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 12-16-2007, 03:27 AM   #1
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default Did Eusebius compose the "History of John"?

History of John

The text of this apocryphal act specifically states:
"This history was composed by Eusebius of Cæsarea"

What could this possibly mean?
Does anyone have any ideas?


Quote:
The history of John, the son of Zebedee, who lay upon the breast of our Lord Jesus at the supper, and said, "Lord, who betrayeth Thee?" This history was composed by Eusebius of Cæsarea concerning S. John, who found it in a Greek book, and it was translated into Syriac, when he had learned concerning his way of life and his birth and his dwelling in the city of Ephesus, after the ascension of our Lord to Heaven.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown
mountainman is offline  
Old 12-16-2007, 05:26 PM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default Translator Wright: "The fact of Eusebius' authorship"

PREFACE:

APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
EDITED FROM SYRIAC MANUSCRIPTS
IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM AND OTHER LIBRARIES

BY

W. WRIGHT, LL.D., PH. D.;


Quote:
Originally Posted by WRIGHT
The documents which these volumes contain, in text and translation, are the following:—

1. The history of S. John at Ephesus, taken from two vellum manuscripts, the one of the vith cent., the other of the ixth. The former is in the Imperial Public Library of St. Petersburg, the latter in the British Museum.1. The St. Petersburg manuscript consists of 142 leaves, written in a fine, regular Estrangela, in double columns. The quires were originally signed with both letters and arithmetical figures. Fol. 54, which is misplaced, is a later addition, of about the xith cent., in a cursive hand. [Title, Syriac] The contents are:—The Doctrine of Addai at Edessa, [Title, Syriac] fol. 1 b (Add. 14,644, fol. 1 a); the Doctrine of Simon Peter at Rome, [Title, Syriac] fol. 33 a (Add. 14,644, fol. 15 b); the History of S. John at Ephesus, fol. 38 b; the Invention of the holy Cross by the empress Helene, fol. 74 b, (Add. 14,644, fol. 18 b);
Tangentiation: Has anyone seen the english
translation of this document?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRIGHT
the Martyrdom of Judas, who became bishop of Jerusalem by the name of Cyriacus, fol. 84 b (Add. 14,644, |viii fol. 23 b); the History of the eight Youths of Ephesus, fol. 92 a (Add. 12,160, fol. 147 a, and elsewhere); the Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neo-Caesarea, fol. 101 a (Add. 14,648, fol. 125 a); and the Life of Basil of Caesarea by Amphilochius of Iconium, fol. 117 a (Add. 12,174, fol. 125 a). The volume belonged to the convent of S. Mary Deipara in the desert of Scete, according to the note on fol. 142 b: [Syriac] This book, and three others from the same convent (the two Books of Samuel and the Pauline Epistles, both according to the Peshīţtā version, and the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, dated A.D. 462), were withheld by a Greek named Pacho from the Trustees of the British Museum, who had made use of his services in the acquisition of the Nitrian collection, and were sold by him, in 1852, to the Imperial Public Library of St. Petersburg, for the sum of 2500 silver rubles. They have been carefully described by Professor Dr. Dorn in the "Melanges Asiatiques," t. ii., p. 195. I am indebted for the use of this manuscript, —which would have given invaluable aid to Dr. Cureton in the publication of his " Ancient Syriac Documents" (compare my Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, part iii., p. 1083, no. DCCCCXXXVI.)-—to the liberality of the Imperial Government of Russia, which is always ready to place its scientific treasures at the disposal of scholars of every nation. To his Excellency M. Deljanoff, the Director of the Imperial Public Library, my warmest thanks are due for the promptitude |ix with which he acceded to my application for the loan both of this volume and of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Would that the management of all similar institutions were conducted on equally liberal principles!

2. Of the manuscript in the British Museum, Add. 17,192, it is unnecessary to give a detailed description in this place, as I have described it minutely in my Catalogue, part ii., p. 778, no. DCCLXXXIX. It is of the ixth cent, and was one of the 250 volumes, which were collected and conveyed by the abbat Moses of Nisibis to the convent of S. Mary Deipara in the year 1243, A.D. 932.

These Acts, which are obviously translated from the Greek, being of comparatively late date, and to all appearance destitute of any historical basis, are chiefly valuable from the linguistic point of view.

The fact of Eusebius of Cæsarea being named
as the author (p. 3),
combined with the mention
of "Urhāi of the Parthians" at p. 54, suffices, I think,
to show that the work was written after the story of the conversion of Abgar, king of Edessa, by Addai, had become generally known, that is to say, after the publication of Eusebius's Ecclesias*tical History, or about the middle of the fourth century. The Greek original, however, is, so far as I am aware, unpublished, if indeed it be still extant.

Does anyone think that all the apochrypha were written
by Christians, and only Christians? Does anyone think,
for one moment, some authors - who were not christian -
but whom had been dispossessed of their cultural "religion"
of the fourth century -- might have deliberately taken up
the pen against the very real fourth century sword of the
new imperially supported Roman state cult?

Was it usual for Eusebius to state he was the author of the
acts of the apostles? And if Eusebius did not in fact write
this, what purpose is served by the real author in his direct
attribution of authorship to our dear friend Eusebius-bubble?

What other possibilities exist?


Best wishes


Pete Brown
mountainman is offline  
Old 12-17-2007, 04:23 PM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default who is the holy man who was not an apostle?

1) The figure of John is presented as a non-ascetic.
2) The immature anger of the youth in John ....

Quote:
Then S. John went forth and journeyed to come to the city of the priesthood. And his sustenance was, from the ninth to the ninth hour once, when he had finished his prayer, bread and herbs with a mess of boiled lentils, which he bought for himself (as he went) from town to town, eating, and drinking water only. And he kept |9 himself aloof, that he might not associate with the heathens.

This great and chosen (man), then—as we have found in the books, which are written on paper, in the archives of Nero, the wicked emperor—S. John, then, came and arrived at the city of Ephesus; and he lifted up his eyes and saw, and, lo, a smoke was going up from the midst of the city of Ephesus, for it was a festival of the heathens, and they were sacrificing to the devils. And he stood still and was astonished, saying: "What is this conflagration, which, lo, veils the sun so that it does not shine upon the buildings of the city?" And with terror taking hold on him, he came and reached the southern gate, and lifted up his eyes and saw; and lo, the image of the idol Artemis was standing over the gate, painted by them with paints, with gold laid upon her lips, and a veil of fine linen hanging over her face, and a lamp burning before her. And when S. John looked and saw her, he contemplated her; and sighed, and wept over the city; and he left (the spot), and departed thence to another gate, and saw there the same thing; and he went round and saw thus at all the gates. And at last he came near to the eastern (gate), and said to an old woman, who was standing and worshipping her — he spoke and said to her in the language of the country: "Woman, I see thee, that thou art a woman advanced in years; what is this image that thou art worshipping?" |10

She then said to him: "Dost thou not know, my son, what thou seest? This is our lady, and her image descended from heaven, and she nourishes all flesh." He then, a youth in his body, but exalted above the whole garland of his brethren, the holy virgin John, broke out into anger with her and said: "Hold thy peace, old woman! for thy mind has become enfeebled by sacrifices of unclean things.

And then, a little further on, ...


3) Who was the old "Holy man"?

Quote:
And when the Gospel rose upon the world, the Spirit of holiness willed, and Matthew was moved and composed the Evangel; and after him, Mark; and after him, Luke. And they wrote, and sent (word) to the holy John that he too should write, and informed him concerning Paul, who had entered into the number of the Apostles.


But the holy (man) did not wish to write (a Gospel), saying that they should not say "He is a youth," if Satan cast dissension into the world.

And when the Apostles had travelled about in the countries, and had planted the Cross, and it had spread abroad over the four quarters of the world, then Simon Cephas (Peter) arose, and took Paul with him, and they came to Ephesus unto John. And they rejoiced with a great joy, and were preaching concerning our Lord Jesus without hindrance. And they went up to the holy (man), and found him praying. And they saluted one another, and rejoiced with a great joy, |59 and narrated to one another all that our Lord Jesus had done, and appointed (as) priests believing men.

Someone was sending up christianity.


Does anyone allow themselves to treat such
a serious subject as the "Apostles of Christianity"
in a non-serious manner? Or is that indeed the
true mark of a heretic and infidel?

Many of the apochryphia I am becoming convinced
were written in opposition to christianity by a series
of non-christian ascetic priests, whom mainstream
now view as "gnostics". These authors were for
certain ascetics also studied in writing and texts,
most likely associated with extant temples such
as the ubiquitous temples to the Healing God Asclepius.

These authors were writings strange "christian acts".
The apostles are presented as youthful and inept.
The apostles are presented as non-ascetics, continually
seeking food, and lodgings.

We dont need to have any GREEK SPEAKING GNOSTICS
of the early few centuries. The true gnostics were the
suppressed fourth century class of traditional ascetics
who had continued the cutodianship of many centuries
of the "Healing Temples" of Asclepius, and many other
gods and goddesses --- in a collegiate and tolerant
environment.

Constantine hit them hard and destroyed their tradition.
Constantine surplanted the ancient religions with a new one.
Noone had a chance with the power structure he created.
The sword was no option. He sewed things up, as a careful
despot and dictator would do. But they had the pen.

And they used the pen against christianity.
It was originally greek, but they need to use
the Coptic in order to avert prying eyes.

Anti-Christian writings were to be burnt.
Constantine started this precedent.
At the "Council" of Nicaea.
This continued for centuries.


The signature of parody requires a certain
discernment to perceive. Can anyone see
any humor in the above three points?



Best wishes,



Pete Brown
mountainman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:10 PM.

Top

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