Characteristics of Καχεξία described by Hippocrates:
Hippocrates Volume VII
Loeb Classical Library 477
Epidemics 2, 4-7
Described by an Italian physician, writing (in Latin) in the latter half of the 16th century: (translation into English in mid 18th century)
“Such is that habit of face, in which, as Hippocrates, in the beginning of his prognostics, describes it, 'The nose is sharp....' ”
Prospero Alpini, “The Presages of Life and Death in Diseases: In Seven Books.”page 29.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zfs1AQ ... th&f=false
There are also parallels to Paul in Justin's First Apology:
Apol. 19.4 ἀφθαρσίαν ἐνδύσασθαι, 52.3 ἐνδύσει ἀφθαρσίαν
I Cor. 15:54 ενδυσηται αφθαρσιαν
shall have put on imperishable
Apol. 28.3 ὥστ’ ἀναπολόγητον εἶναι τοῖς πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις παρὰ τῷ θεῷ·
Rom. 1:20 εις το ειναι αυτους αναπολογητους
Apol. 60.11 ὡς συνεῖναι οὐ σοφίᾳ ἀνθρωπείᾳ ταῦτα γεγονέναι, ἀλλὰ δυνάμει θεοῦ λέγεσθαι.
I Cor. 2:5 μη η εν σοφια ανθρωπων αλλ εν δυναμει θεου
Here are two English prose phrases, written by two native speakers, who lived several centuries apart. Do you imagine that we can deduce dates of authorship, or compositional priority, from them?
...for his nose was as sharp as a pen ...
... her face pinched and anxious, her nose sharp as a pen ...
But, these two authors were both copying Hippocrates, who offered this same description, “a sharp nose
”, in his elucidation of the famous ιπποκράτειο προσωπείο
Today, we refer to such patients, nearing death, as demonstrating Καχεξία . But, the original description, was by Hippocrates.
A above, was published in 1599.
B first appeared on planet Earth in 2010.
Why did Shakespeare employ “Hippocrates' face” in describing the death of Sir John Falstaff, in Henry V act II, scene III? Was that famous description known in Elizabethan England, in English (Shakespeare read neither Latin nor Greek)?
B was authored by a physician, writing a novel “Cutting for Stone”. Did B employ A's text? Perhaps. I cannot prove that Abraham Verghese had read Hippocrates' own text, either in Greek or in English translation.
It is difficult to employ extracts, to determine degree of influence. I am unpersuaded, ficino, that these three snippets of Paul's epistles, and the corresponding text from Justin Martyr, demonstrates the relationship between these authors which you propose: Paul's writing influencing Justin.
One final note, which I can't do anything with: the apparatus of my Greek NT (Nestle) shows that Marcion omits Galatians 3:6-9. !!
I would be careful to offer a claim about what Marcion wrote or did not write. Those on this forum who tout Marcion's opinion, rarely acknowledge the fact that we possess nothing by this author. 100% of what little we know about him, comes from the quill of someone else, and that someone is invariably hostile to him. Imagine having as a task, the chore of writing a description, for an encyclopedia let's say, of the life of Hitler, using only as a reference, the 02 May 1945 edition of The Stars and Stripes.
But, apart from that, what is gained, in an attempt to clarify precedence: Paul vs Justin, by introducing Marcion's non-existent texts?
How is that method of argument, ficino, different from aa5874 claiming that Paul's epistles must have followed Justin Martyr, because Justin does not cite Paul's epistles (a spurious argument in my opinion)?
I think reference to Marcion, or Clement of Alexandria, or Clement of Rome, or Irenaeus of Lugdunum (or Σμύρνα) represents derailment of the thread.
Meanwhile, back to the central question posed by this instructive, useful, and entertaining thread: did Paul's epistles influence the writing of Justin Martyr? Rephrasing the question: How do we establish the sequence of authorship of these two prominent figures in the history of earliest Christianity?
Alternatively: Is there something about the original text of both men, that suggests, to an open mind, that one author must have used the text of the other, in creating his own version?
I think we can agree, ficino, that most of the existing literature on this subject, accepts as valid, the hypothesis that Paul's epistles were written before Dialogue with Trypho, of Justin Martyr. My starting point, on the other hand, is to assume nothing about either author's date of birth. I inquire simply: Does the Greek text of both men, suggest that one author used the other author's text?
Again, we part ways on the MSS. Justin and Paul agree in various places against the LXX in the verses we discussed above, so I don't think one can be sure that Justin was working from the Hebrew. I don't have an apparatus criticus of the Dialogue, but it looks to me as though Paul or Justin was quoting from memory or quoting freely, and the other followed along. We are left only with the discrepancy betw Paul's πᾶσιν vs. Justin's ἐν. There are various possible causes; w/o knowing the MSS., I can't hazard an opinion. I think your conclusions go too far, though.
I will not hazard a guess as to the importance of omitting πᾶσιν, but some famous Englishman, Tyndall, perhaps, wrote some kind of analysis of the omission's significance. πᾶσιν is absent from none of the extant copies of LXX, but is missing from the Masoretic text.
Cursed be he who doesn`t confirm the words of this law to do them.
King James Version:
Cursed be he that confirmeth not all
the words of this law to do them.
That Justin chose to present the Hebrew version of Deuteronomy, rather than that of the LXX, suggests to me, that “Dialogue with Trypho”, uses materials which Trypho himself would have offered in rebuttal. Both Paul, in Galatians, and Justin, in Dialogue, are engaged in argument against Judaism. Trypho knows that God promised, that Abraham's grandchildren, would become fathers of the twelve tribes. If Justin had indeed possessed a copy of Galatians in front of him, why would he ignore Paul's elaborate introduction of Deuteronomy 27:26, replacing Paul's long harangue about Abraham, with a much shorter preface: “Moses' laws”? Would not the faith of Abraham serve as an equally appropriate introduction to Justin's quote from Deuteronomy? Why would Justin omit this important homage to Abraham, introducing the importance of faith, as Paul has done in Galatians?
In other words, is it not the obligation, of those who would claim that Justin Martyr relied upon Paul's epistles, to explain those sections of Paul's epistle, of especial significance to the debate of Judaism vs. Christianity, which have been omitted by Justin? To me, it is much simpler to acknowledge the difference, (omission in “Dialogue with Trypho”, of concepts of crucial importance to the argument found in Paul's text), and attribute that distinction to a temporal disparity between creation of Dialogue, and the subsequent authorship of Galatians. Justin omitted this crucial component of Galatians, because he didn't have it. Justin didn't have it, because Paul had not yet written it.
Putting the shoe on the other foot, had Paul possessed a copy of “Dialogue with Trypho”, in front of him, as he composed Galatians, would he not have felt obliged to correct Justin's “errors”, those incompatibilities with LXX and John? Paul is not engaged in a salesman's pitch to Trypho, a Jewish intellectual. Paul seeks to stop the leaks in his boat. The Galatians are running away from his church. They lack faith. They know all about Moses' laws. They need to be reminded of Abraham's faith. The “foolish” Galatians, enchanted by “laws” and “rules”, need to listen or read, more, about faith, and less about doctrine. So, Paul does not mention Moses, the law giver, instead focuses attention on Abraham, the ultimate authority on faith.
My rough sense is that it's more likely that Justin is expanding on Paul's argument than that Paul is condensing (and correcting) Justin's. As to the prevalence of Moses in Justin's presentation of Deut. 27:26, as I said earlier, I think it's important not to overlook the fact that we have a dialogue. As with dialogues of Plato, one needs to consider the characters of the interlocutors and the dramatic setting as well as propositional content. Since Trypho is a learned Jew, Justin makes a point of quoting from the Torah and emphasizing that Moses foretells Christ in all sorts of ways.
Walking is man's best medicine