Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-22-2013, 09:28 AM

Notice also the strange ordering of the apostles - John first - this is one of many clues of its origins in Asia Minor. The reference to Passover is unusual too. But let's tackle the order of gospel passages when I get a moment. It's crazy busy over here. But you're a smart guy figure it out yourself. The order does not match (a) the existing Diatessaronic material (which basically follows Matthew) nor (b) the synoptics. This is the key to sorting out the pre-Catholic gospel tradition in the second century and perhaps making sense of the consistent idea (started by Papias) that Mark's order is wrong.

stephan huller · 03-22-2013, 09:31 AM

I think Clement of Alexandria cites from this text if my memory serves me correctly

stephan huller · 03-22-2013, 09:40 AM

Who am I kidding? I always have time for this shit. Here is the order of the gospel of the community we tentatively identify as the Quartodeciman sect associated with 'John':

Quote:

we do write according as we have seen and heard and touched him, [Luke 1:1]

after that he was risen from the dead: and how that he revealed unto us things mighty and wonderful and true. This know we: that our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ is God the Son of God, who was sent of God the Lord of the whole world, the maker and creator of it, [John 1:3]

who is named by all names, and high above all powers, Lord of lords, King of kings, Ruler of rulers, the heavenly one, that sitteth above the cherubim and seraphim at the right hand of the throne of the Father: who by his word made the heavens, and formed the earth and that which is in it, and set bounds to the sea that it should not pass: the deeps also and fountains, that they should spring forth and flow over the earth: the day and the night, the sun and the moon, did he establish, and the stars in the heaven: that did separate the light from the darkness: that called forth hell, and in the twinkling of an eye ordained the rain of the winter, the snow (cloud), the hail, and the ice, and the days in their several seasons: that maketh the earth to quake and again establisheth it: that created man in his own image, after his likeness, and by the fathers of old and the prophets is it declared (or, and spake in parables with the fathers of old and the prophets in verity), of whom the apostles preached, and whom the disciples did touch.

In God, the Lord, the Son of God, do we believe, that he is the word become flesh [John 1:14]

that of Mary the holy virgin he took a body, begotten of the Holy Ghost, not of the will (lust) of the flesh, but by the will of God [John 1:13]

that he was wrapped in swaddling clothes in Bethlehem [Luke 2:7]

and made manifest, and grew up and came to ripe age, when also we beheld it. [Luke 2:52]

This did our Lord Jesus Christ, who was sent by Joseph and Mary his mother to be taught. [And] when he that taught him said unto him: Say Alpha: then answered he and said: Tell thou me first what is Beta (probably: Tell thou me first what is <Alpha and then will I tell thee what is> Beta. [the Marcosian story quoted by Irenaeus].

This thing which then came to pass is to true and of verity.

Thereafter was there a marriage in Cana of Galilee [John 2:1]

and they bade him with his mother and his brethren [Mark 3:21 !!!]

and he changed water into wine. [John 2:9]

He raised the dead, [Mark 5:21; Luke 7:22?]

he caused the lame to walk [Mark 2:24]

him whose hand was withered he caused to stretch it out [Mark 3:1]

and the woman which had suffered an issue of blood twelve years touched the hem of his garment and was healed in the same hour. And when we marvelled at the miracle which was done, he said: Who touched me? Then said we: Lord, the press of men hath touched thee. But he answered and said unto us: I perceive that a virtue is gone out of me. Straightway that woman came before him, and answered and said unto him: Lord, I touched thee. And he answered and said unto her: Go, thy faith hath made thee whole. [Mark 5:25]

Thereafter he made the deaf to hear [Mark 7:32]

and the blind to see [Mark 8:22; Mark 10:46?]

out of them that were possessed he cast out the unclean spirits, [Matthew 8:16]

and cleansed the lepers. [Mark 1:40]

The spirit which dwelt in a man, whereof the name was Legion, cried out against Jesus, saying: Before the time of our destruction is come, thou art come to drive us out. But the Lord Jesus rebuked him, saying: Go out of this man and do him no hurt. And he entered into the swine and drowned them in the water and they were choked. [Mark 5:1]

Thereafter he did walk upon the sea, and the winds blew, and he cried out against them (rebuked them), and the waves of the sea were made calm. [Mark 4:39]

And when we his disciples had no money, we asked him: What shall we do because of the tax-gatherer? And he answered and told us: Let one of you cast an hook into the deep, and take out a fish, and he shall find therein a penny: that give unto the tax-gatherer for me and you. [Matt 17:27]

And thereafter when we had no bread, but only five loaves and two fishes, he commanded the people to sit them down, and the number of them was five thousand, besides children and women. We did set pieces of bread before them, and they ate and were filled, and there remained over, and we filled twelve baskets full of the fragments, asking one another and saying: What mean these five loaves? They are the symbol of our faith in the Lord of the Christians (in the great christendom), even in the Father, the Lord Almighty, and in Jesus Christ our redeemer, in the Holy Ghost the comforter, in the holy church, and in the remission of sins. [Matthew 14:21; 16:9]

If anyone has any corrections on the passages I have identified would welcome the correction. Yet this is clearly the greatest undiscovered text in the known apocrypha. The order of the text is clearly reinforced by the use of 'thereafter.' IMO this demonstrates how stupid all the attempts to reconstruct the gospel are hitherto. There was another tradition out there in the early second century. One which defies our assumptions about Mark, Matthew, Luke etc.

Bernard Muller · 03-22-2013, 09:47 AM

to Stephan,

Quote:

The Coptic which you cite from starts immediately after this. However I think that what we have just cited is the original part of the document. Perhaps some of what comes after is authentic or can be dated to the early period. However this is the earliest strata of the text and the material has been corrupted thereafter.

Yes I know the Coptic version we have is not complete, while the Ethiopic version is almost complete.
There are minor changes from the Coptic parts we have to the Ethiopic version, and probably the most notable is the 120 Years in the Coptic version being changed (updated!) to 150 years in the Ethiopic version.

Cordially, Bernard

stephan huller · 03-22-2013, 10:01 AM

But it's not about 'completion.' The existing texts were systematically lengthened including the Ethiopic but also shortened (= passages edited out). The pattern is evidences in the Ignatius corpus too. Scholars are often naive when it comes to their construction. The scribes were editing what they preserved in ways that makes dating very problematic. Sometimes we get lucky like the gospel fragment (or summary) cited above. This is like finding gold in the hills.

aa5874 · 03-22-2013, 10:20 AM

Quote:

the author of the Epistula Apostolorum invented his story that Jesus was the Angel Gabriel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Yes, you said it.

Why can't you post what I said?? It is extremely disturbing to me that you seem incapable of posting what I have written. Please desist from removing words from my post in order to mis-lead.

This is what I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Unless the author of the Epistula Apostolorum invented his story that Jesus was the Angel Gabriel then he did NOT get it from the Canonical Gospels.

If you are now admitting that the author of the Epistula Apostolorum invented the story that Jesus was the Angel Gabriel then you have now contradicted yourself.

Events in the Epistula Apostolorum were NOT drawn from the canonical gospels but products of the author's inventions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is NO evidence at all that the Epistula Apostolorum is an historical account of Jesus and the Apostles when it is riddled with fictitious events and contadicted by the supposed Jesus in gMark and gMatthew.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

I did not say it is a true historical account. The EA was made, in part, by drawing material from earlier texts, with the usual embellishments, which are the norm for a later text using earlier ones.
Where did you get that dogma of yours that a later Christian writing cannot contradict earlier ones?

Cordially, Bernard

Once you admit the Epistula Apostolorum is not a true historical account and contain embellishments then it is completely unacceptable to claim it could NOT have been written AFTER c 150-156 CE when the story of the Second Coming and the Angel Gabriel were invented or not from the Canon if gMark, gMatthew and gluke are historical accounts.

Surely, you must know that there is NO obligation for works of Fiction to be historically accurate.

Surely, you must have known in advance of posting that the Epistula Apostolorum is a work of Fiction and therefore cannot be expected to be a source of history.

By the way, since you have admitted that you did NOT say it was a true historical account and also there is NO manuscript from the 2nd century then it is no real value in dating the Pauline letters.

The very title "Epuistula Apostolorum" [Epistle of the Apostles] is a LIE if gMark, gMatthew and gLuke are historical accounts.

By the way, gMark, gMatthew and gLuke are Sources of Fiction.

Essentially, the Epistula Apostolorum is NOT credible, Anonymous and Unknown by other Apologetics in the 2nd century.

Bernard Muller · 03-22-2013, 10:45 AM

to Stephan,
I see your point. But I read here about the Coptic version:
- first 4 leaves are missing
- one leaf missing
- 6 leaves missing
It looks what is missing has been estimated to be the content which normally would fill up respectively 4, 1 & 6 leaves (in Coptic characters). So the Coptic missing parts existed and were not too different of the corresponding Ethiopic parts, judging by what we see when we get the same parts in the two versions.
Furthermore, if the content of these missing leaves were not in the original text, we would have discontinuities in the narration, most evident for the 1 leaf and 6 leaves cases. For the 4 leaves in the opening, it's rather abnormal to start with mentions of Simon and Cerinthus. Furthermore "Therefore have we not shrunk from writing unto you concerning the testimony of Christ our Saviour, of what he did, when we followed with him, how he enlightened our understanding..." seems to refer to the content of the four missing leaves (as "known" through the Ethiopic version).

Cordially, Bernard

stephan huller · 03-22-2013, 12:30 PM

It would be good if we could find access to the original manuscript(s) online somewhere. I am in the middle of work. Hold on

stephan huller · 03-22-2013, 01:06 PM

I am doing complicated accounting but do you at least agree we have a new gospel?

andrewcriddle · 03-22-2013, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The best argument that Acts was a second century text - Hegesippus did not know Acts.

All we can say is that the fragments of Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius et al show no knowledge of Acts.

It may be that Eusebius was only interested in preserving Hegesippus's work where it contained information not duplicated in the NT.

Andrew Criddle

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

03-22-2013, 09:28 AM	#681
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Notice also the strange ordering of the apostles - John first - this is one of many clues of its origins in Asia Minor. The reference to Passover is unusual too. But let's tackle the order of gospel passages when I get a moment. It's crazy busy over here. But you're a smart guy figure it out yourself. The order does not match (a) the existing Diatessaronic material (which basically follows Matthew) nor (b) the synoptics. This is the key to sorting out the pre-Catholic gospel tradition in the second century and perhaps making sense of the consistent idea (started by Papias) that Mark's order is wrong.

03-22-2013, 09:31 AM	#682
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think Clement of Alexandria cites from this text if my memory serves me correctly

03-22-2013, 10:01 AM	#685
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But it's not about 'completion.' The existing texts were systematically lengthened including the Ethiopic but also shortened (= passages edited out). The pattern is evidences in the Ignatius corpus too. Scholars are often naive when it comes to their construction. The scribes were editing what they preserved in ways that makes dating very problematic. Sometimes we get lucky like the gospel fragment (or summary) cited above. This is like finding gold in the hills.

03-22-2013, 10:45 AM	#687
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	to Stephan, I see your point. But I read here about the Coptic version: - first 4 leaves are missing - one leaf missing - 6 leaves missing It looks what is missing has been estimated to be the content which normally would fill up respectively 4, 1 & 6 leaves (in Coptic characters). So the Coptic missing parts existed and were not too different of the corresponding Ethiopic parts, judging by what we see when we get the same parts in the two versions. Furthermore, if the content of these missing leaves were not in the original text, we would have discontinuities in the narration, most evident for the 1 leaf and 6 leaves cases. For the 4 leaves in the opening, it's rather abnormal to start with mentions of Simon and Cerinthus. Furthermore "Therefore have we not shrunk from writing unto you concerning the testimony of Christ our Saviour, of what he did, when we followed with him, how he enlightened our understanding..." seems to refer to the content of the four missing leaves (as "known" through the Ethiopic version). Cordially, Bernard

03-22-2013, 12:30 PM	#688
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It would be good if we could find access to the original manuscript(s) online somewhere. I am in the middle of work. Hold on

03-22-2013, 01:06 PM	#689
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I am doing complicated accounting but do you at least agree we have a new gospel?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.