question has given no substantial reason, other than dislike, for his attitude. Reflect on this:

R. Akiba is the Palestinian rabbinic sage par excellence.' Richard Lee Kalmin,Jewish Babylonia between Persia and Roman Palestine, Oxford University Press 2006 p.113

As any google check will show, the use of Palestinian here is a scholarly commonplace.

I edited Palestinian thinker for Justin Martyr.

According to those who object to this, one may write:

R. Akiba is the Palestinian rabbinic sage par excellence

But one must not write:

Justin Martyr, .. was an early Palestinian thinker,

Despite the fact that,. syntactically, the two phrases are identical, the one referring to 'Palestinian+rabbinical sage' (adjectives and noun), the other referring to 'Palestinian thinker' (adjective plus noun).

Or is it that no reference must be made in wiki's narrative voice to anyone from Palestine, Jew, pagan or Christian, in this way? If so, why. If not, why is the toponymic descriptor 'Palestinian' not acceptable when non-Jews are referred to?Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

As has been clearly explained, the phrase "Palestinian thinker" is ambiguous at best, has little meaningful semantic content, and is generally misleading. The use of "Palestinian" in this way is, as pointed out by the Oxford English Dictionary, generally intended to indicate "an Arab born or living in the area of the former mandated territory of Palestine; a descendant of such an Arab". Please make more helpful and meaningful contributions to this article's content. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It's ambiguous to some wikipedians. It is not ambiguous to period scholars. Period. The wikipedians who oppose it can't give any sensible explanation as to why scholars use the epithet without grief, but we should have anxiety fits about its ostensible anxiety. And don't make WP:OR inferences from the OED, which clearly justifies this usage. Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, written for the general reader. It is not written for "period scholars". The wikipedians who support the inclusion can't give any sensible explanation as to the actual meaningful semantic content of the phrase, or what valuable information it adds to the article, much less any plausible rationale for including this obviously ambiguous material in, of all places, the article's lede. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I do appreciate Nishidani 's efforts to show that reliable sources exist that call JM a "Palestinian" and to describe how the term "Palestinian" is used in scholarly writing. I take it as established that some reliable sources support calling JM a "Palestinian". But the question at hand is not one of WP:RS; it is one of WP:UNDUE as to whether this term belongs in the opening sentence of the lead. I am convinced that it does not. On the whole I concur with Jayjg that the Rfc on "was Jesus a Palesitinian..." applies here almost exactly. Just as a sanity check though, I looked at (a) the top 5 Google Books search results (with full text) for "Justin Martyr" and (b) the top five Google web search results for the same (excluding those derived from Wikipedia). And I looked at how JM was described in those texts. I found that almost every one referred to JM as an "apologist", most as a "philospher". Not one called him a "Palestinian". Fairly represenative was the introduction to "Justin Marty and his worlds", which introduces JM thus: ""Justin, Philosopher and Christian martyr, Samaritan, exegete, apologist, and witness to so many of the intellectual and cultural worlds of the later Roman Empire..." I conclude that calling JM a "Palestinian" is not an overwhelmingly common practice in representative reliable secondary sources. One does not need to be an academic specialist in the period to follow Wikipedia policy on this point. Mrhsj (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:Undue can hardly be adduced, improbably, to hold a single adjective hostage. Any google search in google books will show that 'Palestinian' is one of the default adjectives to describe the people and culture of the area for this period in antiquity, and therefore the question is, quite simply, why, in this unique instance, must wikipedia refuse to accept standard scholarly usage? The text I cited, despite your affirmation to the contrary, calls him a 'Palestinian thinker', meaning that he was a thinker grounded in the specific cultural milieu of Palestine, and not Syria, Babylonia, or Egypt. The second text you quote, calls him a Samaritan, which, on his own testimony, he was not, being a Pagan of mixed Roman-Greek origins. Thirdly, wikipedia policy 'on this point' does not exist. Fourthly, the text you yourself cite calls him a philosopher, precisely the word that is in my source, but which Brewcrewer and others refuse to allow. Unlike most Christian apologists, he had by his own testimony, an intellectual formation under Greek Platonists and Stoics. Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess you're replying to me despite the incorrect indentation. Point by point. Yes, WP:UNDUE can be used to block the use of a single adjective; every word of every article needs to comply with all WP policy. You have not established that it is "standard scholarly usage" to refer to JM as a Palestinian. The "Samaritan" quote supports my point: I am not saying the lead should call JM a "Samaritan" even though a reliable source does exist that calls him that. As to calling him a "philosopher" I would be fine with using the term because it does seem to be fairly commonly used of him in reliable secondary sources, but that it is not the point being debated here. Mrhsj (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You and the others just dislike the adjective. You have no answer to the fact that in several eminently academic sources, Justin Martyr is described as a 'Palestinian philosopher', and that is how a Palestinian rabbinical thinker would have thought of him at that time. I.e. to cite just one of many sources I could adduce: 'Justin Martyr (c.100/110-165; fl.148-61) Palestinian philosopher who was converted to Christianity, "the only sure and worthy philosophy." He traveled to Rome where he wrote several apologies against both pagans and Jews, combining Greek philosophy and Christian theology.’ Thomas C. Oden (ed.) Mark Sheridan, Genesis 12-50, 2002 Intervarsity Press, p.361.Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Edit warring

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.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Justification? Davefoc is the only editor here contributing to the discussion with a record of past interest on this subject matter. I respect his dissent from my edit. The only editor here with a strong knowledge of the period, Ovadyah, has refrained from casting a vote, even though I expect he might agree with others. He and I frequently disagree. We have sufficient respect for each other not to mess about with poor arguments, and are not in the habit of using tendentious interpretations of selective rules to cancel what we dislike. For both of us, RS trump personal opinions.

The others have either not responded to my material, and arguments, or are here out of, shall we say, 'political solidarity' since they find a default term in the scholarship of that period distasteful. Confused distaste, and disregard for source language, plus the failure to find rational grounds for cancelling RS, except by appealing to WP:CONSENSUS, is not a strong argument, esp. since someone just (re?)registered a few weeks ago to go straight to this article (you guys never wonder about this very peculiar coincidence, which is a one-sided tactic endemically used in the I/P area?). There is WP:GAMING, of course. You and Shrike are entitled to your opinions, but they lack any substance - just a generic dislike of the word 'Palestinian' being used historically, against the evidence of the OED.You cannot throw 'consensus' at me, when the topic, and the terminological issues, have barely been given the serenity and attention here they deserve. Some articles take months for consensus, and it is improper to wave a 'consensus' banner after a few days, esp. when it is a consensus to wipe out the cited language of an academic expert on the subject. See WP:RS. Cancelling impeccably sourced material as has been done in several reverts, with spurious edit-summaries reflecting personal bias (finding what a scholar wrote 'silly') is itself an infraction of the guideline's recommendations. In the meantime, since I have answered you on this, I would appreciate it if you and a few others, responded to the quite simple point I make in my question in the preceding section. Consensus is gained through talk-page discussion, which often drags on. Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This is where you are incorrect regarding our CONSENSUS policy. Editors are not required to prove "past interest" or "strong knowledge" in a subject matter before their positions are recognized. Counting all the commentators here, it is a quite clear that a consensus opposes your addition. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact you and a few others know nothing of the subject, or of the fact that in the traditions of Palestinian rabbinical scholarship, as opposed to the Babylonian school. the word "philosopher" at that time was used of Christian apologists in their cultural homeland, Palestine, or that in the Intervarsity Press commentaries on the Bible edited by Thomas C. Oden in over 50 vols., Justin is rightly indexed as a 'Palestinian philosopher'. There is nothing in wikipedia that says a political consensus (Shrike, yourself etc.) can overrule sources, and commonsense dictates that RS language cannot be cancelled by people with zero knowledge of the subject. But, I knew what would ahppen before making the edit. Only an idiot would be surprised at the gamesmanship.:)Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Re WP:CONSENSUS, note the following:'In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace'. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

I asked you to give a cogent reason why two syntactically identical forms, one regarding a Jew, the other a non-Jew, differ. You haven't deigned to reply, but simply reverted. That is in defiance of the counsel on WP:CONSENSUS

That alone, since you personally have no arguments, is enough to challenge your behaviour. See also WP:GAMING and WP:TAGTEAM.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, I absolutely respect your desire to use RS. I also respect your thoroughness and wit. But I'm asking you to please stop making assumptions about why people don't agree with you. As a guy who distrusts all governments and religions, I have a big problem with being called pro-Israeli or Zionist. Lazyfoxx recently got himself banned for a week, largely because he was tossing around accusations of bias. So please, you're smart enough to not have to use slander.

To address your quotes..."R. Akiba is the Palestinian rabbinic sage par excellence." This sentence uses Palestinian as part of the phrase Palestinian rabbi. This is used to differentiate the diaspora Jews in Iraq/Iran from the ones still in Palestine, see Palestinian Talmud. Akiba is a sage, what kind, a Palestinian Rabbinic kinda sage.

"Justin Martyr, .. was an early Palestinian thinker." The use here is not as specific, many authors use it differently. Yassin, the first source for this quote, calls one of Martyr's rival's teacher a "Palestinian thinker." Palestinian thinker isn't being used with the same kind of precision as Palestinian rabbi or Christian apologist.

I respect your good faith to improve the article. My objection to the language is only to eschew obfusgation. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly so. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit war has generated more verbiage on the talk page, over a single phrase, than the rest of the talk page discussion over the entire history of the article going back to 2001. It's time to move on. Ignocrates (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, unlike you, 'honest', in that, compared to Ebionites, the discussion has been piddling. You didn't raise that kind of objection there, you shouldn't here. And please not, the objectors have not touched the article, except for this one word. So much for a disinterested commitment to the encyclopedia. Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right that the discussion here has been piddling compared to Talk:Ebionites. That "discussion" was brutal and went on for more than a year. Sorry if I offended. However, you added the material and the WP:burden is on you to prove it should remain. It's not the burden of the rest of the community to prove otherwise. The issues here are WP:Scope and WP:Weight, not WP:RS, and they (scope and weight) can only be decided by community consensus. It's never easy is it. Ignocrates (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Original Research (Doctrine of the Logos)

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)

There's nothing controversial here. At Dialogus cum Tryphone 128.1 one reads:

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.

Of course you are right that this is best sourced to the secondary literature. If it interests you, it shouldn't be too hard to find a reliable scholarly gloss.Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Justin is written about extensively, actually, in multiple reference books. Personally, I can't actually myself read the quotation from Justin above, sorry to say, but I do know that the doctrine of the Trinity was only really codified several centuries after Justin's death, that he was one of the first serious philosophers to deal with the subject of Christianity at all, and that many of his thoughts were, well, unusual at best in the eyes of modern Christians. It would not surprise me in the least if this included his thinking regarding the nature of Jesus and the Trinity. John Carter (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry John. 'And that the lord being the Christ . .appearing first as man and angel....' It's perfectly intelligible in terms of Justin's concept of the logos.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It still doesn't change that this is apparently original research. If not original research, then it is plagiarized (uncited) research, both of which are unacceptable. A balanced section should have scholarly commentary of the primary source quotes, placing these quotes within the proper context, and discussing the relative strengths of the position. As it stands now, the section has apparently cherry picked quotes that arrive at a "surprising" conclusion. If such a conclusion is accurate, then it must be properly documented. I have no knowledge of this topic, but I can discern that this section is poorly constructed, possibly to advance an non NPOV. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The most highly regarded reference work of recent times relating to the broad subject of "religion" is the Encyclopedia of Religion, whose second edition under Lindsay Jones was published in 2005. The following quotes come from the article in that work on Justin Martyr. This is from the Highbeam Research reproduction of the book at http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3424501669.html although I have no doubt it is a faithful reproduction of the print original.

From the beginning of the section on "Thought" comes this quote: "Justin was not a theological giant. As his rejection by his Pythagorean teacher indicates, Justin lacked cultural depth. In his apologies, moreover, he wavered back and forth, relying now on citation of authorities and now on logical argument. As one of the first to grapple seriously with questions posed by more cultured Gentiles, he wobbled and tottered, very uncertain of his footing."

Specifically addressing the matter of the Logos, later in the same section, is the following paragraph: "The significant place that Christians ascribed to Jesus both in worship and in doctrine posed for Justin and other apologists an urgent theological problem: how to preserve belief in one God while recognizing Jesus as God. The eventual solution was the doctrine of the Trinity, but Justin's thinking did not reach that far. In his doctrine of God he wedded the Platonist idea of God as unknowable and transcendent, the unmoved first cause, nameless and unutterable, and the biblical conception of a living creator, the compassionate Father who has come near in Jesus Christ. Often the former idea dominated. For his understanding of the Logos he appropriated and developed elements of earlier Christian tradition in relation to either Stoic or Middle Platonist concepts. The Logos is God's personal reason—not only in name but numerically distinct from the Father—in which all partake but which in Jesus Christ became a man. Lest this dualism that he posits of God land him in ditheism, however, Justin emphasized the unity of the Father and the Logos prior to creation. The Logos is not eternal, as in later thought, but a product of the Father's will from the beginning, thus subordinate to the Father in person and function. His universal activity, Justin liked to say, is that of the Logos spermatikos, or Seminal Logos. Justin did not clearly differentiate the activity of the Holy Spirit from that of the Logos, though he evidently did believe in a personal Holy Spirit. The Spirit's chief office is prophetic inspiration."

I believe that source is sufficiently highly regarded that citations from it, either from the website or from the print original, would be sufficient to source the relevant content. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a worthwhile source to include; however it does not address my concerns. The commentary provided for the "doctrine of the logos" section is unsourced. It appears to be amateur original research, or it is plagiarized. The quotes from Justin's writings provided are ambiguous at best without proper context, and are further more translations of the original language. The commentary needs to include discussion of meanings within the original language, as well as the philosophical framework. The quote you've provided from the Encyclopedia of religion provides an overview of one perspective of Justin's works, but is not sufficient to provide the citations for the commentary. The section remains controversial, unsubstantiated, and potentially subject to removal.

As an example, here is a line from the "Doctrine of the Logos" section:

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).

In order for this section to work, the name of the researcher who advanced this position ought to be discussed. A possible phrasing:

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)

Deleted Doctrine of the Logos

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)

Which controversial point of view, specifically? If you research a topic, and can recognize and make judgements of this kind, it means you are capable of correcting the text. You haven't done so, but simply removed what you challenge. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion was appropriate. The material violates WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Original research may be deleted per Wikipedia policy. Mrhsj (User talk:Mrhsj) 20:57,14 November 2012‎

Since when is quoting a primary source WP:NOR or WP:SYN? I gather you guys are upset that Justin called Christ an angelNishidani (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I personally find the claims that quoting a person regarding their beliefs to be violations of WP:OR and WP:SYN extremely questionable, unless it can be clearly established that this quotation is taken out of context. Quoting someone is neither OR nor SYN, unless the quote is being used to establish something that is not clearly and unequivocally stated in the quote itself. The contention that Justin regarded Jesus as an "angel", is, however, somewhat questionable, from what I can see. The EoR I quoted above indicates that he considered to be the first creature and to be a participant in the rest of creation. "Angel" doesn't quite cover that, and it is possible that later academics came to the conclusion that Justin might have been using the best word that existed that he knew of, even if it isn't exactly what he was thinking. The demiurge and first creation seems to be maybe a bit clearer, given the status of modern language. Having said that, if anyone wanted me to forward to them the relevant reference sources I can find on Questia or Highbeam Research, which might be best in these circumstances, just drop me an e-mail and I'll do so. I think most people would agree that, in general, statements contained in recognized reference sources can be counted as reliably presenting the current academic view, right?

I also note that there are some current traditions which emphasize Justin as a thinker, given their own nontrinitarian views. Unfortunately, the fact that there are religious views today which support him does not necessarily mean that the independent academic world's opinion of him is changed in any way. I see no particular objection to presenting the views of nontrinitarians in the article, but I tend to think that they should be based, as much as possible, on academic works independent of those groups themselves. Presenting such views first would make it easier to determine how much weight to give the various opinions. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

My issue is not directly the use of quotes from Justin, but with the commentary that is provided. The commentary synthesizes, contrary WP:SYN, several quotes from different writings of Justin's to advance an original conclusion, contrary to WP:OR. This alone qualifies the material for deletion. The controversy is that the conclusion states that Justin "clearly" sees the "Logos" as a separate being. At best, the quotes are ambiguous enough to allow such a conclusion. I have no personal interest in finding citations for these claims; it is the burden on the contributor to provide these references. I found it prudent to remove the potentially inaccurate information immediately, rather than wait indefinitely for improvements. I have already provided examples of the kinds of references that would be needed to make the presentation of the controversial conclusions acceptable, and have also provided a link to the deleted text in my opening line of this subsection. I wish you the best. --Zfish118 (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I happened to come upon this discussion and would like to offer a quick comment in response to John Carter's remarks about Justin's use of "Angel" (Greek: αγγελος) with reference to Christ. The basic meaning of αγγελος in ancient Greek was "messenger", and it could be applied to any sort of being, divine or non-divine, who functions in that capacity. For example, the Gospel of Mark 1:2 in the original Greek uses αγγελος (which English translations usually render as "messenger") in a context which clearly refers to John the Baptist. A Greek speaker could potentially even call God an αγγελος in a context where He is said to act in the capacity of a messenger of divine revelation to humankind. So αγγελος and "angel" shouldn't be regarded as equivalent words, despite their etymological relationship. (Of course, ancient Greek-speaking Christians did sometimes use αγγελος in contexts where we would use "angel", but my point is that they also used αγγελος in contexts where we would not say "angel".) Unless the quotes in and of themselves are sufficient to define exactly how Justin was employing the term, any discussion of this subject in the article should clarify this terminology in some way. As for sources, unfortunately I'm not especially familiar with scholarly works about Justin, but if anyone is able to access A Patristic Greek Lexicon by G.W.H. Lampe (ISBN 9780198642138) it may have some coverage specific to how Justin theologically employed the term αγγελος.) That's all I have, so happy editing everyone! --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Doctrine of the Logos Revisions

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.

An extensive rewrite of this material was long overdue. I suggest the section be moved to its own subsection under Prophetic Exegesis. There is no reason to slavishly adhere to the order of the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 pbp 04:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, not nearly enough said. From Wikipedia:Article_titles: "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." "Wikipedia ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms..." The man is called "Justin Martyr" in practically all reliable sources. That is the name by which he is commonly known, so there is no reason not to use that as the article title. Mrhsj (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mrhsj above. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose While your point is technically true, the convention in the English language, both popular and scholarly, is to use the current title. Ignocrates (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous editors - the most common name isn't always the obvious one.Jsmith1000 (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Google sez Justin Martyr is about 400x more common in English than "Justin the Martyr": http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Justin+Martyr%2C+Justin+the+Martyr&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share= Mrhsj (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm confused

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)

Section heading "Conversion and Teachings"?

... 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)

Assessment comment

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)

Missing dates in lead

Is there a reason his dates of birth and death are missing from the lead sentence? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)