Tampering with Justin Martyr on the Trinity

Study Notes on Justin Martyr: First Apology

An interesting insight into the early church views on any Deity for Jesus in a Godhead comes from reading Justin Martyr ca. 165 AD in First Apology who starts by saying Jesus "is the son of the True God, and therefore hold Him second in order, and the Prophetic Spirit the third." (See archives.org link at 17; see page below and press forward button to see page 17.) This begins clearly by distinguishing Jesus from the True God, and holds Him in second honor or rank.

However, the editor's footnote on page 17 says this is the "sacred Trinity in their order," but the editor is wrong. It shows instead a belief in (a) inequality of Jesus to the Father; (b) Justin distinguishes Jesus from the True God; and (c) comparable to Jewish beliefs, regards the Holy Spirit as a weaker manifestation of God and not His full presence ... an influence from God which spoke to the prophets, unlike the voice that spoke aloud to all at Mt. Sinai.

This is clear on page 18, as Justin speaks of the "only UNbegotten God" operating through "his Son, Jesus Christ." We now commit our lives to the "unbegotten God." (page 19). Christ is the "Power of God, and the Wisdom of God." (Page 19.) Later, Justin speaks of the "Logos, first-begotten of God, our Master, the Lord Jesus Christ." (Page 29.) In First Apology XXX, he writes: "As to the Son of God called Jesus, should we allow him to be nothing more than a man, yet the title Son of God is justifiable upon the account of His wisdom; for is not God styled by your own writers Father of gods and men?" (Page 30.)

From that point onward, until a suspicious 'two-word' insert (I contend), Justin always appears to be insisting Jesus is the begotten Son of God, distinct from the eternal God and Father -- the only true God (see John 17:3) -- and that God is known by no other name than the Father.

Justin begins: "Jesus is properly the Son of God, as being the Logos, and First-begotten and Power of God, and by his counsel was made man...." (Page 31.) In XXXIII, Justin says we are "dedicated to the service of the unbegotten impassible God...." (Page 32.) Later, Justin defends Jesus' "divinity" as do I when properly understood. See XXXVI (page 38.) Later Justin defines "the spirit and power of God" as the Logos, and depicts it as "the first-begotten of God." (Page 43.) Jesus is the "first-begotten of God...Logos or universal reason." (LXI at Page 56.) The "Logos was Himself made man...." Id., at 57. "The Logos of God is His Son, and is also called Angel and Apostle." Id. at 79, LXXXII. Jesus is the "pre-existing Logos." Id., LXXXIII, at page 80. Justin says that when the "Angel of the Lord spoke to Moses from the flame and said I am that I am, the self-existent, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and Jacob," that the Jews claim this was "God the Father, the Maker of all things" speaking, but Justin says it was "the very Son of God" who had the meeting.  Id., at 80-81. (This is odd, as the text says nothing to support this.) But they who "affirm the Son to be the Father are guilty of not knowing the Father, and are likewise ignorant that the Father of the Universe has a Son, who being the Logos and first-begotten of God is God." LXXXIII at 81.

:"Is God" appears a fix by a later hand. For either someone altered Justin here, or Justin engages in self-contradiction. Because Jerome and Rufinus were busy fixing anti-Trinitarian passages in the 'fathers' it is more likely a forgery.

The proof of tampering is that previously Justin said that in baptism the penitent calls on "God the Father and Lord of all things...we call God by no other name because we have not any appellation for the ineffable majesty of God that can explain His nature." Id., at LXXX on page 76.

Why would Justin say God the Father is uniquely God, and we can call God by no other name than Father, and then say the Son is God. Two words ("is God") are all that modify this line to fit 381AD-Trinitarian concepts which came 2 centuries later, causing a mismatch to Justin's otherwise non-Trinitarian and anti-381AD-Trinitarian analysis. How did this happen?

From letters of Jerome with Rufinus, we now know that Jerome deliberately felt free to change earlier commentaries from the early church to insert the 381AD version of trinitarian doctrine so as to make it appear to have a longer history than it did -- its recentness in the 400s proving always to be an embarrassment.  

Also, Jerome excoriated Rufinus when he did not correct Origen's alleged errors on the Trinity when Rufinus was copying them. From this accusation, it is clear that by the 400s a copyist  could no longer copy Word for Word, but had to correct any view that Jesus was a human being indwelled by God, and had to rework  it until it said Jesus was God the son. Otherwise the copyist was a heretic, subject to banishment and execution.  Rufinus learned this lesson, and himself later confessed that he rewrote sections of Origen in "translating" them to erase "heretical" non-Trinitarian passages to now appear to support the Trinity.  

Rufinus found "stumbling blocks" in the original Greek of Origen, so in his translation to Latin (while destroying the Greek copies), Rufinus explains he "smoothed and corrected them in translation, that a Latin reader would meet with nothing which could appear discordant with our belief." (Origen, de Principiis, "Prologue of Rufinus,"" Ante-Nicene Fathers (1905), vol. 4 at 237.)

Hence, there is no early church quote that you can rely upon as a trinitarian  as this systematic  rewrite in the 300s impedes the ability to take any of these early records as valid whenever they discuss the nature of Christ, and affirm a deity of Christ rather than divinity (God’s dwelling within) of Christ when all earlier manuscripts in Greek were destroyed.