aa5874

Well, all I know is that I don't have to be an EXPERT to present or examine EVIDENCE from antiquity. Even in court trial ordinary people REJECT the opinion of so-called experts.

All I know is that one NEEDS evidence or datato develop a theory.

I will present the written statements from antiquity and reject your unsubstantiated assumptions.

I am really not interested in opinion. I only deal with Sources of antiquity. Just go find a source of for your claims because your opinion or supposed expertise don't mean JACK. Sources, Sources, Sources.......that is all.

Examine "First Apology" attributed to Justin Martyr. I have an apologetic source that claim it was 12 illiterate men that preached the Gospel to every race of men in the world, NOT Paul.

The Pauline writings, the Pauline Churches and Paul was unknown up to the mid 2nd century based on Justin.

Next, I will show you another apologetic source, Aristides "Apology". Aristides will destroy Paul as a LIAR.

Maklelan

The academy is not a court trial, and you're of course free to do all the presenting and examining you wish, but when you've been shown to misunderstand the evidence, no amount of complaining about elitism can make you suddenly right.

You cannot produce statements from antiquity to support your theses. They don't exist. You can only misrepresent and misunderstand those statements because of the presuppositional and dogmatic interpretive frameworks you've so naively nailed into place. Additionally, I've not been producing assumptions. I've been producing informed and objective analysis of the actual data. You've not been able to respond to it. The fact that you're not an expert hardly means I'm wrong.

That's a lie. You've shown you're deeply, deeply interested in all the secondary sources you can find to back of your silly theories, and that you don't really read the sources or know much about them.

Between the two of us I'm the only one who has actually shown a competent grasp of the sources.

Where did he say "not Paul"? Haven't we already covered this silly notion that if Martyr didn't say it, it didn't happen?

This is an argument from silence that utterly ignores the internal evidence for a first century provenance and the standards by which texts are dated. Texts do not date to the first explicit reference to them in other texts.

You've still got a lot of issues to address before you move on to another misguided attempt to destroy centuries of scholarship.

Vorkosigan

...or for theological reasons, both decided that having deo curse his son didn't really work very well.

...or a later editor assimilated one text to the other. Galatians has been extensively worked over. \

<shrug> Is the situation similar for Trypho/Gal quote in Gal 3:10 of Deut? "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them". What word for "curse" did Paul/Justin use there?

Maklelan

And both altered the text, including the use of a different verb, in the exact same way? That doesn't make near as much sense as dependency.

We're compounding assumptions, now. The fewer people we have to inject into the process the more parsimonious. There's also no evidence that these texts were harmonized after the fact. What about the numerous other OT quotations that are close matches, but not identical? Why didn't the editor harmonize those?

LXX Deut 27:26: ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ὃς οὐκ ἐμμενεῖ ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ νόμου τούτου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτούς.

Gal 3:10: Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά

Martyr, Dialogue 95: Ἐπικατάρατος γὰρ εῖρηται πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά

Martyr adds γὰρ εῖρηται, but otherwise his version is identical to Paul's over against LXX Deut 27:26 in excluding ἄνθρωπος, in using "writings" instead of "words," in the shorter form τοῦ, and in the neuter plural accusative αὐτά rather than the masculine plural accusative αὐτούς. Here dependency is quite unreasonable to deny.

Vorkosigan

It's actually simpler this way, since they merely have to drop two words. You're actually wrestling with the problem that creeps in with multiple use of the same quote in different texts -- when everyone cites it a little differently, sometimes differences are going to coincidentally resemble each other.

I agree that dependency is also suggested here.

No, we're not compounding "assumptions" because we know that Galatians has been heavily worked over by editors who made all sorts of changes and insertions and deletions. So we know from other sources that other hands are busy in Galatians.

Note that I did not say "harmonized" because oftimes things become similar because scribes hear the same versions and internalize them.

Strange, isn't it?

Vorkosigan

stephan huller

But was the passage found in the Marcionite version of Galatians? I don't know but the Dialogues of Adamantius seem to imply there were no references to the Old Testament in the letters. Also here is a list of all references to Galatians 3:10 before Nicaea (from biblindex.fr):

The last reference is not an explicit citation. It is the faintest of references (I can't even see it). So all we are down to a handful of references. The reference in Tertullian does not make clear the Marcionites had the passage:

I don't know for certain but it is possible that the passage was not in the Marcionite recension. Curious that Clement of Alexandria and Origen don't mention it.

Maklelan

Did you not notice that the verb in Paul and Martyr is completely different from that of the Septuagint? It's not nearly as simple as just dropping two words.

But Paul and Martyr don't cite it "a little differently." They cite it identically.

We know this? Can you cite a publication that discusses this work and dates it to after Martyr?

Now you're making assumptions about unintentional anaphora? This isn't how textual criticism works.

No, actually I deal with this every day. It's my job.

stephan huller

Jerome mentions the Samaritan reading in Commentary Galatians 3:10:

compare:

Justin was from Nablus. It is possible they are both citing the Samaritikon, a Samaritan Targum or an unknown sectarian composition. The Mimar Marqe makes clear that Marqe knew a Greek text of the Pentateuch.

stephan huller

On Jerome's citation of the Samaritan text (which appears different than the existing SP):

http://books.google.com/books?id=QnG...A10%22&f=false

stephan huller

Jerome's testimony on the Samaritan text:

Subauditur, "ea quae locutus est Dominus." Superfluum ergo est quod in Samaritanorum et nostro volumine est, " Transeamus in campum.

Apparently Cyril of Alexandria said that the Samaritan text supplies words wanting in the Hebrew (= Masoretic):

http://books.google.com/books?id=KVc...us.%22&f=false