Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-05-2010, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And if we assume it was NOT Teknon, "young child" but Tektwn, "carpenter" just as it is found? What next?

Origen had no problem with "carpenter" in gMatthew.

Origen has destroyed Mark 6.3.

Origen wrote in Greek and would have used tekton or tecton which certainly does not mean carpenter. In fact almost every instance of the word in Greek literature refers at least to a highly skilled, highly paid artisan such as a Tiffany or a ship builder or a builder of cities.

You fail to understand that Origen did write that Joseph the supposed father of Jesus was a carpenter. What ever language Origen wrote or translated did not affect the occupation for Joseph as a carpenter.

"Against Celsus" 6.16

Quote:

.....not merely among the believers on Jesus, but among the rest of mankind— that would not laugh at Celsus, on hearing that Jesus, who was born and brought up among the Jews, and was supposed to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and who had not studied literature...

And before Origen had translated or written his writings the occupation of their Jesus should have already been established, even the illiterate Jesus believers should be expected to know the occupation of their Lord and Saviour when he was on earth.

darstec · 07-05-2010, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Origen wrote in Greek and would have used tekton or tecton which certainly does not mean carpenter. In fact almost every instance of the word in Greek literature refers at least to a highly skilled, highly paid artisan such as a Tiffany or a ship builder or a builder of cities.

You fail to understand that Origen did write that Joseph the supposed father of Jesus was a carpenter. What ever language Origen wrote or translated did not affect the occupation for Joseph as a carpenter.

"Against Celsus" 6.16

Quote:

.....not merely among the believers on Jesus, but among the rest of mankind— that would not laugh at Celsus, on hearing that Jesus, who was born and brought up among the Jews, and was supposed to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and who had not studied literature...

And before Origen had translated or written his writings the occupation of their Jesus should have already been established, even the illiterate Jesus believers should be expected to know the occupation of their Lord and Saviour when he was on earth.

Again, tekton does not mean carpenter any more than Tiffany was a flea market vendor of jewelry.

You also keep forgetting that Origen has been filtered through almost 1700 years of orthodoxy. Who knows what his works read, or even if they weren't the imagined products of Eusebius? What are the oldest texts from Origen? Anything older than 1000 years removed from his supposed lifetime?

aa5874 · 07-05-2010, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You fail to understand that Origen did write that Joseph the supposed father of Jesus was a carpenter. What ever language Origen wrote or translated did not affect the occupation for Joseph as a carpenter.

"Against Celsus" 6.16

And before Origen had translated or written his writings the occupation of their Jesus should have already been established, even the illiterate Jesus believers should be expected to know the occupation of their Lord and Saviour when he was on earth.

Again, tekton does not mean carpenter any more than Tiffany was a flea market vendor of jewelry.

You also keep forgetting that Origen has been filtered through almost 1700 years of orthodoxy. Who knows what his works read, or even if they weren't the imagined products of Eusebius? What are the oldest texts from Origen? Anything older than 1000 years removed from his supposed lifetime?

So, you have a problem with the translators?

You must explain why the translators of "Against Celsus" claimed Joseph was a carpenter and that Jesus was not ever described as a carpenter in the current gospels in the Churches.

But, look at "Against Celsus" 5.52

Quote:

....For the Son of God could not himself, as it seems, open the tomb, but needed the help of another to roll away the stone. And again, on account of the pregnancy of Mary, there came an angel to the carpenter, and once more another angel, in order that they might take up the young Child and flee away (into Egypt)......

Both "carpenter" and "young Child" appear in the same passage.

It would appear that the translators seem to know the Greek, Latin or whatever words for "carpenter" and "young child".

Please check the translators.

sschlichter · 07-06-2010, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, Justin Martyr did refer to the "Memoirs of the Apostles" as Gospels but he did not claim that he had four "Memoirs of the Apostles".

"First Apolgy" LXVI

Based on Justin Marty's birth narrative of Jesus taken from the "Memoirs of the Apostles" it would appear he had a version of the Gospels that simultaneously contained parts similar to what is found in present day gMatthew and gLuke. And it must be noted that Justin did make mention of any genealogy in the "Memoirs of the Apostles".

"Dialogue with Trypho" LXXVIII

The "Memoirs of the Apostles" mentioned Cyrenius which is absent in gMatthew but present in gLuke and also it mentions that Jesus was born in a cave which cannot be found in gMatthew or gLuke.

And further of all the Church writers it would appear that it was ONLY Justin Martyr who did NOT attribute any specific author to his Gospels called "Memoirs of the Apostles".

It would appear Justin Martyr BELIEVED they were written by the apostles and those who followed them but seem to have no names of the authors up to the middle of the 2nd century.

It does seem strange that JM didn't sort of quote like this... "In the Memoirs of the Apostles, Luke says blah blah blah ". Presumably the Memoirs contained the four gospels except Mark was not an apostle so they would have been called the Memoirs of Apostles and Others.

Yes, I also would presume that the memoirs that he had included at least 3 of the 4 gospels. Isn't that the crux of the issue? Did JM have the gospels? Yes, we both seem to presume he did. Did he have other texts? Possibly, he did.

aa5874 · 07-06-2010, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

It does seem strange that JM didn't sort of quote like this... "In the Memoirs of the Apostles, Luke says blah blah blah ". Presumably the Memoirs contained the four gospels except Mark was not an apostle so they would have been called the Memoirs of Apostles and Others.

Yes, I also would presume that the memoirs that he had included at least 3 of the 4 gospels. Isn't that the crux of the issue? Did JM have the gospels? Yes, we both seem to presume he did. Did he have other texts? Possibly, he did.

It cannot be presumed that Justin Martyr had three or four gospels when he did not state so.

Just as you can assume that Justin Martyr was using three of four Gospels it can be that gMatthew, gMark and gLuke were derived from the Memoirs of the Apostles and other sources.

It must be noted that Justin Matyr did not appear to have the Gospel according to John since Justin Martyr claimed he placed Jesus as SECOND to God when in gJohn 1, Jesus was God.

"First Apology" XIII

Quote:

....He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third...

"First Apology" LX

Quote:

...For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was placed crosswise in the universe....

Joh 1:1 -

Quote:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Now, oddly enough, it is claimed by apologetic sources that Tatian a hearer of Justin Martyr had a SINGLE VERSION of all the four Gospels called the DIATESSARON.

"Church History" 4.29.6

Quote:

6. But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle, in order to improve their style.

It must be expected that the Gospel story was initially ONE before it came four , five, six and the multiple versions that can be found today.

andrewcriddle · 07-06-2010, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

You also keep forgetting that Origen has been filtered through almost 1700 years of orthodoxy. Who knows what his works read, or even if they weren't the imagined products of Eusebius? What are the oldest texts from Origen? Anything older than 1000 years removed from his supposed lifetime?

FWIW the oldest manuscripts of Origen are the tura/toura papyri dating from c 600 CE

Andrew Criddle

sschlichter · 07-06-2010, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

"Church History" 4.29.6

Quote:

6. But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle, in order to improve their style.

It must be expected that the Gospel story was initially ONE before it came four , five, six and the multiple versions that can be found today.

then why was it called the Diatessaron?

mountainman · 07-06-2010, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

You also keep forgetting that Origen has been filtered through almost 1700 years of orthodoxy. Who knows what his works read, or even if they weren't the imagined products of Eusebius? What are the oldest texts from Origen? Anything older than 1000 years removed from his supposed lifetime?

FWIW the oldest manuscripts of Origen are the tura/toura papyri dating from c 600 CE

But there are two "Origens". On the one hand we have "Origen the Christian" as described by one of his lineage Eusebius and on the other hand we have "Origen the Platonist" as described by the lineage of neoplatonic philosophers.

The 4th century Origenist controversy was about the books of "Origen".
They caused great distress to many people - they were contraversial.
Didn't Pachomius (c.333 CE) once throw one of these books of Origen into the Nile River?
I wonder which of these two "Origens" wrote these Toura mss?

aa5874 · 07-07-2010, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

"Church History" 4.29.6

It must be expected that the Gospel story was initially ONE before it came four , five, six and the multiple versions that can be found today.

then why was it called the Diatessaron?

But, you must agree that there MUST have been a single story about Jesus before there were four.

Justin Martyr's "Memoirs of the Apostles" does not seem to be four contradictory gospels as can be found in the NT Canon.

Now, when was the supposed writing of Tatian called the Diatessaron? Did Tatian called his writings the Diatessaron or was it later called the Diatessaron because the four author of the gospels in the NT Canon used it.

And when was gMatthew, gMark, gLuke and gJohn actually written? Were they written AFTER the writing called the Diatessaron?

But, Eusebius in "Church History" could not say how Tatian managed to write the Diatessaron.

""Church History" 4.29.6

Quote:

6. But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how....

Your question cannot even be answered by apologetic sources. Eusebius

"Church History" 4.29.6

Quote:

.....But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle, in order to improve their style.

But the authors called Mark and Luke were not considered apostles so Tatian most likely did not even have any Gospel from non-apostles. Based on Eusebius he may have had "the Memoirs of the Apostles"

Transient · 07-07-2010, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

then why was it called the Diatessaron?

But, you must agree that there MUST have been a single story about Jesus before there were four.

Justin Martyr's "Memoirs of the Apostles" does not seem to be four contradictory gospels as can be found in the NT Canon.

Now, when was the supposed writing of Tatian called the Diatessaron? Did Tatian called his writings the Diatessaron or was it later called the Diatessaron because the four author of the gospels in the NT Canon used it.

And when was gMatthew, gMark, gLuke and gJohn actually written? Were they written AFTER the writing called the Diatessaron?

But, Eusebius in "Church History" could not say how Tatian managed to write the Diatessaron.

""Church History" 4.29.6

Your question cannot even be answered by apologetic sources. Eusebius

"Church History" 4.29.6

Quote:

.....But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle, in order to improve their style.

But the authors called Mark and Luke were not considered apostles so Tatian most likely did not even have any Gospel from non-apostles. Based on Eusebius he may have had "the Memoirs of the Apostles"

I must agree in as much as the "Memoirs of the Apostles" most likely did not contain the 4 gospels as they are now known because 2 of the so-called authors weren't even supposed to be apostles.
It is only slightly possible that gMatthew and gJohn was in those memoirs but I don't think that it is very likely.
Most likely it was a collection of some stories that were said to be written by apostles which then raises the embarrassing question for christians - when the heck were the 4 gospels written and by whom?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.