Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 05-28-2005, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

A third century writer and apologist? C'mon. It looks like Hoppolytus has used the words of Luke in a completely different context. Or perhaps Luke borrowed them from Basilides discourses. or perhaps Hippolytus is clueless, for as Peter's site notes:

I may try to do a post on what we know about Basilides maybe in a new thread but it'll have to wait till next week I'm away for the weekend.

Andrew Criddle

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-28-2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Have a look at this

THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ENTIRELY SPURIOUS (Reply to Lightfoot), by William. P. Killen.

Good article...

Here's an interesting quote from there,

"There is nothing more abominable than that trash which is in circulation under the name of Ignatius!" -- Calvin
:wave:

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-28-2005, 02:06 PM

Re: Whether or not John knows Luke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

John 11:1-2 introduces Lazarus, Mary, and Martha for the first time, and identifies Mary with this sentence: "Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair."

This explanation indicates that John's audience knows of a woman who annointed Jesus's feet etc. and equates her to Mary. But John only relates the annointing later at 12:1-3, so where does the audience's knowledge come from?

Not from either Mark 14:3-9 or Matt 26:6-13 who only mention the anointing of Jesus's hair (no feet, no woman's hair) at the home of Simon the Leper. Luke 7:37-39, on the other hand, presents the account of an anonymous woman who did just what John 11:2 said. John 11:2 identifies a woman narrated by Luke.

I replied to this post by Carlson in a separate thread,

The Anointing Stories: did John know Luke?
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=126422

Yuri.

rlogan · 05-28-2005, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It's an interesting argument but it involves conjectural emendation eg that Syria in chapter 13 was originally Psyria

Andrew Criddle

I should think that every bit of it be taken in context. The item you mention here fits very solidly into his overall matrix - in contradistinction to the ridiculous mess of pompous Christian forgeries.

As far as "argument from best explanation" in the most comprehensive way this was a brilliant piece IMHO.

I thought Ch V, when built upon the preceding foundation was like a juicy slab of prime meat. Wow.

Identifying the hand of Callistus as the forger was done in the most exquisite fashion.

What keen writing skills. Thanks for the citation, Ted.

andrewcriddle · 05-31-2005, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I may try to do a post on what we know about Basilides maybe in a new thread but it'll have to wait till next week I'm away for the weekend.

Andrew Criddle

Our most reliable evidence about Basilides are the direct quotes by Clement of Alexandria from his Exegetics. This seems to indicate that Basilides knew the Gospel of Matthew.

Clement's Stromateis book 4 says

Quote:

Basilides, in the twenty-third book of the Exegetics, respecting those that are punished by martyrdom, expresses himself in the following language: "For I say this, Whosoever fall under the afflictions mentioned, in consequence of unconsciously transgressing in other matters, are brought to this good end by the kindness of Him who brings them, but accused on other grounds; .............." Then further on he adds: "..............so also, although a perfect man may not have sinned in act, while he endures afflictions, he suffers similarly with the child. Having within him the sinful principle, but not embracing the opportunity of committing sin, he does not sin; so that he is not to be reckoned as not having sinned. For as he who wishes to commit adultery is an adulterer, although he does not succeed in committing adultery; and he that wishes to commit murder is a murderer, although he is unable to kill; so also, if I see the man without sin, whom I specify, suffering, though he have done nothing bad, I should call him bad, on account of his wishing to sin. For I will affirm anything rather than call Providence evil."

The bold portion seems to be based on Matthew 5 21-30.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 06-03-2005, 08:34 AM

One argument that the Apocalypse in Mark 13/Matthew 24 is before the Bar Kochba revolt comes from the Apocalypse of Peter (See Apocalypse of Peter for the text)

This work survives in full only in Ethiopic translation. In the Ethiopic version it clearly refers to Mark 13/Matthew 24

Quote:

And when the Lord was seated upon the Mount of Olives, his disciples came unto him.

And we besought and entreated him severally and prayed him, saying unto him: Declare unto us what are the signs of thy coming and of the end of the world, that we may perceive and mark the time of thy coming and instruct them that come after us, unto whom we preach the word of thy gospel, and whom we set over (in) thy church, that they when they hear it may take heed to themselves and mark the time of thy coming.

And our Lord answered us, saying: Take heed that no man deceive you, and that ye be not doubters and serve other gods. Many shall come in my name, saying: I am the Christ. Believe them not, neither draw near unto them. For the coming of the Son of God shall not be plain (i.e. foreseen); but as the lightning that shineth from the east unto the west, so will I come upon the clouds of heaven with a great host in my majesty; with my cross going before my face will I come in my majesty, shining sevenfold more than the sun will I come in my majesty with all my saints, mine angels (mine holy angels). And my Father shall set a crown upon mine head, that I may judge the quick and the dead and recompense every man according to his works.

And ye, take ye the likeness thereof (learn a parable) from the fig-tree: so soon as the shoot thereof is come forth and the twigs grown, the end of the world shall come.

This seems to be based in its present form on Matthew 24 rather than Mark 13 but given the possibility of later assimilation to Matthew I don't think we can be confident about whether the original was closer to Mark or Matthew.

However there are good grounds for dating the Apocalypse of Peter during the Bar Kochba revolt. Namely its reference to someone claiming to be the Messiah, who is generally accepted as Mesiah by the Jews instead of Jesus and who persecutes Christian for denying his Messianic status.

Quote:

And when they shall perceive the wickedness of their deeds they shall turn away after them and deny him whom our fathers did praise, even the first Christ whom they crucified and therein sinned a great sin. But this deceiver is not the Christ. And when they reject him he shall slay with the sword, and there shall be many martyrs. Then shall the twigs of the fig-tree, that is, the house of Israel, shoot forth: many shall become martyrs at his hand. Enoch and Elias shall be sent to teach them that this is the deceiver which must come into the world and do signs and wonders to deceive. And therefore shall they that die by his hand be martyrs, and shall be reckoned among the good and righteous martyrs who have pleased God in their life.

(I've edited MR James' translation by removing square brackets etc so as to make it closer to what the Ethiopic actually says).

If the false Messiah here is a historical character at all then I'm not sure who other than Bar Kochba he can be.

Since the author appears to expect divine action against this false Messiah he is presumably writing before the final defeat of Bar Kochba by the Romans c 135 CE.

Hence Mark 13/Matthew 24 must have been written before the Bar Kochba revolt.

Andrew Criddle

neilgodfrey · 06-18-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

I thought the skepticism was over the directness of Justin's use of the synoptics; didn't Bellinzoni argue that Justin's preferred means of access was some kind of gospel harmony. This position assumes the prior existence of the synoptics.

You are right of course. I have rechecked Bellinzon to find it is not the same as the much larger tome I had in mind. Maybe you can help me track down the source I was thinking of: all I can recall is that it had a summary of tables at the back listing the canonical gospel sayings found in Justin Martyr in columns graded according to degrees of likelihood that they are direct citations of the canonicals. (I recall that Mark 3:16-17 is listed in a column designated as a level or two less than certainly from canonical Mark.)

Vorkosigan · 06-18-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Since the author appears to expect divine action against this false Messiah he is presumably writing before the final defeat of Bar Kochba by the Romans c 135 CE.
Hence Mark 13/Matthew 24 must have been written before the Bar Kochba revolt.
Andrew Criddle

It's a strong argument on its face, Andrew, and thanks for bringing it up. I shall have to include a rebuttal in my final interpretive essay for Mark.

The author's comment on divine action against Bar Kochba may be an allusion to the remark attributed to Hadrian that it was Bar Kochba's own God who had done him in, and thus, denote a later date than the revolt itself for this text.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.