Talk:Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Question about the title[edit]

Doesn't the name translate more accurately as a disputation or controversy rather than a dialogue? It is more of an argument than a discussion. That said, I acknowledge it is frequently referred to as a Dialogue in the literature. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the date of JP[edit]

Lawrence Lahey has the date as c.140, see Lawrence Lahey. Evidence for Jewish Believers in Christian-Jewish Dialogues through the Sixth Century. in Jewish Believers in Jesus, Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik eds. pp. 585–591. {{cite book}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help). A date of c.160 is unlikely as the JP is believed to be a source for the Dialogue with Trypho, which is itself dated c.160. Ignocrates (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship[edit]

I'm continuing to dig into the question of authorship. I found an interesting tidbit by Martin Hengel in Jews and Christians: A Parting of the Ways (2nd edition), James Dunn, editor, (1999), ISBN 0802844987 p.42. Hengel mentions the DJP was "composed shortly after the Bar Kochba revolt (132-135), presumably from the hand of the otherwise little-known Jewish Christian Aristo of Pella". However, footnote 18 on the same page mentions some interesting factoids. P. Prigent in Justin et l'Ancien Testament (1964) and P. Nautin in Ecole des Hautes Etudes (1967), pp.162-67, first drew attention to the connection with Aristo of Pella. The same footnote goes on to mention John of Scythopolis as the first to mention Aristo as an author, in H. Urs von Balthasar, Scholastik 15 (1940) pp.16-38. The footnote is ambiguous in that it doesn't say John of Scythopolis was the first to mention Aristo as the author of the DJP. However, this John wrote in the 6th century and thus predates Maximus, so this may be worth checking out. Ignocrates (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what Dunn p42 is saying is that Prigent and Nautin, like Skarsaune, (and perhaps Dunn himself?) just followed the attribution by Maximus without questioning it. When Dunn says "reference from C. Markschies" Markschies 1999 is citing Das Scholienwerk des Johannes von Scythopolis, in Scholastik 15 (1940): 16-38). Balthasar there attributes much of Maximus' scholia John of Scythopolis, which if so (debated in later writers) means the same source. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. I presume you mean Maximus copied John of Scythopolis' work without attribution. Or are you saying Maximus and John of Scythopolis are the same person? Ignocrates (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found another interesting analysis in an old religious dictionary: B.W. Bacon, A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (vol 1), James Hastings editor, (1906), ISBN 141021785X, pp. 117-18. Bacon notes that Moses of Chorene wrote about Aristo of Pella's account of Hadrian's devastation of Jerusalem and follows this with an account of Aristo being a secretary to Ardasches, the king of Armenia. Moses seems to have inferred that this same Aristo was the secretary to Mark, the bishop of Jerusalem, and equates him with the Elder Aristo who was credited with composing the long ending of the Gospel of Mark. Bacon states in his conclusions (summarizing) that the problem results from the conflation of Aristion the Elder, a disciple of the apostles whose traditions were recorded by Papias, with Aristo of Pella, a historian of the Second Jewish War who may not even have been a Christian. According to Bacon, the problem arose with the translation of Eusebius' works into Syriac and subsequently Armenian and the misidentification of Aristion as Ariston. This makes a lot of sense to me. It also explains why the DJP was not credited to Aristo until the 6th or 7th century. ~~The author of the DJP was more probably Aristion the Elder - although I can't find a source that connects the two, so it's my OR for now.~~ Ignocrates (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found in the list of bishops of Jerusalem that Mark is listed as the first Greek bishop of Jerusalem, installed in 135 CE. So, the time-frame would indeed fit for Aristo of Pella to have been his secretary. Ignocrates (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]