Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[jhunter1163]

And it came to pass that the posters in R&P heeded not the admonition of the MOD, and bickered yet more than before. And the bickering reached the ears of the MOD; and the MOD caused the thread to be sealed such that none might post. The MOD stood in his wrath and proclaimed "Behold, I shall cast thy bickery posts into the flames, and I shall cause thee to break out in a pox of yellow cards; yet JaysonR will I not smite, for he hath posted righteously." And it came to pass, even as the MOD said.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[jhunter1163]

Thread reopened. Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Brainache]

Eh?

I think IanS is under the misapprehension that everyone on the "HJ Side" agrees with the "Zealot HJ" Theory, that some nutjob* around here has been pushing lately...






*That's OK isn't it? I'm attacking myself.

 

[JaysonR]

Alright, dejudge (and everyone else involved).

Regarding this:

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.

I spent the day reading over the Greek of both Romans and the Dialogue with Trypho and have the results ready.

Your claim is that Romans copied Justin, yet you have no evidence of who copied who to offer, so I went and compared their grammar against each other to find whose grammar is like that of the line from Romans 3 and Chapter 27 of Dialogue with Trypho.

Because this is a post, I'm only going to provide two examples that decently represent the grammatical pattern found in each text throughout.

To be clear, here, I will be showing one citation from each text only for brevity's sake. Each example is a solid representation of the grammar that is found within the entire text of both.

The sample from Romans is Romans 3:1.
The sample from Dialogue with Trypho is Chapter 24:4.

The source for Romans 3:1 is http://greekbible.com/index.php
The source for Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 24:4 is http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/justinus/tryphong.htm

Because Chapter 24:4 is an instance of Justin referencing Isaiah 65:1 and 2, I made sure that he didn't just copy directly out of what was in the Septuagint and instead was writing in his own hand.

In the Septuagint, this same passage appears as:
εἶπα ἰδού εἰμι τῷ ἔθνει οἳ οὐκ ἐκάλεσάν μου τὸ ὄνομα ἐξεπέτασα τὰς χεῖράς μου ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν πρὸς λαὸν ἀπειθοῦντα καὶ ἀντιλέγοντα οἳ οὐκ ἐπορεύθησαν ὁδῷ ἀληθινῇ ἀλλ’ ὀπίσω τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.

Compared against Justin's version:
Εἶπα ἰδού εἰμι, ἔθνεσιν οἳ οὐκ ἐπεκαλέσαντό μου τὸ ὄνομα. ἐξεπέτασα τὰς χεῖράς μου ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν ἐπὶ λαὸν ἀπειθοῦντα καὶ ἀντιλέγοντα, τοῖς πορευομένοις ὁδῷ οὐ καλῇ, ἀλλὰ ὀπίσω τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.

As we can see, Justin's version is different and not a direct copy out of the Septuagint and stands as his own style.
Also, the grammar pattern of DT 24:4 are consistent with Justin's grammatical form elsewhere.

Now, to start with, we will need to first bring back the line from DT Chapter 27 which started this tangent.
I will just copy that grammatical exposure from previous post.

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

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


The unique character to this line is that it is using the Genitive intersected into what is otherwise Nominative and Dative.
Typically speaking, when something in written in the Genitive, the Genitive is applied to the entire context of the nouns belonging to the Genitive, except if the Genitive is of the Subject, in which case the Subject must be in the Nominative case (like all Subjects).
Genitive is the case used to denote direction of ownership, so it is not "proper" to render Nominative cases shared to a Genitive ownership indication when the nouns are not the subject, but are instead the indirect subject or otherwise (indirect subject is noted with the Dative case).
It isn't entirely wrong, the way that it is written, but it isn't entirely grammatically accurate either.
The Dative nouns could have been in the Genitive rather than the Dative, since usually the Dative for ownership direction supplants the Genitive (or can) when the direction is "to" something.
For example, if I were to write, "Jesus said to them", then I wouldn't write a Genitive, but instead a Dative for the plural pronoun.

In this case, nothing is going "to" anything so the indirect objects (and their articles) could have been placed in the Genitive and fully attach to the pronouns for clear indication of ownership.

An example of this are these two sections:
ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν and ταῖς γλώσσαις should technically at least have the noun in the Genitive as the throat and tongue are "of" the plural pronoun, "Theirs", and not "to" the plural pronoun.


So, with this characteristic in mind, I then looked at nearly every use of this pronoun (αὐτῶν), specifically in this grammatical form of the Genitive, in both texts and examined which text didn't bother with the finer trimmings of being Grammatically proper as their normal method.

I will not be making a Direct Translation of either sample as we don't need it for this examination.
We only need to expose the grammar and compare the structure of the Grammar from both to the line from Chapter 27.

Also, I compiled the following in a time-crunch, so I just abbreviated the grammatical notations.
Nominative is Nom, Genitive is Gen, and Dative is Dat.

I will highlight (as was done above) Nominative entries in Red, Dative entries in Orange, and Genitive in Blue for an easier recognition.

Romans 3:1

Greek:
τί | γὰρ | εἰ | ἠπίστησάν | τινες; | μὴ | ἡ | ἀπιστία | αὐτῶν | τὴν | πίστιν | τοῦ | θεοῦ | καταργήσει; | μὴ | γένοιτο: | γινέσθω | δὲ | ὁ | θεὸς | ἀληθής, | πᾶς | δὲ | ἄνθρωπος | ψεύστης, | καθὼς | γέγραπται, | Οπως | ἂν | δικαιωθῇς | ἐν | τοῖς | λόγοις | σου | καὶ | νικήσεις | ἐν | τῷ | κρίνεσθαί | σέ.

Grammar:
Interrogative pronoun: Nom/Acc Sing Neut | Conjunction | Conjunction |Verb: Aor Act Ind 3rd Plur | Interrogative pronoun: Nom Plur Masc/Fem; | particle | Definite article: Nom Sing Fem | Noun: Nom Sing Fem | Personal pronoun: Gen Plur | Definite article: Acc Sing Fem | Noun: Acc Sing Fem | Personal pronoun: Gen Plur | Definite article: Acc Sing Fem | Noun: Acc Sing Fem | Definite article: Gen Sing Masc/Neut | Noun: Gen Sing Masc | Verb: Fut Act Ind 3rd Sing; | Definite article: Nom Sing Fem | Verb: 2Aor Mid Deponent Optative 3rd Sing: | Verb: Pres Mid/Pass Deponent Imperative 3rd Sing | Conjunction | Article: Nom Sing Masc | Noun: Nom Sing Masc | Adj: Nom Sing Fem or Masc, | Adj: Nom Sing Masc | Conjunction | Noun: Nom Sing Masc | Noun: Nom Sing Masc, | Adverb | Verb: Perf Pass Ind 3rd Sing, | Adverb | particle | Verb: Aor Pass Subj 2nd Sing | Preposition | Definite article: Dat Sing Masc/Neut | Verb: Pres Pass Infin | Personal pronoun: 2nd Acc Sing.

Word Meanings without declension or conjugation:
Who? What? | for, and, as, because (that), but, even, etc… | if | disbelieve, or disobey | Who? What?; | no, not, any but | the, this, that | he, she, it | the | unbelief, disbelief | he, she, it | the | assurance, belief, believe | the | god/divine | to make powerless, nullify, abolish | the, this, that | to become, come to be / to produce: | to become, come to be / to produce | also, and, but | the, this, that | god/divine | truthful, righteous, honest, true, real, | every, all, the whole, always | also, and, but | a person, man, a human being | liar, | according to, just as | to write, | how, in order that, so that | whatever, wherever, whoever | to show/do justice, make right | + Dat = in, on, by, with | the | to judge, think, consider| you.


Dialogue with Trypho 24:4

Greek:
Εἶπα | ἰδού | εἰμι, | ἔθνεσιν | οἳ | οὐκ | ἐπεκαλέσαντό | μου | τὸ | ὄνομα. | ἐξεπέτασα | τὰς | χεῖράς | μου | ὅλην | τὴν | ἡμέραν | ἐπὶ | λαὸν | ἀπειθοῦντα | καὶ | ἀντιλέγοντα, | τοῖς | πορευομένοις | ὁδῷ | οὐ | καλῇ, | ἀλλὰ | ὀπίσω | τῶν | ἁμαρτιῶν | αὐτῶν.

Grammar:
Verb: Aor Act Ind 1st Sing | Adverb | Verb: Pres Ind 1st Sing, | Noun: Dat Plur Neut | Article: Nom Plur Masc | Neg. particle | Verb: Aor Mid Ind 3rd Plur | Personal pronoun: 1st Gen Sing | Definite article: Nom/Acc Sing Neut | Noun: Nom/Acc Sing Neut | Verb: Aor Act Ind 1st Sing | Definite article: Acc Plur Fem | Noun: Acc Plur Fem | Personal pronoun: 1st Gen Sing | Adj: Acc Sing Fem | Definite article: Acc Sing Fem | Noun: Acc Sing Fem | PREP | Noun: Acc Sing Masc | Verb: Pres Act Part Acc Sing Masc, | Definite article: Dat Plur Masc/Neut | Verb: Pres Mid/Pass Deponent Part Dat Plur Masc | Noun: Dat Sing Fem | Neg. particle | Adj: Dat Sing Fem, | Conjunction | Adverb | Definite article: Gen Plur Masc/Fem/Neut | Noun: Gen Plur Fem | Personal pronoun: Gen Plur.

Word Meanings without declension or conjugation:
to say, state, speak | behold, see, witness | to be, | gentile | the, this, that | no, not | to call upon, appeal | I, me, my, mine, myself | the | called, name, named. | to spread out, hold out | the | hand | I, me, my, mine, myself | whole, entire | the | day | on, in, above, upon, against, over | people | disbelieve, or disobey, | the | to proceed/depart/go | road/path/journey/way | no, not | beautiful/blameless/pleasant/desirable, | but, etc… | after, back, behind, follow | the | offence, sin | he, she, it.


Now, the part that we can see here is in Justin's hand:
τῶν | ἁμαρτιῶν | αὐτῶν

The definite article, noun, and pronoun are all in the Genitive; as is the technically correct grammatical treatment.

Meanwhile, in the Romans example, this is the style which we see:
ἡ | ἀπιστία | αὐτῶν

Here, the definite article and noun are in the Nominative, while the pronoun is receiving them in the Genitive.



Justin's work follows the example provided from Dialogue with Trypho and places the Genitive in the related article and nouns associated with the genitive pronoun, while Romans tends to favor the Nominative or Dative case repeatedly and only sparingly use an in-tandem Genitive casing.


Result:
Based on this comparison, it is more likely that Justin copied from Romans than it is that Romans copied from Justin.

 

[dejudge]

Your conclusion is not logical at all. You are really no different to Tim Callahan you have merely assumed you know when the Pauline letters were composed.

You simply cannot show that the Pauline writers could not have copied Justin Martyr because you have no way to show that any Pauline letter was composed before the time of Justin.

Plus, Justin Martyr did not acknowledge Paul as the one who responsible for the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentile world.

Justin specifically stated that it was TWELVE ILLITERATES from Jerusalem who preached the Gospel to the whole world--every race of men.

Justin's First Apology

For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God..

How in the world could Justin have documented Epistles from Paul to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Philippians and Colossians and still declare that it was TWELVE ILLITERATES who preached the Gospel to every race of men?

It should have been well established for at least 100 years earlier in the Churches that is was Paul who was commissioned to preach the Gospel outside Judea--to the Non Jews in the Roman Empire as stated in Galatians.

Galatians 2

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me , as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

Justin copied and used the Gospel of the TWELVE ILLITERATE apostles--not the Pauline letters.

Justin Martyr knew nothing at all of the supposed early evangelist Paul who documented that he preached the Gospel to the Roman Empire.

 

[JaysonR]

You don't understand paleography, so there's really no point in addressing your argument as your argument isn't actually a proper argument to the paleographic examination.

If you actually don't understand what the implications are and are not, nor what the value of paleograhic evidence is, nor how it works, and refuse to learn, then I simply cannot adress your problem other than to repeat the finding.

The results of examining the grammatical contrasts indicate that Justin copied Romans.

It does not, in itself, indicate any finite date range; only, "before Justin".

 

[dejudge]

You don't understand paleography, so there's really no point in addressing your argument as your argument isn't actually a proper argument to the paleographic examination.

Actually you do not understand that No Pauline letters have been found and dated pre 70 CE by paleography.

You must use Acts of the Apostles to date the Pauline Corpus.

If you actually don't understand what the implications are and are not, nor what the value of paleograhic evidence is, nor how it works, and refuse to learn, then I simply cannot adress your problem other than to repeat the finding.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The results of examining the grammatical contrasts indicate that Justin copied Romans.

It does not, in itself, indicate any finite date range; only, "before Justin".

Grammatical contrasts cannot indicate that Justin copied Romans when he did not acknowledge Paul or the Pauline Corpus and claimed it was TWELVE ILLITERATES from Jerusalem who preached the Gospel to every race of men.

Justin Martyr further completely eliminated Paul as an evangelist in the Roman Empire when he wrote that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the prophets were read in the Churches.

 

[JaysonR]

I'll let everyone else judge for themselves.
Clearly you believe Romans copied Justin inspite of the grammar of the section in chapter 27 matching the grammar of Romans and not of DT.

Your arguments continue to be irrelevant to the paleographic argument, unfortunately.

 

[Belz...]

Your conclusion is not logical at all.

Did you even read it ? Because you're not actually countering his points.

 

[JaysonR]

I need to note a typo. It occurs in the following paragraph from above. I have stiken out the error and replaced it with the intended entry.

In this case, nothing is going "to" anything so the indirect objects subjects (and their articles) could have been placed in the Genitive and fully attach to the pronouns for clear indication of ownership.

Sorry if that confused anyone.

 

[dejudge]

I'll let everyone else judge for themselves.
Clearly you believe Romans copied Justin inspite of the grammar of the section in chapter 27 matching the grammar of Romans and not of DT.

Your arguments continue to be irrelevant to the paleographic argument, unfortunately.

Again, all you have done is assume that the Pauline writings were composed before the writings of Justin Martyr. It is completely illogical to conclude Justin Martyr copied Romans because of grammatical contrasts.

You must first find a credible source before Justin who mentioned the Pauline Corpus. You cannot do so. It is virtually impossible. It has never been done.

The claim that there are authentic Pauline Epistles is a product of Chinese Whispers [Telephone]--no actual supporting evidence can be presented and none has ever been.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I need to note a typo. It occurs in the following paragraph from above. I have stiken out the error and replaced it with the intended entry.


Sorry if that confused anyone.

Not really, the gist was clear. Nice post, though a fair bit* over my Greek proficiency. It's long ago, I didn't enjoy the classes, and, as these things go, I've forgotten most of it.
Brought back memories though...

What does surprise me is exactly how sloppy Paul the Grammar is of him.






*an enormous bit

 

[dejudge]

Not really, the gist was clear. Nice post, though a fair bit* over my Greek proficiency. It's long ago, I didn't enjoy the classes, and, as these things go, I've forgotten most of it.
Brought back memories though...

What does surprise me is exactly how sloppy Paul the Grammar is of him.






*an enormous bit

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.

 

[Craig B]

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.

dejudge, without attracting the accusation of "bickering", which is far from my intention: can you please explain how a person thinking that something written by another person more proficient in Greek grammar is "nice", can be described as "Chinese whispers"? The free dictionary online defines this as "a game in which a message is passed on, in a whisper, by each of a number of people, so that the final version of the message is often radically changed from the original". But both JaysunR and H'ethetheth are communicating perfectly plainly and clearly, as far as I can see.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge, without attracting the accusation of "bickering", which is far from my intention: can you please explain how a person thinking that something written by another person more proficient in Greek grammar is "nice", can be described as "Chinese whispers"? The free dictionary online defines this as "a game in which a message is passed on, in a whisper, by each of a number of people, so that the final version of the message is often radically changed from the original". But both JaysunR and H'ethetheth are communicating perfectly plainly and clearly, as far as I can see.

Look at the last sentence of the post in question. I do not want to repeat the Chinese Whispers.

How does the poster know how sloppy Paul was when the Greek was a fair bit over the poster's proficiency?

 

[Belz...]

Look at the last sentence of the post in question. I do not want to repeat the Chinese Whispers.

In other words you had no clue what the term meant before you were corrected, and how you're stuck with having said it. Why don't you admit that you misspoke ?

 

[dejudge]

In other words you had no clue what the term meant before you were corrected, and how you're stuck with having said it. Why don't you admit that you misspoke ?

You don't know what you are talking about. It is you who mis-spoke because you did not read the last sentence of the post in question.

I am exposing the abundance of Chinese Whispers circulating on these forums and threads.

 

[Craig B]

... How does the poster know how sloppy Paul was when the Greek was a fair bit over the poster's proficiency?

That's not a bad point. However the poster could know, even on the basis of a lesser erudition in this field, that Paul's Greek grammar was sloppy, to a significant degree at all events.

 

[Belz...]

You don't know what you are talking about. It is you who mis-spoke because you did not read the last sentence of the post in question.

I am exposing the abundance of Chinese Whispers circulating on these forums and threads.

The meaning of the term has been explained to you, and it doesn't apply to what you are claiming it does. Therefore it stands to reason that you don't understand the term, or that you are unwilling to admit that you have been corrected.

This inability to admit one's wrong seems well established by your claim to be 100% on the side of the MJ hypothesis.

 

[JaysonR]

Again, all you have done is assume that the Pauline writings were composed before the writings of Justin Martyr.

No.

The claim that there are authentic Pauline Epistles is a product of Chinese Whispers [Telephone]--no actual supporting evidence can be presented and none has ever been.

That was not the claim the inquiry produced.