FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-18-2006, 11:36 AM   #91
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian
Hmm, checking John 3:3-4 using Westcott-Hort, I read the following:

3 απεκÏ?ιθη ιησους και ειπεν αυτω αμην αμην λεγω σοι εαν μη τις γεννηθη ανωθεν ου δυναται ιδειν την βασιλειαν του θεου

4 λεγει Ï€Ï?ος αυτον [ο] νικοδημος πως δυναται ανθÏ?ωπος γεννηθηναι γεÏ?ων ων μη δυναται εις την κοιλιαν της μητÏ?ος αυτου δευτεÏ?ον εισελθειν και γεννηθηναι

They are stylistically quite different, even where word usage could reasonably be expected to have some overlap.
The gospel materials in Justin are rarely anything approaching verbatim.

Quote:
In terms of structure and idea, I agree, they seem very similar.
Do you also agree that John 3.4, paralleled in Justin, seems quite Johannine?

Quote:
I seem to reall that there are other Justin supposed gospel quotes. Sanders and Davies spoke of one that seemed like it was interleaved from Luke and Matthew, but my memory isn't the best.
I have a page on my site the sole purpose of which is to collect gospel parallels in Justin. It is not complete, since I am adding the parallels as I go along with my synoptic project, which has been going slowly of late (schedule pressures that ironically leave me more time than usual for posting on internet boards but far less time for the heavy work of composing synopses).

Quote:
...I am beginning to wonder if Justin knew of another gospel, maybe something similar to John.
Why not just plain John? At least a recension of it?

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 01-18-2006, 11:50 AM   #92
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark)
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith
The gospel materials in Justin are rarely anything approaching verbatim.
Shouldn't we ask why? In my experience, quotes are usually verbatim or paraphrased in a manner that we see when dealing with the synoptic problem. Justin seems a step further removed than a synoptic style quotation. I could buy that he is quoting from memory. Maybe. But why wouldn't he simply copy what Jesus said? Wouldn't that be the simplest? Why all the changes? I also don't see how he gets from John 3:3 to what he writes. More below.
Quote:
Do you also agree that John 3.4, paralleled in Justin, seems quite Johannine?
Confused head-tilt. Do you mean 2.6.3 versus John 1.1?

If so, then I find the same strange paraphrasing here as I do in the other section.

Are you translating κυÏ?ιως as 'authoritatively?' Adverbial to λεγομενος rather than adjectival to υιος? My Greek is still in its early stages and I am mostly asking for learning purposes here.
Quote:
I have a page on my site the sole purpose of which is to collect gospel parallels in Justin. It is not complete, since I am adding the parallels as I go along with my synoptic project, which has been going slowly of late (schedule pressures that ironically leave me more time than usual for posting on internet boards but far less time for the heavy work of composing synopses).
I shall dig out the Sanders and Davies reference and send it to you, if I can find it. It is in their book on the Synoptics which I suspect you might own.
Quote:
Why not just plain John? At least a recension of it?

Ben.
A recension, maybe. I dont' know enough about the evolution of GJohn to answer that intelligently.

Julian
Julian is offline  
Old 01-18-2006, 12:16 PM   #93
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian
Shouldn't we ask why? In my experience, quotes are usually verbatim or paraphrased in a manner that we see when dealing with the synoptic problem.
Whose quotes? Eusebius and later ecclesiastical writers, yes. But the earlier writers seem to paraphrase or quote from memory a lot. Or so it seems to me.

Quote:
I could buy that he is quoting from memory.
That is my bet a lot of the time. It must have been quite cumbersome to look up any given quote without references, word breaks, concordances, and maybe in a scroll.

Quote:
But why wouldn't he simply copy what Jesus said? Wouldn't that be the simplest?
See above.

Quote:
Confused head-tilt. Do you mean 2.6.3 versus John 1.1?
No, I mean the literalized metaphor of John 3.4 compared with Justin, Apology 1.61.5.

Quote:
Are you translating κυÏ?ιως as 'authoritatively?' Adverbial to λεγομενος rather than adjectival to υιος?
The word κυÏ?ιως is an adverb; it cannot to my knowledge be an adjective. The -ως suffix is a common adverbial ending.

Quote:
I shall dig out the Sanders and Davies reference and send it to you, if I can find it. It is in their book on the Synoptics which I suspect you might own.
I do not own it, though I have skimmed parts of it in a library.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 01-18-2006, 12:22 PM   #94
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark)
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith
No, I mean the literalized metaphor of John 3.4 compared with Justin, Apology 1.61.5.
They are clearly identical in idea.
Quote:
The word κυÏ?ιως is an adverb; it cannot to my knowledge be an adjective. The -ως suffix is a common adverbial ending.
I see. Thanks.

Julian
Julian is offline  
Old 01-18-2006, 01:20 PM   #95
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

I happened upon this article from Greek Orthodox Theological Review discussing the very same topic. The author concludes dependence on John is likely but beware the tiny font!!!
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 01-18-2006, 01:21 PM   #96
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark)
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13
...but beware the tiny font!!!
:rolling:
Julian is offline  
Old 01-18-2006, 01:32 PM   #97
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13
I happened upon this article from Greek Orthodox Theological Review discussing the very same topic. The author concludes dependence on John is likely but beware the tiny font!!!
Hey, Amaleq, nice link. Thanks.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 01-19-2006, 11:28 AM   #98
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 1/2 mile west of the Rio sin Grande
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robto
Since this thread is about dates, I thought it should be pointed out that the 200 CE date for the Muratorian canon is pretty doubtful. See Hahneman's book and the summary in McDonald. The fourth century is much more likely.
"The anonymous author who dismisses The Shepherd of Hermas because it was penned 'recently' by someone who was not an apostle .... The Muratorian canon does not mention the books of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, or 3 John, but it does accept as canonical all of the other books of our present New Testament. Interestingly, it also accepts the Wisdom of Solomon and, somewhat tentatively, the Apocalypse of Peter. Finally, the author explicitly condemns two books that he labels as forgeries concocted by followers of Marcion in the name of Paul: a letter to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians. ... This fragment is of great interest to the historian of early Christianity, for it reveals a period of Christian history in which a closed canon of Scripture appears to be on the horizon, while being still some distance off." — Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 2000, p.438.

I think Ehrman's analysis of the Muratorian's date fits ca. 200 far better that a 4th century one, especially when we recall that Athanasius's Festal Letter of 367 is the first list of what is now the NT canon.
mens_sana is offline  
Old 01-19-2006, 01:12 PM   #99
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian
Shouldn't we ask why? In my experience, quotes are usually verbatim or paraphrased in a manner that we see when dealing with the synoptic problem. Justin seems a step further removed than a synoptic style quotation. I could buy that he is quoting from memory. Maybe. But why wouldn't he simply copy what Jesus said? Wouldn't that be the simplest? Why all the changes?
Many scholars think that Justin's very loose citation of the synoptics is a result of him not using the synoptics as we have them but an early harmony.

(Some would go on to argue that, after being combined with John by Justin's disciple Tatian, this harmony became the Diatessaron.)

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 01-20-2006, 04:32 AM   #100
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark)
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
Many scholars think that Justin's very loose citation of the synoptics is a result of him not using the synoptics as we have them but an early harmony.

(Some would go on to argue that, after being combined with John by Justin's disciple Tatian, this harmony became the Diatessaron.)

Andrew Criddle
Funny, I just sent a PM to Ben, making that point. It was a quotation From E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies and they propose that very point, among others. I don't believe that what Justin refers to as 'Memoirs of the Apostles' is any of the four gospels we have in the canon today, but it is clearly related to a significant degree.

Julian
Julian is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:53 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.