On dating the Gospels late e.g. 120CE

[Stephan Huller]

But Damascus wasn't in 'the region of Syrophoenicia' at the time Justin was writing. Syrophoenicia was used to denote the coastal region (= our 'Lebanon'). Damascus was in 'the region of Syria.' No one would naturally identify Damascus as being in Lebanon today nor in antiquity. And then having Justin and Tertullian doing the same thing.

[Stephan Huller]

And the language used rejects the idea of "a customary" usage. If they were appealing to Syrophoenicia as a general, traditional assumption the idea of it being "today" or recently associated with the region wouldn't be invoked.

[spin]

Long before Arabia was integrated into the Roman empire, Damascus was a part of Syria. Justin is certainly not a good representative of what Roman administrative boundaries had to have been. Arabia Petraea became a province in 105 CE. The Damascenes didn't see themselves as part of Arabia, while the Nabataeans always had interest in the having the town. The notional approach for someone who was local to Judea may have been to see Damascus as part of Arabia, but it was officially part of Syria. Irenaeus followed Justin, maybe Tertullian in his turn, but it is unlikely that Justin was saying anything more than what he believed.

[Stephan Huller]

But you're not reading the evidence correctly. Tertullian says almost the same thing as Justin in Adv Iud:

For the East, on the one hand, generally held the magi (to be) kings; and Damascus, on the other hand, used formerly to be reckoned to Arabia before it was transferred into Syrophoenicia on the division of the Syrias

and Justin:

Moreover, that sinful and unjust power is termed well in parable, Samaria. And none of you can deny that Damascus was, and is, in the region of Arabia, although now it belongs to what is called Syrophoenicia.

There is little or no doubt that the arguments in Adv Iud originate with Justin. So the question becomes - did Tertullian merely 'expand' an ambiguous reference in Justin or did he preserve the original context of the parallel statement in Dial 78. I think the latter.

[Stephan Huller]

And I think you overlook the significance of προσνέμω in Justin:

allot, assign, dedicate to, “γυμνικοὺς [ἀγῶνας] . . τοῖς θεοῖς” Pl.Lg.828c; “αὑτούς τινι” D.25.43; “ταῖς τοῦ δήμου προαιρέσεσιν ἑαυτόν” Id.Ep.3.2; “ὅπου τὸ δίκαιον εἴη τεταγμένον, ἐνταῦθα π. ἑαυτούς” Id.60.11; “τῷ δικαίῳ ἑαυτούς” Plb.6.10.9; “μηδεμιᾷ φιλοτιμίᾳ παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον π. τὴν αὑτοῦ γνώμην” SIG577.39 (Milet., iii/ii B.C.); “ἀπώλειάν τινι” Alciphr.1.14; add, “ὀκτακοσίους αὐτοῖς” D.14.16; “τὰς νήσους ταῖς γείτοσι μοίραις” Arist.Mu.394a4; “πόλιν τοῖς Ἀχαιοῖς” Plb.2.43.5:—Pass., to be assigned, attributed, οἱ δ᾽ ἄλλοι προσνενέμησθε ὡς τούτους, ὡς ἐκείνους, D.2.29, 13.20; “π. ὁ φίλος τοῖς πράγμασι, οὐ τὰ πράγματα τοῖς φίλοις” Arist.EE1237b33; ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν προσνεμηθεὶς τῷ κατὰ πόλιν being added, D.H.10.48:—Med., grant on one's own part, πρόσνειμαί μοι χάριν grant me a further favour, S.Tr.1216; προσνείμασθαί τινα τοῖσιν θεοῖσιν devote him to the gods, Ar.Av.563 (anap.).

Where in your explanation do you take into account Justin speaking of the 'allotment' or 'apportioning' of Damascus to Syro-Phoenicia?

Long before Arabia was integrated into the Roman empire, Damascus was a part of Syria.

Ok. That idea is correct for Justin's own time and we see it in Apology 1.6.

Justin is certainly not a good representative of what Roman administrative boundaries had to have been.

Still he thinks that Damascus has been 'allotted' to a new province.

Arabia Petraea became a province in 105 CE. The Damascenes didn't see themselves as part of Arabia, while the Nabataeans always had interest in the having the town. The notional approach for someone who was local to Judea may have been to see Damascus as part of Arabia, but it was officially part of Syria. Irenaeus followed Justin, maybe Tertullian in his turn, but it is unlikely that Justin was saying anything more than what he believed.

None of this takes into account Justin and Tertullian's notion of a recent allotment of Damascus to Syrophoenicia.

[Stephan Huller]

Justin's student Tatian's use of προσνέμω

The grammarians have been the beginning of this idle talk; and you who parcel out wisdom are cut off from the wisdom that is according to truth, and assign (προσενείματε) the names of the several parts to particular men (or grec 26.10)

Clement of Alexandria:

Why, I pray you, have you assigned (προσενείματε) the prerogatives of God to what are no gods (Exh 4.40)

[spin]

Let's get this straight. You had provinces of Syria, Syria Palaestina and Arabia Petraea at the time of Hadrian.

Whatever Justin means by Syrophoenicia doesn't reflect any province. We know there was a province at the time of Septimius Severus called Syria Phoenice, but that's too late for and the name is of a different form indicating a different idea.

Interestingly enough Amm.Marcellinus (14.8.9) refers to Damascus in the province of Phoenicia, though this is a part of a group with Syria and Palestine. Adjacent to these is Arabia, where one finds Bostra, Gerasa and Philadelphia, as well as the Nabataean cities. Marcellinus sees Phoenicia not just as the coastal strip, but what's on the other side of the Lebanon as well.

At the time of Justin Phoenicia was an administrative part of Syria. But Justin was aware of the notional attachment of Damascus with Arabia, at least from a Judean perspective. To stress the issue though, it was not officially a part of Arabia at all and Damascus never saw itself as part of Arabia.

Your insistance on a strict interpretation of προσνεμω especially in the passive which effectively puts aside any subject doesn't seem to have any weight. Check out your definition of the verb in the passive. It doesn't help you at all.

The statement of Tertullian from your citation a couple of pages back: "Damascus, on the other hand, used formerly to be reckoned to Arabia before it was transferred into Syrophoenicia on the division of the Syrias". This suggests that, while he is aware of the Justin tradition, he brings new information to the discussion: "the division of the Syrias". He's developing the tradition with the new knowledge of the partition of Syria, but instead of giving the lower part its official name (Syria Phoenice) he repeats the form found in Justin's Trypho.

[Stephan Huller]

Whatever Justin means by Syrophoenicia doesn't reflect any province.

In this instance the best explanation is that προσνεμω means that it (Damascus) was 'assigned' to a new province. Unless of course you can come up with a better explanation.

Interestingly enough Amm.Marcellinus (14.8.9) refers to Damascus in the province of Phoenicia, though this is a part of a group with Syria and Palestine. Adjacent to these is Arabia, where one finds Bostra, Gerasa and Philadelphia, as well as the Nabataean cities. Marcellinus sees Phoenicia not just as the coastal strip, but what's on the other side of the Lebanon as well.

But Marcellinus lives after the 'allotment' of Septimius Severus so what's your point?

Your insistance on a strict interpretation of προσνεμω especially in the passive which effectively puts aside any subject doesn't seem to have any weight. Check out your definition of the verb in the passive. It doesn't help you at all.

Really? What would you have it mean? You would think if it doesn't help me you would help explain what it really means in this case.

The statement of Tertullian from your citation a couple of pages back: "Damascus, on the other hand, used formerly to be reckoned to Arabia before it was transferred into Syrophoenicia on the division of the Syrias". This suggests that, while he is aware of the Justin tradition, he brings new information to the discussion: "the division of the Syrias". He's developing the tradition with the new knowledge of the partition of Syria, but instead of giving the lower part its official name (Syria Phoenice) he repeats the form found in Justin's Trypho.

The reason he is repeated Justin is because he understands what προσνεμω means. It pertains to the "the division of the Syrias".

[Stephan Huller]

And here, even Marcovich cites it as an example of a marginal gloss:

http://books.google.com/books?id=P-8vi4 ... B9&f=false

I don't understand this stubbornness. The most likely explanation is that it doesn't belong in a text written at the time of Hadrian. The use of προσνεμω whether in the passive or not changes nothing. What other explanation is there for this terminology? Marcovich notes that it has become so well established that this passage was a 'later' addition that many have gone so far as to delete it:

Deleted by Williams (p. XIII) and Honigmann for Syrophoenicia became a separate province after AD 194 under Septimius Severus. The gloss entered the text between AD 194 and 207 - 208 when Tertullian quoted it (Adv Marc 13.3.88).

[Stephan Huller]

The fact that both Against the Jews and Against Marcion have the same passage make it plain that Tertullian is citing some earlier source:

Et magos reges fere habuit oriens et Damascus Arabiae retro deputabatur, antequam transscripta esset in Syrophoenicen ex distinctione Syriarum (Adv Iud 9)

Nam et Magos reges habuit fere oriens, et Damascus Arabiae retro deputabatur, antequam transcripta esset in Syrophoenicen ex distinctione Syriarum (Adv Marc 13.3.88)