FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-25-2013, 10:15 AM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
As you can see from the example Tertullian uses praeceptor in the sense of 'commander' because it is consistently played off of the word praecepto in the sense of 'precept(s).' For example in the section that immediately precedes this discussion of the Question of the Rich Man:

Quote:
Why does He bid us "remember Lot's wife," who despised the Creator's command, and was punished for her contempt, if He does not come with judgment to avenge the infraction of His precepts (praeceptorum suorum)? [Adv Marc 4.35.16]
This continues throughout the chapter which deals with the Question of the Rich Man which interestingly enough develops from the interest in the Mosaic precepts.
You seem not to know that precepts means teachings/injunctions given to students by a teacher to follow.

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 04-25-2013, 10:19 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Quote:
Why? I requested the Latin text. And the issue at hand is what Tertullian's Latin text is, not how it might be translated.
The rules are the rules. I can't even discuss matters beyond that. Here is the Latin text of Adv Marc 4:

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/e...rc_09book4.htm
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-25-2013, 10:26 AM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Quote:
I thought the issue was why Tertullian used the term praeceptor in his comment on Lk 18:18, not whether praeceptor is a good translation of ἐπιστάτης which it is especially given, as is noted above, that in Luke it is the equivalent of Rabbi.
Here is how I might be able to bend the rules. I will cite the two sectons in total side by side:

Quote:
Nam et orandi perseverantiam et instantiam mandans parabolam iudicis ponit coacti audire viduam instantia et perseverantia interpellationum eius. Ergo iudicem deum ostendit orandum, non se, si non ipse est iudex. Sed subiunxit facturum deum vindictam electorum suorum. Si ergo ipse erit iudex qui et vindex, creatorem ergo meliorem deum probavit, quem electorum suorum clamantium ad eum die et nocte vindicem ostendit. Et tamen cum templum creatoris inducit, et duos adorantes diversa mente describit, pharisaeum in superbia, publicanum in humilitate, ideoque alterum reprobatum, alterum iustificatum descendisse, utique docendo qua disciplina sit orandum, eum et hic orandum constituit a quo relaturi essent eam orandi disciplinam, sive reprobatricem superbiae sive iustificatricem humilitatis. [2] Alterius dei nec templum nec oratores nec iudicium invenio penes Christum, nisi creatoris. Illum iubet adorare in humilitate, ut allevatorem humilium, non in superbia, ut destructorem super borum. Quem alium adorandum mihi ostendit? qua disciplina? qua spe? Neminem, opinor. Nam et quam docuit orationem, creatori probavimus convenire. Aliud est si etiam adorari, qua deus optimus et ultro bonus, non vult. [3] Sed quis optimus, nisi unus, inquit, deus? Non quasi ex duobus diis unum optimum ostenderit, sed unum esse optimum deum solum, qui sic unus sit optimus qua solus deus. Et utique optimus, qui pluit super iustos et iniustos, et solem suum oriri facit super bonos et malos, sustinens et alens et iuvans etiam Marcionitas. [4] Denique interrogatus ab illo quodam, Praeceptor optime, quid faciens vitam aeternam possidebo? de praeceptis creatoris an ea sciret, id est faceret, expostulavit, ad contestandum praeceptis creatoris vitam acquiri sempiternam: cumque ille principaliora quaeque affirmasset observasse se ab adulescentia, Unum, inquit, tibi deest: omnia, quaecunque habes, vcnde et da pauperibus, et habebis thesaurum in caelo, et veni, sequere me. [5] Age, Marcion, omnesque iam commiserones et coodibiles eius haeretici, quid audebitis dicere? Resciditne Christus priora praecepta, non occidendi, non adulterandi, non furandi, non falsum testandi, diligendi patrem et matrem? an et illa servavit et quod deerat adiecit? Quamquam et hoc praeceptum largitionis in egenos ubique diffusum sit in lege et prophetis, uti gloriosissimus ille observator praeceptorum pecuniam multo cariorem habiturus traduceretur. [6] Salvum est igitur et hoc in evangelio: Non veni dissolvere legem et prophetas, sed potius adimplere. Simul et cetera dubitatione liberavit, manifestando unius esse et dei nomen et optimi, et vitam aeternam et thesaurum in caelo, et semetipsum, cuius praecepta supplendo et conservavit et auxit, secundum Michaeam quoque hoc loco recognoscendus, dicentem, Si annuntiavit tibi, homo, quid bonum, aut quid a te dominus exquirit quam facere iudicium, diligere misericordiam, et paratum esse sequi dominum deum tuum? [7] Et homo enim Christus annuntians quid sit bonum; scientiam legis: Praecepta, inquit, scis; facere iudicium: Vende, inquit, quae habes; diligere misericordiam: Et da, inquit, egenis; paratum esse ire cum domino: Et veni, inquit, sequere me. [8] Tam distincta fuit a primordio Iudaea gens per tribus et populos et familias et domos, ut nemo facile ignorari de genere potuisset, vel de recentibus Augustianis censibus, adhuc tunc fortasse pendentibus. Iesus autem Marcionis (et natus non dubitaretur qui homo videbatur) utique, qua non natus, nullam potuerat generis sui in publico habuisse notitiam, sed erat unus aliqui deputandus ex iis qui quoquo modo ignoti habebantur. [9]

[1] When He recommends perseverance and earnestness in prayer, He sets before us the parable of the judge who was compelled to listen to the widow, owing to the earnestness and importunity of her requests.1434 He show us that it is God the judge whom we must importune with prayer, and not Himself, if He is not Himself the judge. But He added, that "God would avenge His own elect."1435 Since, then, He who judges will also Himself be the avenger, He proved that the Creator is on that account the specially good God,1436 whom He represented as the avenger of His own elect, who cry day and night to Him, And yet, when He introduces to our view the Creator's temple, and describes two men worshipping therein with diverse feelings----the Pharisee in pride, the publican in humility----and shows us how they accordingly went down to their homes, one rejected,1437 the other justified,1438 He surely, by thus teaching us the proper discipline of prayer, has determined that that God must be prayed to from whom men were to receive this discipline of prayer----whether condemnatory of pride, or justifying in humility.1439 [2] I do not find from Christ any temple, any suppliants, any sentence (of approval or condemnation) belonging to any other god than the Creator. Him does He enjoin us to worship in humility, as the lifter-up of the humble, not in pride, because He brings down1440 the proud. What other god has He manifested to me to receive my supplications? With what formula of worship, with what hope (shall I approach him? ) I trow, none. For the prayer which He has taught us suits, as we have proved,1441 none but the Creator. It is, of course, another matter if He does not wish to be prayed to, because He is the supremely and spontaneously good God! [3] But who is this good God? There is, He says, "none but one."1442 It is not as if He had shown us that one of two gods was the supremely good; but He expressly asserts that there is one only good God, who is the only good, because He is the only God. Now, undoubtedly,1443 He is the good God who "sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, and maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good; "1444 sustaining and nourishing and assisting even Marcionites themselves! [4] When afterwards "a certain man asked him, `Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? '" (Jesus) inquired whether he knew (that is, in other words, whether he kept) the commandments of the Creator, in order to testify1445 that it was by the Creator's precepts that eternal life is acquired.1446 Then, when he affirmed that from his youth up he had kept all the principal commandments, (Jesus) said to him: "One thing thou yet lackest: sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."1447 [5] Well now, Marcion, and all ye who are companions in misery, and associates in hatred1448 with that heretic, what will you dare say to this? Did Christ rescind the forementioned commandments: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother? "Or did He both keep them, and then add1449 what was wanting to them? This very precept, however, about giving to the poor, was very largely1450 diffused through the pages of the law and the prophets. This vainglorious observer of the commandments was therefore convicted1451 of holding money in much higher estimation (than charity). [6] This verity of the gospel then stands unimpaired: "I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them."1452 He also dissipated other doubts, when He declared that the name of God and of the Good belonged to one and the same being, at whose disposal were also the everlasting life and the treasure in heaven and Himself too----whose commandments He both maintained and augmented with His own supplementary precepts. He may likewise be discovered in the following passage of Micah, saying: "He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to be ready to follow the Lord thy God? "1453 [7] Now Christ is the man who tells us what is good, even the knowledge of the law. "Thou knowest," says He, "the commandments." "To do justly"----"Sell all that thou hast; ""to love mercy"----"Give to the poor: ""and to be ready to walk with God"----"And come," says He, "follow me."1454 [8] The Jewish nation was from its beginning so carefully divided into tribes and clans, and families and houses, that no man could very well have been ignorant of his descent----even from the recent assessments of Augustus, which were still probably extant at this time.1455 But the Jesus of Marcion (although there could be no doubt of a person's having been born, who was seen to be a man), as being unborn, could not, of course, have possessed any public testimonial1456 of his descent, but was to be regarded as one of that obscure class of whom nothing was in any way known.
There now that is legal. I think this demonstrates the context of Tertullian's interest in praeceptor as relating to the praecepto of the Creator.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-25-2013, 10:31 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

I should also mention that chapter 36 immediately precedes a long section which deals with the precepts of the Creator too:

Quote:
Why does He bid us "remember Lot's wife," who despised the Creator's command, and was punished for her contempt, if He does not come with judgment to avenge the infraction of His precepts (praeceptorum suorum)? [Adv Marc 4.35.16
Got to get back to work ...
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-25-2013, 10:36 AM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Quote:
Why? I requested the Latin text. And the issue at hand is what Tertullian's Latin text is, not how it might be translated.
The rules are the rules. I can't even discuss matters beyond that. Here is the Latin text of Adv Marc 4:

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/e...rc_09book4.htm
I think you've misunderstood the rules. Anyway, here's the text.

Quote:
Denique interrogatus ab illo quodam, Praeceptor optime, quid faciens vitam aeternam possidebo? de praeceptis creatoris an ea sciret, id est faceret, expostulavit, ad contestandum praeceptis creatoris vitam acquiri sempiternam: cumque ille principaliora quaeque affirmasset observasse se ab adulescentia, Unum, inquit, tibi deest: omnia,quaecunque habes, vcnde et da pauperibus, et habebis thesaurum in caelo, et veni, sequere me.

I'm just curious as to how you identified this as coming from Luke especially since Luke identifies Jesus questioner as "a certain ruler" -- but, like Tertullian, Matthew and Luke in their parallels to Lk. 18:18 leave the identity of the inquirer unspecified.

Matt. 19: 16 Then someone came to him (Καὶ ἰδοὺ εἷς προσελθὼν αὐτῷ) and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”

Mark 10:17 --As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him,προσδραμὼν εἷς καὶ γονυπετήσας αὐτὸν ἐπηρώτα αὐτόν·) “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

Lk. 18:18 A certain ruler (τις αὐτὸν ἄρχων) asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”


Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 04-25-2013, 10:40 AM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Using my phone now so messages shorter
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-25-2013, 10:44 AM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

praeceptor optime = Lk 18:18
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-25-2013, 11:03 AM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

I don't understand your (altered) question. Read William's article on the odd text of Luke used in Tertullian. The article is also referenced in most recent books on Marcion. The gospel contains Matthean elements which the author (Tertullian?) accuses Marcion of erasing. Will provide a reference tonight
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-25-2013, 11:04 AM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
praeceptor optime = Lk 18:18
Not in the Vulgate text.

et interrogavit eum quidam princeps dicens magister bone quid faciens vitam aeternam possidebo
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 04-25-2013, 11:13 AM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

yes. T's text is not the vulgate. i've noted that. it's an important variant. I've asked Baarda to research the eastern witnesses.
stephan huller is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:39 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.