Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[TimCallahan]

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

So, what? John of Patmos has been conflated with John the apostle and with the author of the gospel attributed to John. Of course, they were all separate people, and the apostle was probably largely, if not entirely, fictional. The gospel attributed to John could have been written by another John (Yohanan, a very common name in Judea) or someone of a different name altogether. That Justin attributed the Revelation to John the apostle, therefore, means next to nothing.

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

We've been over all this before, as to whether Justin had heard of Paul. We're going to have to agree to disagree.

The Pauline Revealed Gospel was unknown by Justin--Salvation by the Resurrection.
1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

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.

Concerning the hilited areas: Evidence, please.

One more thing, dejudge: I asked you, some time ago, why a cult, starting outside of Judea, ca. CE 180, would go out of its way to entangle itself with Jewish associations. I have yet to hear an answer from you on this.

 

[H'ethetheth]

What?? You have admitted what JaysunR wrote is a fair bit over your Greek proficiency but yet is claiming it is a "nice post"!!!

Your post is a perfect example of Chinese Whispers.

You don't need any Greek proficiency to understand what he wants to say. That said, the difference in grammar he points out between the two writers is well within my proficiency. What isn't anymore is the knowledge of Greek idiom and the way many declensions and cases look.
I readily admit I only assume he got those right; I can't tell for all but the simplest bits. I do still recognize articles, substantives etc., but don't ask me about the aorist, let alone the difference between the two kinds.

What's nice about the post, assuming it's gramatically done right, is that it presents you, dejudge, with a very specific example of how one can infer a likelihood for the sequence of copying. The post does so using a huge amount of effort, and patient, step-by-step explanation, understandable by anyone regardless of proficiency in Greek.
It shows its work. It can be checked by those who do speak greek well enough.

That is why I called it a nice post.

 

[dejudge]

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.

It is your grammatical analysis that has been repeatedly shown to be wholly flawed.

You are using copies of copies of copies to do what you call a paleographic exam when you cannot even provide a date of authorship for the very copy that you employ.

 

[JaysonR]

Your statement itself indicates your lack of education on what has been presented.
Unfortunately, you won't even understand what I am conveying in this post and will most likely take it as an insult, respond with an insult, and then repeat your arguments which do not apply while still insisting that you have somehow revealed something to someone...I have no idea who, though.



To the thread...I was right the first time to refer to it as an indirect object. Either way, I was referring to the same by both, but I still often mix up the label.

 

[Brainache]

It is your grammatical analysis that has been repeatedly shown to be wholly flawed.

You are using copies of copies of copies to do what you call a paleographic exam when you cannot even provide a date of authorship for the very copy that you employ.

I originally thought that was what Paleography meant too.

I was wrong.

So are you.

 

[abaddon]

It is your grammatical analysis that has been repeatedly shown to be wholly flawed.

You are using copies of copies of copies to do what you call a paleographic exam when you cannot even provide a date of authorship for the very copy that you employ.

Sorry, but I must stop you there. I can't recall anywhere much that I have agreed with JaysonR, but the post with which you take such issue was one of the best and most cogent I have seen, such that even a novice would be illuminated.

Credit must be duly laid at his doorstep in spades.

 

[dejudge]

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.

Please, there is something wrong with your math and chronology. Pontius Pilate was not the governor of Claudius.

Now you should first read Against Heresies before you make statements about its contents.

In Against Heresies the author claims Jesus was about 30 years of age when he was baptized as stated by the author of gLuke''

The author of gLuke places the baptism at the 15th year of Tiberius.

Irenaeus' Jesus was crucified around c 50 CE or at least 20 years after the supposed baptismc 30 CE.

 

[JaysonR]

Sorry, but I must stop you there. I can't recall anywhere much that I have agreed with JaysonR, but the post with which you take such issue was one of the best and most cogent I have seen, such that even a novice would be illuminated.

Credit must be duly laid at his doorstep in spades.

Thanks, that means quite a bit given the context.


Also, to all, my signature has a link to Greek resource materials. If anyone wishes to, please use them as you want; even to fact check any linguistic arguments I make.

 

[dejudge]

I originally thought that was what Paleography meant too.

I was wrong.

So are you.

Your admittance that you were wrong is your own problem. It is not logical at all that because you admit you were wrong that I am wrong.

I understand what Paleograhy means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeography

Palaeography or palæography, also spelled paleography (from Greek παλαιός palaiós, "old" and γράφειν graphein, "to write"), is the study of ancient writing. Included in the discipline is the practice of deciphering, reading, and dating historical manuscripts,[2] and the cultural context of writing, including the methods with which writing and books were produced, and the history of scriptoria.[3]..

 

[abaddon]

Thanks, that means quite a bit given the context.


Also, to all, my signature has a link to Greek resource materials. If anyone wishes to, please use them as you want; even to fact check any linguistic arguments I make.

Well, it's a big mix of individuals here, and there are many with whom I disagree and who disagree with me about a great many varied subjects. Such is life.

That's all fine. However, I am not so entrenched as to disagree just to be contrarian.

Take the complement as intended. I am not the only one to observe how good a post that was.

 

[dejudge]

Sorry, but I must stop you there. I can't recall anywhere much that I have agreed with JaysonR, but the post with which you take such issue was one of the best and most cogent I have seen, such that even a novice would be illuminated.

Credit must be duly laid at his doorstep in spades.

Your statement is strange. You cannot recall anywhere much that you have agreed with JaysonR!!!

Well, your position is not much different to mine. I hardly agree with him.

But now tell me do you understand Greek? How do you know JaysonR's grammatical analysis is credible?

 

[abaddon]

Your admittance that you were wrong is your own problem. It is not logical at all that because you admit you were wrong that I am wrong.

I understand what Paleograhy means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeography

No, all that demonstrates is that you can type a word into wiki, and can copy and paste.

 

[dejudge]

No, all that demonstrates is that you can type a word into wiki, and can copy and paste.

What do you think JaysonR does?

 

[abaddon]

Your statement is strange. You cannot recall anywhere much that you have agreed with JaysonR!!!

Nothing strange about it. I suspect I have vociferously disagreed with him on occasion, but there is no harm in that. If the truth be told, I have disagreed to the extent of swearing at the screen, but you certainly would not expect me to post such reactions, right?

Does that make me wrong? or JaysonR wrong? Not really. We simply differ on some matters. The real issue is that I and I suspect JaysonR came equipped with the mental handbrakes necessary to interact civilly on the internet.

Well, your position is not much different to mine. I hardly agree with him.

But it is. Your contention is that there could not possibly be any first century wandering apocalyptic jewish preacher.

The only evidence you present is quotations from the Bumper Book of Godly Fairy Tales. Your reasoning is no different than a fundamentalist Christian citing the bible as proof of the bible. The only observable difference is that you claim a different conclusion from the very same risible "evidence".

But now tell me do you understand Greek? How do you know JaysonR's grammatical analysis is credible?

I don't. But I do know how to check and even without checking, JaysonR has earned a level of trust by dint of his well informed posting history here alone.

 

[abaddon]

What do you think JaysonR does?

Provides his thoughts and opinions with coherent backup, answers questions posed, does not dodge the issues at hand.

Why do you ask?

 

[JaysonR]

What do you think JaysonR does?

lol...oh, that was priceless.

 

[dejudge]

Provides his thoughts and opinions with coherent backup, answers questions posed, does not dodge the issues at hand.

Why do you ask?

Oh,Oh!! You forgot you can't recall agreeing with him much.

....I can't recall anywhere much that I have agreed with JaysonR...

I am having great difficult with you and many other posters because you say one thing now and another sometimes minutes later.

All of a sudden you have switched.

JaysonR dodged the issue at hand when he refused to provide a date for the Epistle Romans. He will not answer the question about the dating of the Pauline Epistles.

 

[Craig B]

JaysonR dodged the issue at hand when he refused to provide a date for the Epistle Romans. He will not answer the question about the dating of the Pauline Epistles.

The issue, as has been pointed out to you innumerable times, was which came first, the Pauline Epistles or the writings of Justin Martyr. JaysonR has addressed this question. You don't like his conclusion, perhaps.

 

[JaysonR]

I never offered a date.
You claimed that Justin never quoted the Pauline corpus as one of the reasons for your position.
That is all I addressed.

I have not dated anything, I never claimed to offer anyone a date; though I have asked you if you are asking me to date it through paleographic exam, but I seriously doubt that you would even respect anything I post of that form.

 

[abaddon]

Oh,Oh!! You forgot you can't recall agreeing with him much.



I am having great difficult with you and many other posters because you say one thing now and another sometimes minutes later.

All of a sudden you have switched.

Nope. Try reading for comprehension. I may not often agree with him but I do respect him.

JaysonR dodged the issue at hand when he refused to provide a date for the Epistle Romans. He will not answer the question about the dating of the Pauline Epistles.

Except he made no claim as to specific dates, explained why his point was not dependant on dates and provided his reasoning.