aa5874

There are many clues that the Pauline writings are AFTER the short-ending Canonised gMark.

In the Pauline writings it is claimed the resurrected Jesus revealed to Paul that the ritual of the Eucharist must be carried in his Memory.

The short-ending gMark, the long-ending gMark and gMatthew do NOT make such claim.

It was in gLuke that the Command is FIRST found.

The ritual of the Eucharist was NOT practised when the short-ending gMark was written. In fact, the short-ending gMark has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the start of any new religion. There is NO commission at all to preach the Jesus story AFter the supposed resurrection.

There was NO Jesus cult of Christians when the short-ending gMark was written.

Diogenes the Cynic

My translation of Tanya's Epiphanius quote:

And anyway, like I said, all people called the Christians 'Nazareans,' as they say, in accusing Paul the Apostle, “We have found this man a plague and a perverter of the people, a ring-leader of the sect of the Nazoreans.”

The part in quotations is from Acts 24:5.

You're also taking the quote out of context. Epiphanius is saying that Paul was accused of being a heretic by others. He's actually defending Paul (do you have a link for that Greek text, by the way?).

tanya

Howdy Diogenes. Yes, I was sloppy, wasn't I? You see, the link is over on Stephan Huller's thread, but yes, you are correct, and I am wrong. I should have provided the link here, as well.

Yes, I did understand, and appreciate, that Epiphanius was not accusing Paul of Heresy. He was making the point that Paul did not object to being called a "Nazarene", because, that was more or less, the authoritative designation, in those days, one supposes, of people who endorsed the idea that Jesus was the son of God, who died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3).

What I was trying to explain, in the context of Jiri's (and many, many others, including you, I believe,) belief that Paul's writings preceded the gospels, is that Epiphanius would not have written, even jocularly, the idea that Paul was a member of an heretical sect, were it not for the fact, that the heretical sect existed in the time of Paul. How can Paul concurrenly live in both the earliest part of the first century, die in middle age, at the hands of the Roman brigands, and then be a member of a second century heretical sect? Even in jest, it makes no sense, unless Paul had been alive in the second century.

Diogenes the Cynic

Epiphanius was saying that Christians, as a whole, were accused of being heretics, and says that people did not understand the difference between different Christian sects.

tanya

Sorry to be in such an argumentative mood tonight. Nope. I am not in agreement with you.

Epiphanius wrote a HUGE text, enormous, both in scope, and in implementation.

He starts in ancient times, even before Judaism, and he goes through all kinds of sects, (which he calls heresies), including a whole gaggle which neither you, nor I have ever heard of, plus all the usual assortment of weirdos, we do know.

His comment about Paul, comes in the section on the Nazarene sect. He could have placed this comment in his lengthy forward, or in any other spot, but, nope, he put it right there in the list of "heresies":

Here's some of the many, many groups Epiphanius attacks, just before his discussion on the Nazarenes (which he calls Nazoreans):

Against Gnostics
Against Carpocratians
Against Cerinthians

And, here's a couple of rants against some other hapless groups, just after his elaboration of why the Nazoreans are so terrible:

Against Ebionites
Against Valentinians

so, there's nearly a thousand pages of text instructing folks about each heresy, its origin, its beliefs, and its doctrinal disputes with the genuine church.....I don't think Epiphanius slipped up here, putting the comment about Paul, in that specific section, by mistake. The insertion of the quaint story about Paul, at that point in the text would only make sense, if the nasty comment ridiculing Paul had been uttered by a contemporary of Paul, who thought ill of the Nazoreans. But that notion, implies, in turn, that the sect and Paul, both shared the same oxygen, i.e. lived at the same time.

Do you have a reference to a point in time when the Nazoreans split away from the "orthodox" christian movement? I have been writing mid second century, but perhaps that is incorrect?

What is our source for the origin of the Nazoreans?

Solo

As Diogenes points out Paul is accused in Acts (24:5) of being a ringleader among the Nazarenes/Nazoreans. This however may reflect the merging of Pauline proto-Christian churches with the original Jesus-professing Jewish sect, which in all likelihood happened after Paul was gone. What Epiphanius describes (in Pan 29) are likely remnants of the Nazoreans exiled from Jerusalem who accepted a form of Christianity, who had a great deal of animosity against Paul. They would have been considered Christian schismatics in his time.
I believe the Nazarene/Nazorean congregation preceded Christianity. Partially this is attested to by Epiph. himself in Pan 29.5:

For by hearing just Jesus’ name, and seeing the miracles performed
by the hands of the apostles, they came to faith in Jesus themselves. And since they found that he had been conceived at Nazareth and brought up
in Joseph’s home, and for this reason is called “Jesus the Nazoraean” in
the Gospel—as the apostles say, “Jesus the Nazoraean, a man approved
by signs and wonders,” (Acts 24:12-14) and so on—they adopted this name, so as to be called Nazoreans.

I think what really happened is that Jesus disciples were adopted by the Nazoreans who were in reality several distinct clubs of messianists. One of the reasons I think that is that Epiphanius distinguished between Nazoreans and Nasareans (Pan 18) who did not know Christ, had their own scriptures and were vegetarians. Their descriptions fits the later Mandeans who consider themselves Nasoraij d’Yahya to this day. There are those who think this was a sect distinct from the Nazoreans but I do not believe it.

Best,
Jiri

andrewcriddle

If 1 Cor 15:3-11 is an interpolation it is a very early one (before 150 CE). Although the original form of the Acts of Pilate may possibly date from before 200 CE, it is unlikely that a tradition absent from our earliest version of the Acts of Pilate and first appearing in later revisions is pre-Nicene.

(As evidence that form B is late note how it keeps referring to Mary as Mother of God something that form A omits.)

Andrew Criddle

tanya

Among those who so thought, we find Epiphanius:
So, Jiri, your posts, stimulating as always, give more questions, than answers!!!

I would welcome, if you, or any other forum member, would be willing to share your thoughts, an explanation about these questions:

1. I understand that you view the text of certain ancient documents as intending to convey non-literal meaning, but, can you make the same claim for Panarion? I look at it, as just a straightforward discussion of various "heretical" groups, some flourishing, others having disappeared, already, by the 4th century. Another way of asking this question, is whether or not you find the Panarion credible as witness to the issue of sectarian proliferation up to the 4th century? If you do find this text accurate, then why would you argue with Epiphanius, who clearly distinguishes Mandeans (Nasoreans), from Nazoreans, and the latter group, in turn, from other sects with similar, yet unique, implementations of various aspects of Judaism (Ebionists, for example). Upon which text do you rely, Jiri, in claiming that the Mandeans are in fact not a separate group, as claimed by Epiphanius? Do you have other examples, to impeach the writings of Epiphanius?

2. Fine Jiri, but neither of you has addressed the question I had posed:

Why would Epiphanius write this, with the anecdote describing Paul as a member of an heretical group, even in jest, if Paul had not been alive concurrently with the existence of the group? In other words, Epiphanius' comment here, makes no sense, to me, if Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου had been dead a century earlier....Why not blame someone else, someone currently alive, in the second century, somebody like Marcion, for example? Does it seem reasonable to blame Paul, unless Paul had actually been associated with that particular heretical faction, and not, for example, the Ebionists, or the Ossaens? Does it not seem peculiar, to you, for Epiphanius to link the Nazoreans with Paul, who sought to repudiate the idea of requiring conformance with various aspects of Jewish orthodoxy, (circumcision, eating...) ? Weren't there other sects, much closer to Paul, theologically, than those emphasizing the need to include Judaic practices?

3. You wrote, previously, "Petrine Nazarenes". But, if Nazoreans represent a sect looking to Peter (greater Judaic influence, as opposed to Paul, less strict about Judaic practices incorporated into the practice of the cult) for theoretical guidance, concerning religious doctrine, then, why would Epiphanius attribute the sect's existence to Paul, instead of Peter? Why wouldn't that derogatory, anecdotal comment, coined by Epiphanius, have been focused on Peter, instead of Paul? There is no audio recording for Epiphanius to exploit, so, upon which ancient text did Epiphanius rely, in writing about this unsubstantiated rumor? (You don't mean Acts, surely? What is the source for this anecdote about Paul, or did Epiphanius create it out of thin air?) Hippolytus? Justin Martyr? Irenaeus? Had those second century authors already identified Paul with the "Petrine" Nazoreans? What is the date of our oldest extant document(s) attributed to any one of those three authors? Is it possible that those second century authors' texts were rewritten, using Epiphanius' Panarion as a source to modify their manuscripts, during a recopying process in centuries 4-10 CE?

Where is the evidence that leads you to suggest that Paul had been long dead, at the time of the reputed insult, presumably mid to late second century? In my opinion, if you accept, as I do, Panarion, as a literal document, not text conveying some sort of secret messages, as you are fond of imagining, then, why shouldn't we present Panarion as evidence supporting a belief, (one which I accept as valid) that Paul was alive and well in the middle of the second century?

4. How do you interpret Epiphanius' description of the first popes? Do you accept the idea that Paul was first, or second, or wherever on the list of earliest popes, to lead the congregation in Rome?

5. How do you explain the difference between the 2nd edition English text, published by Williams, and the Greek text, at the link above? What is your impression of the "original" single copy of Panarion, described by Holl as "V 503", dating from ~9th century?

cheers,

aa5874

Andrew, why do you persist in making such horribly mistakes???

Surely, you very well understand that the Dating by Paleography covers a RANGE of years.

Please, show that you can reason.

If it is assumed that the Pauline writings were interpolated then the interpolation may have occurred before or AFTER 150 CE.

With your supposed vast knowledge I find you make far more errors than expected.

You also know that sources of antiquity that mention the Pauline writings have NOT been DATED by Paleography or C 14 to any time BEFORE c 150 CE.

Adam

I did not reply to this, because I assumed it was satire and sarcasm aimed at Sotto Voce, but no one got snookered by it and replied innocently to it, so I have to ask whether you have some astronomical information about the dates of Jesus that make it impossible during the years stated by Luke, etc? Is it some esoteric knowledge that only your sect knows?