Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 10-16-2012, 06:49 AM

Quote:

So far, By Paleography we will see that NO Jesus story has ever been dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

What is the Paleographic and c14 dating of oldest surviving manuscript of any of Saint Justin writings?

Should we likewise use that DATING as being the evidence that NO Justin story has ever been dated to the 2nd century and before c. 200 CE ?

Or isn't what is sauce for a Jesus, also sauce for a Justin ?

Serious question here folks, I have been investigating, but would rather that someone else step up with solid and documented information on what is, and where may be located, the oldest surviving manuscript of any of Justin's works.
And where and when it was found, and how, and by whom was this DATING arrived at.

tanya · 10-16-2012, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

What is the Paleographic and c14 dating of oldest surviving manuscript of any writing of Saint Justin

n.b. "It" below, refers to Mark 16:9-20

Quote:

Originally Posted by F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, fourth ed. (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), volume 2, pp. 337-344.

It is cited, possibly by Papias, unquestionably by Irenaeus (both in Greek and Latin), by Tertullian, and by Justin Martyr (8) as early as the second century;

8. Dr. C. Taylor, Master of St. John's College, Cambridge, in The Expositor for July 1893, quotes more evidence from Justin Martyr — hinting that some also remains behind — proving that that Father was familiar with these verses. Also he cites several passages from the Epistle of Barnabas in which traces of them occur, and from the Quartodeciman controversy, and from Clement of Rome. The value of the evidence which Dr. Taylor's acute vision has discovered consists chiefly in its cumulative force. From familiarity with the passage numerous traces of it arose; or as Dr. Taylor takes the case reversely, from the fact of the occurrence of numerous traces evident to a close observer, it is manifest that there pre-existed in the minds of the writers a familiarity with the language of the verses in question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCEL (Calvin college Computer Science)

Eusebius seems to have had a MS. that presented the same problems as ours,666 and to have known only the titles of other lost works. In those Justin developed the Greek, as the Dialogue develops the Jewish, elements of the First Apology.667 Justin would be known to us only by a few spasmodic quotations had not a Byzantine scribe copied an invaluable, if defective, MS., in the year 1364. This is now Codex Regius 150 at Paris, and is the almost exclusive source for editions of Justin, supplemented only by the quotations of Eusebius and John of Damascus and three chapters (65 to 67) in a manuscript at Rome (Codex Ottobonianus Graecus 274). Consequently the editing of Justin's text is almost entirely a matter of conjectural emendation, which is necessary in places but has certainly been employed too freely by some editors.

Duvduv · 10-16-2012, 07:02 AM

This makes the whole Justin situation rather murky I dare say.
It would be invaluable to have a book delineating the history of manuscripts of the apologists (including the infamous Eusebius of course) and analyses of when and if each got tampered with along the way.

Huon · 10-16-2012, 07:06 AM

For Duvduv, some help :

Quote:

Originally Posted by newadvent

There are extant but three works of Justin, of which the authenticity is assured: the two "Apologies" and the "Dialogue". They are to be found in two manuscripts: Paris gr. 450, finished on 11 September, 1364; and Claromont. 82, written in 1571, actually at Cheltenham, in the possession of M.T.F. Fenwick. The second is only a copy of the first, which is therefore our sole authority; unfortunately this manuscript is very imperfect (Harnack, "Die Ueberlieferung der griech. Apologeten" in "Texte and Untersuchungen", I, Leipzig, 1883, i, 73-89; Archambault, "Justin, Dialogue avec Tryphon", Paris, 1909, p. xii-xxxviii). There are many large gaps in this manuscript, thus II Apol., ii, is almost entirely wanting, but it has been found possible to restore the manuscript text from a quotation of Eusebius (Church History IV.17).

This is not a proof that the works of Justin are mere fabrications. Simply that they are not necessarily a good copy of the authentic texts, if they existed.

And apart these texts, we have no external source for the existence of Justin.

His death is mentioned in Acts of the Martyrs (look at newadvent).

Duvduv · 10-16-2012, 07:08 AM

It looks like some believe that a historical Justin in the second century is as sacrosanct as a historical Jesus in the first century is to others. Even while questioning the existence of an Irenaeus or even a Eusebius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

So far, By Paleography we will see that NO Jesus story has ever been dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

What is the Paleographic and c14 dating of oldest surviving manuscript of any of Saint Justin writings?

Should we likewise use that DATING as being the evidence that NO Justin story has ever been dated to the 2nd century and before c. 200 CE ?

Or isn't what is sauce for a Jesus, also sauce for a Justin ?

Serious question here folks, I have been investigating, but would rather that someone else step up with solid and documented information on what is, and where may be located, the oldest surviving manuscript of any of Justin's works.
And where and when it was found, and how, and by whom was this DATING arrived at.

Duvduv · 10-16-2012, 07:12 AM

Thank you.
I wonder if anything is known about that scribe from 1364. What else did he copy or write?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

For Duvduv, some help :

Quote:

Originally Posted by newadvent

There are extant but three works of Justin, of which the authenticity is assured: the two "Apologies" and the "Dialogue". They are to be found in two manuscripts: Paris gr. 450, finished on 11 September, 1364; and Claromont. 82, written in 1571, actually at Cheltenham, in the possession of M.T.F. Fenwick. The second is only a copy of the first, which is therefore our sole authority; unfortunately this manuscript is very imperfect (Harnack, "Die Ueberlieferung der griech. Apologeten" in "Texte and Untersuchungen", I, Leipzig, 1883, i, 73-89; Archambault, "Justin, Dialogue avec Tryphon", Paris, 1909, p. xii-xxxviii). There are many large gaps in this manuscript, thus II Apol., ii, is almost entirely wanting, but it has been found possible to restore the manuscript text from a quotation of Eusebius (Church History IV.17).

This is not a proof that the works of Justin are mere fabrications. Simply that they are not necessarily a good copy of the authentic texts, if they existed.

And apart these texts, we have no external source for the existence of Justin.

Huon · 10-16-2012, 07:42 AM

No, he is an unknown Byzantine scribe, according to CCEL.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/...s.x.ii.ii.html
CCEL = Christian Classics Ethereal Library (Calvinist)

Sheshbazzar · 10-16-2012, 07:43 AM

Quote:

This is not a proof that the works of Justin are mere fabrications. Simply that they are not necessarily a good copy of the authentic texts, if they existed.

So in the above, if I am understanding correctly, there are NO extant writings or even identifiable fragments of any of Justin's writings that have ever been recovered or DATED either Paleographically or by c14, to before Eusebius, or before the 4th century CE?

And that quotations drawn from Eusebius's 4th century writings are the sole evidence that any Justin wrote anything?

And that the bulk of Justin's texts we do possess, have no evidence of having existed in their present forms before the mid 14th century CE?

aa5874 · 10-16-2012, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Then how could the Jesus cult have a window into the 3rd century if you are so sure the Apology about Christianity was written well before the year 200???

Again, if you DISREGARD ALL writings of antiquity but ONLY accept those that have been recovered and dated by paleography or C 14 then the stories about Jesus can only be found in the 2nd century or later.

Again, if YOU reject all the writings attributed to Justin Martyr, Aristides, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Municius Felix, Arnobius and Tatian, the ACTUAL recovered Dated manuscripts suggest that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd-3rd century--NOT the 1st century and Not the 4th century.

How many times must I go over this??

The writing called "First Apology" is addressed to Antoninus c 138-161 CE and is WITHIN the time period of the recovered DATED manuscripts.

The writing called "The Apology" is addressed to Hadrian c 117-138 and is WITHIN the time period of the Recovered DATED manuscripts.

Again, based on the ACTUAL recovered dated manuscripts, "First Apology" attributed to Justin (addressed to Antoninus) and "The Apology" attributed to Aristides ( addressed to Hadrian) I am arguing that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century.

What is your argument for the 4th or 5th century Jesus story and cult based on??? Eusebius, Irenaeus, Jerome????

Sheshbazzar · 10-16-2012, 07:57 AM

Quote:

The writing called "First Apology" is addressed to Antoninus c 138-161 CE and is WITHIN the time period of the recovered DATED manuscripts.

So the only evidence for this writings dating or antiquity consists of it being 'addressed to Antonius' ?

I wonder who it was that wrote that? and in what century? 4th? ...or the 14th?

If I write something today and address it 'to Henry The VIII' does that prove that it was written 'WITHIN the time period of the recovered DATED manuscripts' of the 16th century?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-16-2012, 07:02 AM	#583
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	This makes the whole Justin situation rather murky I dare say. It would be invaluable to have a book delineating the history of manuscripts of the apologists (including the infamous Eusebius of course) and analyses of when and if each got tampered with along the way.

10-16-2012, 07:42 AM	#587
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	No, he is an unknown Byzantine scribe, according to CCEL. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/...s.x.ii.ii.html CCEL = Christian Classics Ethereal Library (Calvinist)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.