Vorkosigan

From the 10th and 14th centuries, and discussing baptism of the disciples? LOL. Talley does not make a case, he simply makes a connection.

I didn't say they were. What I said was, in major forgery cases, scholars usually authenticate the item.

Yuri, Steve's presentation will answer all your questions. Why don't you just wait for that? I mean, what's the point of this thread?

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle

IF we knew SecMk to be authentic and IF we regarded it as used in a baptismal liturgy, then it would probably indicate an Egyptian practice of baptizing shortly before Easter.

Since Macarius and Abu-'l-Barakat probably witness to an Egyptian practice of baptizing shortly before Easter it would then be plausible to see these two practices as connected and try and explain them by each other.

However on their own Macarius and Abu-'l-Barakat seem much more likely to be referring to a practice ancient in their times but post-Athanasian than to anything going back to the second century.

It is IMO if anything easier to explain their testimony without reference to SecMK.

Hence their testimony does not provide good evidence for the authenticity of SecMk but if SecMk were authentic then the apparent agreement between it and the later testimonies might well be explained in the way Talley suggests.

Andrew Criddle

Yuri Kuchinsky

YURI:
So the question that you should really address is, Are these two Coptic witnesses relevant to our analysis of SecMk? I believe that they are.

So your answer to my question is 'no'?

Please explain what you mean by this. Have you read his book?

Are you sure of that?

The point of this thread is to point out the possibility that Dr. Talley might also have been a part of Carlson's conspiracy theory.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

So far so good, Andrew...

Please explain how did you come to your conclusion that such a practice is likely to be post-Athanasian.

Please explain in what way is it easier to explain their testimony without reference to SecMK, in your opinion?

Well, but I think first we need to decide if their testimony provides at least _some_ evidence for the authenticity of SecMk.

Would you agree so far? (Because it looks like Vork is rejecting even this.)

And, once we clarify thus far, then we can argue further if the testimony of these Coptic writers may actually provide reasonably good evidence for the authenticity of SecMk.

So let's go step by step...

Regards,

Yuri.

andrewcriddle

In Thomas Talley in support of SecMk I explained why it is unlikely that the pre-Nicene church in Egypt practiced Lent and why it is unlikely that the Egyptian church celebrated Epiphany until after the time of Origen.

I meant that without SecMK the issue of the long gap between SecMk and Macarius et al during which we have little evidence for pre-Easter baptism in Lent is not a problem.

IMHO their evidence makes the authenticity of SecMk slightly more probable, but only slightly, not even by as much as a factor of two.

Andrew Criddle

Yuri Kuchinsky

And I replied to your objections in the same thread. Such as,

YURI:
"Your conclusion seems wrong here. The Alexandrian church could certainly have observed a post-January 6th fast, regardless of when exactly the Epiphany was fixed on January 6th."

I don't understand this sentence.

Do you hear this, Vork?

Well, Andrew, let's examine the facts of the matter here. So here are the simple facts.

In SecMk, Jesus performs a baptism right before his Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem -- he baptises one of his chosen disciples.

No other such account is known prior to SecMk manuscript.

A few years later, Dr. Talley discovers in some obscure Coptic sources, not just one, but two similar accounts, that describe Jesus baptising some of his chosen disciples. Which would have already been remarkable enough... But, moreover, the time frame that these Coptic sources indicate for Jesus' baptising activities is the very same week just before Jesus' Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem!

Isn't this remarkable?

Thus, we seem to have the following apparent coincidences,

#1
-- SecMk purports to come out of Egypt.
-- Our Coptic sources come out of Egypt.

#2
The testimony comes from not just one, but two apparently independent Coptic sources. (Their combined testimony seems to be rather weighty.)

#3
-- SecMk says Jesus was a Baptist.
-- Both of our Coptic sources say Jesus was a Baptist.

#4
-- The time frame for Jesus' baptising activities, as indicated in our Coptic sources, is pre-Passion week.
-- The time frame for Jesus' baptising activities, as indicated in SecMk, is pre-Passion week.

So how's this for a bunch of apparent coincidences? (Or perhaps psychic synchronicities?)

Well, I'm not much for psychic stuff, myself (I don't know about Vork )... Thus, assuming that SecMk was the product of a conspiracy, it certainly stands to reason that Dr. Talley was also a part of this sinister conspiracy.

All the best,

Yuri.

andrewcriddle

I'm going to offer a possible explanation of the evidence presented by Talley which does not involve SecMk.

i/ In the 4th century the Egyptian church adopts Lent for the first time.
Lent is originally simply a period of preparation for Easter but becomes associated with the forty days Jesus spends fasting in the wilderness in the Gospels. Baptism is practiced at Easter ie at the end of Lent and the earlier understanding of Easter as the time for baptism shifts towards the end of Lent as the time for baptism. Since these are the same time this makes as yet no diffference in practice.

(As the custom of infant baptism spreads, baptism is in practice carried out throughout the year however Easter/End of Lent remains the time when various ceremonies (eg IMS blessing chrism) preparatory to baptism are carried out.)

ii/ Later on maybe in the 6th century Lent is modified so there is a complete Lent ending before the beginning of Holy Week. (This is not just speculation we have evidence for some sort of change like this) Now the end of Lent and Easter are no longer the same date. And the two tendencies to associate baptism with the end of Lent and to associate it with Easter itself have different consequences. Hence the ceremonies associated with baptism can appropriately occur on two separate dates. ie at Easter and just before Holy Week.

In Macarius' time this has become an ancient practice which is now dying out due to the influence of other liturgical traditions on the Egyptian church. Macarius protests at these developments but to no avail.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

I did, Yuri. I'm beggin' ya, please stop.

Peter Kirby

I think it would be great to see Yuri at the SBL this November.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Yuri Kuchinsky

So how does the Lazarus Saturday custom fit into this?

Yuri.