Justin's Acti

In 2007, Charles E Hill argued that Justin Martyr had the Gospel of John. Justin didn't use much Johannine material but then, he also didn't use much of Mark, which Gospel we absolutely know was extant.

Since then, Scott Manor has debunked that Alogoi ever existed. Some communities did exist as didn't use John's Gospel, like the Lucan community which produced Marcion, and like those Ebionites recently noted here. But these sects weren't mainstream and also weren't on mutual speaking-terms with each other. Elsewhere Origen, himself not exactly mainstream, thought (on his own) that John wasn't perfect. Ergo: Epiphanius invented an "Alogoi" group toward a slur against (mainly) Origen.

Back to Hill: Justin for his "Gospel Material", as Koester put it, credited "Apostolic Memoir" (this term applied to what little Justin did use of Mark) and Acti (Latin!) of the time of Pontius Pilate. The Acti were unrelated to the Gospel of Nicodemus so must be something else.

Hill seems consensus now. Nicholas Perrin endorses Hill in "Tracing the Trajectory" ed. Crawford & Zola, The Gospel of Tatian 93f. Perrin didn't, strictly-speaking, need Hill, for that argument; which may explain why he simply let Hill's argument stand, rather than buttressing it further.

This blog has had a longstanding nitpick inasmuch as a written commentary upon (say) Matthew which brings in other lore from the Synoptic tradition might, through Justin's sieve, look like a "harmony" but not technically be one. I have in mind for analogy: Muqâtil. But hey.

My main critique of Hill is that the nails used to pierce our Lord's hands and feet are not Johannine alone. Nails (rather than, say, hooks) are attested in Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnaeans as well. Ignatius did not use John 1-20 here; this source supported Peter. UPDATE 3/20 Maybe even against a Johannine tradition . . .

Secondarily I wonder if the hymn in John 1 counted as part of that gospel, in Justin's day. Jesus' incarnation (as John would put it in Latin) could not occur as Acti under Pilate: Jesus became bodily flesh some three decades prior, under King Herod if Ignatius knew Matthew's Gospel. Justin accordingly assigns this event to the "Memoirs". Hill might read Justin such that full John 1-20 (or 1-21) was the "Memoir", with 2-20/21 counted as Acti within it.

Also difficult is to see the parallels with John as specifically Johannine. The incarnation motif has been made Johannine; but it agrees just as well with antidocetism, as in the prooftext which Ignatius had read. (And maybe not in John 3:14+12:34 which predicts the Ascension only, from the Cross.)

I prefer more work be done, and maybe more sources found, before I can be confident as Hill in ascribing Justin's parallels to John, to John.