Did Justin Martyr use Pauline epistles?

[Charles Wilson]

Bernard_Muller:

Dio Epitome 64:

"Again one soldier would have a private conversation with an opponent: "Comrade, fellow-citizen, what are we doing? Why are we fighting? Come over to my side." "No, indeed! You come to my side." But what is there surprising about this, considering that when the women of the city in the course of the night brought food and drink to give to the soldiers of Vitellius, the latter, after eating and drinking themselves, passed the supplies on to their antagonists? One of them would call out the name of his adversary (for they practically all knew one another and were well acquainted) and would say: "Comrade, take and eat this; I give you, not a sword, but bread. Take and drink this; I hold out to you, not a shield, but a cup. Thus, whether you kill me or I you, we shall quit life more comfortably, and the hand that slays will not be feeble and nerveless, whether it be yours that smites me or mine that smites you. For these are the meats of consecration that Vitellius and Vespasian give us while we are yet alive, in order that they may offer us as a sacrifice to the dead slain long since..."

Remember also that there is no Eucharist at the Last Supper in John. Maccoby, in The Mythmaker, concludes that the Eucharist came from Paul as an invention:

1 Corinthians 11: (RSV):

[23] For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you..." Paul is stating that he received this from the Lord, not man. Revelation trumps Experience - Unless you are constructing the New Religion on the fly...

Further, I believe that I can show that the form of 1 Corinthians 1: 14 - 16 comes from a man named "Mucianus", Governor of Syria, who is not heard from after around 73 - 75. On a rewrite of his material, this places the timeline to no earlier than ~ 75. Those who believe in the Flavian Conspiracy, take note. This places Justin no more than ~ 90 years later. Since the "Holy Spirit" is a marker for Domitian, this material would have been known to an even closer time to Justin. This marks the creation of the Jesus Motif within a narrow time frame that Justin probably knew. The production values here alone should make one wary. Your mileage may vary.

CW

[ficino]

Here are some more scriptural citations that throw light on the mutual relations among Paul, Justin and the LXX. I cribbed them from Oskar Skarsaune's book that was mentioned above, vid. The Proof from Prophecy... (Leiden 1987) 92-100:

A. Isaiah 52:5b
LXX δι᾿ ὑμᾶς διὰ παντὸς τὸ ὄνομά μου βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι.
Rom. 2:24 τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ δι’ ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν
Dial. 17.2 Δι’ ὑμᾶς τὸ ὄνομά μου βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι

In citing Isaiah, Paul adds as a tag after the verse the words, "as it has been written." Justin introduces the quotation as from Isaiah. So Justin seems to have checked the LXX on this one. That conclusion is strengthened by the fact that Justin follows the word order of the LXX, except for omitting διὰ παντὸς.


B. Ι Κings (III Kings) 19: 10
LXX τὰ θυσιαστήριά σου κατέσκαψαν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας σου ἀπέκτειναν ἐν ρομφαίᾳ, καὶ ὑπολέλειμμαι ἐγὼ μονώτατος, καὶ ζητοῦσι τὴν ψυχήν μου λαβεῖν αὐτήν.
Rom. 11:3 (names Elijah as speaker) Κύριε, τοὺς προφήτας σου ἀπέκτειναν, τὰ θυσιαστήριά σου κατέσκαψαν, κἀγὼ ὑπελείφθην μόνος, καὶ ζητοῦσιν τὴν ψυχήν μου.
Dial. 39.1 (names Elijah as speaker) Κύριε, τοὺς προφήτας σου ἀπέκτειναν καὶ τὰ θυσιαστήριά σου κατέσκαψαν• κἀγὼ ὑπελείφθην μόνος, καὶ ζητοῦσι τὴν ψυχήν μου.

C. Ps. 68 (67): 19
LXX ἀνέβης εἰς ὕψος, ᾐχμαλώτευσας αἰχμαλωσίαν, ἔλαβες δόματα ἐν ἀνθρώποις
Eph. 4:8 Ἀναβὰς εἰς ὕψος ᾐχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν, ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. (doesn’t name the speaker)
Dial. 39.4 Ἀνέβη εἰς ὕψος, ᾐχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν, ἔδωκε δόματα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. (doesn’t name the speaker)

In the above, B and C clearly show Paul and Justin agreeing in most things against the LXX. In A, though, Justin seems to follow the LXX against the Pauline quotation.

I conclude, against the thought I had entertained at the beginning, that we do not have grounds to say that Justin did not know the writings attributed to Paul. I therefore conclude, provisionally, that we cannot use Justin as evidence in an argument for a late date of the Paulines. I have to kiss goodbye to what I understood people like aa5874 and Sheshbazzar to be advocating.

@Neil: fascinating posts over on Vridar, thanks for the link. There is no way I can read and evaluate all of Roger Parvus' arguments right now.

[bcedaifu]

In the above, B and C clearly show Paul and Justin agreeing in most things against the LXX. In A, though, Justin seems to follow the LXX against the Pauline quotation.

I conclude, against the thought I had entertained at the beginning, that we do not have grounds to say that Justin did not know the writings attributed to Paul. I therefore conclude, provisionally, that we cannot use Justin as evidence in an argument for a late date of the Paulines. I have to kiss goodbye to what I understood people like aa5874 and Sheshbazzar to be advocating.

Several points to be made, again, thanks for this thread, very instructive. Thanks also for introducing these and the earlier quotes from Skarsaune's research—genuinely fascinating.

I am unable to ponder, as quickly as some other forum members, and I require a lot of time to reflect on the possibilities here. I am not quite as keen as you, to kiss anyone. I doubt that either aa or Shesh are dependent upon Skarsaune's research, in drawing their conclusions, but, unfortunately we cannot know their opinions, for Sheshbazzar refuses to join kirby's enclave, and aa5874 has been (wrongly, in my view) expelled from this forum. I am unable to write on their behalf, for I have difficulty simply expressing my own opinion, which changes every fifteen seconds....

I observe that Justin's presentation, omitting πᾶσιν, conforms to the Hebrew version, and I conclude that Justin deliberately, consciously rejected the version of Deuteronomy found in LXX, and instead used the same text read by Jews, in conducting his discussion/argument with Trypho. It seems to me to be a reasonable assumption, that Justin knew Hebrew, since he had embarked on a journey arguing that the orthodox Jewish viewpoint was wrong. Would you write a treatise exposing flaws in Aristotle's and Plato's geocentric model, without having studied the geometry and optics underlying Aristarchus' argument defending heliocentrism?

As a genuine slowpoke, I remain perplexed by the example from Galatians, discussed at length already, several days ago. It seems to me, that whatever conclusions should be drawn regarding the interaction between Justin Martyr and Paul's epistles, analysis of this single quote from Galatians, should prove expository. Additional quotes from Skarsaune, while very intriguing, do not change the algorithm, in my opinion.

Paul, Galatians 3:10
First part:
οϲοι γαρ εξ εργων νομου ειϲιν ϋπο καταραν ειϲιν γε γραπται γαρ οτι
For as many as are of works of law, are under a curse; for it is written

Here is the second half of Paul's Galatians 3:10
Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει πᾶσιν τοῖς
cursed is everyone who not does continue all things
γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά
having been written in the book of the law to do them

Here is Deuteronomy 27:26, the actual “law” referenced above:
This quote is from biblehub apostolic greek text of LXX:
επικατάρατος πας άνθρωπος όστις ουκ εμμενεί εν πάσι τοις
accursed every man whoever shall not adhere to all the
λόγοις του νόμου τούτου του ποιήσαι αυτούς
words of this law to do them

How is this “law” of Deuteronomy 27:26 recorded in Codex Vaticanus? (Deuteronomy is missing from Codex Sinaiticus). The authentic Vatican copy itself, is not yet available online. Here are two (slightly different) versions of the text, neither one a photographic reproduction. The first demonstrates two deletions, and one addition, compared with Bible Hub apostolic Greek version of Deuteronomy 27.26. (which ancient source was used by Bible Hub in displaying their “Apostolic Greek” ?)

Almost the same, three small differences:...................*compared with “Apostolic Greek”.
επικατάρατος πας άνθρωπος όσ --- ουκ εμμενεί εν πάσιν τοις λόγοις του νόμου τούτου --- ποιήσαι αυτούς
https://archive.org/

yet another, slightly different version of Codex Vaticanus Deuteronomy 27:26 found here:
http://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?t ... k=Dt&ch=27
ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ὃς – – οὐκ ἐμμενεῖ ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ νόμου τούτου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτούς

All three versions of this LXX portrayal of Deuteronomy display πάσι (or πᾶσιν) , a display in accord with Paul's text of Galatians, but at variance with Justin Martyr's presentation of the same law, which omits πάσι.

Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with Trypho, (arguing with an orthodox, brilliant Jew, who knows the scripture very well), preserves the original, Hebrew meaning (according to Tyndale) of Deuteronomy 27:26, leaving out πᾶσιν, all.

Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 95.1
1 Καὶ γὰρ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων εὑρεθήσεται ὑπὸ κατάραν ὂν κατὰ τὸν νόμον Μωυσέως·
For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses,
Ἐπικατάρατος γὰρ εἴρηται πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει ἐν **** τοῖς
'Cursed is every one that continues not in **** things
γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά.
that are written in the book of the law to do them

Justin Martyr here is providing a non-LXX Greek translation of a Hebrew version of Deuteronomy 27:26. Perhaps he himself is the source of the translation?
http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/gal3_10 ... t27_26.htm
(Protestant) Roberts-Donaldson and (Catholic) New Advent versions, both add “all”, to the English translation of this sentence, contradicting Justin Martyr's Greek text, changing its meaning, and thereby compelling conformance to the text found in Galatians and LXX. With evidence of this much tampering, in recent centuries, how likely is it, that the “ancient manuscripts” were not also modified/edited/redacted to ensure uniformity? We cannot even find agreement of the supposedly same text from the Vatican archives: Codex Vaticanus.

So, did Justin Martyr rely upon Paul's epistle to the Galatians in composing Dialogue with Trypho? Did he consult Paul's text? Did he modify Paul's text? I observe no evidence that would lead to that conclusion. I am still in the camp (tiny tent?) of those who believe that the evidence suggests that “Paul” wrote after the gospels had been distributed, mid second century, or later.

If we disregard the essential component of the religious aspect, i.e. whether or not Deuteronomy 27:26 should include “all”, and then ask this simpler question:
Which texts, other than those of Paul and Justin, employ the same Koine Greek phrase, exactly the same, word for word:
γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά. Paul
γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά Justin Martyr
that are written in the book of the law to do them.

the answer is:
NONE.

Possible explanations for this observation—no other author uses those exact words for this relatively insignificant phrase—include the following:

1. Paul's epistle Galatians, was known to Justin Martyr, who copied Paul's text, without attribution—this is the orthodox view;
2. Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho was known to Paul who copied Justin's text, without attribution;
3. Paul and Justin Martyr are one and the same person, writing with two different names;
4. Both Paul and Justin Martyr represent pseudonyms of the same third century author(s).
5. The sole extant manuscript copy of Justin Martyr, copied in the middle ages, in an Italian monastery, was written hastily by a scribe who had just finished copying Paul;
6. LXX was modified by post second century Christians to conform to the text of Galatians-- Dialogue with Trypho had been overlooked by the censors.
7. Both LXX and Galatians were modified by post second century christian authorities, to ensure that the message against Judaism was secure.

In my opinion, there is no basis for claiming that Paul's Galatians was known to Justin Martyr. I would feel differently if Justin, seeking to persuade Trypho, had cited Abraham, (as Paul did) in his prefatory remarks, to introduce Trypho's beloved Deuteronomy, instead of citing Moses, as shown above. Anyone arguing that Justin Martyr not only had a copy of Galatians, but used it, in creating Dialogue with Trypho, needs to explain the deliberate omission of Abraham's name (invoked by Paul), prior to introducing the law. Abraham adds another dimension, and gives credibility to Jesus: son of David, distant descendant of Abraham's grandson, Jacob (as was Moses). For a brilliant Jew like Trypho, can Moses represent the same lofty stature as Abraham, whose faith transcended laws? If Justin Martyr had sought to persuade Trypho to convert to Christianity, why would he then cite Moses, rather than mentioning Abraham, as Paul had done, in chastising the foolish Galatians? That the two men, Justin Martyr, and Paul, have slightly different purposes in introducing this “law” from Deuteronomy, into their respective texts, may justify the two men's respective decisions to include unique Jewish authorities.

Is it not clear that the several different versions of LXX suggest intentional modification, of both Galatians and LXX? With only one copy of Justin Martyr, can we be sure of anything in that text?

[ficino]

I observe that Justin's presentation, omitting πᾶσιν, conforms to the Hebrew version, and I conclude that Justin deliberately, consciously rejected the version of Deuteronomy found in LXX, and instead used the same text read by Jews, in conducting his discussion/argument with Trypho. It seems to me to be a reasonable assumption, that Justin knew Hebrew, since he had embarked on a journey arguing that the orthodox Jewish viewpoint was wrong.

Hello bcedaifu, thanks for your reply, to which I will try to do justice soon. Just a quickie for now. I forgot to mention that Skarsaune in a footnote on p. 119 points out, re Justin's omission of πᾶσιν, that he may well have read that word in the text he was working from. That's because of the appearance of "all" in the argument of the sentence that immediately follows the quotation from Deut., sc.

καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀκριβῶς πάντα ἐποίησεν,
οὐδ’ ὑμεῖς τολμήσετε ἀντειπεῖν· ἀλλ’ εἰσὶν οἳ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον
ἀλλήλων τὰ ἐντεταλμένα ἐφύλαξαν.

Skarsaune cites some discussion of the omission among scholars. He thinks the omission of πᾶσιν in Justin's quotation from Deut. may be a scribal error in our textual tradition of Justin, i.e. that Justin may have written it. Whether or not he's right about that, I think caution is in order about whether Justin used the Hebrew text here or whether he was rejecting the LXX. I repeat what I said earlier, that Justin and Paul agree against the LXX in the rest of the quotation of Deut. 27:26.

I don't think I can demonstrate the positive claim that Justin used Paul, though I think it looks that way. I merely deem it unproved that Justin has no knowledge of Paul. So to me, the argument, "Justin doesn't know Paul's letters, therefore those letters are later than Justin," does not fly. There might be other arguments that support a late dating of Paul, however.

More later. Cheers, F

[ficino]

OK, here are a few more thoughts. I'm not sure I'll have much beyond these.

1. did Justin know Hebrew? In his book, Justin Martyr and the Jews (Leiden: Brill, 2002), Dāwid Rôqēaḥ is quite emphatic that Justin did not know Hebrew. Along with references to earlier studies, he cites cases where Justin says things about words that a speaker of Hebrew would not have said. Only parts of Rôqēaḥ's book are on Google.books, but this chapter is included:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fB34UR ... ew&f=false

(It's worth looking at other parts of Rôqēaḥ's book, for he goes into a number of the passages we've been debating.)


2. I have spent years working on Greek manuscripts and textual criticism and have published in those areas. While I can't say much about textual traditions and manuscripts that I have not studied, I can say that omissions of single words are common, and they are not always easy to explain. Justin or a later copyist might have omitted πᾶσιν intentionally or inadvertently; we don't know. Therefore, a premise taken from this omission will at best be only a probable premise. Any conclusion in an argument in which such a premise occurs will have no greater degree of probability than does that premise. I think you are putting too much weight on the omission of πᾶσιν.

3. Spinning off 2.: you point to the possibility that the MS traditions of these works underwent corruption, and certainly, one can't rule that out. But then, you can't rule out the possibility that πᾶσιν was omitted by a copyist later than Justin. Levi Arnold Post in his study of the manuscripts of Plato's Laws made the observation that "there is no accounting for the stupidity of scribes." From the omission of πᾶσιν one is not authorized to do more than guess at Justin's motives for omitting the word, since we don't even know that the omission was due to Justin. You acknowledge this problem in your last paragraph - "can we be sure of anything in that text?" This acknowledgement, however, undercuts your argument about the omission of πᾶσιν in Justin, since your argument requires a premise that Justin omitted it with intent to adhere to the Hebrew text against the LXX.

4. I don't understand why you say that Justin doesn't "cite" Abraham, when he does so in 92, to serve the same sort of argument as Paul's. Why is Justin obligated to bring up Abraham again in 95? Abraham doesn't have direct connection with Deut. 27:26.

5. As I said in the last, I do not claim to have a demonstration of the priority of Paul to Justin. I think the evidence casts up strong doubt against the thesis that Justin shows no knowledge of Paul. As I see it, the evidence constrains us to admit a good possibility that he does know some Pauline epistles. We're not justified in treating the contrary, that Justin does not know Paul, as fact and then in using that conclusion as a premise in an argument that the Paulines are post-Justin. They might be so, but that argument for their late date relies on shaky premises.

6. Irenaeus 2.22 puts Jesus' death around 49 CE. Such a date would conflict with things said in the Paulines, if one applies traditional dating to them. I have not done an in-depth study, but from what I can see, Irenaeus' aim is to nullify the gnostic attempt to assert mystical significance - filling the pleroma - in the number 30, Jesus' supposed age at his baptism, and his crucifixion 12 mos. later. Irenaeus gets this late date, which makes Jesus' age close to 50, from the words of "the Jews" at John 8:56-57 and from traditions he attributes to those in Asia who said they heard John and other apostles say this (2.22.5). This is fascinating but a bit sketchy, and it looks as though Irenaeus may be just pulling an older age of Jesus out of his own reading to suit his polemical needs. He has a whole riff on the way Jesus, on the late dating, passed through each major stage of life. So again, I can't prove that the Paulines aren't spurious, but the Irenaeus argument for such a claim hasn't converted me so far.

Thanks for listening to my ravings about this, bcedaifu. I don't know that I can advance the question any farther.

cheers, F

[bcedaifu]

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=fB34 ... ew&f=false

This is David Roqueh's book, published by the distinguished Brill group, but it is little more than a bit of propaganda, motivated by something other than analysis of “facts”; consider this quote from the introduction:

...we must address the question of Justin's knowledge of Hebrew, his links with Philo, …..

Justin had no links with Philo.

They lived more than a century apart, in time. In space, Philo lived and worked in Alexandria, Justin apparently lived in Rome. They are a continent away, in space, and a century away in time. We cannot write “links” in such a circumstance.

In English, “link” cannot be employed to discuss topics separated in time and space. Einstein was not “linked” to Newton. Mahler was not “linked” to Mendelssohn. That it had not been a careless error, but a deliberate misuse of the English language is demonstrated again on the first page of chapter four:

There are various views about Justin's connection with Philo.

No. Absolutely not.

There were no connections between Philo and Justin Martyr. They lived a century in time, and a continent apart in space. This kind of writing is unacceptable. It is dishonest propaganda, of the worst sort.

If someone, Roqueh, or anyone else, wishes to assert an influence by Philo on the writings of Justin Martyr, then one may not write, “link” or “connection”. Thomas Jefferson, slave owner, wrote a pamphlet about the genetic damage caused by miscegenation, and then proceeded to inseminate his female black slaves. Are we then going to turn to Jefferson's writings in a search for the truth about any topic? I am not. That slave owner had proven, with his spurious publication, to be a fraud, liar and cheat, in addition to being a coward, having fled the British troops, rather than fighting the invaders.

Here is Roqueh's bombastic style illustrated in chapter 4:

...it is absolutely clear ...

It is not clear to me, at all. I find the only clarity is that
(a) Roqueh demonstrates bias, and
(b) the septuagint, and other writings illustrate tampering with the “original” text.
Yes, corruption of the Septuagint is absolutely clear.

the only conclusion that can be drawn....

Nonsense. “Rubbish”, to quote spin. My conclusion is absolutely contrary to his. I claim, based on reading the text of Dialogue with Trypho, in Greek, that Justin Martyr most certainly did know Hebrew. Justin Martyr was no fisherman. He was an educated man who grew up in Palestine, why would he not have literacy in Hebrew, living proximate to the principal city of the Jews? Is it reasonable to imagine that a scholar, without knowledge of Hebrew, would challenge a Jewish intellectual's interpretation of Deuteronomy? Would Aristarchus have proposed heliocentrism, challenging Aristotle's and Plato's insistence on geocentrism, absent a solid foundation in both geometry and optics? One could argue, that Aristarchus was only a simple librarian, how could he possibly possess the detailed mathematical knowledge needed to carry out the experiments which revealed the truth about heliocentrism. Such an argument would be incorrect. Aristarchus understood optics and geometry as well as any person who has ever lived on planet earth, and Justin Martyr could read Hebrew.

...neither Philo nor Justin knew Hebrew

Absurd. Philo was the foremost Jewish scholar in the first century Roman Empire. Roqueh imagines that Philo knew no Hebrew, because all of Philo's extant publications are written in Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. None of Philo's extant publications appear in Hebrew. Throughout history, were there ever any incidents of destruction of "pagan" or "heathen" books, by the Christians? Jews not only killed our beloved saviour, they deny even to this day, that he was the messiah risen from the dead. Of course their works should be burned.

Marie Curie, winner of two nobel prizes, first in Physics 1903, and then, again, a few years later, in Chemistry, wrote in French, primarily, her principal language of communication, and the “lingua franca” of the scientific community in the 19th century. Rosa Luxemburg, founder of Spartakusbund, published her doctoral dissertation in German, Die Akkumulation des Kapitals. German was her primary language of communication.

Does this idiot Roqueh imagine that neither of these two Doctors spoke, wrote, and read Polish? It is absolutely preposterous to claim that the foremost scholar of ancient Judaism, living and working in the second most important city in the Roman Empire, and the second most important city in the history of Judaism, would not know Hebrew. It is simply an insult to my ancestors, to claim such nonsense. Of course Philo read Hebrew. Whether or not he wrote in Hebrew, is another question, for which I have no information. I don't know if Philo could read or write Coptic, either, even though Philo lived his entire life in Alexandria. Did Philo read middle Persian—they controlled Egypt for a couple hundred years, before Alexander? I don't know if Philo read or wrote in middle Persian. Was Philo, well traveled, and undoubtedly aware of the silk route, able to read Dao De Jing in Chinese HanZi?

I don't know. And neither does Roqueh. I refuse to accept a conclusion about what a scholar living two thousand years ago could, or could not do, based on the paucity of manuscript evidence available today. Does Roqueh have an attestation by someone living in the mid first century, writing that Philo was ignorant of Hebrew? Does Roqueh cite an author living in mid second century, who had met Justin Martyr (Tatian comes to mind), and who had noted in one of his own (pristine, uncorrupted) treatises, that Justin Martyr had been unable to read Hebrew?

I don't claim to understand Roqueh's agenda, but it is clear from his choice of vocabulary, that he has one. My own agenda is very clear: I wish to challenge every little bit of shallow stupidity out there, whether published, or simply written by internet mavens. Roqueh's text is shallow and tactless. It is not worth the parchment it is printed on.

I have spent years working on Greek manuscripts and textual criticism and have published in those areas. While I can't say much about textual traditions and manuscripts that I have not studied, I can say that omissions of single words are common, and they are not always easy to explain. Justin or a later copyist might have omitted πᾶσιν intentionally or inadvertently; we don't know. Therefore, a premise taken from this omission will at best be only a probable premise. Any conclusion in an argument in which such a premise occurs will have no greater degree of probability than does that premise. I think you are putting too much weight on the omission of πᾶσιν.

Thank you, for your honesty, and for your candor, both much appreciated. I am grateful for your comments, and I think it is appropriate to challenge every one of my opinions. With respect to the issue of the omission of πᾶσιν, I think you are not wrong, to acknowledge scribal error, fatigue, and simple copying mistakes. Your opinion is meritorious. My attitude is rather inflexible, and harsh, and expressed with too much anger directed towards the religious establishment—whatever the religion, I am against it.

In this particular case, my reason for disagreeing with your point of view is not based solely on my anger directed against Christianity and Judaism, both of which I detest, fervently. My hostility is based here, ficino, on the fact, not my opinion, the fact, that the English translations of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, by both Catholics and Protestants, insert πᾶσιν, though it is absent from Justin's Greek text. Their dishonesty makes my blood boil. Your point, ficino, is that Justin intended to write πᾶσιν, maybe even did write it, but some lazy scribe forgot to include it, or, Justin had consumed too much brandy to drink that night, and simply overlooked Paul's text as he drifted off to sleep, with his quill drooping on the parchment. I take an unrelenting hard line on this issue, because it sounds to me, a little bit too much like Thomas Jefferson, and not enough like Thomas Paine.

Yes, omission of πᾶσιν could have been an error by an exhausted scribe, or an oversight by Justin himself, with or without inebriation. But, was it an oversight, to then insert the nonexistent word, into the English edition? Nope.

That was intentional deception. Why ficino? You have not addressed this question. Why did these intellectuals insert a non-existent word into Justin's text. Which other words did they insert? And, then, why did you avoid this issue, ficino? You indicate your (appropriate) dismay with my insistence in focusing on this missing word, yet, you offer no rebuttal to the issue: Why was it inserted into the English text?

It was inserted into the English versions, ficino, in my opinion, because this issue is most definitely not trivial. Had Justin relied upon a Greek version of the Septuagint that had subsequently, in the fourth century (date of our oldest extant copy—Codex Vaticanus--) been altered to conform to Galatians, or did Justin have access to an older Hebrew text, which he, or Trypho himself, had translated for Justin? You have not commented, yet, ficino, on Tyndale's affirmation that the original Hebrew text lacked πᾶσιν.

There are too many clues here, ficino, too many problems, to sweep omission of πᾶσιν under the rug, and argue “scribal fatigue”. I think that you are on thin ice arguing scribal error, or authorial fatigue, to explain the omission, given the universal insertion of the word's translation, into all English versions of Dialogue with Trypho.

Do we have extant today, ficino, a Hebrew version of Deuteronomy 27:26, which lacks the Hebrew equivalent of πᾶσιν? YES, we do:
http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B05C027.htm#V26

Here are the respective Latin and English translations of this famous Hebrew verse.

maledictus qui non permanet in sermonibus legis huius nec eos opere perficit

Cursed be he who doesn`t confirm the words of this law to do them.
Where's the “omnis” ficino?

It is not there. This Latin text is from the fifth century Vulgate, written by Jerome, son of Eusebius. He knew Hebrew, no matter what Roqueh may think. If it had been absent, according to Tyndale, from the Latin text, then it is reasonable to conclude that the original Hebrew did not contain the Hebrew equivalent of πᾶσιν , omnis, all. I understand your idea, to invoke scribal error or fatigue, but here there are too many clues. The simplest explanation, the best explanation, is that the original text did not contain πᾶσιν, and therefore, the thesis, that Justin used Paul's epistle to Galatians, in composing Dialogue with Trypho, is disproven, in my opinion, for this little word, πᾶσιν, is of enormous theological significance (else, if it were unimportant, why would the Catholics and Protestants insert it!!!). There is no reliable evidence that Justin knew of Paul's epistle. There is no reliable evidence that Paul wrote Galatians before Dialogue with Trypho appeared in the marketplace. There is theological rationale, for suggesting the contrary, for Paul's text, ignoring Moses, instead rambling on an on about Abraham, is far more compatible with (modern) Nicea (faith), than is Justin Martyr's (old, obsolete) Dialogue with Trypho (law). Paul's concern for the foolish Galatians' error, in following Moses rather than Abraham, only makes sense in the mid second century, not in the first century, when the entire region was in the midst of conflagration between the Roman army and Jewish rebels.

[ficino]

Hello bcedaifu, as with many things in biblical/patristic studies, the ramifications of details, and even just the bibliography, are enormous, and I can't divert much more time to excavating Justin's text of the OT. I probably bit off more than I can chew by starting this thread!

Yes, I agree that "all" is not in the Hebrew Deut. 27:26, and, as far as I can see, English translators go too far when they introduce it into the text of Justin.

In 1963, Joost Smit Sibinga published a book on Justin's text of the Pentateuch. In a review of this book in Gnomon 36.6 (1964) 572-77, R.A. Kraft describes the discovery in the Judean desert of a leather codex of the first century CE or earlier, which has a Greek text of parts of the Minor Prophets that differs from our LXX. It gives a form of the text that is close to some quotations in Christian authors that differ from the LXX. That was a scroll of the minor prophets, mind; the LXX proper started out as a translation of the Pentateuch. So at this point, I wonder whether Paul or Justin or both might have used a different Greek translation of the Pentateuch than our LXX in some of the verses I cited in earlier posts. I can't conjecture that with confidence because there may have been more standardization among Greek translations of the Pentateuch - if there were any competitors to the LXX! - than there was for the minor prophets. I can't go into this problem any further.

Anyway, I can't exclude that Paul and Justin may have been using a third source independently of each other, though that's a more complicated hypothesis than to think that one influences the other's quotations of some passages. We've seen that in passages where they show affinity with each other against our LXX, Paul and Justin do not always have identical wording - as with "all." But Justin declares in principle his fealty to the LXX against the Hebrew text when he says that the Jewish teachers wrongly criticize the LXX (Dial. 68, 84) or have even taken away some passages of scripture (Dial. 71-73) or don't admit some scriptures (Dial. 120). So I don't see a picture in the Dialogue showing that Justin is doing his own translation from the Hebrew, although he does know of differences between the Hebrew and the Greek version.

Finally, on Abraham, don't forget that the "Abraham was righteous before the Law was given" argument is used by Justin in other places, e.g. at 45-46. Justin's use of that argument earlier in the Dialogue makes me reluctant to think that he is obligated to refer to Abraham when he introduces Deut. 27:26 in Dialogue 95.

OK, that's all I can add. Cheers, F

[beowulf]

Yes, I agree that "all" is not in the Hebrew Deut. 27:26, and, as far as I can see, English translators go too far when they introduce it into the text of Justin.

Justin, Marcion and the rest of that motley crew are of no importance to observing Christians. Catholics are guided by the Vatican and look to the Catechism for certainty. Protestants interpret the Bible and need nothing more than the word of God.


Deuteronomy 27:26 says,
(English translation found in the Stone edition of the Chumash.)
"Accursed is one who will not uphold the words of this Torah, to perform them. And the entire people shall say , Amen"

To uphold the words of this Torah means all the words of the Torah.If some other English translation use the word 'all' these translations are correct and say exactly the same as the original text said.


What Justin says in the English translation is correct and it is of no importance to anyone , except for those who earn a living from commenting about religion or who aspire to the rank of distinguished blogger in the 'bloggerian' milieu.

[bcedaifu]

Justin's use of that argument earlier in the Dialogue makes me reluctant to think that he is obligated to refer to Abraham when he introduces Deut. 27:26 in Dialogue 95.

And I apologize if I inferred that he had been obliged to refer to Abraham rather than Moses, upon introducing Deuteronomy 27:26, in Dialogue with Trypho 95.1.

That was not my intention, but I am prone to careless mistakes, so if I have so communicated, I apologize.

My opinion is simple: The reason for this thread, as I interpret it, is to demonstrate a flaw in the argument that Paul followed, rather than preceded, the gospels.

If one can demonstrate, easily, that there is a passage in Justin Martyr's text, that overlaps with one in Paul's letter to Galatians, for example, then, one can assert a dependency upon Paul, by Justin. Unfortunately, for that opinion, the text does not support such a conclusion, for if he had a copy of Galatians before him, chastising the foolish folk living in central Turkey, then, he may have thought to himself, Golly, gee whiz, I better follow Paul, because he knows a lot, and he's an apostle, after all....

But, Justin Martyr's text ignores Paul's main point: need for faith of Abraham, rather than the "law of Moses" in interpreting Deuteronomy 27:26--the very reason why so many Galatians had been fleeing Paul's congregation, returning to the Jewish Temple in ancient Ankara. Those foolish Galatians fled because they acknowledged a preference for Moses' law, rather than Paul's invocation of Abraham's faith (i.e. in the divinity of God's son, Jesus).

Then, if Justin Martyr had been writing after Paul, one would be astonished to learn that Justin had ignored this issue, so central to Christianity. Justin Martyr's text makes sense, only in the context of a people who had not fled Christianity because of Moses' law, but who had not yet joined Christianity, because of Moses' law.

So, my only point is simply that the discrepancies between Galatians and Dialogue with Trypho are of greater significance than the similarities, when one evaluates the text, from a religious doctrine point of view. Failure to copy the important part of Paul's letter, is to me, essential, in deducing that Paul's letter was either unknown to Justin, or ignored by him, for whatever reason. Either way, I cannot accept the idea, based upon the text of these two authors, neither of whom quotes the other, that one author preceded, or depended upon, the writings of the other.

To uphold the words of this Torah means all the words of the Torah.If some other English translation use the word 'all' these translations are correct and say exactly the same as the original text said. (my emphasis)

I think you confound two different issues, here, beowulf.

1. the words of the Torah. THE words of the torah. I claim, and I think the evidence supports me, that THE torah is misrepresented in LXX. This misrepresentation is not simply a translation error.
2. "exactly the same as the original text said (sic)". Yeah, the original text is written, not spoken. The question is, what exactly is "the original text"? It absolutely is not the same as the English version, that's for certain.

I argue that the original Hebrew is not the same as LXX, and I would suggest that you examine the various sources out there, to confirm to yourself, that the Torah is not represented accurately, by LXX. One need look no further, than a source accepted as valid, by BOTH Protestants and Catholics, i.e. Jerome's Vulgate, in Latin.

We are not "nit-picking" here, beowulf. The issue is whether or not, the Christians have violated the trust of those with faith, such as yourself, sir, by inserting into the English text, words which are not, absolutely not, found in the original text, notwithstanding your emphatic statement to the contrary. You need to examine the two versions by yourself, it won't help you, if I guide you to the proper url's, for you will then imagine some kind of conspiracy.

If you seek the truth, you will find it. And the truth is that the LXX has been tampered with, at least, that's what the evidence shows. Simply writing, as you have done, "exactly the same...." doesn't cut it, here, beowulf.

Give us the exact quotes and then you will be able to offer such an assertion. If you seek an illustration, let me point you to one example, other than the text which ficino and I have been debating:
look at Numbers 4:3, and then compare that with the Latin Vulgate. After that, scroll down to Numbers 4:5. haha. The cat is looking at the canary, waiting to pounce.

[ficino]

The reason for this thread, as I interpret it, is to demonstrate a flaw in the argument that Paul followed, rather than preceded, the gospels.

I started the thread because I wondered about the thesis that puts the Pauline corpus late in the 2nd century because Justin does not quote Paul. When I discovered a few passages where I thought Justin parallels Paul closely against the LXX, I then thought that the just-mentioned thesis doesn't do the work it is meant to do by late-daters; there is too much likelihood that Justin does know and make use of Paul without naming him.

Since then you and I have been debating whether Justin's omission of "all" in Deut. 27:26 and his failure to connect that verse with Abraham (+ Isaac and Jacob) show that in fact Paul is correcting Justin, therefore later. In your view, yes; in my view, these features don't show that Paul is later. I don't think I have anything to add at this point.

Either way, I cannot accept the idea, based upon the text of these two authors, neither of whom quotes the other, that one author preceded, or depended upon, the writings of the other.

I'm not sure I understand your last sentence right, because in it you seem to take back your view that Paul follows and corrects Justin and that we are justified in reaching this conclusion.