Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[TimCallahan]

I never said Christian mythos were created c 180 CE? Why can't you repeat what I have posted.

You seem to have no idea that the Jesus story is a compilation of Jewish, Roman and Greek mythology.
It can be easily seen that the fabricators of the Jesus stories used the Septuagint and the writings of Josephus to invent their Jesus of Nazareth.

Now, we have gMark, the earliest Jesus story in the Canon, and it can be easily seen that gMark's story was fabricated to show that the Jews were Evil and caused Jesus the Son of God to be crucified and that not even the very disciples of Jesus really believed he was the Son of God.

In effect, the earliest story of Jesus in the Canon is anti-Jewish propaganda to explain the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Justin's Dialogue

Hippolytus Treatise Against the Jews

Concerning the first hilited area: Yes, you did say something to that effect. In any case you have rebuffed every attempt I've made to get you to clarify and be specific about what you actually believe concerning the creation of the Christian religion. This is typical troll behavior. Now I can ignore your rants with a clear conscience.

Concerning the second hilited area: I have pointed out in this thread and others, as well as in articles I wrote Skeptic Magazine, that the narrative of the gospels were based on four main sources: the Jewish scriptures, Jewish apocalyptic writings and beliefs, Pagan myth, and Greek literature. You, who complains so bitterly that people are not reading your posts or are misquoting you, are guilty of the very acts of which you so bitterly complain.

 

[TimCallahan]

Paul set up no churches outside Judea.

It was the 12 [illiterate] disciples of Jesus that preached the Gospel to the world according to Aristides, Justin Martyr and Arnobius.

Plus, the author of the Muratorian Canon claimed the Pauline Corpus was fabricated After Revelation by John.
Even, Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul was alive after gLuke was composed.

In Justin's Apology, the Pauline Corpus was not known and Justin claimed it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets that were read in the Churches.

It makes no sense whatsoever that Paul a Pharisee would set up churches starting since c 37-41 "all over" the Roman Empire asking people to worship a dead Teacher as a God and Savior of all mankind.

Since dejudge keeps on referring to the Muratorian Canon, which may have been written as early as CE 170 or as late as the fourth century, I decided to have a look at what the document actually said of Paul. Here's a quote from it (original Latin and translation from this site):

The Epistles of Paul themselves, however, show to those, who wish to know, which [they are], from what place, and for what cause they were sent. First of all he wrote to the Corinthians, admonishing against schism of heresy; thereupon to the Galatians [admonishing against] circumcision; to the Romans, however, [he wrote] rather lengthily pointing out with a series of Scripture quotations that Christ is their main theme also (?).

So, contrary to what dejudge asserts, the Muratorian Canon supports the depiction of Paul as writing at least Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans. True, the Muratorian Canon, written at earliest late in the second century, lists all of the gospels as being written before mentioning the four Pauline epistles. However, consider what the Canon says of John (quoted from the site, bolding added):

But it is necessary that we have a discussion singly concerning these, since the blessed Apostle Paul himself, imitating the example of his predecessor, John, wrote to seven churches only by name [and] in this order: The first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, and the seventh to the Romans.

So, the John to whom the Canon refers is John of Patmos, reputed author of the Book of Revelation, in which John addresses seven churches in Asia Minor. So, writing perhaps as early as ten years before dejudge claims the Pauline epistles to have been written, the Muratorian Canon says that Paul not only wrote Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans, but as well attributes Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and (1) Thessalonians to Paul. Naturally, this canon would argue, in accordance with orthodox Christian belief, that the gospels were all written before Paul wrote his letters. However, such belief also held that these gospels were written in the first century. So, the canon really does not support dejudge's assertion that the Pauling epistles were "fabricated" in the second century.

ETA: Since the Muratorian Canon is a fragment, we don't have what is said about the authorship of all the gospels. However, here's how it opens:

[1] . . . But he was present among them, and so he put [the facts down in his Gospel.] The third book of the Gospel [is that] according to Luke. Luke, "the" physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him with him as a companion of his traveling, [and after he had made] an investigation, wrote in his own name — but neither did he see the Lord in the flesh — and thus, as he was able to investigate, so he also begins to tell the story [starting] from the nativity of John.

While we can only speculate about whom the Canon speaks in the fragmentary opening line, " . . . But he was present among them, and so he put [the facts down in his Gospel.]" it would have to be either Mark or Matthew. Thus, the Canon asserts that at least one of the gospel writers knew Jesus. Of course, we now know this simply isn't true. However, for the sake of figuring out when the Muratorian Canon was asserting the letters of Paul were written, we can see that it saw them as being quite early. Only by reading his own bias into the Canon can dejudge say that it supports his extreme position that the Pauline epistles were written ca. CE 180.

ETA 2: Concerning what dejudge has to say about Christian authors not referring to Paul, he asserts the following (copied from the quoted post above):

"Even, Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul was alive after gLuke was composed.

In Justin's Apology, the Pauline Corpus was not known and Justin claimed it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets that were read in the Churches."

That Origin and Eusebius, writing well after the Book of Acts was written, claimed that Paul was alive after the Gospel of Luke was written is totally irrelevant.

As to Justin's First Apology, since he only alludes to Matthew and Luke by way of telling what Jesus taught, he certainly would not have quoted Paul, since Paul's letters were mainly about matters arising within the congregations to which he was writing. Thus, his failure to mention Paul is also irrelevant. It doesn't mean the Pauline corpus was unknown to Justin.

In short, dejudge's argument that the Muratorian Canon, Justin Martyr's First Apology and the writings of Origin and Eusebius show the entirely of the Pauline corpus to be a pack of late forgeries is utterly without substance.

 

[Brainache]

Since dejudge keeps on referring to the Muratorian Canon, which may have been written as early as CE 170 or as late as the fourth century, I decided to have a look at what the document actually said of Paul. Here's a quote from it (original Latin and translation from this site):

The Epistles of Paul themselves, however, show to those, who wish to know, which [they are], from what place, and for what cause they were sent. First of all he wrote to the Corinthians, admonishing against schism of heresy; thereupon to the Galatians [admonishing against] circumcision; to the Romans, however, [he wrote] rather lengthily pointing out with a series of Scripture quotations that Christ is their main theme also (?).

So, contrary to what dejudge asserts, the Muratorian Canon supports the depiction of Paul as writing at least Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans. True, the Muratorian Canon, written at earliest late in the second century, lists all of the gospels as being written before mentioning the four Pauline epistles. However, consider what the Canon says of John (quoted from the site, bolding added):

But it is necessary that we have a discussion singly concerning these, since the blessed Apostle Paul himself, imitating the example of his predecessor, John, wrote to seven churches only by name [and] in this order: The first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, and the seventh to the Romans.

So, the John to whom the Canon refers is John of Patmos, reputed author of the Book of Revelation, in which John addresses seven churches in Asia Minor. So, writing perhaps as early as ten years before dejudge claims the Pauline epistles to have been written, the Muratorian Canon says that Paul not only wrote Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans, but as well attributes Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and (1) Thessalonians to Paul. Naturally, this canon would argue, in accordance with orthodox Christian belief, that the gospels were all written before Paul wrote his letters. However, such belief also held that these gospels were written in the first century. So, the canon really does not support dejudge's assertion that the Pauling epistles were "fabricated" in the second century.

ETA: Since the Muratorian Canon is a fragment, we don't have what is said about the authorship of all the gospels. However, here's how it opens:

[1] . . . But he was present among them, and so he put [the facts down in his Gospel.] The third book of the Gospel [is that] according to Luke. Luke, "the" physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him with him as a companion of his traveling, [and after he had made] an investigation, wrote in his own name — but neither did he see the Lord in the flesh — and thus, as he was able to investigate, so he also begins to tell the story [starting] from the nativity of John.

While we can only speculate about whom the Canon speaks in the fragmentary opening line, " . . . But he was present among them, and so he put [the facts down in his Gospel.]" it would have to be either Mark or Matthew. Thus, the Canon asserts that at least one of the gospel writers knew Jesus. Of course, we now know this simply isn't true. However, for the sake of figuring out when the Muratorian Canon was asserting the letters of Paul were written, we can see that it saw them as being quite early. Only by reading his own bias into the Canon can dejudge say that it supports his extreme position that the Pauline epistles were written ca. CE 180.

ETA 2: Concerning what dejudge has to say about Christian authors not referring to Paul, he asserts the following (copied from the quoted post above):

"Even, Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul was alive after gLuke was composed.

In Justin's Apology, the Pauline Corpus was not known and Justin claimed it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets that were read in the Churches."

That Origin and Eusebius, writing well after the Book of Acts was written, claimed that Paul was alive after the Gospel of Luke was written is totally irrelevant.

As to Justin's First Apology, since he only alludes to Matthew and Luke by way of telling what Jesus taught, he certainly would not have quoted Paul, since Paul's letters were mainly about matters arising within the congregations to which he was writing. Thus, his failure to mention Paul is also irrelevant. It doesn't mean the Pauline corpus was unknown to Justin.

In short, dejudge's argument that the Muratorian Canon, Justin Martyr's First Apology and the writings of Origin and Eusebius show the entirely of the Pauline corpus to be a pack of late forgeries is utterly without substance.

Thank you for that very informative post Tim Callahan. Very interesting.

 

[dejudge]

Multiple people have told you more than once that this is a stupid and unconvincing argument.

Multiple persons, including you, have no evidence for their claims about Jesus and Paul.

We were told by Belz and others that the evidence for HJ is TERRIBLE and weak, that the argument for HJ is not convincing, and that even if there was an HJ the evidence is unavailable.

These are excerpts of posts from Belz.

...In fact, everyone has agreed that the evidence is terrible.

The evidence is very weak, therefore we cannot make a definite conclusion.

Please, the HJ argument is based on admitted terrible and very weak evidence.

The HJ of Nazareth argument is essentially unsustainable except if you believe the Bible is a credible historical source which clearly states Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin and was God Creator.

 

[dejudge]

Since dejudge keeps on referring to the Muratorian Canon, which may have been written as early as CE 170 or as late as the fourth century, I decided to have a look at what the document actually said of Paul. Here's a quote from it (original Latin and translation from this site):

The Epistles of Paul themselves, however, show to those, who wish to know, which [they are], from what place, and for what cause they were sent. First of all he wrote to the Corinthians, admonishing against schism of heresy; thereupon to the Galatians [admonishing against] circumcision; to the Romans, however, [he wrote] rather lengthily pointing out with a series of Scripture quotations that Christ is their main theme also (?).

So, contrary to what dejudge asserts, the Muratorian Canon supports the depiction of Paul as writing at least Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans. True, the Muratorian Canon, written at earliest late in the second century, lists all of the gospels as being written before mentioning the four Pauline epistles. However, consider what the Canon says of John (quoted from the site, bolding added):

But it is necessary that we have a discussion singly concerning these, since the blessed Apostle Paul himself, imitating the example of his predecessor, John, wrote to seven churches only by name [and] in this order: The first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, and the seventh to the Romans.

So, the John to whom the Canon refers is John of Patmos, reputed author of the Book of Revelation, in which John addresses seven churches in Asia Minor. So, writing perhaps as early as ten years before dejudge claims the Pauline epistles to have been written, the Muratorian Canon says that Paul not only wrote Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans, but as well attributes Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and (1) Thessalonians to Paul. Naturally, this canon would argue, in accordance with orthodox Christian belief, that the gospels were all written before Paul wrote his letters. However, such belief also held that these gospels were written in the first century. So, the canon really does not support dejudge's assertion that the Pauling epistles were "fabricated" in the second century.

ETA: Since the Muratorian Canon is a fragment, we don't have what is said about the authorship of all the gospels. However, here's how it opens:

[1] . . . But he was present among them, and so he put [the facts down in his Gospel.] The third book of the Gospel [is that] according to Luke. Luke, "the" physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him with him as a companion of his traveling, [and after he had made] an investigation, wrote in his own name — but neither did he see the Lord in the flesh — and thus, as he was able to investigate, so he also begins to tell the story [starting] from the nativity of John.

While we can only speculate about whom the Canon speaks in the fragmentary opening line, " . . . But he was present among them, and so he put [the facts down in his Gospel.]" it would have to be either Mark or Matthew. Thus, the Canon asserts that at least one of the gospel writers knew Jesus. Of course, we now know this simply isn't true. However, for the sake of figuring out when the Muratorian Canon was asserting the letters of Paul were written, we can see that it saw them as being quite early. Only by reading his own bias into the Canon can dejudge say that it supports his extreme position that the Pauline epistles were written ca. CE 180.

Your whole argument is flawed because you cannot show that the Muratorian Canon was really composed c 170 CE. You already admitted the Muratorian Canon could have been composed as late as the 4th century but utterly failed to take the later 4th century date in your analysis.

I find that ommission completely unacceptable.

The Muratorian Canon is a source which places the letters of Paul after Revelation and appears to confirm that Paul was alive AFTER the death of Nero but it does not show at all the Pauline Corpus could not have been written after c 180 CE.

ETA 2: Concerning what dejudge has to say about Christian authors not referring to Paul, he asserts the following (copied from the quoted post above):

"Even, Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul was alive after gLuke was composed.

In Justin's Apology, the Pauline Corpus was not known and Justin claimed it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets that were read in the Churches."

That Origin and Eusebius, writing well after the Book of Acts was written, claimed that Paul was alive after the Gospel of Luke was written is totally irrelevant.

How in the world can the claim by Origen and Eusebius that Paul was alive after gLuke was composed be irrelevant when one is attempting to find out when Paul lived and what he wrote?

If gLuke was composed AFTER or around c 180 CE then this will imply Paul lived at that time and not in the 1st century so could not have written Epistles to Churches pre 68 CE.

By the way, the first writing to mention a Gospel according to Luke was supposedly "Against Heresies" c 180 CE by Irenaeus and No Gospel according to Luke has been recovered and dated to the 1st century.

....As to Justin's First Apology, since he only alludes to Matthew and Luke by way of telling what Jesus taught, he certainly would not have quoted Paul, since Paul's letters were mainly about matters arising within the congregations to which he was writing. Thus, his failure to mention Paul is also irrelevant. It doesn't mean the Pauline corpus was unknown to Justin.

Your assertion is void of logic. It is extremely significant that Justin Martyr claimed that it was 12 ILLITERATE disciples of Jesus who preached the Gospel to the whole world and that this claim appears to be also corroborated by Aristides and Arnobius.

If Paul was the founder of Churches outside Judea then it becomes extremely problematic for Paul that non-Jewish Christian writers and non-apologetics do not acknowledge him and the Pauline Corpus in the development and early teachings of the Church up to 180 CE.

In short, dejudge's argument that the Muratorian Canon, Justin Martyr's First Apology and the writings of Origin and Eusebius show the entirely of the Pauline corpus to be a pack of late forgeries is utterly without substance.

You have not presented a shred of evidence at all to show that any Pauline letter was actually composed before c 180 CE, in fact, it is virtually impossible for you to do so.

It has never been done.

You have not even began to deal with the massive problems with the Pauline Corpus and the History of the Church.

The supposed first writer to mention the Pauline letters to the seven churches and the Pastorals was supposedly Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" around c 180 CE.

Against Heresies 2.22 is another piece of evidence that the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus could not be authentic because Irenaeus argued that Jesus Christ was crucified c 50 CE under Cladius or about 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius.

If Jesus Christ was crucified c 50 CE under Claudius then Paul did not write Epistles and did not preach claiming that Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected since 37-41 CE in the time of King Aretas.

 

[TimCallahan]

Your whole argument is flawed because you cannot show that the Muratorian Canon was really composed c 170 CE. You already admitted the Muratorian Canon could have been composed as late as the 4th century but utterly failed to take the later 4th century date in your analysis.

If it were that late, then it would be pretty much useless for anything regarding the dating of the Pauline epistles.

I find that ommission completely unacceptable.

Of course you do. So what?

The Muratorian Canon is a source which places the letters of Paul after Revelation and appears to confirm that Paul was alive AFTER the death of Nero but it does not show at all the Pauline Corpus could not have been written after c 180 CE.

Again, if it were written as late as the fourth century, it's dating would be useless. Even if it had been written as early as 170 it could still have a garbled history, based more on a tradition that had developed by then.

How in the world can the claim by Origen and Eusebius that Paul was alive after gLuke was composed be irrelevant when one is attempting to find out when Paul lived and what he wrote?

By the time these two were alive, the general schema of the relationship between the gospels, Acts and the various epistles had been established by a developed Christian tradition. Origen lived ca. 185 - 254. So, by the time he was an adult, reaching 20 at ca. 205 all of these books would have been written and passed down, with a relationship extablished by a theologically based tradition that placed all the gospels before the epistles. Eusebius lived even later, roughly 260 - 340.

If gLuke was composed AFTER or around c 180 CE then this will imply Paul lived at that time and not in the 1st century so could not have written Epistles to Churches pre 68 CE.

Since Justin Martyr, who lived ca. 100 - 160, alludes to verses in Luke in his First Apology, it could not have been written as late as 180.

By the way, the first writing to mention a Gospel according to Luke was supposedly "Against Heresies" c 180 CE by Irenaeus and No Gospel according to Luke has been recovered and dated to the 1st century.

See my note above.

Your assertion is void of logic. It is extremely significant that Justin Martyr claimed that it was 12 ILLITERATE disciples of Jesus who preached the Gospel to the whole world and that this claim appears to be also corroborated by Aristides and Arnobius.

References please.

If Paul was the founder of Churches outside Judea then it becomes extremely problematic for Paul that non-Jewish Christian writers and non-apologetics do not acknowledge him and the Pauline Corpus in the development and early teachings of the Church up to 180 CE.

I've already addressed this, and you have ignored it.

You have not presented a shred of evidence at all to show that any Pauline letter was actually composed before c 180 CE, in fact, it is virtually impossible for you to do so.

And you haven't presented a shred of evidence to show that any was written after CE 180.

It has never been done.

You have not even began to deal with the massive problems with the Pauline Corpus and the History of the Church.

The supposed first writer to mention the Pauline letters to the seven churches and the Pastorals was supposedly Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" around c 180 CE.

Okay, earlier you were saying the Pauline epistles themselves were written after CE 180. If Irenaeus mentioned them at that time, they had to have already have been written by then.

Against Heresies 2.22 is another piece of evidence that the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus could not be authentic because Irenaeus argued that Jesus Christ was crucified c 50 CE under Cladius or about 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius.

If Jesus Christ was crucified c 50 CE under Claudius then Paul did not write Epistles and did not preach claiming that Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected since 37-41 CE in the time of King Aretas.

Make up your mind. Was Jesus totally made up or was he a real person crucified ca. CE 50? Irenaeus, writing ca. 180, got his dates perfect?

 

[JaysonR]

Since dejudge
...
"Even, Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul was alive after gLuke was composed.

In Justin's Apology, the Pauline Corpus was not known and Justin claimed it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets that were read in the Churches."

That Origin and Eusebius, writing well after the Book of Acts was written, claimed that Paul was alive after the Gospel of Luke was written is totally irrelevant.

As to Justin's First Apology, since he only alludes to Matthew and Luke by way of telling what Jesus taught, he certainly would not have quoted Paul, since Paul's letters were mainly about matters arising within the congregations to which he was writing. Thus, his failure to mention Paul is also irrelevant. It doesn't mean the Pauline corpus was unknown to Justin.

In short, dejudge's argument that the Muratorian Canon, Justin Martyr's First Apology and the writings of Origin and Eusebius show the entirely of the Pauline corpus to be a pack of late forgeries is utterly without substance.

FYI, Dejudge also failed to answer my response to his claim about Justin not knowing of the Pauline corpus in a different thread.

That response read:

OK, so, dejudge.

First thing: can I ask you to tone it a bit down with me?
You like to phrase things like an attack, or as if I'm some representative position of your opposition, but I'm not.

I'm just a guy who doesn't have a stance in either direction regarding the Pauline corpus regarding authenticity.

I'm not attempting to uphold some accepted tradition, or anything of the sort.
I'm not really sure why Jesus' historicity came up as I don't care if he existed or not.

If your stance is that Jesus never existed, cool.
If your stance is that the Pauline corpus is a forgery, cool.

However, on the last one, I'm fascinated and interested to toss questions your way because I'm interested in your position and how you see things.


With that in mind, I get what you're saying about people not mentioning Paul early on, but I raised a question before of wondering why anyone would think much of Paul.
Most of the Pauline followings weren't within any official group until much later - much like most early followings.

Paul wasn't really recognized as truly important for quite some time; prior to that, Peter was the character most leaned on by most groups - including those that came out to be the Orthodox traditions later.


Now, that said.
I do have to wonder if Justin did indeed never read anything from the Pauline corpus.
If that is the case, then I'm curious as to how you see some comparisons between Justin and the Pauline corpus.

What about the similarity between Romans 3: 11-18 and Chapter 27 of the Dialogue?

In Romans, this reads:
“There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.
The poison of vipers is on their lips.Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know. There is no fear of God before their eyes."

In Chapter 27 of Dialogue with Trypho it reads:
For they are all gone aside,’ He exclaims, ‘they are all become useless. There is none that understands, there is not so much as one. With their tongues they have practiced deceit, their throat is an open sepulcher, the poison of asps is under their lips, destruction and misery are in their paths, and the way of peace they have not known.’

Now, this assembly is pieced together from a variety of textual sections in the Septuagint version, rather than the Masoretic version:

Psalm 5:9
Not a word from their mouth can be trusted; their heart is filled with malice. Their throat is an open grave; with their tongues they tell lies.

Psalm 10:7
His mouth is full of lies and threats; trouble and evil are under his tongue.

Psalms 14:1-3
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

Psalm 36:1
I have a message from God in my heart concerning the sinfulness of the wicked: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Psalms 53:1-3
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. God looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Everyone has turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

Psalm 140:3
They make their tongues as sharp as a serpent’s; the poison of vipers is on their lips.

Eccles. 7:20
Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins.

Isaiah 59:7,8
Their feet rush into sin; they are swift to shed innocent blood. They pursue evil schemes; acts of violence mark their ways.


----

Considering how scattered these sections are, and the wording between Justin and Romans, it seems worth considering that Justin did indeed copy some things from the Pauline corpus.

For instance, there's a very specific comparison that can be made in this body of text:

Romans:
Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.

Justin:
With their tongues they have practiced deceit, their throat is an open sepulcher



That's the English, but the English is actually obscuring a bit of the similarity, so let's go back to the Greek for both.

Here's Romans in the Greek, and Justin's section in the Greek.
Romans:
τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν, ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν,

Justin:
ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν, τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν

Now, these lines are pretty much identical except for the order of which part is in front of which part.

There's no reason for these two lines to be so close to identical since these word choices aren't found in the phrasing of the Septuagint (or Masoretic texts).

The only place you will find this phrase coupling in this manner is within Romans.

Does this strike you as Justin quoting from Romans, and if not, why not?

Thanks for the time and discussion!


(Greek copy of dialogue: http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/justinus/tryphong.htm)

His entire response to this was:

Now, please read the passage carefully do you see the words "He exclaims".

Justin never made any previous reference to Paul in Dialogue with Trypho 27.

Justin was referring to the words of God--Not Paul in Dialogue with Trypho 27

But, you have inadvertently shown that Romans was probably written AFTER Dialogue with Trypho.

We know that Justin used the books of the prophets without ever making mention of Paul yet Romans contain a passage found in Dialogue with Trypho.

The author of Romans most likely copied Justin's Dialogue.

Which clearly shows dejudge did not understand what I had presented at all, and that it wasn't being suggested that Paul "said" anything; only instead, that Justin obviously had an awareness of the Pauline corpus.

Either that or the Pauline corpus copied Justin, but when I asked for evidence of a post-Justin Pauline corpus date for Romans, I got a broken record parroting back at me:

The Pauline Corpus should have been circulated in the Roman Empire for at least 100 YEARS before Justin and should have been well known and established in the Churches yet many 2nd century Christian writers, even a non-apologetic Celsus, wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

It can be easily argued that the Pauline Corpus was fabricated after at least c 180 CE.

 

[TimCallahan]

JaysonR:

Thanks particularly for this:

Here's Romans in the Greek, and Justin's section in the Greek.
Romans:
τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν, ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν,

Justin:
ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν, τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν

 

[dejudge]

Your whole argument is flawed because you cannot show that the Muratorian Canon was really composed c 170 CE. You already admitted the Muratorian Canon could have been composed as late as the 4th century but utterly failed to take the later 4th century date in your analysis.

If it were that late, then it would be pretty much useless for anything regarding the dating of the Pauline epistles.

Again, your statement is highly illogical. You are simply assuming you know when the Pauline Corpus was composed.

You have stated that the Muratorian Canon could have been written between 170 CE and the 4th century so it is not logical at all to assume the Muratorian Canon is useless for dating the Pauline Epistles when it is being argued that the Entire Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER or no earlier than c 180 CE.

You are not really doing any proper analysis of apologetic writings of antiquity but have assumed that the Pauline writings were pre 70 CE even though the letters themselves show no date of authorship.

Now, the supposed 2nd century writer and presbyter of the Church of Lyons publicly argued against Heretics and stated quite clearly or implied that Jesus was CRUCIFIED c 50 CE or 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius or when Jesus was about 50 years old under Claudius.

Do you understand the serious implications of Irenaeus' argument for a 50 year old Crucified Jesus c 50 CE?

Do you understand what Irenaeus did to the Entire Pauline Corpus?

Irenaeus has really confirmed that the Pauline Corpus was unknown when he was a presbyter of the Church of Lyons and that those he argued against [the Heretics] knew nothing of a Pauline character who supposedly preached Christ Crucified since 37-41 CE.

Please, examine "Against Heresies" 2.22 because you seem to have no idea of the problems with the Pauline Corpus.

According to Irenaeus, Jesus Christ was an OLD man when he was crucified about 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius.


How is it possible that Paul preached Christ Crucified c 37-41 BEFORE the crucifixion, c 50 CE, based on Irenaeus a presbyter of the Church of Lyons?

According to Irenaeus, John and the disciples did teach in Asia that Jesus died c 50 CE.

The ENTIRE Pauline Corpus is historically and theologically bogus if Jesus was crucified c 50 CE.

 

[JaysonR]

So now you're saying Jesus is real...interesting.

 

[JaysonR]

OK, Brainache, I had some time to outline the translation you were curious about (I prefer outlining everything in detail when providing a translation and I just didn't have time to do that for you earlier).

Romans:

Greek:
τάφος | ἀνεῳγμένος | ὁ | λάρυγξ | αὐτῶν | , ταῖς | γλώσσαις | αὐτῶν | ἐδολιοῦσαν

Grammar:
Noun: Nominative Singular Masculine | Verb: Perfect Passive participle, Nominative Singular Masculine | Article: Nominative Singular Masculine | Noun: Nominative Singular Masculine | Personal pronoun: Genitive Plural | , Definite article: Dative Plural Feminine | Noun: Dative Plural Feminine | Personal pronoun: Genitive Plural | Verb: Imperfect Active Indicative 3rd Plural

Word Meanings without declension or conjugation:
Tomb/Grave | to open | the, this, that | throat | he, she, it | , the | tongue | he, she, it | to deal treacherously with, use deceit, to be guileful

Direct Translation:
A grave that is open, the throat of their’s; these tongues of their’s are treacherous.

Justin:

Greek:
ταῖς | γλώσσαις | αὐτῶν | ἐδολιοῦσαν |, τάφος | ἀνεῳγμένος | ὁ | λάρυγξ | αὐτῶν

Grammar:
Definite article: Dative Plural Feminine | Noun: Dative Plural Feminine | Personal pronoun: Genitive Plural | Verb: Imperfect Active Indicative 3rd Plural | , Noun: Nominative Singular Masculine | Verb: Perfect Passive participle, Nominative Singular Masculine | Article: Nominative Singular Masculine | Noun: Nominative Singular Masculine | Personal pronoun: Genitive Plural

Word Meanings without declension or conjugation:
the | tongue | he, she, it | to deal treacherously with, use deceit, to be guileful | , Tomb/Grave | to open | the, this, that | throat | he, she, it

Direct Translation:
These tongues of their’s are treacherous; a grave that is open, the throat of their’s.

 

[dejudge]

JaysonR:

Thanks particularly for this:

Here's Romans in the Greek, and Justin's section in the Greek.
Romans:
τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν, ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν,

Justin:
ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν, τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν

That appears to be a good example where the author of Romans copied Justin Martyr.

 

[JaysonR]

Yep, still haven't bothered to tell us how you determine the date of Romans, or how you are determining that Romans copied Justin.

You just circle back to the claim that:

The Pauline Corpus should have been circulated in the Roman Empire for at least 100 YEARS before Justin and should have been well known and established in the Churches yet many 2nd century Christian writers, even a non-apologetic Celsus, wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

It can be easily argued that the Pauline Corpus was fabricated after at least c 180 CE.

Which is the position you started with to begin with, so using your argument as evidence of your argument doesn't really prove anything.


I don't have time tonight, but I'll tell you what.
I'll actually dig up the Greek copies of both and compare the grammar of the line to the rest of each text's grammar and we'll see which text's grammar is different from this line.

It would stand to reason that whichever text holds a grammar that is different from the line in question is the one that copied the line from the other source.

Hey, look at that! Paleography rather than banterography.

 

[Brainache]

...
Hey, look at that! Paleography rather than banterography.

Just to be a pain, don't you mean textual analysis?

I thought Paleography was about dating things by the type of script they are written in.

 

[JaysonR]

It technically means both, not just dating.

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.

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

 

[Brainache]

It technically means both, not just dating.

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

OK. No worries.

Um

I was er, just testing you.

Yeah that's it, it was a test.

Lucky you passed.

 

[dejudge]

Since Justin Martyr, who lived ca. 100 - 160, alludes to verses in Luke in his First Apology, it could not have been written as late as 180.

Again, all you have done is assume you know when gLuke was written. It is already known that Justin identified his sources for his story of Jesus. It was the Memoirs of the Apostles--Not gLuke--that was used by Justin.

Justin alluded to verses in the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Justin's First Apology

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone

 

[dejudge]

...By the time these two were alive, the general schema of the relationship between the gospels, Acts and the various epistles had been established by a developed Christian tradition. Origen lived ca. 185 - 254. So, by the time he was an adult, reaching 20 at ca. 205 all of these books would have been written and passed down, with a relationship extablished by a theologically based tradition that placed all the gospels before the epistles. Eusebius lived even later, roughly 260 - 340.

Again all you have done is assume you know when the Pauline Epistles were composed while you have no supporting evidence.

There was really no early tradition for the Pauline Corpus.

We have 2nd century Christian writers who show or imply that the Christian theology developed without the Pauline Corpus.

 

[Craig B]

Again all you have done is assume you know when the Pauline Epistles were composed while you have no supporting evidence.

I have given evidence of this. You simply ignore it. Very well. Two can play at that game.

We have 2nd century Christian writers who show or imply that the Christian theology developed without the Pauline Corpus.

No, Irenaeus didn't exist. His writings were forged by Hippolytus.

The great work of Irenæus is unfortunately no longer extant in the original. It has come down to us only in an ancient Latin version, with the exception of the greater part of the first book, which has been preserved in the original Greek, through means of copious quotations made by Hippolytus and Epiphanius. The text, both Latin and Greek, is often most uncertain.

So there! But Hippolytus is probably a forgery too because

His works have unfortunately come down to us in such a fragmentary condition that it is difficult to obtain from them any very exact notion of his intellectual and literary importance.

And anyway

... In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life. This means that Christ goes through every stage of human life, and simply by living it, sanctifies it with his divinity. This idea led Irenaeus to some unusual opinions, including that Jesus lived to be an old man, and his public ministry lasted at least ten years.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/people/irenaeus.htm Thus, his statement - which you endlessly repeat without any examination - that Irenaeus believed Jesus lived to an advanced age was not founded on any historical knowledge possessed by that writer, but was derived from his ideology, that Jesus was a sort of "counter-Adam" come to repair the Fall. Most of Irenaeus's ideological ideas were cockeyed constructions of that order.

 

[Craig B]

Now, the supposed 2nd century writer and presbyter of the Church of Lyons publicly argued against Heretics and stated quite clearly or implied that Jesus was CRUCIFIED c 50 CE or 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius or when Jesus was about 50 years old under Claudius.

Do you understand the serious implications of Irenaeus' argument for a 50 year old Crucified Jesus c 50 CE?

Yes it means Paul couldn't have met dead Jesus in the sky on the road to Damascus during the reign of Aretas King of the Nabateans cos that King died in 40 AD!

Irenaeus has really confirmed that the Pauline Corpus was unknown when he was a presbyter of the Church of Lyons and that those he argued against [the Heretics] knew nothing of a Pauline character who supposedly preached Christ Crucified since 37-41 CE ... Please, examine "Against Heresies" 2.22 because you seem to have no idea of the problems with the Pauline Corpus.

I have, which is more that you have evidently, and I am aware of what the commentators have said about Irenaeus's reasons for making Jesus live till he was old. But you say nothing about that, do you? You just bang on and on as if Ireanaeus was unchallengeable. Nonsense. Here is more from Irenaeus, and it is extremely well known. It enables us to assess his credibility. He derived his ideas not from facts, but from complex ideological notions inspired by his uncritical misreading of the scriptures. Jesus as antidote to Adam, as I noted in my last post. And as regards the Gospels, he penned this amazing stuff. And you want us to take seriously this guy's cockeyed notions about the history of early Christian writings?!? Dear me.

There are four gospels and only four, neither more nor less: four like the points of the compass, four like the chief directions of the wind. The Church, spread all over the world, has in the gospels four pillars and four winds blowing wherever people live.

These four gospels are in actual fact one single Gospel, a fourfold Gospel inspired by the one Spirit, a Gospel which has four aspects representing the work of the Son of God.

These aspects are like the four cherubs described by Ezekiel. In the prophet's words: `The first had the like ness of a lion,' symbolizing the masterly and kingly role of Christ in priesthood; `the second had the appearance of an ox,' the beast of sacrifice, recalling the perfect sacrifice of Christ; `the third had the face of a man,' undoubtedly referring to the coming of the Lord in human nature; `and the fourth had the aspect of a flying eagle,' with a clear allusion to the grace of the Spirit hovering over the Church. [cf. Ezek. 1:10; Rev. 4:7]

You ask

How is it possible that Paul preached Christ Crucified c 37-41 BEFORE the crucifixion, c 50 CE, based on Irenaeus a presbyter of the Church of Lyons?

If I can argue with a presbyter of the Church of Scotland - and I can - than I can argue with a DEAD presbyter of the Church of Lyons. No problem.