Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[Brainache]

You mean you have a brainache.

I didn't choose this name for nothing...

 

[dejudge]

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, 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.

 

[JaysonR]

I wasn't stating that Justin was claiming that Paul stated what followed; that never was a consideration.
I never proposed that "He exclaims", indicated anything about Justin attributing anything to Paul.

I was addressing this point:

Justin's arguments do not include a single sentence from the Pauline Corpus.

With what I cited, I was highlighting how both sections have the exact same words in the Greek, and not only the same words, but the same grammatical use of the words.
That is very difficult to accomplish by accident.

Either Justin was copying from Romans, Romans was copying from Justin, or they were both copying from some unknown third source that has ceased to exist or been mentioned or cited by any other hand.

Now, the proposition has been given that Romans was copying Justin.

The standard dating for Romans is between 50 to 60 CE.
Justin is dated between 100 and 165 CE.

For the proposition to hold, we would need to show that Romans was written after Justin.

Dejudge: can you provide material evidence to suggest a consideration of Romans' dating to post-Justin rather than pre-Justin?

 

[dejudge]

I was addressing this point:

With what I cited, I was highlighting how both sections have the exact same words in the Greek, and not only the same words, but the same grammatical use of the words.
That is very difficult to accomplish by accident.

Either Justin was copying from Romans, Romans was copying from Justin, or they were both copying from some unknown third source that has ceased to exist or been mentioned or cited by any other hand.

Now, the proposition has been given that Romans was copying Justin.

The standard dating for Romans is between 50 to 60 CE.
Justin is dated between 100 and 165 CE.

For the proposition to hold, we would need to show that Romans was written after Justin.

Dejudge: can you provide material evidence to suggest a consideration of Romans' dating to post-Justin rather than pre-Justin?

Your proposition is extremely weak and is based on Chinese Whispers.

1. You failed to present evidence for your dating of Romans.

2. You failed to show that Justin knew of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

There is no evidence at all, none, zero, nothing to support your imaginary standard dating of Romans.

If there was evidence for the standard date of authorship of Romans you would have shown me. You can't and never will.

Not even the author of Acts who mentioned Paul over 130 times claimed Paul wrote an Epistle to the Romans.

In Acts, Saul/Paul wrote NO Epistles up to c 59-62 CE.

On the other hand, Justin's writings can be easily dated to sometime around c 150 CE because his First Apology is addressed to the Emperor Antoninus c 138-161 CE

1. None of the post resurrection "details" about Jesus in the Pauline Corpus can be found in the writings of Justin Martyr.

2. Justin Martyr had no idea of an evangelist called Paul who was commissioned to preach the Gospel to non-Jews.

3. Justin Martyr claimed that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the prophets were read in the Churches c 150 CE.

4. The supposed Pauline teaching "Salvation by the resurrection" is not found in the writings of Justin Martyr.

 

[Craig B]

JaysonR

You're going to get nothing from dejudge. He'll simply repeat the same thing an infinity of times in the same words, regardless of the content of your post, or the reasoning or evidence you present.

 

[JaysonR]

Again, dedudge, I will ask you to please treat me with the same respect I am extending to you.
We're having a discussion. I'm not here to point fingers and spit pseudo-insults.

So the position for claiming that Romans copied from Justin is by stating that Romans was after at least 130 CE because the standard dating is- I apologize, I'm not really clear here. Is it being proposed that we know the date was after Justin because Justin doesn't mention any single Pauline corpus sentence, because the shared line between Romans 3 and Dia. 27 is Romans copying from Justin, and we know this because Romans is after Justin, and we know Romans is after Justin because Paul isn't mentioned by Justin?

What date should we give Romans, dejudge?

Also, why does Paul need to exist for Romans to have any given date?
A textual dating doesn't require an authenticity of authorship.

 

[dejudge]

Again, dedudge, I will ask you to please treat me with the same respect I am extending to you.
We're having a discussion. I'm not here to point fingers and spit pseudo-insults.

So the position for claiming that Romans copied from Justin is by stating that Romans was after at least 130 CE because the standard dating is- I apologize, I'm not really clear here. Is it being proposed that we know the date was after Justin because Justin doesn't mention any single Pauline corpus sentence, because the shared line between Romans 3 and Dia. 27 is Romans copying from Justin, and we know this because Romans is after Justin, and we know Romans is after Justin because Paul isn't mentioned by Justin?

What date should we give Romans, dejudge?

Also, why does Paul need to exist for Romans to have any given date?
A textual dating doesn't require an authenticity of authorship.

You seem unaware that it is claimed the Pauline Epistles were composed before the Gospels because they do not contain the stories of Jesus.

All of a sudden, you appear to not understand that the same methodology can be applied to Acts of the Apostles, writings of Aristides, Justin, Minucius Felix, Origen's Against Celsus, Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, Arnobius and Athenagoras.

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.

You specifically stated the standard dating of Romans is 50-60 CE but refuse to show the evidence.

Why are you dodging?

If Romans is undisputed then you should have OVERWHELMING evidence that it was composed c 50-60 CE. You have nothing.

Justin's Apology is addressed to Antoninus c 138 -161 CE.

Justin's First Apology

To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.

 

[Craig B]

See what I mean JaysonR? He just repeats exactly the same things in the same mildly hostile tone. He will never do anything else. It simply doesn't matter what evidence you present. It's like having a dialogue with some kind of machine.

 

[dejudge]

See what I mean JaysonR? He just repeats exactly the same things in the same mildly hostile tone. He will never do anything else. It simply doesn't matter what evidence you present. It's like having a dialogue with some kind of machine.

JaysonR has not presented any evidence to support the "standard dating" of Romans c 50-60 CE. He will never ever do so.

 

[JaysonR]

I didn't suggest any date.
I stated what the standard date has been set at.
The proposition also offered a date: after Justin.

I don't have a proposition on the date.
Instead, the assertion of the text being after Justin proposes a date and needs to show how that date is achieved.

The standard date is required to do the same and several have over time but I only brought up the standard date because the Post-Justin date proposition is counter to it, and uncommon.

For discussion, let's throw out the standard date.

What is the date of Romans, and how is that proven?

 

[Brainache]

Hey Jayson. I just read that the Habakkuk Pesher is based on the septuagint, not the Hebrew Text.

Eisenman says there is a transmutation in the text:

...of Habakkuk 2:16 where the received Masoretic and Vulgate read, 'Uncover your foreskin' (he-'arel), but which here in 1QpHab XI.9 and in the Greek Septuagint read 'make tremble' (hera' el). But the sense of the Masoretic original and of the preceding "privy parts" from 2:15 is again, then, recovered in the Pesher which interprets this in terms of the Wicked Priest 'not circumcising the foreskin of his heart'...

http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

Can you comment on this?

Is Eisenman alone on this one?

 

[dejudge]

I didn't suggest any date.
I stated what the standard date has been set at.
The proposition also offered a date: after Justin.

I don't have a proposition on the date.
Instead, the assertion of the text being after Justin proposes a date and needs to show how that date is achieved.

The standard date is required to do the same and several have over time but I only brought up the standard date because the Post-Justin date proposition is counter to it, and uncommon.

For discussion, let's throw out the standard date.

What is the date of Romans, and how is that proven?

Just as I expected. This is precisely what happens when you use Chinese Whispers as evidence for a standard date of Romans.

Since you no longer wish to maintain the standard dating for Romans and have zero evidence it is virtually impossible for

 

[Craig B]

See what I mean JaysonR? He just repeats exactly the same things in the same mildly hostile tone. He will never do anything else. It simply doesn't matter what evidence you present. It's like having a dialogue with some kind of machine.

 

[JaysonR]

Please do not summarize me incorrectly and then insult me; I treat you not in this way.

What date will we use for Romans and why do we date it as such?

The original reason for citing Romans was to answer the claim that no Pauline sentence appears in Justin's work.
That is not true, however, the question remains as to whom is copying whom.

I have no claim on the matter. The proposition asserts that Romans came after the Dialogue.
How do we know this?

 

[dejudge]

See what I mean JaysonR? He just repeats exactly the same things in the same mildly hostile tone. He will never do anything else. It simply doesn't matter what evidence you present. It's like having a dialogue with some kind of machine.

Why do you repeat the same fallacies over and over? You seem to forget that people all over world can see what you are attempting to do.

 

[Brainache]

Why do you repeat the same fallacies over and over? You seem to forget that people all over world can see what you are attempting to do.

I have asked before, and I'll ask again: Can you please take this **** somewhere else?

 

[dejudge]

Please do not summarize me incorrectly and then insult me; I treat you not in this way.

What date will we use for Romans and why do we date it as such?

The original reason for citing Romans was to answer the claim that no Pauline sentence appears in Justin's work.
That is not true, however, the question remains as to whom is copying whom.

It is your statement that is a fallacy. Justin Martyr used the Septuagint in Dialogue with Trypho . Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew were discussing passages from the Greek Old Testament in Dialogue with Trypho and never once mentioned the Pauline Epistles or Paul or even implied or rumored that there were Pauline writings.

Plus, you have no idea and no evidence that Romans was composed before Dialogue with Trypho so it is not logical to claim Pauline passages are in Dialogue with Trypho when it could be the reverse.

 

[JaysonR]

I am open to either position.
All I have right now are two sections from two texts, which are clearly related to each other.

I have no problem accepting Romans as after Justin.
How are we to determine this to be the case?

 

[Brainache]

You won't get anywhere with him Jayson, but did you see this?:

Hey Jayson. I just read that the Habakkuk Pesher is based on the septuagint, not the Hebrew Text.

Eisenman says there is a transmutation in the text:

...of Habakkuk 2:16 where the received Masoretic and Vulgate read, 'Uncover your foreskin' (he-'arel), but which here in 1QpHab XI.9 and in the Greek Septuagint read 'make tremble' (hera' el). But the sense of the Masoretic original and of the preceding "privy parts" from 2:15 is again, then, recovered in the Pesher which interprets this in terms of the Wicked Priest 'not circumcising the foreskin of his heart'...

http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

Can you comment on this?

Is Eisenman alone on this one?

 

[dejudge]

It was claimed that no single sentence in the Pauline corpus, whether by Paul or not, appeared in Justin's writing.

This has been shown to not be the case, as cited above between Rom. 3 and Diag. 27.

Is this point accepted?

I NEVER claimed there was not a single sentence of the Pauline Corpus whether by Paul or NOT, in Justin's writings.

Plus, what you are saying does not make much sense. Similar passages in Romans and Justin does not mean that they are Pauline.

Now, if the author of Romans copied passages from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho then we have discovered that Romans was a forgery and was not composed 50-60 CE.

Is that point fully understood?

Again, if Justin used the Septuagint and the author of Romans used the same passages from Septuagint then those passages in Justin writings would not be Pauline but from the Septuagint.

Is that point fully understood??

Justin Martyr identified his sources--the Memoirs of the Apostles and books of the Septuagint.

Justin Martyr did not acknowledge any evangelist called Paul who was commissioned to preach to the Gentiles and never claimed there were Pauline Epistles.

There are only two fundamental scenarios. Either the author of Romans copied Justin or both Justin and the Pauline writer used the same sources.

Effectively, the passage in Dialogue with Trypho 27 is most likely not Pauline.