aa5874

What utter nonsense.

That is precisely why there are professional TRANSLATORS. And in any event I do not accept the PERSONAL translations of those whom I argue against.

I accept English translations from NEUTRAL sources or from those not engaged in the discussion.

It is just absolutely illogical and wholly absurd to suggest that the English translations provided by Professional Trained Translators must be rejected and that I must learn all the ancient languges.

TedM

Justin very well may have extensively quoted from and mentioned Paul in his Against Marcion. We don't have the surviving text to know one way or the other. Justin didn't use the Pauline epistles in his other writings (well, he may have but didn't write about Paul himself). There are possible explanations as to why of course...for ex: the Dialogue to Trypho is addressing Jewish concerns and arguments against Christianity. If Paul himself was hated by the Jewish Christians, he may have preferred to avoid mentioning Paul by name, or quoting the Epistles. The Jewish influence in Roman Christian circles seems to have been significant, and it appears from Justin's writings that the whole Gentile circumcision issue was still hotly debated, so Paul was not quite the IronRod to be championing. Dunno, but there might be other reasons. Wish we had Justin's against Marcion, don't you?


Isn't this a misunderstanding of the meaning of 'gospel'? Is there any evidence that the 'Luke' part of the Marcion cannon is what 'gospel' referred to?


Very well could be that Marcion had so succeeded in polluting Paul's work, that Justin didn't want to deal with the issue in the writings we have left from him (of course the opposite may have been true in his Against Marcion), but that by the time Irenaeus came along, Marcionism had been sufficiently fought back that he was more comfortable with championing Paul than Justin would have been.

Sheshbazzar

You will never know how much it is that you are missing if you make no effort.
Anyone that is the least bit familiar with the idiomatic speech employed in these languages is aware that very little of these translations can be set in concrete as though there were no other English translation possible.
Each idiomatic word has a range of meanings, as does each idiomatic phrase. No English translation provides all of this range.
And when the language moves into word plays, and poetic compositions, any English 'translation' is so crude that it presents only a tiny fraction of the sense of the original language text.
It is not a matter (usually) of "rejecting the English translations provided by Professional Trained Translators", but of knowing enough of the language to supplement their translations with an expanding knowledge of the usages of these idioms in the original texts.

By the way aa, in this there are no such things as 'NEUTRAL' sources' in the translating of this material.
Every translator, or team of translators, and every translation in its word selections is bound to bring in the biases and blind spots of the translator(s).
That is why rather than being dependent upon opinions and word choices of others, no matter how 'expert' you might think them to be, it is best for you to study and to learn the words and languages for yourself.
Then you will know when someone is handing you something as being a 'translation' that is somewhat less than what the original text contains and conveys.
It is simply better scholarship to choose to become well educated in the original languages than to remain ignorant of their peculiarities and subject to manipulation by the biases, opinions, and deficient or faulty readings being supplied others.

Anything worth doing takes time and effort. You can 'blaze your own trail' or seek the advice of others here who have traveled this path before you.
I am certain that there are others here whom have acquainted themselves to some degree with the tasks involved in actually learning these languages and would willingly point you in the direction of those sources and exercises that they found to be most beneficial and effective in learning, thus helping you to do so with the minimum expenditure of time and effort on your part.

stephan huller

But there is an additional layer to the Justin didnt use Paul concept. Irenaeus identifies the Encratites as denying that Paul was an apostle. The Encratites are usually associated with Justin's student Tatian

aa5874

You present and promote Assumptions--Speculation-Imagination!!! You already knew in advance that there is no actual corroboration that the Pauline letters were composed in the 1st century by any Canonised author.

I have been through every word of the KJV Bible and the Pauline letters were UNKNOWN by all authors. They made ZERO reference to the Pauline letters or his revealed Gospel except the admitted forgery called 2nd Peter.

This is EXTREMELY significant.

The ONLY author of the NT Canon that mentioned Pauline writings does NOT belong in the Canon. 2nd Peter is an admitted FORGERY.

2 Peter 3:15 KJVChurch History 3.3.1There is simply NO corroboration at all in the very Bible that the Pauline letters were composed Before the time of Marcion.

2nd Peter may have been composed AFTER Marcion was dead or after 150 CE.

Acts of the Apostles may have been conposed After Marcion was dead--after c 150 CE and did NOT mention the Pauline letters.

c 150 CE Justin did NOT mention the Pauline letters and Paul.

c 180 CE Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age under Claudius so he could NOT have known about the CONVERSION of Paul at or before King Aretas c 37-41 CE-- See 2 Cor.11.32-33

c 180-235 CE, Hippolytus claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings.

c 340 CE--Ephrem wrote Against Marcion and show that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline letters.

Based on Apologetic sources and the actual Recovered dated NT manuscripts the Pauline letters were composed some time AFTER 180 CE which is completely Compatible with the actual recovered dated P 46.

The Pauline letters, P 46, are dated around the mid 2nd-3rd century.

Most astonishingly, the writings attributed to Justin are corroborated over and over.

The claims about the authorship of the Pauline writings attributed to Irenaeus have been rejected by Scholars and Apologetic sources do not even know when Paul really lived and died.

Duvduv

There is no evidence for the existence of "Marcionites" except via the claims of the official apologists and heresiologists. There is no evidence of "Paul" in relation to any Marcionites at all except through the fanciful reconstructions of some scholars. Even "Justin" (allegedly to have lived in the second century at the time of Marcion in the same town) mentions nothing of the books he believed were accepted by Marcion or a person named "Paul" or writings of the Marcionites.

aa5874

Your statement is contradictory. If Marcion wrote NOTHING in the time of Justin then it should be obvious that Justin could NOT have mention Marcion's writings.

Tell me if people who wrote about or mentioned Joseph Smith BEFORE he wrote his Bible would have mentioned Smith's Bible??

Justin Martyr told us what Marcion preached based on "First Apology".

First Apology LVIII In the time of Justin MARCION was PREACHING and TEACHING--there is nothing about writing.

Why is it so difficult to understand that Marcion may not have written anything before Justin composed First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho??

stephan huller

There is no evidence for most rabbinic authorities outside the rabbinic sources themselves. That means Judaism was "made up"? The Greek sources tell us Mohammed led the Arab charge to route the Byzantines? That makes it true?

Duvduv

You are correct. Of course it could be argued that aside from some references outside of Judaism about rabbis (i.e. Acts, the Quran, writings of the Samaritans, Karaites, Muslims, and some church references in the Middle Ages) their existence cannot be demonstrably proven. On the other hand, Jews have been so widely spread out for 2000 years yet all Jewish communities knew about the same Talmudic rabbinical figures in talmudic, midrashic and kabbalistic writings.

But of course there the "red line" rooted in FAITH about information that cannot be empirically proven. But at least people should be forthcoming about this and admit that they are relying on claims which are not only with an agenda but come from basically a single source.

Duvduv

It is not difficult at all........but the fact is that Justin who allegedly lived at the same time and in the same town as Marcion, and whose name he mentions as a bogeyman, does NOT mention ANYTHING about the texts or writings of Marcion, including any writings attributed to "Paul." There is no contradiction. All I point out is that Justin says NOTHING substantive about Marcion, yet whole sandcastles are built about Marcion's epistles, gospel, etc. It's ludicrous.