Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 03-26-2008, 07:30 AM

Hammer Time!

JW:

THE PANARION OF EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Translated by Frank Williams

Page 53

Quote:

It was Paul who found St. Luke, one of the seventy-two who had been scattered, brought him to repentance, and <made him> his own follower, both a co-worker in the Gospel and an apostle.

JW:
eHP probably wrote this around the middle of the 4th century. An apparent source based on extant (written early 3rd century):

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0504.htm

On the End of the World

Hippolytus

Quote:

49
...
14. Mark the evangelist, bishop of Alexandria.

15. Luke the evangelist.

These two belonged to the seventy disciples who were scattered15 by the offence of the word which Christ spoke, "Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me."15 But the one being induced to return to the Lord by Peter's instrumentality, and the other by Paul's, they were honoured to preach that Gospel15 on account of which they also suffered martyrdom, the one being burned, and the other being crucified on an olive tree.

JW:
And the apparent scriptural reference:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=6&version=31

John 6

Quote:

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

JW:
Note the key Assertians eHP makes regarding "Luke":

1) "Luke" was an original Disciple of Jesus.

2) "Luke" gave up the Faith.

3) Paul (re)converted "Luke" and made him a follower of Paul.

Oviously this is Contradicted by the orthodox orthodox description of "Luke":

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

Church History (Book III)

Eusebius

Quote:

Chapter 4. The First Successors of the Apostles.
...
7. But Luke, who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession, and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned from them. One of these books is the Gospel, which he testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed accurately from the first. Luke 1:2-3 The other book is the Acts of the Apostles which he composed not from the accounts of others, but from what he had seen himself.

8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, "according to my Gospel."
...

Chapter 24. The Order of the Gospels.
...
15. But as for Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, he states himself the reasons which led him to write it. He states that since many others had more rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the events of which he had acquired perfect knowledge, he himself, feeling the necessity of freeing us from their uncertain opinions, delivered in his own Gospel an accurate account of those events in regard to which he had learned the full truth, being aided by his intimacy and his stay with Paul and by his acquaintance with the rest of the apostles.

Clearly Eusebius is giving a different Tradition than eHP:

1) "Luke" was not an original Disciple of Jesus.

2) "Luke" never gave up the Faith.

3) Paul apparently did not convert "Luke".

And what exactly was Eusebius' source for this? Unknown (kind of says it all).

Regarding "Luke" than who only wrote the most important Gospel for the non-Jews and the only supposed link from the supposed Disciples to the subsequent Church we have the following related issues:

1) Was "Luke" a Disciple of Jesus?

2) Did "Luke" give up the Faith?

3) Did Paul convert "Luke"?

4) Why did Eusebius give a Tradition for "Luke" that he apparently had no clear source for and not mention the other Tradition for "Luke" that presumably he had a clear source for (Hippolytus)? Pete?

5) eHP and Hippo create doubt as to the originality of the prologue to "Luke". Not the type of thing a Disciple of Jesus would write. How does this change your statistic remez? Uh, remez?

6) We always seem to come back to Marcion. Doubt as to the prologue of "Luke". Point Marcion!

7) Going PJ for lucky #7, the earlier/original Tradition has "Luke" leaving the Faith and being rehabilitated by Paul. A reference/clue to Marcion having the original "Luke" and its rehabilitation to Paulian orthodoxy?

8) We have Internet police like Holding and Pearse who spend most of their available time tracking down authentic inauthentic quotes of Pope Leo yet make no effort to investigate why virtually every amateur on the subject Faithfully reports Eusebius' tradition above to support Christian Assertian but omits eHP's:

http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic...-evidence.html

Whaddya think Ben?

Joseph

"Why buy into speculative bullshit when milking Christian Assertians is free." - JoeWallack

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack · 04-03-2008, 07:12 AM

JW:

THE PANARION OF EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Translated by Frank Williams

Page 37

Quote:

They "washed their hands diligently,"2 and also diligently cleansed themselves of certain types of pollution in natural water and baths.
...
2 Mark 7:3. It seems best to keep the traditional translation of πυγμῇ since Epiphanius gives no clue as to what he means by the word.

JW:
I previously demonstrated that "Mark" likely intended the literal meaning of πυγμῇ = fist:

Handwashing anachronism in Mark?

With Apologies to Frank Williams it's clear that Epiphanius above understood the literal "fist" for 7:3 as he simply repeats the word when using the verse to explain the ritualistic behavior of the Scribes. Epiphanius does not simply quote from the verse, he presents the meaning of the verse. Thus Epiphanius is support that "Mark" intended a literal πυγμῇ = fist.

We have the following related considerations:

1) "Mark's" use of "washing with the first" was Likely intended to be a Literary creation (Fiction).

2) The reference is anachronistic and evidence for late dating.

3) Epiphanius' reference is "Scribes" but 7:3 has "Pharisees" indicating doubt as to TransMission.

4) Frank Williams continues the tradition of Translators and Commentators who refuse to consider the possibility that "fist" means "fist".

Joseph

"Why buy into speculative bullshit when milking Christian Assertians is free." - JoeWallack

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

remez · 04-03-2008, 02:03 PM

You did respond to this in the other thread. It does fit better here though. So I’ll repeat my request here. I’m sincerely interested in the info you can provide here……

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Clearly Eusebius is giving a different Tradition than eHP:

1) "Luke" was not an original Disciple of Jesus.

2) "Luke" never gave up the Faith.

3) Paul apparently did not convert "Luke".

And what exactly was Eusebius' source for this? Unknown (kind of says it all).

The Panarion is on a very long list of books I desire to read. So help me out here.

Since the Panarion addresses heresy’s often based on nothing more then heresay…
Then……………
what exactly was eHP’s source for this anti-tradition that you place your faith in?

you yourself admit the ePH…..

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

…….Regarding eHP's Apology here that the History was a Jeconiah, son of Jeconiah, that was omitted in the TransMission of Manuscript evidence, note that as far as we know eHP had no evidence whatsoever to base this Assertian on…….

History will bear witness to his hearsay approach when dealing with Origen as well.
The pattern of hearsay sources weakens his credibility on these issues.
And perhaps directly answers this further question of yours…………

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

4) Why did Eusebius give a Tradition for "Luke" that he apparently had no clear source for and not mention the other Tradition for "Luke" that presumably he had a clear source for (Hippolytus)? Pete?

You have raised a sincerely intriguing issue.
I await your citation of his sources here.
Here are my questions again.

Since the Panarion addresses heresy’s often based on nothing more then heresay…
Then……………
what exactly was eHP’s source for this anti-tradition that you place your faith in?

remez · 04-03-2008, 02:07 PM

Wait a min……you altered the…….

I'll be right back in a few with more

JoeWallack · 04-03-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

I'll be right back in a few with more

JW:
I'll alert the press.

Joseph

remez · 04-03-2008, 02:26 PM

As noted in my prior post you did not respond in the other thread. I was there when you were there. You were there for a spell. I was awaiting your response. Then you disappeared to journey on elsewhere.

Then I noticed your delayed, re-issued challenge over here….BUT……a new and altered ending. So let me play with this for a moment.

So if I were to jump into a conspiracy theory as oft presented in these forums, I could invent one such as the following…….You referred to your faith in the other thread and I challenged your faith. YET my challenged was unmet and here the altered ending has eliminated your reference to faith. Was there an error in your faith? Did you see where I was going and thus altered your ending? Really, it was a long post and you carefully copied the whole post and doctored out the emphasis I challenged you on. Why? Did it cause problems?

Really ………No answer required for the playful ConTheo above …….I just couldn’t resist the playful simulation.

Seriously
However, and a BIG HOWEVER…………….Marcion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

6) We always seem to come back to Marcion. Doubt as to the prologue of "Luke". Point Marcion!

7) Going PJ for lucky #7, the earlier/original Tradition has "Luke" leaving the Faith and being rehabilitated by Paul. A reference/clue to Marcion having the original "Luke" and its rehabilitation to Paulian orthodoxy?

Plus your original version for added emphasis…….

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

I have Faith remez to Doubt whether the 4 lines of Prologue (which I Am pretty sure translate to significantly more than 4 words but won't give an exact count since Dr. Gibson may be reading this) are not in Doubt due to:

1) The earlier Tradition of Hippolytus/Epiphanius that "Luke" was a witness.

2) The apparent lack of Prologue in Marcion's version.

Well that is an interesting twist.
1------> What is the source you claim ePH has? I still want to measure your faith on this.

2-------> How wise is it to base your faith on this dude, Marcion? I heard somewhere that He was kicked out of his own father’s church for seducing a virgin after taking a vow of chastity? Not even his own Dad trusted him. He left home, Sinope, in shame and headed off for Rome to start his own sect.

3--------> What did your trusted ePH think of heretic Marcion?

These last three points await your clarification.

remez · 04-03-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

I'll be right back in a few with more

JW:
I'll alert the press.

Joseph

I prefer that you just answer the questions.

JoeWallack · 04-05-2008, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

Seriously
However, and a BIG HOWEVER…………….Marcion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

6) We always seem to come back to Marcion. Doubt as to the prologue of "Luke". Point Marcion!

7) Going PJ for lucky #7, the earlier/original Tradition has "Luke" leaving the Faith and being rehabilitated by Paul. A reference/clue to Marcion having the original "Luke" and its rehabilitation to Paulian orthodoxy?

Plus your original version for added emphasis…….

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

I have Faith remez to Doubt whether the 4 lines of Prologue (which I Am pretty sure translate to significantly more than 4 words but won't give an exact count since Dr. Gibson may be reading this) are not in Doubt due to:

1) The earlier Tradition of Hippolytus/Epiphanius that "Luke" was a witness.

2) The apparent lack of Prologue in Marcion's version.

Well that is an interesting twist.
1------> What is the source you claim ePH has? I still want to measure your faith on this.

JW:
Your question regarding 1) is merely strange since I Explicitly answered it in the posts you refer to and bizarre/macabre considering you even quote it above in the set-up to your question.

Regarding 2) Epiphanius claims to quote/refer to Marcion's version extensively and Explicitly says that Marcion's version had no Prologue.

I previously indicated in another Thread:

The Papias Smear, Changes in sell Structure. Evidence for an Original 2nd Cent Gospel

that orthodox Christianity appears not to have accepted any canonical Gospel narrative as authoritative until the second century. A possible reason for the delay is that "Mark", the original Gospel narrative, did exist, but because it had a primary theme of Discrediting the Disciples, was not accepted as authoritative even though it agreed with Paul's Discrediting of the Disciples.

Marcion is the first known user of any Canonical or near Gospel as identified by the orthodox. The orthodox can not identify any orthodox user of a Gospel contemporary to Marcion. Marcion does not need the theme of "Mark" changed from Discrediting the Disciples to Crediting the Disciples because Marcion accepts Paul's theme of Discredited Disciples and has no related contradiction when he places Paul behind Marcion's Gospel.

The Tradition of Hippolytus/Epiphanius is consistent with Marcion's theology that the author of "Luke" was an original Disciple of Jesus who fell away and subsequently was converted by Paul and than promoted a Gospel based on Paul's teachings. This was Likely what Marcion believed.

Not coincidently the Marcion controversy is close to orthodox Christianity for the first time identifying supposed Canonical Gospels that Credit the Disciples as well as create their own Canon to counter Marcion's.

The Prologue to "Luke" looks like a Reaction to Marcion as it Denies that "Luke" was a Disciple of Jesus. Thus, where Marcion agrees with "Mark" that the Disciples are to be Discredited, "Luke" has changed "Mark" to credit the Disciples. Similarly and by the same author, where Marcion agrees with Paul that the Disciples are to be Discredited, "Acts" has changed "Paul" to credit the Disciples. Thus "Luke"/Acts" looks completely like a Reaction to Marcion and it's no coincidence that the Gospel Marcion used was the one orthodox Christianity used to create a supposed link between the supposed Disciples and orthodox Christianity. Again note that timewise, no orthodox refers to "Luke"/Acts until after Marcion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

2-------> How wise is it to base your faith on this dude, Marcion? I heard somewhere that He was kicked out of his own father’s church for seducing a virgin after taking a vow of chastity? Not even his own Dad trusted him. He left home, Sinope, in shame and headed off for Rome to start his own sect.

JW:
Don't believe anyone who rejects/is rejected by his own family. Amen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

3--------> What did your trusted ePH think of heretic Marcion?

JW:
eHP thought that anyone who shared his theology always told the Truth and anyone who opposed his theology always Lied.

Joseph

"You've been Wikied!"

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

remez · 04-06-2008, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Your question regarding 1) is merely strange since I Explicitly answered it in the posts you refer to and bizarre/macabre considering you even quote it above in the set-up to your question.

Regarding 2) Epiphanius claims to quote/refer to Marcion's version extensively and Explicitly says that Marcion's version had no Prologue.

This is still twisted. So help me out here.

Luke’s prologue should be discarded because he was a disciple of Jesus.
Why………………..
Marcion thought so.
Your support………………
Epiphanius, notorious for believing hearsay, is your support for this because he believes Marcion.
Yet………….
Epiphanius declared Marcionism heretical, in his lovingly crafted Panarion.
You also concluded…..

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

eHP thought that anyone who shared his theology always told the Truth and anyone who opposed his theology always Lied.

Not all that convincing yet.
Seriously, I’m just looking for some credible evidence for the Luke disciple hypothesis.

Further…………..

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Christianity appears not to have accepted any canonical Gospel narrative as authoritative until the second century. A possible reason for the delay is that "Mark", the original Gospel narrative, did exist, but because it had a primary theme of Discrediting the Disciples, was not accepted as authoritative even though it agreed with Paul's Discrediting of the Disciples.

This is your “possible” reason?

Could another less complex and more rational reason exist…..such as

There was no need to perform such a task until all the heretics showed up.

JoeWallack · 04-21-2008, 07:00 AM

JW:

THE PANARION OF EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Translated by Frank Williams

Page 28

Quote:

8.1 And no reader need have any doubt about him. Instead, he should admire the precision of the information I have set down here for the benefit of the worthy persons who, from their desire for learning, would like to grasp the finer points of scripture. They cannot fail to be enthused directly on receiving the benefit. For they will have regained the exact words in the Gospel which certain ignorant persons have removed because of an ambiguity, as though to make an improvement.

8.2 For St. Matthew enumerated the generations (of Christ's genealogy) in three paragraphs, and said that there were fourteen generations from Abraham till David, fourteen from David till the captivity, and fourteen from the captivity until Christ. The two first counts are accurate and do not fall short, for they cover the times previous to Jeconiah. But the third, we find, no longer has the full count of four-teen generations as indicated by a succession of names; it has thirteen instead. This is because certain persons found a Jeconiah next to another Jeconiah, and thought the item had been duplicated. It was not a duplication though, but a distinct item. The son had been named "Jeconiah the son of Jeconiah" for his father. By removing the one name as a correction, certain persons ignorantly made the promise to give all fourteen names fail of its purpose, and eliminated the frequency of the correspondence between them.

JW:
Note that eHP Confesses to us that he was aware of either no or little Textual support for 14 generations in the 3rd part of "Matthew's" genealogy. He reveals to us his Criteria for determining what was Original regarding Textual Criticism, Faith. Faith that whatever was originally written was Inerrant.

An examination of Textual Criticism of 1:11 demonstrates how Faith here and not Science gradually altared the Text:

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=...Matthew+1%3A11

Quote:

1:11

Ἰωσίας Byz ς WH

Ἰωσείας �*א B

τὸν Ἰεχονίαν �*א B C E K L S V W Γ Δ �* f13 28 157 180 565 579 597 700 892 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1241 1243 1292 1365 1424 1546 1646 2148 Byz Lect ita itaur itc itf itff1 itg1 itk itq vg syrc syrs syrp copsa copmae copbo copfay arm eth geo slav (Ippolytus) Eusebius Ambrose Ps-Eustathius Jerome Augustine

τὸν Ἰωακεὶμ, Ἰωακείμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰεχονίαν (D itd in Luke Ἐλιακίμ Ἰωακίμ) M U Θ Σ f1 33 205 209 258 478 661 954 1006 1216 1230 1342 1354 1505 1604 al syrh* syrpal Diatessaron (Irenaeuslat) Africanus Eusebius Aphraates (Epiphanius)

μετοικεσίας Byz ς WH

μετοικησίας pc

JW:
Note that while eHP does not give a source there are earlier Fathers making the same Assertian which eHP likely parroted here.

Joseph

"Why buy into speculative bullshit when milking Christian Assertians is free." - JoeWallack

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

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

04-03-2008, 02:07 PM	#24
remez Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: NY Posts: 920	Wait a min……you altered the……. I'll be right back in a few with more

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.