Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 10-02-2009, 08:33 AM

JW:
Let's revisit Justin Martyr and rather than only consider if the LE is the source of a claimed reference to LE by my opponent, consider if there is a more likely source. First, the offending reference:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

Quote:

CHAPTER XLV -- CHRIST'S SESSION IN HEAVEN FORETOLD.

And that God the Father of all would bring Christ to heaven after He had raised Him from the dead, and would keep Him there until He has subdued His enemies the devils, and until the number of those who are foreknown by Him as good and virtuous is complete, on whose account He has still delayed the consummation--hear what was said by the prophet David. These are his words: "The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The Lord shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem; and rule Thou in the midst of Thine enemies. With Thee is the government in the day of Thy power, in the beauties of Thy saints: from the womb of morning hare I begotten Thee." That which he says, "He shall send to Thee the rod of power out of Jerusalem," is predictive of the mighty, word, which His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere; and though death is decreed against those who teach or at all confess the name of Christ, we everywhere both embrace and teach it. And if you also read these words in a hostile spirit, ye can do no more, as I said before, than kill us; which indeed does no harm to us, but to you and all who unjustly hate us, and do not repent, brings eternal punishment by tire.

I previously introduced 5 criteria to help evaluate possible sources:

1. Similarity in language.

2. Applicability

3. Scope

4. Similarity in context

5. Consistency

If we turn now to the work of Super Skeptic Neal Godfree:

http://vridar.info/xorigins/justinnarr.htm

we see that Justin has the most post resurrection references to "Luke". Note especially the general observation that for the specific offending phrase:

"going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere"

taken by my opponent here as the best evidence for referral to LE, we have a direct and significant contradiction within "Mark" if it includes the LE. "Mark" 16:7 claims that Jesus predicted the disciples would meet Jesus in Galilee:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16:7

Quote:

But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

The LE though, which comes right after, has Jesus meet the disciples in Jerusalem and than ascend, with no meeting in Galilee. The whole context of Justin's related point is prophecy fulfillment so it would be very strange for Justin to have as a source an excerpt of Jesus being wrong about where he would meet the disciples. "Luke" however, has no such Jesus' prediction of meeting the disciples in Galilee. Onto the 5 criteria:

1. Similarity in language.

http://www.textexcavation.com/marcanendings.html#justin

Quote:

[Justin]
εξελθοντες πανταχου εκηρυξαν

vs.

Quote:

[LE]
εξελθοντες--εκηρυξαν------πανταχου
[went forth--and preached--everywhere]

The question here is how does "Luke" compare to the LE as a possible source for the offending phrase?

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible...v=47&i=conc#47

Quote:

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

As I've noted peviously, Justin's complete phrase "going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere" includes one significant word that the LE does not. "Jerusalem". In "Luke" "Jerusalem" is explicit here. In the LE it is implied.

Regarding "εξελθοντες", "went forth", this is implied in "Luke"

Regarding "εκηρυξαν", "and preached, this word is also in "Luke" here.

Regarding "πανταχου", "everywhere", this word is implied in "Luke", "among all nations".

In summary than, the LE has the following advantages here as a possible source:

1 - The 3 words are together.

2 - The words are explicit.

3 - The tense agrees.

"Luke" has the advantage of including "Jerusalem". The LE has the edge here but not a strong edge as the specific words from Justin's phrase are all strongly implied in "Luke".

2. Attribution.

No difference here as Justin shows no awareness of any "Mark" or "Luke".

3. Scope.

The bulk of Justin's excerpt deals with prophecy fulfillment which is in "Luke's" post resurrection but not the LE. "Luke" has the general advantage here that it is simply longer than the LE so it has more available as a source. The end of Justin's excerpt mentions punishment of non-believers which is in the LE but not "Luke". Edge to "Luke".

4. Similarity in context.

The context of Justin is prophecy fulfillment which is in "Luke" here but not the LE. Big edge to "Luke".

5. Consistency.

Externally, there is no quality evidence for the LE before Justin but there is evidence for "Luke" before Justin (Marcion). Internally, we have the huge problem with the combination of Justin's excerpt where there is claimed prophecy fulfillment of the disciples preaching the word from Jerusalem and Mark 16:7 which has Jesus predict the disciples would meet him in Galilee. Big edge to "Luke".

So the ratings for the possible source of Justin's excerpt above, LE vs. "Luke" are:

1. Similarity in language = Edge to LE.

2. Attribution = No edge.

3. Scope = Edge to "Luke".

4. Similarity in context = Big edge to "Luke".

5. Consistency = Big edge to "Luke".

Thus we have it on good authority that the source of Justin's excerpt above is more likely "Luke" than the LE.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

andrewcriddle · 10-03-2009, 04:57 AM

Hi Joe

It seems possible that Justin was using a synoptic harmony including the long ending of Mark something similar to the diatessaron without John.

This would have read something like this, combining the ending of Luke and the long ending of Mark

Quote:

And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: and at all times they were in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen. And from thence they went forth, and preached in every place; and our Lord helped them, and confirmed their sayings by the signs which they did.

ie Jerusalem would have been explicitly mentioned just before the material from the long ending of Mark.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack · 10-04-2009, 02:38 PM

JW:
I'll next revisit

Tatian. I previously indicated that Wieland Willker, something of a textual critic, expresses some doubt as to the originality of the LE in Tatian's Diatessaron:

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark-Ends.pdf

Quote:

Diatessaron, Tatian (late 2nd CE) Most scholars accept the incorporation of the longer ending into the Diatessaron in some way. But our knowledge of the contents of the original Diatessaron is limited. The evidence regarding the incorporation of Mk 16:9-20 in the Diatessaron is contradictory and may indicate that perhaps the passage was woven in only later in different ways.

The go to book costs more than Judas was paid to betray Jesus so in the meantime here is an online book:

THE EARLIEST LIFE OF CHRIST EVER COMPILED FROM THE FOUR GOSPELS

Note that the Patristic references to the Diatessaron:

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA3...logies&f=false

indicate that Tatian's criteria in incorporating the Canonical Gospels was not simply limiting himself to the extant text:

Quote:

5. Theodorct, who became Bishop of Cyrus or Cyrrhus near the Euphrates about A.d. 420, in a book on Heresies, written A.d. 453, cap. i. 20, says:

" He [i.e. Tatian] also composed the Gospel, which is called Itiatetsaron, cutting out the genealogies and whatever other passages show that the Lord was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. And not only did the members of his sect make use of this work, but even those that follow the apostolic doctrine, not perceiving the mischief of the composition, but using the book too simply as an abridgment. And I myself found more than two hundred such books held in respe< t in the churches of our parts : and I collected and put them all away, and put the Gospels of the four Evangelists in their place."

Next note that

Ephrem the Syrian, 4th century, is the earliest significant witness to the Diatessaron. By contrast, English translations of the Diatessaron are generally based on an 11th century Arabic translation.

Starting here:

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA3...logies&f=false

we have evidence from Ephrem that at a minimum, the Diatessaron. had had some different sequences than the Arabic. So we know it likely that there were Patristic changes to Tatian's original. Of the most interest here, Ephrem's commentary on the post resurrection sightings of the Diatessaron:

Quote:

46 . . . (Mary3 went early to the sepulchre.) 267 49 ... (the stone on which the angel sat.) 266

53 22* ... (She believed him to be the 29

gardener.) ... If thou hast borne him 269 24 hence. . . . Touch me not; for I am not 268-271 yet ascended to my Father: <but> go, say unto my brethren : I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your 27 God. . . . (They persuaded them with money 267 '28 to say,) His dieciples stole him away, while

we slept.

5441,43. . . Lovest thou me? ... Follow me. 101: 271 44. . . He turned and looked, and saw that 271

45 disciple, . . . and saith unto him, Lord, and

46 what shall this man do? He said unto him,
What is that to thee ?5

555,6 . . . Go ye into all the world . . . and 226
baptize them in the name of the Father and

1 Cod. B has simply, "Woe to ns." In his remarks (p. 248) Epliraem again refers to the cry of " Woe," and connects it with the beating of their breastH and the desolation of the city. See note on Diat. lii. 13.

1 Cod. Bhas, "servante."

3 Ephraeni understood this of the Virgin Mary; cf. his remarks both at p. 29 and p. 26S), etc.

4 On ver. 14 Ephraem remarks (p. 267): " The garment wherein he Lad been wrapped, he left there in the sepulchre."

* In his comment (p. 272) Ephraem quotes, "If I will."

Diatessaron. Moesiuger.

55 7 of the Son and of the Spirit. (They shall 106

dox and) observe all, that I have commanded 11 you . . . but ye shall tarry in Jerusalem, 158, 274 until ye receive the promise of my Father.2

1 Blending Matt, xxiii. 3 with Matt, xxviii. 20 in a paraphrase. Cod. A has, "doit."

8 Here Acts i. 4 is worked in with Luke xxiv. 49. At p. 158 Ephraem cites, " ye shall tarry until ye receive power."

refer to "Matthew", "Luke" and "John", but do not refer to the LE (Origen, look out!)). Admittedly though, Ephrem's references to the post resurrection story in the Diatessaron is relatively small (James Snapp, Jr., look out!). Further, the only significant specific criticism of Patricians, who generally thought of Tatian as a heretic, was that he omitted the genealogies. By the 6th century the LE is Gospel so if it was omitted by Tatian, while not as noticeable as omitting any genealogy, it might have gotten someone's attention.

Tatian also coordinates with Irenaeus who not long after gives the first clear reference to the LE and Tatian is also a possible explanation as to how the LE came to be Canonical even though it clearly contradicts "Mark's" preceding Empty Tomb story. Tatian takes the LE from an unusual variation of "Mark" that coordinates the Empty Tomb story with the LE. The Diatessaron than helps popularize the LE in the East where it was previously known not to be original. While Tatian's LE works because it is harmonized into the story, when it is exorcised and placed after the original "Mark" it contradicts because the only issue than is what is the original ending and not what coordinates with the Empty Tomb story.

Thus I (reluctantly) conclude that the LE is original to the Diatessaron and therefore Tatian is the first known witness to the LE. The issue here than is similar to Irenaeus, what was Tatian's source for the LE?

We have the following reasons to think that Tatian's reason for the LE was simply because he preferred it rather than based on textual criticism:

1) He was a Harmonizer, clearly more concerned with possible contradictions than textual integrity.

2) He was willing to edit text for theological reasons as evidenced by his omission of the genealogies.

3) We have no evidence that he made any attempt to utilize textual criticism.

Thus we have it on good authority that it is probable that Tatian is evidence that the LE existed in his time but only possible that Tatian is evidence that the LE is original.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack · 10-07-2009, 06:13 AM

JW:
conservapedia Mark 16:9-20

Quote:

9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.-------The verses from here on are not in the oldest manuscripts, and are not likely to be authentic.[7]

JW:
This really improves my argument in the Authority category.

[American Flag] Stephen Colbert [/American Flag] had a great comment on the creation of Conservapedia. It was created as a solution to Wikipedia, where everyone can give their opinion, because they don't trust you to give your opinion.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack · 10-10-2009, 06:25 AM

JW:
I previously demonstrated Irenaeus' of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") inferior scholarship in Against Heresies. Here is a compilation of similar errors regarding selection and presentation of Scripture in Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching . Enjoy!:[Note that the first quote is Irenaeus and the second is the friendly Christian commentator]

Quote:

20. Now of these one fell under a curse, and the two (others) inherited a blessing by reason of their works. For the younger of them, who was called Ham, having mocked his father, and having been 87condemned of the sin of impiety because of his outrage and unrighteousness against his father, received a curse; and all the posterity that came of him he involved in the curse; whence it came about that his whole race after him were accursed, and in sins they increased and multiplied. But Shem and Japheth, his brothers, because of their piety towards their father obtained a blessing. Now the curse of Ham, wherewith his father Noah cursed him, is this: Cursed be Ham the child;

112Irenæus makes no difficulty about speaking of “the curse of Ham.” It is clear that he had a text of the LXX, which enabled him to do so. The Hebrew of Gen. ix. 25 gives us: “Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” The LXX has: Ἐπικατάρατος Χανάαν · παῖς οἰκέτης ἔσται τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ. But some MSS (E and some cursives) read Χάμ for Χανάαν. When παῖς was taken with the preceding word, Χὰμ παῖς was no doubt intended to mean “the child of Ham,” i.e. Canaan: it might however be understood as “Ham the child.” So here the Armenian translator does not give the genitive case of Ham, but the nominative: and it would seem that he rightly interprets the meaning of Irenæus.

JW:
The text says Canaan is cursed. Irenaeus reads Ham as cursed. Misreading.

Quote:

That is to say: In the end of the ages he blossomed forth, at the appearing of the Lord, through the calling of the Gentiles, when God enlarged unto them the calling; and their sound went out into all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. The enlarging, then, is the calling from among the Gentiles, that is to say, the Church.116

116“The calling of the Gentiles,” or, as we have it also here, “the calling from among the Gentiles,” recurs in cc. 28, 41 bis, 42, 89, 91. I have noted it in the Armenian version of IV, xxxiv. 12, where however we find in the Greek ἡ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἐκκλησία, and in the Latin ea quæ ex gentibus est ecclesia. I do not remember to have met with it elsewhere in the writings of Irenæus, or in any earlier writer. In the fragments of Hippolytus on Gen. xlix (ed. Achelis, pp. 59 ff.) ἡ ἐξ ἐθνῶν κλῆσις is found several times, and more than once ἐκκλησία occurs as a various reading. It is not found, however, in the corresponding comments in The Blessings of Jacob (Texte u. Unters. xxxviii. 1).

JW:
Unknown quote.

Quote:

God took pity on him who alone was silently seeking Him; and He appeared unto Abraham, making Himself known by the Word, as by a beam of light. For He spake with him from heaven, and said unto him: Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house; and come into the land that I will show thee, (Acts vii. 3) and there dwell. And he believed the heavenly voice, being then of ripe age, even seventy years old, and having a wife; and together with her he went forth from Mesopotamia, taking with him Lot, the son of his brother who was dead.

122Heb. and LXX: “seventy and five.”

JW:
Misreading

Quote:

And Abraham believed, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. And he was uncircumcised when this witness was borne; and, that the excellency of his faith should be made known by a sign, He gave him circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of that faith which he had in uncircumcision.

123The Arm. has “uncircumcision” for “righteousness” by an oversight.

JW:
Writing error.

Quote:

Now that there was a Son of God, and that He existed not only before He appeared in the world, but also before the world was made, Moses, who was the first that prophesied says in Hebrew: Baresith bara Elowin basan benuam samenthares. And this, translated into our language, is: “The Son in the beginning: God established then the heaven and the earth.

166 The Hebrew text has been corrupted in transmission: but it is plain that Irenæus interpreted the first two words (“In the beginning created”) as “In the beginning the Son.”

JW:
The first syllable of the Hebrew word "barah" (created) is "bar" which is Aramaic for "son" (Apparently beyond the capability of the friendly Christian commentator here). Irenaeus has mistakenly taken "son" as the Hebrew original from someone who made this connection.

Quote:

This Jeremiah the prophet also testified, saying thus: Before the morning-star I begat thee: and before the sun> (is) thy name;

167For this composite quotation from the Psalms, here attributed to Jeremiah, see Introd. p. 19 ff.

JW:
Wrong attribution.

Quote:

45. And Jacob, when he went into Mesopotamia, saw Him in a dream, standing upon the ladder, that is the tree which was set up from earth to heaven;

172The Arm. text has “from heaven to heaven” by oversight. That Jacob’s Ladder signified the Cross was said by Justin (Dial. 86).

JW:
Writing error.

Quote:

50. So then right fitly Christ says through David that He converses with the Father; and right worthily does He say the other things concerning Himself through the prophets; as in other instances, so also after this manner by Isaiah: And now thus saith the Lord, who formed me as his servant from the womb, to gather Jacob and to gather Israel unto him: and I shall be glorified before the Lord, and my God shall be a strength unto me. And he said: A great thing shall it be to thee to be called my servant, to stablish and confirm the tribe of Jacob, and to turn again the dispersion of Israel: and I have set thee for a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldst be for salvation unto the end of the earth.

188Here the quotation corresponds with Acts xiii. 47, as in Just. M. Dial. 121.

JW:
Wrong attribution.

Quote:

58. And again Moses says: There shall rise a star out of Jacob; and a leader

214So in III, ix. 2 (”dux”). The only other evidence for this seems to be Just. M. Dial. 106 (ἡγοὐμενος): LXX, ἄνθρωπος.

JW:
Wrong attribution

Quote:

Not according to opinion shall he judge, and not according to speech shall he reprove: but he shall judge judgment for the humble, and show mercy to

217As though reading ἐλεήσει for ἐλέγξει. But in III, x. 1 we find “arguet gloriosos terrae.” The confusion between ἐλέγχειν and ἐλεεῖν is found in the text of Jude 22

JW:
Misquote.

Quote:

And the wolf shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard

219Omitting “shall lie down”: but this is found in V, xxxiii. 4 (lat. and arm.): so too are the other words which are wanting in what follows here.

JW:
Misquote.

Quote:

the prophet Isaiah declares: Say ye to the daughter of Sion, Behold a king corneth unto thee meek and sitting upon an ass, a colt the foal of an ass.

233The passage is quoted in the Matthaean form, and ascribed to Isaiah from whom the first words come. In St Matthew’s Gospel it is ascribed to “the prophet,” though some codices insert “Zachariah.” Justin quotes it differently, Ap. 1, 35, Dial. 53.

JW:
Wrong attribution.

Quote:

74. And again David (says) thus concerning the sufferings of Christ: Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? Kings rose up on the earth, and princes were gathered together, against the Lord and his Anointed. (Cf. Acts iv 25 ff.) For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar,

248Pilate was procurator of Judæa for ten years (27–37). Claudius did not become emperor until A.D. 42. The statement here made is therefore inconsistent with the chronology of history: but it agrees with the view, expressed in II, xxxiii. 2 ff., that our Lord reached ætatem seniorem, that is, an age between 40 and 50: a view which is largely based on John viii. 57: “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?” For these words seemed to Irenæus to show that He could not have been much less than fifty at the time when they were spoken. See C. H. Turner’s art. “Chronology” in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible.

JW:
Historical error (Pilate under Claudius).

Quote:

78. And in Jeremiah He thus declares His death and descent into hell, saying: And the Lord the Holy One of Israel, remembered his dead, which aforetime fell asleep in the dust of the earth; and he went down unto them, to bring the tidings of his salvation, to deliver them.

255This is one of the prophecies which Justin declared the Jews had erased from their Scriptures (Dial. 72). It is quoted several times by Irenæus: III, xxii. 1 (as from Isaiah); IV, xxxvi. 1 (as from Jeremiah, to whom Justin had attributed it); l. 1 (an allusion only); lv. 3 (“alii autem dicentes: Rememoratus . . . causam reddiderunt propter quam passus est hæc omnia”); V, xxxi. 1 (with variations, and no name of author).

JW:
Unknown quote.

Quote:

And yet more manifestly David says: Hunting-dogs encompassed me

257Justin (Dial. 104) quotes the passage with κόνες πολλοί (as LXX), but in his comment says: οὖς καὶ κύνας καλεῖ καὶ κυνηγούς. Jerome, in his Psalter translated from the Hebrew, has “venatores,” apparently after Symmachus or Theodotion (see Field, Origenis Hexapla, ad. loc.). The Arm. is literally “dogs hunter”; but “hunter” is used adjectivally, and the two words signify “hounds.” Why πολλοί should have disappeared and “hunter” have taken its place does not seem to be explained by these curious parallels.

JW:
Misquote.

Quote:

nail my flesh: for the assembly of evil-doers hath risen up against me.

260“Nail my flesh” comes from the LXX. of Ps. cxix. 120, where A. V. has “My flesh trembleth for fear of thee.” Cf. Barn. V, 13: Φεῖσαί μον τῆς ψυχῆς ὰπὸ ῥομφαίας καὶ καθήλωσόν μου τὰς σάρκας, ὅτι πονηρευομένων συναγωγαὶ ἐπανέστησάν μοι.

JW:
Misquote.

Quote:

83. And that, being raised from the dead, He was to ascend into heaven, (Ps. lxviii 17) David says thus: The chariot of God (is) ten-thousandfold, thousands are the drivers:

263As though reading εὐθυνόντων (as some MSS. of LXX) for εὐθηνούντων: so too in the Arm. Psalter, which in the next verse has after “captive”: “He received booty, he distributed gifts, and gave to the sons of men.” It is possible therefore that here “he received, he gave” is a reminiscence of his own Psalter on the part of the translator.

JW:
Misquote.

Quote:

He declares also the place where He was to ascend into heaven from the earth. For the Lord, he says, from Sion ascended up on high.

265This is not a fresh quotation, but part of the comment on the passage before quoted: “The Lord . . . in Sinai in his sanctuary: he ascended upon high.” Irenæus seems to have taken it as though it were “in Sion in his sanctuary.”

JW:
Includes commentary in quote.

This list does not include all of the errors Irenaeus makes in Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, only the worst. Irenaeus' errors here can be categorized as follows:

1) Misquoting of Scripture

2) Wrong attribution

3) Mistaking commentary as Scripture

4) Relying on secondary sources (especially Justin)

5) Using inferior textual tradition

We also have reason to think that Irenaeus' original had many more error/problems corrected/reduced by friendly translators such as the one above.

Certainly Patristic scholarship is inferior to Rabbinic in general but even by Patristic standards Ireaneus' rate of textual transmission error stands out as very high. Especially compared to the three great textual critics in the history of the early Church, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

DCHindley · 10-10-2009, 09:43 AM

Joe,

How closely are you checking these things?

Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus, born Tiberius Claudius Nero (November 16, 42 BC – March 16, AD 37), was the second Roman Emperor, from the death of Augustus in AD 14 until his own death in 37. Tiberius was by birth a Claudian, son of Tiberius Claudius Nero and Livia Drusilla. His mother divorced his father and was remarried to Octavian Augustus in 39 BC, making him a step-son of Octavian. Tiberius would later marry Augustus' daughter Julia the Elder (from an earlier marriage) and even later be adopted by Augustus, by which act he officially became a Julian, bearing the name Tiberius Julius Caesar. The subsequent emperors after Tiberius would continue this blended dynasty of both families for the next forty years; historians have named it the Julio-Claudian dynasty.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
I previously demonstrated Irenaeus' of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") inferior scholarship in Against Heresies. Here is a compilation of similar errors regarding selection and presentation of Scripture in Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching . Enjoy!:[Note that the first quote is Irenaeus and the second is the friendly Christian commentator]

Quote:

JW:
74. And again David (says) thus concerning the sufferings of Christ: Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? Kings rose up on the earth, and princes were gathered together, against the Lord and his Anointed. (Cf. Acts iv 25 ff.) For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar,

248Pilate was procurator of Judæa for ten years (27–37). Claudius did not become emperor until A.D. 42. The statement here made is therefore inconsistent with the chronology of history: but it agrees with the view, expressed in II, xxxiii. 2 ff., that our Lord reached ætatem seniorem, that is, an age between 40 and 50: a view which is largely based on John viii. 57: “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?” For these words seemed to Irenæus to show that He could not have been much less than fifty at the time when they were spoken. See C. H. Turner’s art. “Chronology” in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible.

Historical error (Pilate under Claudius).

JoeWallack · 10-19-2009, 07:41 AM

JW:
...what a nightmare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Joe,

How closely are you checking these things?

JW:
Apparently closer than Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons").

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus, born Tiberius Claudius Nero (November 16, 42 BC – March 16, AD 37), was the second Roman Emperor, from the death of Augustus in AD 14 until his own death in 37. Tiberius was by birth a Claudian, son of Tiberius Claudius Nero and Livia Drusilla. His mother divorced his father and was remarried to Octavian Augustus in 39 BC, making him a step-son of Octavian. Tiberius would later marry Augustus' daughter Julia the Elder (from an earlier marriage) and even later be adopted by Augustus, by which act he officially became a Julian, bearing the name Tiberius Julius Caesar. The subsequent emperors after Tiberius would continue this blended dynasty of both families for the next forty years; historians have named it the Julio-Claudian dynasty.

JW:
The standard form of dating reference in the Roman empire would be to the Emperor. By Irenaeus' time, the dating reference

Claudius would have been well established. You are the only person I've ever seen suggest a possible confusion here over Irenaeus' use of "Claudius".

Irenaeus dating of Jesus' age also indicates that he means the emperor Claudius of 41-54. Presumably he accepts that his Jesus is born c. Herod the Great's death, close to -0- and he makes a big deal out of Jesus being close to 50 when he bought the vineyard. Thus Irenaeus' Jesus died under Claudius.

On the other hand, making a historical error about which emperor Governor Pilate served under is well within Irenaeus' range of error. Your comment about Roman emperors with shared names is interesting but based on the above this is probably not one of your better posts.

The related point about Irenaeus here is that looking through his Against Heresies and Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching it's clear that his selection of what he considered Scripture was not based on critical examination of the evidence. It's likely that someone, unsatisfied with the AE, added the LE. Irenaeus, preferred the LE so he took it as Scripture. The original ending of "Mark" (AE) supports the Gnostics as the Disciples don't know what happened to Jesus so there is no historical witness. You have to have Jesus' supposed resurrection revealed to you by "Mark" or Paul. This is the context and provenance of Irenaeus' time. He is primarily arguing with Gnostics. They say the Gospel reveals Jesus to them. Irenaeus says historical witness does. Irenaeus may have known damn well that extant "Mark" was AE but asserted that the Gnostics circumsized the original ending (LE). Just as our Apologists here know that the earliest extant texts are AE but assert that there was a conspiracy to remove the original LE.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

show_no_mercy · 10-19-2009, 08:36 AM

Hi Joe,

What do you make about the lack of chiastic structure at the end of Mark?

Quote:

A
And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen

B
And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?"

C
And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; -- it was very large.

D
And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

D'
And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."

C'
And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them;

B'
and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

A'
????????

Toto · 10-19-2009, 08:47 AM

Michael Turton on chiasms in Mark 16

Quote:

There is no A' bracket to oppose v2, a bracket involving movement from one geographical location to another. v8 resembles a very typical B' bracket that should be followed by an A' bracket reading, in typical Markan style, something like: "And they returned to Jerusalem."

JoeWallack · 10-20-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Hi Joe,

What do you make about the lack of chiastic structure at the end of Mark?

Quote:

A
And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen

B
And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?"

C
And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; -- it was very large.

D
And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

D'
And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."

C'
And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them;

B'
and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

A'
????????

JW:
Hai, Cobra Kai Dojo. Invoking the Legendary Vorkosigan who apparently traveled back in time to us because he brought something with him, not yet discovered by traditional Christian Bible scholarship. Methodology. Yes, the Vorkmeister confesses to us that based on his methodology there is no chiasm to the AE. Unlike the Vorkster though I can travel through time and..perhaps..even..space..itself.

"Mark" has a stylishly small prologue:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

Quote:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way.

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight;

JW:
This is the extent of "Mark's" positive prophecy fulfillment. The history of Christ (not Jesus) is the Jewish Bible. Paul is "Mark's" source for this observation. Jesus is just the vessel. When Jesus prevents vessels from being carried in the Temple, something that has always puzzled the Christians, the purpose as usual is the ironic contrast. The vessel in the Temple prevents vessels from being in the Temple. The bulk of "Mark" than is using the Jewish Bible as a background for its Christ stories without making the connection explicit.

"Mark's" epilogue stands out in the same way. The external purpose of the entire Gospel is to prove that Jesus was resurrected yet this is the shortest of all the Markan stories. How ironic. This explains how "Matthew" and "Luke" have the insurmountable logical problem of claiming to promote faith in Jesus' resurrection without being a witness to it yet having their witnesses not have faith in Jesus' resurrection when given the good news. Because their source "Mark" had no disciple belief in the resurrection.

"Mark's" all important style, a feature of Greek tragedy, dictates than that his anti-climactic ending be short and that is why Vork's methodology was unable to find a chiasm. Not bound by Vorkenstein's M though I can easily find a very good chiasm:

Mark's view of the disciples

Quote:

16:8 Chiasm

And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed. [Entered the Tomb - Amazed]

-----And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him! [Ordered to not be Amazed]

-----But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. [Ordered To Talk]

And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.
[Left the Tomb - Amazed and not Talking]

JW:
The classic characteristic of a Markan chiasm is it begins and ends with arriving and departing a specific location. This Marks the chiasm. Markan chiasms can also be based on concepts. Here we have the classic Markan ironically contrasting balance that the women enter walking and talking and are amazed. They are instructed to not be amazed and to talk. Their reaction is to run away amazed and not talk. The opposite of their instructions. Note that contrast of the positive and negative instructions. Don't be amazed - they are amazed. Talk - they don't talk. Welcome to "Mark's" Ying Yah world. Whoever is not against him is for him. No in between (and no ultimate mercy).

This clear chiasm is solid evidence that the AE is original. Try getting a chiasm out of the LE. Note also that the chiasm is supported by another stylish technique of "Mark", amazed reaction as the first and last reaction to a character. The women are amazed when they see the angel and fearful when they leave the angel. They are not crucifying their passion as per Paul's instructions. The angel is in complete contrast, sitting and calm. Even more stylish support is the literal ending of the Gospel with a reaction of fear. "Mark's" theme all along, don't be afraid, it's the enemy of faith. And even more stylish support is the ironic contrast between the messenger at the end that no one listens to after Jesus has done everything and the messenger at the beginning that everyone listens to before Jesus has done anything.

As my ancestor Caiphais said, "What more evidence do we need?" (that AE is original). Those who continue looking for the supposed original ending of "Mark" are really just looking for their faith.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.