Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 10-05-2010, 01:05 AM

Another possible example of corruption from an Aramaic original.

Why is recorded that Marcion says 'do you recognize us?' (cognoscis nos/epiginoskeis hemas?) when he meets Polycarp in Rome? This has bothered me for a long time. Is Μαρκίωνί/Marcioni here the singular diminutive of the name Mark or a mistranslation of an Aramaic collective gentilic plural marqioni (pronounced 'marqione' = 'those of Mark/Marcus'). The latter explanation would help explain the plural form in the question and would presumably reflect the presence of the Marcosians in Rome at the time.

'The saintly elder' (i.e. Polycarp cf. Charles Hill, the Lost Teachings of Polycarp) in no uncertain terms identified Marcus of the Marcosians as born from Satan in Book One - "With good reason, therefore, and very fittingly, in reference to thy rash attempt, has that divine elder and preacher of the truth burst forth in verse against thee as follows:"Marcus, thou former of idols, inspector of portents, Skill'd in consulting the stars, and deep in the black arts of magic, Ever by tricks such as these confirming the doctrines of error, Furnishing signs unto those involved by thee in deception, Wonders of power that is utterly severed from God and apostate, Which Satan, thy true father, enables thee still to accomplish, By means of Azazel, that fallen and yet mighty angel,-- Thus making thee the precursor of his own impious actions." Such are the words of the saintly elder. And I shall endeavour to state the remainder of their mystical system, which runs out to great length, in brief compass, and to bring to the light what has for a long time been concealed. For in this way such things will become easily susceptible of exposure by all." [AH 1.15.6]

Here are the notes in Harvey to the use of the plural here "Valesius in his notes on the passage in Eusebius considers the word to have been used in the sense of fraternal recognition; as the deacon, in celebration of the eucharist in the discharge of his office, said to those approaching the Lord's table. Chrysostom also interprets the word 1 Cor 16:18 as implying friendly regard. Grabe considers this interpretation to be inconsistent with the Apostle's reply.

It is worth noting that there are various 'corrections' of the original text which read 'epiginoske me/cognosce me?' (Clerm. edition, the earlier Edd. of Eusebius, Ruffinus, Nicephorus). Yet Harvey rightly thinks the plural form is the original. It is attested in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Jerome and most other sources.

Polycarp's response - 'epiginosko ton prototokon tou Satana.'

The immediate context tends to argue also for a group of heretics rather than an individual "He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church."[AH 3.3.4]

aa5874 · 10-05-2010, 09:57 AM

There is really no need for people to complicate the matter. No scholar knows all the languages or dialects ever spoken by mankind. There would always be a need for translators.

We have translations of "Against Heresies" and "Prescription Against Heretics" in English and perhaps other languages so we can read the 6 books.

It is CLEAR that the author of "Against Heresies" used a list or order of bishops of the Church of Rome that was not used by the author of "Prescription Against Heretics".

It is a fact that it is claimed in "Against Heresies" 3.3.3 the apostles first put the bishopric of Rome into the hands of Linus followed by Anacletus and in the third place, Clement.

It is a fact that it is claimed in "Against Heresies" 3.3.3 in the time of Clement a powerful letter was written to the Corinthians.

It is a fact that there is a letter attributed to Clement of Rome to the Corinthians.

But, it is a fact that it is claimed in "Prescription Against Heretics" Peter ordained Clement as bishop of the Church of Rome.

Well, based on those facts, it is clear or extremely probable that the author of "Prescription Against Heretics" 32 had no knowledge of "Against Heresies" 3.3.3.

It can be reasonably deduced that "Against Heresies" 3.3.3 and the "letter to the Corinthians" attributed to Clement was really written AFTER "Prescription Against Heresies" 32.

Now, this reasonable deduction implies that both "Against Heresies" 3.3.3 and the letter to Corinthians attributed to Clement are in effect forgeries or wrongly attributed to Irenaeus and Clement and that there was really no bishop of the Church of Rome named Clement.

It is just not practicably reasonable that most Latins and an author under the name of Tertullian would make a false claim about Clement implying that he was BISHOP of Rome around 70 CE knowing in advance that Clement, while a bishop around 90 CE , wrote a letter to the Corinthians.

Once there was an actual dissension of the Corinthian Church around 90 CE and that messengers were actually sent with the letter by Clement the bishop of Rome to the Corinth Church then most Latins and Tertullian should have know that Clement could have been ordained by Peter.

Examine the "letter to the Corinthians" attributed to Clement the bishop of Rome.

There are names of the messengers in "Letter to Corinthians" 65.

Quote:

Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you....

Most Latins and Tertullian should have heard about the Clement Letter, Caudius Ephebus, Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus around 90 CE.

They did not.

Eusebius did.

It would appear that "Against Heresies" 3.3.3 and the "Letter to Corinthians" attributed to Clement were written AFTER "Prescription Against Heretics" 32.

stephan huller · 10-05-2010, 12:05 PM

A possible explanation for Epiphanius's text:

Thou wilt not expect from me, who am resident among the delphois and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbaron dialekton, any display of rhetoric, which I have never learned, or any excellence of composition, which I have never practised, or any beauty and persuasiveness of style, to which I make no pretensions.[AH pref.3]

The whole business about Irenaeus being among the 'Celts' is not even worth considering. The evidence for him being a 'bishop of Lyons' too. Irenaeus was a Roman presbyter (see the Moscow MS for the Martyrdom of Polycarp and many references to Rome in the Against Heresies. But what is the reference to 'delphois' in Epiphanius? I think it is a corruption for adelphoi (brothers) a common terminology for 'members of the Church' (cf. Alexander of Jerusalem's letter to the Antiochenes) 'my honored brothers (adelphoi)' [EH 6.11.6] As such I propose - given that Epiphanius's text is always preferred that the original reading was

Thou wilt not expect from me, who am resident among the brethren and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbaron dialekton, any display of rhetoric, which I have never learned, or any excellence of composition, which I have never practised, or any beauty and persuasiveness of style, to which I make no pretensions.

The implication again was that Irenaeus was at Rome and this was subsequently changed to read 'Celts' in order to distance him from the See. The brethren here are clearly the witnesses to the original Church who spoke the language of Jesus, James etc. In a word POLYCARP. Just a thought.

andrewcriddle · 10-05-2010, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Just a couple of thoughts on this thread.

The key point that strikes me is that we need to distinguish between what is possible, and what we have actual evidence for.

Tertullian was bilingual in Latin and Greek -- we know this because he composed several of his works in a Greek version (now lost). So he *could* have either rendered the Greek into Latin himself, or used an existing Latin version. But he is also the first literary writer in Latin. He composed much of the technical vocabulary of Latin Christianity. He had strong links with Asia Minor (vide his connection with Montanism), and composed his lost defence of them after reading a Greek attack upon them. All this is fact and evidenced. So unless we have definite evidence that he used a specific Latin version, whose existence is problematical, I suggest that we should take the view that he used the Greek. Anything else seems to involve unnecessary supposition.

The SC text also refers to Tertullian using the Greek text at various points, I think.

It is quite possible that earlier Latin versions of Irenaeus did exist. He was, after all, bishop of Lyons in Gaul. To be understood he would need to use Latin. But ... this is not fact, but speculation. Until we have evidence of an early version, I think we should take the path of safety and not argue a case based on this idea.

Just thinking, won't the only way to show that two authors used each other in Latin, rather than both relying on the Greek, be if both commit at least one error -- the same, non-trivial error -- which is not found in the Greek, nor derived from a possible Greek variant? We would need to see this supposed error, this "fingerprint" passage, first, then.

We should also consider a possibility, if there IS a fingerprint passage, whether Tertullian's version of the text might have influenced the Latin translator. Tertullian was much read in Gaul, even to the extent of reading his heretical works, which owe their preservation to some such group in late antiquity (which created the Corpus Corbienese family of manuscripts). Against this is the areas of known disagreement.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Hi Roger

One of the differences between Tertullian's Against the Valentinians and Latin Irenaeus is that Tertullian has found Latin equivalents for technical terms in Valentinian mythology which Latin Irenaeus largerly transliterates.

This clearly doesn't provide evidence that Tertullian knew Latin Irenaeus but maybe it provides evidence that the translator of Latin Irenaeus did not know the works of Tertullian and could not make use of his vocabulary.

If so, this may at least be evidence that the translation is relatively early. This ignorance of Tertullian would be surprising in the late 3rd century and afterwards.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 10-05-2010, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Thank you for this link, Toto:

Quote:

Originally Posted by the authors at the link

{This fragment}is a portion of a 2d/3d century payrus roll of Irenaeus, adv. haer. that quotes Matt 3:16-17.

Umm, well, I can discern, in the fragment, sure enough, the Greek words:
"Kai eiden" and I can see three or four other words, like "tou", and "ton"....

I am willing to be persuaded that this fragment could represent Matthew 3:16-17, as those folks maintain.

What I cannot accept, without some kind of clarification, is the idea that this text of Matthew, is found in AH by Irenaeus. Where's the evidence? Since both Hippolytus, Tartullian, and Epiphanius all claim to write on similar subjects, drawing at least inspiration from "Irenaeus"' AH, then, why couldn't this fragment represent one of their manuscripts?

If there is not something more substantial to this fragment, why not simply claim that the text represents Mathew 3:16-17, and call it a day....? Why drag AH into the discussion?

avi

The papyrus is a fragmentary version of part of Irenaeus Book 3 chaper 9 section 2-3

Quote:

2. Then again Matthew, when speaking of the angel, says, "The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in sleep." Of what Lord he does himself interpret: "That it may be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, Out of Egypt have I called my son." "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us." David likewise speaks of Him who, from the virgin, is Emmanuel: "Turn not away the face of Thine anointed. The Lord hath sworn a truth to David, and will not turn from him. Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy seat." And again: "In Judea is God known; His place has been made in peace, and His dwelling in Zion." Therefore there is one and the same God, who was proclaimed by the prophets and announced by the Gospel; and His Son, who was of the fruit of David's body, that is, of the virgin of [the house of] David, and Emmanuel; whose star also Balaam thus prophesied: "There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a leader shall rise in Israel." But Matthew says that the Magi, coming from the east, exclaimed "For we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him; " and that, having been led by the star into the house of Jacob to Emmanuel, they showed, by these gifts which they offered, who it was that was worshipped; myrrh, because it was He who should die and be buried for the mortal human met; gold, because He was a King, "of whose kingdom is no end; " and frankincense, because He was God, who also "was made known in Judea," and was "declared to those who sought Him not."

3. And then, [speaking of His] baptism, Matthew says, "The heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God, as a dove, coming upon Him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." For Christ did not at that time descend upon Jesus, neither was Christ one and Jesus another: but the Word of God-who is the Saviour of all, and the ruler of heaven and earth, who is Jesus, as I have already pointed out, who did also take upon Him flesh, and was anointed by the Spirit from the Father-was made Jesus Christ, as Esaias also says, "There shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise from his root; and the Spirit of God shall rest upon Him: the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and piety, and the spirit of the fear of God, shall fill Him. He shall not judge according to glory, nor reprove after the manner of speech; but He shall dispense judgment to the humble man, and reprove the haughty ones of the earth." And again Esaias, pointing out beforehand His unction, and the reason why he was anointed, does himself say, "The Spirit of God is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me: He hath sent Me to preach the Gospel to the lowly, to heal the broken up in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and sight to the blind; to announce the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance; to comfort all that mourn." For inasmuch as the Word of God was man from the root of Jesse, and son of Abraham, in this respect did the Spirit of God rest upon Him, and anoint Him to preach the Gospel to the lowly. But inasmuch as He was God, He did not judge according to glory, nor reprove after the manner of speech. For "He needed not that any should testify to Him of man, for He Himself knew what was in man." For He called all men that mourn; and granting forgiveness to those who had been led into captivity by their sins, He loosed them from their chains, of whom Solomon says, "Every one shall be holden with the cords of his own sins." Therefore did the Spirit of God descend upon Him, [the Spirit] of Him who had promised by the prophets that He would anoint Him, so that we, receiving from the abundance of His unction, might be saved. Such, then, [is the witness] of Matthew.

This part of Book 3 of Irenaeus was not copied by other writers in the way that book 1 was.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman · 10-05-2010, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Thank you for this link, Toto:

The papyrus is a fragmentary version of part of Irenaeus Book 3 chaper 9 section 2-3

What I have not yet seen an explanation for is why fragments of the codices of the orthodox heresiogist "Irenaeus" are found at the same rubbish dump as large volumes of fragments from the codices of the heretical "Gnostic Gospels and Acts".

This fact mitigates the codex fragments away from the paleographic attestations for early centuries and towards the fourth century, when the city of Oxyrhynchus underwent a population explosion, when there was a clear appearance of the orthodox and the heretical gnostics, and when the technology of the codex was in full swing, since most of the papyri fragments from Oxy are from codices, not scrolls.

DCHindley · 10-05-2010, 07:41 PM

Avi,

The book:chapter references Labeled "Lib." (Liber?) probably refer to the editio princeps of Erasmus. "Grab." refers to the edition of Grabe. Massuet used Grabe's text, but divided chapters differently, and added sub sections.

The English book:chapter:section divisions correspond to the book:chapter:section divisions labeled Mass. (for the latest editor, Massuet) in Harvey. You will find this passage (AH 3:9:2) in volume 2, page 32.

The only ways to look things up are to:

Page through until you find the Massuet book:chapter:section. These chapter:section references refer to the chapter:section at the top of the page.

Look up a known Greek or Latin word in the index of volume 2, which will give you a volume/page number.

Look up a known passage of the bible (including apocrypha) in the index of volume 2, which will give you a volume/page number.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

The numbering employed by the publication cited by DCHindley, the two volumes of W. Wigan Harvey, does not correspond to the numbering used by
Peter Kirby's excellent web site:

Consequently, it is not easy to locate the specific reference, in Latin (and Greek of Epiphanius/Hippolytus, supposedly) from professor Harvey's book. I must have missed it, the quote that is, cited by aa5874.

Can you identify where this infamous passage is to be found, in Harvey's book, a page number, so that I may read both the Latin, and the footnotes to this controversial passage?

aa5874 · 10-06-2010, 12:52 AM

The attribution of the 'letter to the Corinthians" to Clement when there supposedly was a great dissension of the Church of Corinth is a most valuable piece of evidence of the fraud carried out by the Roman Church from the 4th century and beyond.

Once there was a great dissension among the Church at Corinth and Clement the bishop of Rome did write the letter to the Corinthians which was read publicly in many churches around 90 CE then it is almost certain that Tertullian would have known that Clement was bishop of Rome at around 90 CE and NOT around 70 CE.

Please, read what "Irenaeus" wrote before he gave his list of bishops of Rome.

"Against Heresies" 3.3.2

Quote:

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to
confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful every- where, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

And now Tertullian's statement BEFORE he wrote about Clement the first bishop after Peter in "Prescription Against Heretics" 32

Quote:

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say:

Let them produce the original records of their churches;

let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,— a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles.

There was no apostolic tradition at all. There was no real list of real bishops. Augustine of Hippo will show that the list of bishop was simply invented. He placed Clement second, not first or third.

And Augustine is CERTAIN of his list.

Letter 53.2

Quote:

..2. For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!"

The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus....

Augustine of Hippo should have known or heard that Clement the bishop of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinthians at around 90 CE when there was a GREAT dissension and sent three messengers.

Clement was a fictitious bishop of Rome in the 1st century just like Peter. The Clement letter to the Corinthians is fraudulent.

avi · 10-06-2010, 01:48 AM

traveling, no opportunity to reply to a dozen very interesting posts, back next week.
avi

stephan huller · 10-06-2010, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Clement was a fictitious bishop of Rome in the 1st century just like Peter. The Clement letter to the Corinthians is fraudulent.

Believe it or not AA I agree with you. But your continued use of the word 'fraud' is about as nuanced as saying it was 'false' or 'corrupt.' The letter is cited by Irenaeus and scholars have noticed many strange things about his citation. There is also the letter's relationship the Epistle to the Philippians of Polycarp and the reference in that letter to the Ignatian canon. The point is that the people around here who promote the idea that it was a fourth century forgery is simply untenable or at least ridiculously unlikely.

Irenaeus is a real person. He might not have been named Irenaeus - maybe his name was John Smith, it really doesn't matter ultimately - but there was someone establishing doctrine writing from Rome (or less likely Lyons) who claimed to be a disciple of Polycarp who was also a real person. The rest of this junk is likely made up BUT NOT WHOLLY MADE UP. There are authentic bits originally that were reworked in the second century, likely in my opinion by Irenaeus.

Give up on this moronic theory that all these texts were created in the fourth century. It's Dan Brown and very idiotic. It would be sad if you spent all this time you have left on earth read and researching but still clinging on to a really, really stupid theory.

I think you have good instincts for discovering new lines of inquiry. You should just get rid of this one comic book explanation for HOW things are forgeries and when they were written.

The forging happened at the end of the second century.

10-06-2010, 01:48 AM	#159
avi Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Location: eastern North America Posts: 1,468	on the road... traveling, no opportunity to reply to a dozen very interesting posts, back next week. avi

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

10-05-2010, 01:05 AM	#151
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Another possible example of corruption from an Aramaic original. Why is recorded that Marcion says 'do you recognize us?' (cognoscis nos/epiginoskeis hemas?) when he meets Polycarp in Rome? This has bothered me for a long time. Is Μαρκίωνί/Marcioni here the singular diminutive of the name Mark or a mistranslation of an Aramaic collective gentilic plural marqioni (pronounced 'marqione' = 'those of Mark/Marcus'). The latter explanation would help explain the plural form in the question and would presumably reflect the presence of the Marcosians in Rome at the time. 'The saintly elder' (i.e. Polycarp cf. Charles Hill, the Lost Teachings of Polycarp) in no uncertain terms identified Marcus of the Marcosians as born from Satan in Book One - "With good reason, therefore, and very fittingly, in reference to thy rash attempt, has that divine elder and preacher of the truth burst forth in verse against thee as follows:"Marcus, thou former of idols, inspector of portents, Skill'd in consulting the stars, and deep in the black arts of magic, Ever by tricks such as these confirming the doctrines of error, Furnishing signs unto those involved by thee in deception, Wonders of power that is utterly severed from God and apostate, Which Satan, thy true father, enables thee still to accomplish, By means of Azazel, that fallen and yet mighty angel,-- Thus making thee the precursor of his own impious actions." Such are the words of the saintly elder. And I shall endeavour to state the remainder of their mystical system, which runs out to great length, in brief compass, and to bring to the light what has for a long time been concealed. For in this way such things will become easily susceptible of exposure by all." [AH 1.15.6] Here are the notes in Harvey to the use of the plural here "Valesius in his notes on the passage in Eusebius considers the word to have been used in the sense of fraternal recognition; as the deacon, in celebration of the eucharist in the discharge of his office, said to those approaching the Lord's table. Chrysostom also interprets the word 1 Cor 16:18 as implying friendly regard. Grabe considers this interpretation to be inconsistent with the Apostle's reply. It is worth noting that there are various 'corrections' of the original text which read 'epiginoske me/cognosce me?' (Clerm. edition, the earlier Edd. of Eusebius, Ruffinus, Nicephorus). Yet Harvey rightly thinks the plural form is the original. It is attested in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Jerome and most other sources. Polycarp's response - 'epiginosko ton prototokon tou Satana.' The immediate context tends to argue also for a group of heretics rather than an individual "He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church."[AH 3.3.4]

10-05-2010, 12:05 PM	#153
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	A possible explanation for Epiphanius's text: Thou wilt not expect from me, who am resident among the delphois and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbaron dialekton, any display of rhetoric, which I have never learned, or any excellence of composition, which I have never practised, or any beauty and persuasiveness of style, to which I make no pretensions.[AH pref.3] The whole business about Irenaeus being among the 'Celts' is not even worth considering. The evidence for him being a 'bishop of Lyons' too. Irenaeus was a Roman presbyter (see the Moscow MS for the Martyrdom of Polycarp and many references to Rome in the Against Heresies. But what is the reference to 'delphois' in Epiphanius? I think it is a corruption for adelphoi (brothers) a common terminology for 'members of the Church' (cf. Alexander of Jerusalem's letter to the Antiochenes) 'my honored brothers (adelphoi)' [EH 6.11.6] As such I propose - given that Epiphanius's text is always preferred that the original reading was Thou wilt not expect from me, who am resident among the brethren and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbaron dialekton, any display of rhetoric, which I have never learned, or any excellence of composition, which I have never practised, or any beauty and persuasiveness of style, to which I make no pretensions. The implication again was that Irenaeus was at Rome and this was subsequently changed to read 'Celts' in order to distance him from the See. The brethren here are clearly the witnesses to the original Church who spoke the language of Jesus, James etc. In a word POLYCARP. Just a thought.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.