Maklelan

That's a funny thing for you to say

You don't appear to have understood or read my comment, and you're missing a verb in that final clause.

Say it louder, please. I'll believe you then.

Ok, now I know the inference you're trying to draw. Would you mind explaining how you get from the protasis (your observation about the 500 witnesses), to your apodosis (your conclusion that the texts were composed after the fall of Jerusalem)? The fact that the gospels don't mention the 500 witnesses in and of itself doesn't effect that connection in any way, shape, or form. Keep in mind my logic is severely limited, so please explain it to me in great detail.

The period he discusses happens to be quite a black hole when it comes to primary sources in Syria-Palestine. That there is no corroboration is not really a surprise. To conclude that it means it's all a lie is an amateur and uninformed leap.

stephan huller

This is more fun than watching television (although they say that show with that family of the lawyer who helped OJ Simpson get away with murder is quite entertaining)

aa5874

Well, once you confess that your logic is severely limited then I will not be able to help you.

What black hole are you talking about?

Irenaeus supposedly of the 2nd century knew the names of all the Bishops of Rome for a hundred years. He seems to know of Acts of the Apostles, all the Canonical Gospels and how and when they were written.

Irenaeus also appeared to know ALL the so-called authentic Pauline writings, and knew people who knew the apostles, like Polycarp.

But there is one massive problem, much of the information from Irenaeus is bogus and has been REJECTED by Scholars and even Apologetic sources.

There was NO black hole. There was NO 1st century Jesus cult of Christians. There was NO Paul.

In "Dialogue with Trypho" Justin did NOT mention ONE single person by name that he knew was a Christian while on his search for the truth.

Justin Martyr just happened by chance to meet an OLD Man that he never knew who told him about the Jesus story.

Now, the Old man did NOT mention Paul just the prophets of old.

stephan huller

If Maklelan can vanquish the two beasts of this forum (aa and mountainman) and silence them forever we'll make him our king. Unfortunately I think he will either leave or discover the ignore list ...

Maklelan

You're incapable of explaining your theories in basic terms?

I believe I was quite clear. There are very few texts that address the history of Syria-Palestine in that time period, and there's no reason to be surprised by the absence of Paul's name from those histories that do exist.

How is this relevant to the historiographical coverage of Paul's own day?

Y'see, you keep coming up with these rather reasonable observations (except for your rather indiscriminate and ignorant use of the word "bogus"), but then you just make these enormous leaps to these belligerent and absolutist conclusions. That's my concern.

Was he supposed to?

So how come he quotes Paul and other Christian literature?

Vorkosigan

Definitely a valiant effort.

Maklelan

By the way, aa, I wonder if you wouldn't mind responding to some comments I posted on a thread discussing that "Chrestos" notion. You can find my post here.

Duvduv

aa5874, I am asking a very serious question.

How extensive do you believe the forging industry of the 4th or 5th centuries had to have been to accomplish so much in a relatively short time, i.e. starting with centralized authority after Constantine and Nicea in 325 and continuing perhaps for the next century or more?

If they forged a package of epistles, four gospels (to the exclusion of Ignatians, gnostic gospels such as Nag Hammadi material, etc.) PLUS a bunch of apologetic material, how was it done? Was there a Roman institute of Forgery whose officials were specifically assigned the job of progressively putting all the stuff together, backdating, forging, inventing, etc. in order to construct an imperial religion?
How would you describe the way it all happened??
Thanks.

aa5874

I have already debunked your claims . Justin Martyr CLEARLY mentioned Elijah, Moses, and the Law of Moses for his statements, never Paul.

"Dialogue 39"
"Dialogue 95"
Dialogue 96 It should be quite obvious that Justin Martyr and the Pauline writer are using the same sources.

And this is confirmed when we examine "An Answer to the Jews" attributed to Tertullian where the author identified Deuteronomy as a source, not Paul.

An Answer to the Jews So far you have been 100% debunked since you cannot find any reference to Paul, the Pauline writings and the Pauline churches in the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

Maklelan

No, you just barked "Nu-uh!" at me and then moved on.

You don't seem willing to acknowledge what my argument actually is.

Ah, I see you like DCHindley's comment and have decided to change your story. Obviously your conclusions are based on lengthy and serious consideration of the sources and not just whatever argument you think will support your presuppositions. Since you like this theory, by all means, tell us what source that is. In textual criticism, to posit a common source underlying two parallel textual divergences from another source, you have to actually be able to identify it. Can you do so, or are you just groping for whatever conclusion will help you disagree with me? My money is on the latter, but I would love for you to prove me wrong.

You need to learn Greek and Latin, and then learn about textual criticism. Your second quote––the one that actually identifies Deuteronomy––is different from the first. Here's the Latin of the two, with the differences of the second in italics:

Now let's take a look at the Greek of Paul and Martyr (which are identical) against the Greek of Deut 21:23:

Notice LXX Deut 21:23 uses a different verb for "cursed" from that of Paul and Martyr. Notice also that Tertullian's first quote of the verse lacks the "a deo," just like Paul and Martyr's text, but his second quote, which he explicitly identifies as coming from Deuteronomy, does not, just like the LXX Deut. Notice also that Tertullian's quotes uses a different phrase for "hanged."

Conclusions? Paul and Martyr are not quoting LXX Deuteronomy. They are either quoting the same divergent and non-extent Greek translation, or Martyr is quoting Paul, who has his own early and divergent version underlying his quote. Since Paul does that quite a bit, and Martyr does not, we cannot posit that Martyr had access to the same Vorlagen as Paul. Tertullian has two different versions of the text, and he quotes both, which means he either has two different versions, one of which also underlies Paul and Martyr, or Tertullian is quoting Paul as well. Since we have no other version of Greek Deut 21:23, and since it doesn't make sense for Tertullian to have two divergent versions of Deuteronomy in front of him, the most likely conclusion is that Tertullian is quoting Paul with the first version and LXX Deut 21:23 (or a Latin translation) in the second. We can conclude the same for Martyr (unless, of course, you can produce that divergent source common to both Paul and Martyr).

So far you've shown that you know just less than jack about textual criticism. Go get an education, and then come talk to me about who's quoting who and who isn't.