Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 02-18-2005, 05:08 PM

Thank you Andrew. Weird, yes. Troubling to me given the presence of Judith in the LXX. Maybe I'm missing something. But it seems to me that's a stake in the heart of the post-118 dating for Judith...

Notsri · 02-19-2005, 01:35 PM

Hello again, Jay.

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Things have been a little hectic. It's not always easy for me to respond here in a timely fashion.

Anyway, regarding your comments:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Here is the pertinent quote from Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians:

Quote:
I have greatly rejoiced with you in our Lord Jesus Christ, because ye have followed the example of true love [as displayed by God], and have accompanied, as became you, those who were bound in chains, the fitting ornaments of saints, and which are indeed the diadems of the true elect of God and our Lord; and because the strong root of your faith, spoken of in days long gone by, endureth even until now, and bringeth forth fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, [but] "whom God raised froth the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave." "In whom, though now ye see Him not, ye believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; " into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that "by grace ye are saved, not of works," but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.

The author calls the Phillipians "the true elect of God and of our Lord." We may take it that the author is talking about two separate things when he says "God" and "our Lord," i.e. there is God, the creator and there is "our lord" Jesus Christ, who is the son of God. The statement "God raised from the dead" makes this clear. Obviously the author does not intend to say that Jesus raised himself from the dead. So we may assume that God in this passage does not refer to Jesus Christ who is called "our Lord." The term "will of God through Jesus Christ" is the third indication in this passage that God is intended to be separate from Jesus Christ.

Now we read the beginning of the following paragraph:

Quote:
1 "Wherefore girding up your loins serve God in fear" and truth, putting aside empty vanity and vulgar error, "believing on him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and gave him glory," and a throne on his right hand,

Note the term "believing on him who raised up our Lord Jesus" It is quite evident that the Phllippians believe in God -- the God who raised up our Lord Jesus. Recognizing that the Philippians believe in God, the God who raised our Lord Jesus, we may now go back to the first paragraph and ask who the author is talking about when he says the Philippians do not see "In whom, though now ye see Him not, ye believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory;"

It is clear that the Philippeans do not see God and yet believe in him. Why, because they believe he has raised Jesus Christ.

Once again we have a reference to God the father being unseen. We thus have references to God the father being unseen in Tertullian's "Against Praxeas," Irenaeus's "Against Heresies" and here in Polycarp's "To the Philippeans" It would be strange indeed if these three documents were talking about God and 1 Peter (1.8) was talking about Jesus Christ as being unseen. We may take it that all four documents are talking about God being unseen.

Because of the similarity in expression and ideology, we may also take it that all four documents were written by Tertullian circa 210 C.E.. The key is really understanding Tertullian's "Against Praxeas." It is there that the ideology gets developed clearly.

This all seems an unnecessary measure to me, in terms of trying to glean Polycarp's meaning in 1:3.

In v. 2 Polycarp's focus turns to Jesus, and appears to remain there briefly even in v. 3: "(v. 2) ...our Lord Jesus Christ, who endured our sins....whom God raised up... (v. 3) though you have not seen him, you believe, etc." The antecedent to "him" in v. 3 is "our Lord Jesus Christ" from v. 2, not God.

In v. 3, then, when Polycarp says "though you have not seen him," he probably alludes to the NT doctrine of Christ's assumption into Heaven, where he now sits "at the right hand of God" (Mark 16:19; Acts 2:33, 7:55-6; Rom. 8:34; Col. 3:1; Heb. 10:12; 1 Peter 3:22); for this reason he is to us now invisible. That Polycarp has Christ's assumption at least partly in mind, is probably confirmed by 2:1 (the next v. after 1:3): "... God...raised our Lord Jesus Christ 'from the dead and gave him glory' and a throne at his right hand."

Alternatively, the words "though you have not seen him" can be explained by the fact that Polycarp is writing to the Philippian Christians nearly a hundred years after Christ's ministry; of course they hadn't seen him. I would favor the former interpretation, though.

Incidentally, since the larger issue here is Polycarp's dependence on 1 Peter, notice again the words "from the dead and gave him glory" in 2:1; they come from 1 Peter 1:21. In fact he actually quotes 1 Peter three times in those first few paragraphs (1 Peter 1:8, 13, 21).

Regards,
Notsri

Maurice · 02-19-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

Even if Peter did not write the epistle, it still says the letter was written from "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13) which is a code name for Rome.

Please, prove this statement that Babylone = Rome.

PhilosopherJay · 02-21-2005, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notsri

Hello again, Jay.

{snip}

Incidentally, since the larger issue here is Polycarp's dependence on 1 Peter, notice again the words "from the dead and gave him glory" in 2:1; they come from 1 Peter 1:21. In fact he actually quotes 1 Peter three times in those first few paragraphs (1 Peter 1:8, 13, 21).

Regards,
Notsri

The similarity of expressions leave us with three real possibilities: 1) The Polycarp writer is quoting 1 Peter, 2) The writer of 1 Peter is quoting the writer of Polycarp, or 3) The writer of 1 Peter and Polycarp is the same person and the use of the same expressions are simply part of his style.

Of the three, the first is the least likely. One would expect that the writer of Polycarp would want to give the Apostle Peter credit for the expressions as it would only enhance the authority of the propositions. The fact that he does not do this would suggest that he is unaware of these expressions being in 1 Peter.

Now the writer of 1 Peter would have to face the problem of why Peter writing circa 50 would be quoting Polycarp circa 110. It seems unlikely that the writer of 1 Peter would be quoting the writer of Polycarp in this way.

This leaves the third possibility of the same writer writing both as the most likely. The writer is just taking on the general persona and tone of an important old Christian writer, and it does not matter to him if the writer is Peter or Polycarp. Thus he uses the same expressions.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

S.C.Carlson · 02-21-2005, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The similarity of expressions leave us with three real possibilities: 1) The Polycarp writer is quoting 1 Peter, 2) The writer of 1 Peter is quoting the writer of Polycarp, or 3) The writer of 1 Peter and Polycarp is the same person and the use of the same expressions are simply part of his style.

The third option here looks like a special case of that standard (and dreaded) third option: both are dependent on a common source, now lost.

I don't think that the writers of Polycarp and 1 Peter are the same person, because the writer of Polycarp is one of the most unoriginal writers in the first two Christian centuries. The letter of Polycarp borders on being little more than a patische of expressions from the epistles of Paul (as he knew them), 1 Clement and other sources (including on rare occasion some LXX) -- all done without attribution as typical at that time.

The same charge cannot be leveled at the writer of 1 Peter, who exhibits a lot more originality in thought and expression than that of Polycarp (but is still no Paul).

The balance of probabilities is that 1 Peter is yet another source that the writer of Polycarp plagiarized and/or alluded to. If Eusebius's information that Polycarp's contemporary Papias also knew 1 Peter is credible (and I think it is), then that information too would support this conclusion.

Toto · 02-21-2005, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

. . . all done without attribution as typical at that time.

. . .

Just wondering - how do people reach the conclusion that it was typical to borrow language without attribution? Is this conclusion drawn from the observation that there is common language without attribution?

S.C.Carlson · 02-21-2005, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Just wondering - how do people reach the conclusion that it was typical to borrow language without attribution? Is this conclusion drawn from the observation that there is common language without attribution?

I reach it based on how infrequently the Apostolic Fathers attribute by name their Old Testament quotations, which unlike the N.T. was unquestionable scripture for them.

The general lack of attribution among comtemporary Classical authors is fairly well-accepted among historians. For example, Anthony Grafton, The Footnote *: * A Curious History (Cambridge: Mass.: Harvard, 1997): 29, explains:

Quote:

The historical footnote is also connected with a second older form of annotation--one that provides precise references to the section of an authoritative text from which a given quotation in a later work comes. Such references rarely appeared in ancient literary prose, since the well-educated author cited texts from memory and not from books, often introducing a slight change to show that he had done so.

Grafton goes on to cite Macrobius's Saturnalia as a particularly egregious example, and explained how Roman jurists were the notable exception in terms of attribution of sources.

rlogan · 02-21-2005, 11:28 AM

I'm having trouble with the comment about 1 Clement not exhibiting a Monarchial Episcopate. I think the comment out of place in the respect that as I understand the term it is much later than the second century. Any help here is appreciated. Pseudo-authority was being attempted prior to the actualization.

The other bizarre issue with 1 Clement is the naming of the "messengers":

Quote:

1Clem 65:1
Now send ye back speedily unto us our messengers Claudius Ephebus
and Valerius Bito, together with Fortunatus also, in peace and with
joy, to the end that they may the more quickly report the peace and
concord which is prayed for and earnestly desired by us, that we also
may the more speedily rejoice over your good order.

I Clement is emphatic about bowing down to the appointed "authority" (from Peter and Paul to their appointments and so on).

But the letter does not state who those appointments are. Typical apologetic approach dictates we declare that everyone knows who we are talking about. So why put in the names of the lowly messengers when the whole point of the letter is to vest Church leadership in certain individuals? It's just too bizarre if we try to pass this letter off as genuine and sincere. I can think of at least a couple of reasons for naming the messengers though. Verisimilitude with much less risk than naming phony bishops too close to the time in question. Actual messengers who are now imbued with pseudo authority for other locales.

If there are no appointments by Peter and Paul (as this suggests) then it lends credence to legendary status as opposed to historicity.

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

02-18-2005, 05:08 PM	#81
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Thank you Andrew. Weird, yes. Troubling to me given the presence of Judith in the LXX. Maybe I'm missing something. But it seems to me that's a stake in the heart of the post-118 dating for Judith...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.