カントは、知識には真の判断と客観的な根拠が必要であると述べています。しかし、主観的に正当な理由によるとはいえ、信念も根拠があるため、正当化を伴う真の判断を彼に一致させることは ipso facto の知識ではありません。

しかし、私は一般に、デカルト以降、認識論は命題知識よりも知人による知識に関心を寄せてきたと思います。つまり、現代の哲学(デカルトからヘーゲルまで)では、標準的な認識論的問題は「どのように私たちの表現が知っているオブジェクトに対応できるのか」でした。、つまり、「私の心を正しい認識論的な方法で真の命題に関連付けるにはどうすればよいのか」ではなく、「認識はどのようにして 可能ですか」です。




This is discussed at length in "The Legend of the Justified True Belief Analysis" by Julien Dutant (Philosophical Perspectives 26(1)). He writes at one point (bolded mine):

In 1960, Gilbert Ryle still ascribes the infallible mental state view to the tradition in his “Epistemology” entry for Urmson’s Concise Encyclopedia. Seven years later, in the “Knowledge” entry for Edwards’s Encyclopaedia, Anthony Quinton (1967) writes that the Justified True Belief analysis was the traditional one and that it has been refuted by Gettier. What happened? Woozley (1949, 181-184), Malcolm (1952, 179–80) and Ayer (1956, 21) all took the infallible mental state view to have sceptical consequences. That was deemed unacceptable and prompted Malcolm, Ayer and Chisholm to defend the idea that fallible justification and truth were sufficient for knowledge. Gettier (1963, 121n) was perhaps the first to note that a formally similar account appeared in Plato. Soon some called the Justified True Belief analysis “traditional” and by 1967 the Legend coalesced.

This suggests that Gettier sparked the idea that JTB was classical and Quinton nailed that stipulation. Dutant also mentions that Malcolm, Chisholm, and Ayer, trying to counter scepticism with foundationalism, modified the actual traditional analysis to essentially become JTB, creating the position Gettier attacks with his cases.

Long story short: Even though there are people invoked as ancestors, the position of knowledge as JTB is one developed in the second half of the 20th century. Probably Malcolm, Ayer, and Chisholm (in that chronological order) are the ones to be 'blamed' for JTB, with Gettier and Quinton being the ones responsible for the rise of The Legend, ie.

Edmund Gettier’s landmark paper successfully refuted the traditional analysis of knowledge. (Sosa et al., 2009, 189, cited in Dutant 2015)