Duvduv

No the posting is not from me. Anyway, all the similarity means is that verses or even maxims appear in both places. It does not indicate that Justin knew about a Paul he never mentions.

Maklelan

So you're copying someone else's work?

To conclude this you must be able to show the same usage elsewhere. Otherwise there's simply no reason to reject dependence. Can you show that same usage elsewhere?

The fact that he never mentions Paul has nothing to do with whether or not he knew of him. The most ludicrous part of your assertion is that you guys are simultaneously leaning on the notion that Paul knew secondary versions of Mark even though he never mentions it. The connections you draw are also far, far more tenuous than the direct quotations of Paul in Martyr. I don't think I could ask you for a more flagrant methodological double standard.

aa5874

All you see is ONE word "Christus" and you are satisfied HJ of Nazareth did exist? Have you seen the word "Nazareth" and "Jesus" together in the same sentence in Philo, Josephus, Pliny the younger, Tacitus and Suetonius?

You know that there is ZERO non-apologetic source of antiquity that mentioned a human being identified as Jesus of Nazareth.

HJ of Nazareth is a myth.

Well, I have been a JUROR and have REJECTED the findings of Experts. I deal with EVIDENCE from antiquity and not with what people claim to have UNDER their belts.

There are EXPERTS who want people to believe an Historical Jesus of Nazareth actually ROSE from the dead.

Please explain what they have under their belts?

And, do you have anything under your belt?


Your claims about Justin Martyr and Paul are erroneous, mis-leading and illogical. Justin Martyr CLEARLY mentioned Elijah NOT Paul and used passages found in 1 Kings 19 in "Dialogue" 39.

"Dialogue 39 In Dialogue 95 the very same thing occurs Justin Martyr made ZERO mention of Paul, he talked of the LAW of MOSES.

"Dialogue 95 In the next chapter of Dialogue, again, NO mention of Paul and Justin clearly made reference to the Law.

Dialogue 96 In all the passages you mentioned Justin shows ZERO awareness of Paul or the Pauline writings and was careful to state he made references to Elijah, Moses, and the Laws of Moses.

Maklelan

Wow, that's an incredibly misguided perversion of my argument. No, my argument was that the spelling "chrestianos" that was changed to "chistianos" is not evidence of some original "chrestos" sect that later developed into Christianity.

Why would that matter?

You're really reaching here.

Do you know why no mainstream scholars taking mythicists seriously?

Are you saying if a non-expert took the stand to testify about the same topic you would have allowed it? You are hip-deep in rather ridiculous fallacies right now.

I've seen no indication you deal with evidence.

So what?

Are you asking me, or telling me?

I do have formal training in this area, yes.

You obviously weren't paying attention. Justin Martyr liked to quote the Septuagint. That was his Old Testament. Paul often quoted from a Greek version of the Old Testament that was slightly divergent from the Septuagint. In Galatians he quotes vv. 14 and then 18 of 1 Kgs 19, calling v. 18 the answer to v. 14, and using a slightly divergent version of the Greek. Martyr quotes vv. 14 and 18, also calling v. 18 the answer to v. 14 and using the same slightly divergent version of the Greek. To be brief, the only place where the version of 1 Kgs 19 quoted by Martyr shows up is in Paul.

And again, he uses a version of the Greek that is not the same as the Septuagint, but is the same as Paul's text from Galatians.

You don't seem to be aware of what it means to cite a non-Septuagintal form of the text. I overestimated your capacity to deal with the ancient texts. That won't happen again. I still find it stunning that you're insisting Pauline dependence cannot be imagined unless an explicit reference to Paul is found while at the same time insisting that Paul is dependent upon a secondary version of Mark despite far less convincing affinities and no explicit mention of the Markan gospel. Again, this is just a stunning double standard, and this kind of methodological and contextual ignorance is one of the main reasons these theories remain little hobby horses tossed around by non-specialists and not be the mainstream.

aa5874

How illogical and ludricrous can you be? The fact that Justin does NOT mention Paul cannot be an indication that he knew Paul.

Paul was supposed be an extremely significant Jew who allegedly PREACHED Christ crucified and resurrected in Major cities all over the Roman Empire yet Justin does NOT mention this Jew and Pharisee when arguing with TRYPHO the Jew.

How could Paul, who was supposedly MARTYRED, have ZERO significance to Justin?

Justin did NOT know of Paul at all.

Maklelan

You're misrepresenting me. Why on earth would anyone ever argue that not mentioning Paul is evidence that he knew Paul? The fact that he quotes Paul is the evidence that he knew Paul. My concern is with the notion you are explicitly pushing that the fact that he does not explicitly mention his name indicates he simply did not know of him. That's not supportable at all.

This is not unusual in the least. Have you ever even read the Dialogue with Trypho?

I've shown that Justin quoted variants of the Old Testament that are totally unique to Paul. You've only shown that you don't know what that means. The above amounts to nothing more than "Nu-uh!" Can you make an argument that is actually based on texts, or must it all rest on the silly notion that if Justin didn't use Paul's name then he didn't know anything about him?

aa5874

Again, this is a standard logical deduction. If there is NO evidence that Justin knew of the Paul writings then one can develop the theory that Justin did NOT know of Paul.

Justin Martyr was EXTREMELY meticulous he consistently mentioned his sources. He mentioned the books of the prophets and other books by name and even mentioned the chapters of those books.

Justin mentioned by name the prophets Isaiah, Daniel, Jeremiah, Micah, Amos, Ezekiel, Jonah, Zechariah, Malachi and the Psalm about 150 TIMES yet failed to mention Paul one single time.

By the way, If there is NO evidence that you committed a crime then it can be LOGICALLY deduced that you are not guilty. This is just so basic.

That is a pure rhetoric. You will soon find out that Paul was an INVENTED character.

You have NOT shown that Justin was aware of the Pauline writings. I actually showed you Dialogue 39, 95 and 96 and Justin CLEARLY referred to ELIJAH, Moses and the Law of Moses.

Toto

I believe that dejuror on RationalSkepticism is in fact aa5874. I don't know why Duvduv answered your question. Things can get confused.

Duvduv

I don't know what you're talking about. The fact is it's not a big deal if sayings and references were floating around that ended up quoted in more than one place. Now let's see how hard it would be for Justin to spell out the name of the apostle Paul. All he had to do was spell P A U L. Now that's easy, isn't it?
And where did I say that the author of epistles knew a version of Mark?

It remains clear that whoever prepared the package of epistles did not know of the gospels, which had not yet been produced, or were produced elsewhere. Perhaps the set of epistles inspired the creation of the first gospel story in written form.

sotto voce

Except 'where stated otherwise' internally, with instructions given for sharing, they were undoubtedly written to particular churches, as Paul addressed particular conditions and states of mind in each letter, and quite often mentioned names of recipients. The letter to the Galatians is easily the most distinctive, yet even that holds much that not only applied in some degree to others, but was also very useful written evidence— Scripture, the word of an apostle— in cases of disagreement. So there was no formal distribution, but there was sharing of memorised lore, orally, very important at that time, or by the making of copies to be taken or sent to others interested. There would have been considerable and immediate interest among Christians, as there is today, and as there always has been. It may be reasonably supposed that most of the church had most of its Bible within a few years of Paul's last letter.