Danmark wrote:
Student wrote:
There are several scholarly works* charting the gradual change in meaning of
martus from witness to martyr, however most [if not all] are not available in electronic format. Consequently I would have to retrieve the documents, translate them [many of the most influential are only in print in German] and then transcribe their contents [ocr only goes so far!]. Given that my previous post had zero impact on Mithraes views [in common with practically all our previous encounters] I viewed the whole exercise as a monumental waste of time, so it was a case of bugger that for a game of cowboys.
... [citations redacted]....
Trites is particularly helpful as she charts [using diachronistic semantics] the semantic change over five stages whereby the word came to mean martyr by the end of the second century:
1. Originally, meant a witness in a court of law with no expectation of death.
2. Then it came to mean a man who testified to his faith in a lawcourt and suffered death as the penalty for his witness.
3. Next, death is regarded as part of the witness.
4. becomes equivalent to martyr. Here the idea of death is uppermost, though the idea of witness is not entirely lacking.
5. The idea of witness disappears, and the words , , and are used absolutely to refer to martyrdom.
[emphasis applied]
Thank you. That certainly makes sense to me etymologically.
I don't blame you for not wanting to go thru the hassle you describe for sources not available electronically. As you say, OCR is problematic enough, let alone what would be likely to happen in German.
Particularly if the font is the Blackletter German publishers favored even as late as the 20th Century. As Norwegian Americans say,
"Uff da!"
I have a remaining question.
Do we have any idea when Justin acquired the 'Martyr' surname?
Im sorry Danmark, it was remiss of me not to answer your question [my emphasis].
By the time The Martyrdom of Polycarp was written, c. 150 CE. to 160 CE, it was common, in Christian writings, to use ,
martus and its cognates to refer to martyrdom. The transformation from witness to martyr was [for many Christians] nearing completion.
Consequently, as Justin was put to death some time between 161CE. and 168CE. [a median date of c.165CE is commonly accepted] it would be natural for many Christians, reading an account of his trial and execution, to understand as an honorific specifically meaning martyr rather than just witness. [martyr was never considered Justins surname]
However, bearing in mind that diachronistic semantic change does not necessitate the obsolescence of the earlier meaning, to a non-Christian, continued, certainly for as long as they remained pagan, to mean witness.
Furthermore, even in Christian circles it was not uncommon to use of those who had borne witness
short of death.
For example, Even in the second half of the second century the title could be given to confessors at Lyons and Vienne, though it is significant that they disclaimed it as due only to the Lord (Apoc. i 5) and to those who had died for Him. By that time the technical sense had nearly established itself (see Lightfoots note on Clem. l.c., and Bensons Cyprian, p. 90 f.); but in the NT. this stage had not been reached, though the course of events was leading up to it (H. B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John [London, 1906], p. 35.)
Lightfoot, adds the caveat,: Still even at this late date [Fourth Century CE] they [ and its cognates] continued to be used simultaneously of other testimony borne to the Gospel short of death: e.g. by Hegesippus, Eusebius H. E. III. 20, 32, by Apollonius ib. V. 18 (several times), and in a document quoted by Serapion ib. V. 19. (The Apostolic Fathers,[Greek text], Part I, ii, 26. J. B. Lightfoot, London, 1889)
So, it might be reasonable to conclude that initially, many, but not all Christians would understand Justins honorific, solely in the sense of martyr. Over time, as the number of Christians as a proportion of the population grew, so this became the understanding of the overwhelming majority.
