hjalti

aa5874 made an interesting post! :Cheeky:

Yes, that passage does sound like his copy ended with chapter 20.

But saying that Tertullian had an un-edited copy of John really doesn't hurt Trobisch's case much, does it? (I haven'r read his book....yet!)

avi

It is somewhat interesting to note that John 21:25 is not found in the Latin Vulgate.

perhaps even more interesting, John 21 ENDS at verse 1, in Codex Sinaiticus. There is no verse 2-25 for John 21, in that version of the new testament.

Perhaps someone disagreed with what we conceive of, as John 21...? It would be interesting to know what P45, P66, and P75 reveal on this question. Still waiting for news of when Vaticanus will go online. I suppose it has the complete text, as used in Hort & Westcott, but it is peculiar though, that Jerome did not include John 21:25 in the Vulgate....

avi

Toto

I can't say that I know it is untrue, because I can't figure out what it refers to, or if Littlejohn's machine translation has failed.

When I google Flaminii, I only get references to football.

There are a number of wild claims that are posted here. I hope people know better than to accept any of them uncritically without investigation.

Littlejohn

"..When I google Flaminii, I only get references to football..."


From: http://celtic.gdr-online.eu/wiki/Flamini

Flaminii: in latin 'flamines'; were pagan priests existing in the ancient Rome. They were divided into Flamens maiores, three, and Flamens minores, twelve, was later added to the first flamen in honor of Julius Caesar. In imperial times were established flamines charge of the cult of the dead emperor/emperors and they derived the name.

from: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Flaminii

flamen (flā`mĕn), in Roman religion, one of 15 priests, each concerned with the cult of a particular deity. The most honored were those dedicated to Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus.

Again:


flamen

One of 15 priests in ancient Rome, each of whom was devoted to the service of a specific god. The most important were those who served Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus. Chosen from the patrician class and supervised by the pontifex maximus (chief priest), they offered daily sacrifices and led strictly regulated lives. Their wives assisted them and were also bound by ritual regulations. In imperial times a group of flamines were devoted to the worship of deified emperors.

Flamen

in ancient Rome, a priest devoted to the service of a particular deity of the Roman pantheon. The flamines comprised three elder priests (majores), elected from among the patricians and serving Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus, and 12 younger priests (minores), elected from among the plebeians and serving 12 gods, including Vulcan, Pomona, and Flora. They held their posts for life and enjoyed special rights and privileges. During the imperial epoch, the number of flamines increased, and priests were assigned to the cult of deified emperors.


NOTE: 'lower flaminii' = "..and 12 younger priests (minores)"


I must thank my friend Stephan Huller if I managed to recover this very important data. In addition, again thank of this, I could guess that the term 'Luke', which was named one of the synoptic Gospels, most likely had nothing to do with a physical person, but with the Latin word 'lucos', that is means an open space free from vegetation, located within the woods, where the pagan priests gathered to celebrate the mysteries of their religion, or simply to discuss about the conduct of the temples about which they were dedicated


Greetings

Littljohn

.

Roger Pearse

The Latin plural for flamen is flamines.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

DCHindley

That article is in Free Inquiry vol 28 no 1 (Dec 07-Jan 08). I brought this up when it was still warm from the oven in a post dated 1/5/2008 in this thread.

As far as I can tell, Trobisch first proposed the idea in a paper entitled "How to read an ancient letter collection: Prolegomena to a narrative critical study of the Letters of Paul," presented at SBL International conference, Lahti, Tuesday 7/21/99.

Can't say I have communed with David as recently as Stephan can boast, but I did point out to him an error in his 2000 book The First Edition of the New Testament via e-mail around January 2001 (pg 27, Table 4 omits 150 mss that have gospels, apostolikon and pauline corpus), which he said he'd correct in the "2nd edition". So there ... I can drop his name too.

DCH

Littlejohn

.

And this what it would change ?.... Flaminii it is an italian plural, much like to Latin 'flamines' ...



Greetings


Littlejohn

.

mountainman

"Pontifices" resolves to Pontifex Maximus - also see the List of Pontifices Maximi. The leaders of the flamen (priests) were also known as "pontifices". This network of collegiate priesthoods was not Roman but Panhellenic and from it was drawn "The Sacred College of the Pontifices" who reported directly at times to the "Pontifex Maximus" (ie: the Roman emperor). This priesthood, who would have ridiculed the "Jesus story", Constantine axed and made redundant upon his military supremacy in 324 CE. He needed no religious traditions to influence and/or oppose his new testament. (Of course he used the foundations of their major temples)

stephan huller

David's a really nice guy. I'm sure anyone who want to get in touch with him could do so. It was actually Robert Price who pointed him out to me. He had a copy of my Against Polycarp and wanted to publish it with the Journal of Higher Criticism. You see I managed to drop another name.

What's great about Trobisch is that you can cite him in a conversation with 'real scholars' and people will take notice of him. If you mention my name they'll just move on to another topic. Trobisch has his chops together. I just happen to think that Polycarp can't possibly be the originator of the canon. It goes against everything we know from the Patristic writings.

Another difficulty. Polycarp sees to have been associated with the Quartodeciman position which in turn is usually connected with the Gospel of John. How then can the synoptics be explained?

stephan huller

The point is again that everything points to Irenaeus as the author of the fourfold canon. It is so utterly obvious I can't believe that other people don't see it. In order to explain the fourfold canon as the product of a 'final editor' as Trobisch terms it you have to find someone who took the moderate course with respect to the contemporary Easter controversy (i.e. in order to explain why it is that two chronological understanding of the same event appear in our canon). Everything about Polycarp seems to smack of inflexibility and uncompromising fanaticism (it is Irenaeus who presents Polycarp and Anicetus as 'agreeing to disagree' on the issue but this is only Irenaeus's spin on the incident).

Irenaeus is the only prominent person in the period who took the 'don't ask don't tell' approach to Easter. This is only the final argument in a series which begins with Irenaeus introducing the concept of the fourfold gospel without appealing to an earlier authority.

It was Irenaeus.