Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-01-2012, 01:16 PM

Quote:

but when he sold all his goods and gave the money to the apostles in Jerusalem, they gave him a new name: Barnabas. This name appears to be from the Aramaic בר נביא, bar naḇyā, meaning 'the son (of the) prophet'. However, the Greek text of the Acts 4:36 explains the name as υἱός παρακλήσεως, hyios paraklēseōs, meaning "son of consolation" or "son of encouragement". A similar link between ”prophecy” and ”encouragement” is found in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 14:3)

Son of the Paraclete??

stephan huller · 02-01-2012, 01:36 PM

I have never run across a Jew with the name “prophet” in all my readings. Sounds to me like a mistake or a title.

stephan huller · 02-01-2012, 01:38 PM

Paraclete would be menachem

stephan huller · 02-01-2012, 03:17 PM

Toto,

The possible solution is that THE prophet (Deut 18:18 etc) is the messiah who to be called the Paraclete (cf. Lam 1:16; Sanhedrin 98b etc)

mountainman · 02-01-2012, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

How do you prefer to describe the entire literary phenomenom of the new testament apocrypha?

I have collated a number of academic opinions here.

Quote:

"insipid and puerile amplifications" [Ernest Renan]

"excluded by their later and radical light" [John Dominic Crossan]

"severely conditoned responses to Jesus ... usually these authors deny his humanity" [Robert M. Grant]

"they exclude themselves" [M.R. James]

etc
etc
etc

This is so stupid.

This is beginning to sound like a discussion with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.

Quote:

Your collecting three word quotations from scholars who certainly don't support your conclusions or your methods is worthless.

I asked you for your opinion on a description for the entire literary phenomenom of the new testament apocrypha. I provided 4 summaries from respected authors in the field. The link provided also supplied a fuller context of these quotes by Renan, Crossan, Grant and James.

Quote:

Here are some more:

Quote:

"excellent" Rex Reed
"must see" Pauline Kael
"terrific" Roger Ebert

All have the relevance with respect to your claims as the nonsense you cite.

In specific reference to the NT Gnostic Gospels and Acts (such as the new one here being discussed - "Acts of Mark") here are some more:

Quote:

"The practice of Christian forgery has a long and distinguished history" [Bart Ehrman]

"The Leucian Acts are Hellenistic romances, which were written to appeal to the masses" [Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard]

"The key point ... [NT Apocrypha] have all been long ago considered and rejected by the Church. "The names of apostles ... were used by obscure writers to palm off their productions; partly to embellish and add to ... partly to invent ... partly to support false doctrines; decidedly pernicious, ... nevertheless contain much that is interesting and curious ... they were given a place which they did not deserve." [Tischendorf]

"Gnostic texts use parody and satire quite frequently ... making fun of traditional biblical beliefs" [April Deconick]

"heretics ... who were chiefly Gnostics ... imitated the books of the New Testament" [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

The general question here is how do members of this discussion forum prefer to describe the entire literary phenomenom of the new testament apocrypha. I have simply provided a range of academic opinion on this general question.

This newly emergent translation of bits of the "Acts of Mark" is being added to a list of over 30 already known Gnostic Acts, and over 20 lready known Gnostic Gospels, and other Letters, Apocalypses, Revelations, etc.

How do readers therefore wish to describe this growing collection of the non-canonical books of the vile Gnostic heretics?

I see this as a very important question to be answered, while others may disagree.

mountainman · 02-01-2012, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Sorry I failed to mention that this is the excerpt from Schneemelcher.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The dryness of the 'Martyrium Marci' just discussed evidently stimulated the emergence of new' Acts', in which other sources have been worked in alongside the latter document.

Among them is in the first place the....

(BHG II, 1036m), which was edited for the first time after a Greek codex from the Stavronikita monastery on Mt Athos (13th cent.) by F. Halkin (AnalBoll 87,1969,346-371). What is striking is above all the verbose and rhetorical style of this extensive document, in contrast to the rather prosaic language of most later apostolic Acts.

A large part of its contents (cc. 16-35; Halkin 358-371) is a long-winded paraphrase, enriched with additional teratological material, of the Martyrium aheady mentioned. The remains contain numerous statements about Mark's life before his mission in Egypt.

Some such details - e.g. Mark as a disciple of John the Baptist (c. 5), as a Levite (c. 2), at his baptism by Peter (c. 4) and as author of the Gospel in Rome (c. 9) - are known especially through the Gospel prologues and arguments (on which see J. Regul, Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe, 1969.30; 47-5O) and in part go to an ancient interpretation of specific biblical passages (e.g. Acts 4:36 and 1 Peter 5:13).

The statements about Mark's relations with his mother Mary (c. 4) and with Paul and Barnabas (c. 6) derive mainly from Acts (12:12; 13:5-14), the conflict between Paul and Bamabas because of Mark theree mentioned (Acts 15:37-39) being passed over in silence.

F. Halkin (art. cit. 345.354) sees a clear indication of the use of the Acta Barnabae by the author of the present document in the description of Mark's stay on the island of Pityusa ... A further pointer in the same direction is provided by the enigmatic statement of c. 8 about Mark's intention of going 'to the west, to the Gauls'; the counterpart to that is in c. 5 of the Acts of Barnabas ...[/QUOTE]

Acts of Barnabas

Quote:

The language and the ecclesiastical politics of Acts of Barnabas reveal it to be a work of the 5th century,

The Acts of Barnabas and the Acts of Titus are also inter-reliant.

As elucidated above, the vile and heretical gnostic authors simply took a bit out of this canonical source, and a bit out of that canonical source, and a bit more out of their earluer authored non-canonical sources, and then invented some truly detailed novel wondrous and incredibly romantic narratives.

The Acts of Titus makes an interesting read.

Why would a group of people in antiquity undertake such an enterprise?
What was their motivation?
Who were they?
When did they write?

Are these questions sitting in the "Too Hard" basket?

One thing (IMO) we can be sure about is that the appearance of the Acts of Mark, the Acts of Barnabas and the Acts of Titus, and a great truckload of other gnostic Acts (and many Gnostic gospels), is a post-Nicaean phenomenom. A great deal of these totally outrageously impossible stories were therefore probably authored this side of the Nicaean Boundary Event.

Duvduv · 02-01-2012, 05:58 PM

Mountainman, how would events in the 4th century have stimulated production of these texts specifically at a time when the authorities were intent on stamping out all ideas that didn't correspond to "Nicene Christianity"??

stephan huller · 02-01-2012, 06:19 PM

Neither the Acts of Mark nor any of the texts described are properly defined as gnostic. But then again what does Pete care? The facts get in the way of his theory.

Duvduv · 02-01-2012, 06:46 PM

The point still remains as to how and why sects were managing to create texts when authorities were ostensibly stamping out heretics of whatever type.

mountainman · 02-01-2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Mountainman, how would events in the 4th century have stimulated production of these texts specifically at a time when the authorities were intent on stamping out all ideas that didn't correspond to "Nicene Christianity"??

IMO the order and sequence of events needs to be clarified as follows:

(1) In the beginning Constantine published a very contraversial codex (the proto-canonical Bible).

(2) Afterwards there was a very contraversial "literary reaction" to it. (the proto non-canonical bible)

Does this make sense?

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

02-01-2012, 01:36 PM	#32
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have never run across a Jew with the name “prophet” in all my readings. Sounds to me like a mistake or a title.

02-01-2012, 01:38 PM	#33
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Paraclete would be menachem

02-01-2012, 03:17 PM	#34
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Toto, The possible solution is that THE prophet (Deut 18:18 etc) is the messiah who to be called the Paraclete (cf. Lam 1:16; Sanhedrin 98b etc)

02-01-2012, 05:58 PM	#37
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Mountainman, how would events in the 4th century have stimulated production of these texts specifically at a time when the authorities were intent on stamping out all ideas that didn't correspond to "Nicene Christianity"??

02-01-2012, 06:19 PM	#38
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Neither the Acts of Mark nor any of the texts described are properly defined as gnostic. But then again what does Pete care? The facts get in the way of his theory.

02-01-2012, 06:46 PM	#39
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	The point still remains as to how and why sects were managing to create texts when authorities were ostensibly stamping out heretics of whatever type.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.