Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Do you accept the paleographic results yet?

You presented a grammatical analysis and avoided the very heart of the problem--the date of the Pauline Corpus.

I knew that you could have never provided a date for the Pauline Corpus by a grammatical analysis.

 

[mijopaalmc]

You presented a grammatical analysis and avoided the very heart of the problem--the date of the Pauline Corpus.

I knew that you could have never provided a date for the Pauline Corpus by a grammatical analysis.

And the grammatical analysis showed that Justin Martyr copied the passage in question from Romans. Therefore, at least one of the works in the Pauline corpus predate Justin Martyr, falsifying your assertion that the Pauline corpus was forged after c. 180 CE.

How is this not obvious to you?

 

[dejudge]

You forgot that Justin Martyr mentioned John by name as one who wrote of his Revelation.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem

Justin acknowledged the Revelation of John but never the Revelations of Paul. The omission of the Pauline Revelations by Justin s extremely significant when it is claimed by Paul that he was commissioned to preach by Revelation to the uncircumcision.

Of course, the Revelation of John would have been that of John of Patmos. While the gospels and some of the Pauline epistles, particularly 1 Corinthians, have apocalyptic passages, none have revelatory material that match John's apocalypse. The only Pauline revelation I know of are Paul's claim of revelation in Galatians. So, there was no Pauline revelation for him to have known or not known.

Justin did state that John was the apostle of Jesus Christ--not John of Patmos.


I really do not know what you know but I know what is not found in the writings attributed to Justin. I know you cannot find Paul, the Pauline Corpus, the Pauline Churches and the Pauline revelations of the Gospel from the resurrected Jesus.

Not once did Justin claim that a character received the Gospel of Jesus by revelation as stated by Paul in Galatians.

Galatians 1.11-12

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The Pauline Revealed Gospel was unknown by Justin--Salvation by the Resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins

Justin knew nothing of Remission of Sins by the resurrection of Jesus.

Justin knew of the Memoirs of the Apostles and the Revelation of the Apostle John.

 

[dejudge]

And the grammatical analysis showed that Justin Martyr copied the passage in question from Romans. Therefore, at least one of the works in the Pauline corpus predate Justin Martyr, falsifying your assertion that the Pauline corpus was forged after c. 180 CE.

How is this not obvious to you?

It does no such a thing. JaysonR has admitted that he provided no date for the Pauline Corpus. It is mere speculation and guessing.

A grammatical analysis can not provide any date for the Pauline Corpus.

 

[JaysonR]

I knew that you could have never provided a date for the Pauline Corpus by a grammatical analysis.

I never offered such a rediculous option.
No one can tell a specific date based on grammar.

What mijopaalmc has mentioned is what I offered and nothing more from this paleographic exam.

Would you like me to try to date a text by paleography (no gaurantee)?
Would you even care what the results are?

 

[JaysonR]

It does no such a thing. JaysonR has admitted that he provided no date for the Pauline Corpus. It is mere speculation and guessing.

A grammatical analysis can not provide any date for the Pauline Corpus.

I don't need a date to tell which text copied which text.
I only need both texts and the sample; that's it.

We don't need dates to figure out if suspect X wrote threat letter Z.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It does no such a thing. JaysonR has admitted that he provided no date for the Pauline Corpus. It is mere speculation and guessing.

A grammatical analysis can not provide any date for the Pauline Corpus.

Given that Justin Martyr lived c. 100 CE – c. 165 CE, a paleographic analysis of Romans demonstrating that Justin Martyr copied a passage from Romans (it was most likely an allusion or quotation, but that's beside the point) would place the terminus ante quem of Romans c. 165 CE, much earlier than your terminus post quem of c. 180 CE for the oldest pseudo-Pauline forgeries.

 

[JaysonR]

I really do not know what you know but I know what is not found in the writings attributed to Justin. I know you cannot find Paul, the Pauline Corpus, the Pauline Churches and the Pauline revelations of the Gospel from the resurrected Jesus.

The claim regarding the Pauline corpus as an absolute is incorrect.
You have not accounted for the paleographic evidence of Romans in DT, and simply ignoring it doesn't prove any claim to anyone reading along.

 

[dejudge]

I don't need a date to tell which text copied which text.
I only need both texts and the sample; that's it.

We don't need dates to figure out if suspect X wrote threat letter Z.

It is virtually impossible to use a grammatical analysis to show that Justin copied passages from the Epistles of Roman when you cannot provide any date for the composition of the Epistle.

You must first find a credible to source which identifies the Pauline Corpus BEFORE the time of Justin which cannot be done.

Paleography, which involves far more than grammatical analysis, can not even give a definitive date for the Pauline Corpus, P46, and place them around c 200 CE plus or minus 50 years

Yet, by using copies of copies of copies of Romans--not the originals--you are giving the impression that by a grammatical analysis you can tell who copied from the other.

What is your margin of error for only a grammatical analysis? Plus or minus 100 years?

 

[JaysonR]

No, that is not needed, Dejudge.
I don't mean this as an insult, but I don't think you are educated enough to understand the paleography, as your points continue to be errors that would be corrected in any basic class on the subject.

The paleography done only indicates sequential order, not timing.

 

[dejudge]

The claim regarding the Pauline corpus as an absolute is incorrect.
You have not accounted for the paleographic evidence of Romans in DT, and simply ignoring it doesn't prove any claim to anyone reading along.

You are not providing paleographic evidence. You are not using recovered originals but copies of copies of copies.

The copy of Romans you are using for your grammatical analysis may well have been writing hundreds of years after Justin.

Plus, Paleography is far more involved than just grammatical analysis.

Again, you must first find credible sources that identified the Epistle Romans and that it was composed before the writings attributed to Justin.

You cannot do so.

 

[Brainache]

..
What is your margin of error ...

Uh oh, you're in trouble now Jayson. Once "margin of error" comes out there is no chance for you.

Your margin will never win against his.

His is too big...

 

[dejudge]

No, that is not needed, Dejudge.
I don't mean this as an insult, but I don't think you are educated enough to understand the paleography, as your points continue to be errors that would be corrected in any basic class on the subject.

The paleography done only indicates sequential order, not timing.

I do not mean this as an insult but what you are claiming is paleographic evidence is not.

You are probably using copies of copies of copies of Roman written hundreds of years after the 2nd century and perhaps even later than P 46.

 

[JaysonR]

Actually, you supposition of Romans being after Justin is incorrect because the grammer of the line shared in both matches Romans and is not a match for Justin.

Your comments on the rest only matter for authenticity, and are equal as an issue for both Justin and Romans as we do not have originals of either.
Authenticity was never offered or examined, only which text matches the grammar of the line shared in both texts.

 

[dejudge]

I never offered such a rediculous option.
No one can tell a specific date based on grammar.

I never ever claimed you had a specific date because you could not have offered any date but simple guessed and speculated that Justin copied Romans.

What mijopaalmc has mentioned is what I offered and nothing more from this paleographic exam.

Would you like me to try to date a text by paleography (no gaurantee)?
Would you even care what the results are?

You offered a grammatical analysis, not a paleographic examination, of copies of copies of copies of Romans perhaps written AFTER Justin was long dead.

Please, tell us the date of the copy of Romans you used for your "grammatical" analysis?

 

[JaysonR]

*facepalm*
Nevermind.

Look, I'm content with what I have provided, and you are really the only one who is holding that Justin came before Romans in spite of the evidence.

I'll stop arguing you on this as if you have any credit worth noting, we should start to see someone agrer with you.

 

[dejudge]

Actually, you supposition of Romans being after Justin is incorrect because the grammer of the line shared in both matches Romans and is not a match for Justin.

Your comments on the rest only matter for authenticity, and are equal as an issue for both Justin and Romans as we do not have originals of either.
Authenticity was never offered or examined, only which text matches the grammar of the line shared in both texts.

My claim that the entire Pauline Corpus was composed after c 180 CE is not based on your flawed analysis.

I use multiple apologetic writings and show that they do not contain any acknowledgment of Paul but instead attribute the spread of the Gospel to the world by the Apostles of the supposed Jesus and that the Pauline Revealed Gospel--Remission of Sins by the Resurrection--was unknown by many apologetic writers.

And not only THE Pauline Revealed Gospel was unknown, but Irenaeus, supposedly the first to identify the Pauline Epistles destroyed the theological and historical credibility of the Pauline Corpus by arguing that Jesus was crucified at about c 50 CE . See Against Heresies 2.22.

 

[dejudge]

*facepalm*
Nevermind.

Look, I'm content with what I have provided, and you are really the only one who is holding that Justin came before Romans in spite of the evidence.

I'll stop arguing you on this as if you have any credit worth noting, we should start to see someone agrer with you.

You will not be able to make any progress with your flawed analysis because you are not able to show that any Pauline letter was composed before c 180 CE.

I am content that Justin acknowledged the apostles as those who evangelized the Gentile world--Not Paul.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

"But that the Gentiles would repent of the evil in which they led erring lives, when they heard the doctrine preached by His apostles from Jerusalem, and which they learned through them, suffer me to show you by quoting a short statement from the prophecy of Micah, one of the twelve [minor prophets].

It was the apostles--Not Paul-- who were commissioned to preach the Gospel to the whole world by the resurrected Jesus in the writings of Justin Martyr and supported by Aristides and Arnobius.

 

[JaysonR]

I understand your illogical and irrelevent arguments, you don't have to repeat them like a mantra.
Saying over and over doesn't change anything.

 

[maximara]

(snip)

I have also made reference to Against Heresies 2.22 where Irenaeus supposedly argued at least around c 180 CE that Jesus was crucified about 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius or c 50 CE which renders the Pauline Corpus to be historically and theologically bogus.

Actually, Irenaeus only states that Jesus was over 46 years old and likely 50+ when he was crucified in Against Heresies 2.22.

It is Demonstrations (74) (also c180 CE) where Irenaeus states "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified." which puts the crucifixion in 42-44 CE.