stephan huller

Let's be honest. We have a massive Greek expansion of an original Aramaic text written by Josephus in the second half of the first century. Our text acknowledges at 'syngergoi' - helpers! - were commissioned to carried out the translation but this word has a bad history in the Christian tradition that ultimately preserved Josephus's writings.

The Marcionites for instances had much a much smaller Apostolikon with different cities being addressed by the apostle (Alexandria, Laodicea etc). They also didn't have Paul addressing 'fellow workers' who suddenly come into the text in the Catholic period. We see the Marcionite HATRED and refutation of these 'synergoi' throughout the Dialogues of Adamantius.

I think we can make an argument that Irenaeus always used this concept of introducing 'synergoi' to change texts. The list of synergoi in the so-called Pauline letters iclude Prisca and Aquila (Rom 16:3), Urbanus (Rom 16:9), Timothy (Rom 16:21; 1Thess 3:2), Titus (2Cor 8:23), Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25), Clement (Phil 4:3), Aristarchus, Mark, and Justus (Col 4:10-11), Philemon (Phlm 1), Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke (Phlm 24).

Some of these people which the Catholics introduce as associates of Paul reappear in other texts associated with the early canon. Demas appears in the forged Ignatian Epistle to the Philippians as a 'helper' of the Catholic Church. While Onesimus is made to be too young to be a 'fellow worker' in the apostolic period, he is another associate of Paul who is recycled in the falsified Ignatian Epistle to the Ephesians, now the bishop of the church of Ephesus and a friend of Polycarp.

Paul uses several other Greek terms containing the prefix syn- ("with") to designate his assistants, including systratiotes ("fellow soldier") for Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25) and Archippus (Phlm 2), synaixmalotos ("fellow prisoner") for Aristarchus (Col 4:10), Epaphras (Phlm 23), and Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7), and syndoulos ("fellow slave") for Epaphras (Col 1:7) and Tychicus (Col 4:7).

The point however is that the same methodology which expanded the original writings of Josephus expanded BOTH the Apostolikon and the original letters associated with Polycarp (rebaptized as it were as letters to a certain 'Ignatius' but ignatius means 'fiery one' and Polycarp was renowned for dying a fiery death.

I think Ignatius changed all these texts. As such there is no point emphasizing 'what Josephus wrote' or 'Josephus said this' or 'that.' We have a thoroughly falsified text.

arnoldo

The writings of Josephus have survived in most part because his writings were copied by Christians. It's surprising that Josephus writings weren't more heavily edited to favor the gospels. As far as Paul's writings are concerned, apart from the pseudepigraphical writings, it pure speculation to claim they were corrupted. Paul's frequent mention of helpers may be an attempt to make the writings appear historical rather than fictional. An example may be Erastus whom Paul mentions in various of his writings and whom we have the following archaelogical evidence.

avi

Thank you for an interesting post, Stephan.

While I do not quarrel with your conclusion, i.e. redaction or interpolation of the ancient texts, I do dispute your apparent methodology:

WHY do you suppose that Ignatius changed "all these texts." How do you know this?

Why not attribute the change to someone who preceded, or more typically, succeeded Ignatius. Did Ignatius have access to some sort of central repository, or clearing house, for all "sacred" texts? Are we quite certain that none of the original texts escaped his changes?

What was his rationale for instituting the changes?

Why are you so confident that the native Aramaic speaking Josephus wrote in Aramaic? In our lifetimes, or approximately, anyway, not exactly, we know of at least one famous author, Nobel prize winner for literature (1969), who indeed wrote the original En Attendant Godot in French, and translated his own work into English subsequently (I believe, but may be in error, that his native language was neither of those two, but some sort of Celtic dialect....)

The point I wish to make, is that you have a recurring tendency on this forum to claim Aramaic or Hebreic influences on the New Testament, without offering data to support that hypothesis.

For all I know, Josephus wrote "Mark". For all I know, Josephus was very skillful in speaking and writing Greek. Perhaps he was illiterate. I have no data to support either position, but the fact that a Jewish revolutionary leader, fighting the Romans, and ultimately capitulating to them, and then working with them for three decades, is an author of supreme importance to understanding life in Palestine under Roman occupation during a major conflict, does not induce me, a priori, to assume, that he wrote anything in Aramaic.

You are a famous scholar, Stephan, give us some meat to go with the potatoes.

avi

Toto

Samuel Beckett studied French at the University of Dublin, then became lecteur d'anglais in the École Normale Supérieure in Paris. This hardly seems comparable.

But I wonder if there is a typo in the last line of the OP - did Stephen Huller mean to write Irenaeus (instead of Ignatius)?

Solo

Hi Stephan,
just curious: are you saying that there was not only no mention of Paul's synergoi but also no synaichmalotoi, syndouloi, and no systratiotai, in the Apostolikon or the original collection of what what you call "the so-called Paul's letters" ? If so, could you point me to the textual source of this view ? Is this based on Harnack's reconstruction ?

The reason I am asking is that in my psychological study of Paul I have classed terms like "synaichmalotos" and "syndoulous" as neologisms which look like a signature of an original thinker. If I am right about the cultic semantics of the two words, they would not be of much use to the later, episcopalian church. For someone forging Paul's hand, to be inventing hyperboles with the simple aim to make it look more poetic and inventive like Paul's, would be IMHO defeating the purpose of the forgery, and just a tiny touch too clever.

But I am a reasonable guy and will reconsider my position if the facts are there. Thanks in advance.

Best,
Jiri

spamandham

There are 13 epistles traditionally attributed to Paul. 6 of these have been demonstrated to be frauds. The remaining 7 have *not* been demonstrated to be authentic, they simply haven't yet been shown to be frauds. It seems very unlikely given this that any of them are authentic, in whole or in part.

The burden of proof is on those claiming the remaining 7 are pure and authentic, and it is not speculative in any sense to claim they are complete frauds. Instead, it's speculative to claim that any of them are authentic even in part!

stephan huller

Yes Toto and everyone.

I meant to write "Irenaeus" rather than Ignatius. Irenaeus is the 'final editor' of the New Testament to use David Trobisch's terminology. The first person to witness the four faced gospel, was in my opinion the one that invented it.

Where and why he made it 'four faced' is actually quite a fascinating question but one for another post I guess ...

stephan huller

Solo,

Yes if I wasn't so exhausted I would actually go through Adamantius's Dialogues at some point. For the moment I will just direct your attention to Petty's English translation of the material.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KI6...orkers&f=false

The surviving MSS are universally acknowledged to be corrupt. You have to sort of 'read between the lines' at certain points. Like just before 807a we see the Marcionite representative Megethius and the Catholic representative Adamantius arguing about whether there really were four gospels.

The Marcionite says 'I can prove that the gospels are spurious'

As Petty notes "At this point Megethius introduces his next argument: that there are not four Gospels, but one. The transition is somewhat abrupt. The Latin translator must have felt this, for he makes Megethius say, "This conclusion (ie, the judgement of Eutropius) is reached by argumentation, but 1 want to prove what I say from the Gospel writings. But I will first show that the Gospels which you people read are false". As the above passage down to the words "Gospel writings" is absent from the Greek MSS, Bakhuyzen rightly deletes it as unoriginal. Nevertheless it serves to serves to highlight what was already been said, that the writer of the Dialogue has produced a work which, though valuable as it is in other ways, sometimes suffers from a lack of cohesion as one argument ends and another begins" (p. 41)

This is important to keep in mind when - just at the critical moment - the text leaps into another discussion entirely.

When the Catholic representative says "the disciples who wrote them [i.e. the gospels]: John and Matthew, Mark and Luke" the Marcionite representative jumps all over it and denies that the gospel ever mentions the name 'Mark' and 'Luke':

"Who is Mark? Who is Luke? You are therefore convicted of bringing forward names not recorded in scriptures."

When the Catholic representative insists that they are 'disciples of Christ' the Marcionite says:

"Let the Gospel be read, you will find that their names are not recorded."

When the Catholic claims that these were of the seventy two the Marcionite representative says:

"It is impossible that these men ever saw Paul."

Then the Catholic representative says "I will show that the Apostle himself bears witness to Mark and Luke." To which the Marcionite says:

"I do not accept your spurious Apostolikon."

Then the argument gets strange. The Marcionite clearly argues that he has never heard of these fellow workers but the Catholic insists that they are in not only his (i.e. the Catholic) Apostolikon but also in the Marcionite version. He then reads from the letter to the Colossians where Mark and Luke are mentioned and then the referee says 'you win' but the argument makes no sense. It's like something out of a kids cartoon. Surely the Marcionite wouldn't have been making this argument in the first place if his Apostolikon had the bit about the 'fellow workers.'

I would argue with Petty again that the material has been adjusted to always have the Catholic win every round. In other words, if it is just left with the idea that the Catholic text HAS references to synergoi and the Marcionite doesn't the Marcionite argument that the Catholic texts are spurious make complete sense.

It is worth noting that when we get good information about the actual contents of the Marcionite Epistles, like for instance Origen's testimony on the Letter to the Romans we see that all the extra material where the Apostle addresses 'fellow workers' ends up disappearing too.

The Pauline writings as we have them reference the idea of certain epistlees being 'written by Paul's hand' which implies that others were not. The Pastorals are spurious and are nothing more than a series of references to 'fellow workers' and were recognized as spurious by the Marcionites. The language is also reminiscent of Acts where the whole concept of 'fellow workers' is taken to the next level.

It has also been noticed by critics of Acts that the author of Acts doesn't know any of the authentic material from the original Pauline Epistles. Perhaps we might even envision a situation where Acts and the Pastorals were in the hands of Catholics for a time as a 'rival canon' and only later when they managed to get a copy of this material (at the time To Theodore references a corrupt presbyter gave away the Alexandrian gospel? Perhaps that is too imaginative) the contents were adjusted to reflect the history already established in Acts (i.e. 'to the Alexandrians' became 'to the Corinthians,' 'to the Laodiceans' became the anonymous epistle or 'to the Ephesians' etc. both as a result of these cities not appearing in Acts as centers of Paul's missionary activity)

Sleeping time ...

avi

Comparable to what?

To Josephus?

What does anyone know about Josephus' education, his life? his language skills, or lack thereof?

The analogy is not with how much we know about Becket, the analogy is with another erudite scholar writing in not one, but two different foreign languages. How do we know that Josephus was not both literate and fluent in Koine Greek? Why must we assume that he wrote, anything, in Aramaic, even if Aramaic were to have been his mother tongue, though, as for that, where's the evidence?

For me, the importance of this issue is that I observe certain folks on the forum with an interest to discredit the idea that the Jesus story is a Greek myth. One such avenue of contention is that the Jesus myth was composed, created, and written by Jews, in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek.

I disagree with that notion. I believe that 100 percent of the original story was a Greek fairy tale, a more modern version of the famous Greek fairy tales about Gods and Goddesses. Any Aramaic versions, hanging around, so far as I am aware, represent translations, not original documents. I am willing to be proven wrong. Where's the data?

avi

Solo

Thanks for the reference, Stephan. This is an interesting document. I'll go through it to see what I can make of it.

Do you interpret this as Megethius saying there was no Paul ?

One thing I thought you might find interesting is that when I read about the view that Mark and not Luke was the Marcion's euangelion what jumped at me instantly was that Mark evidently did not see the Twelve as Jesus' apostles. The dodeka mathetas looks like Matthew's invention (I don't believe in the existence of any Q document) inverting the Marcan Twelve which was designed as a cipher of judgment over the tribes of Israel. They were to 'be with Jesus, and proclaim (him)'. That in Mark Peter and the Zebedees join Jesus before the 'appointment' and and he has disciples makes me think that the inventory of the apostles in 3:16-18 is a later redaction and the re-naming, of Simon (and the Zebedees) as symbol of their initiation and empowerment took place originally at the initial 'call' of Jesus to the two sets of brothers in 1:16-20. In John 1:42, Simon is renamed at the point of call. There are a number of indications that the Twelve were a cryptic cipher of apocalyptic judgment over Israel parabolically assigned to 'men',

1) the only individual association with the Twelve in the text subsequent to 3:16-19 in Mark is someone with Yehuda in his name and he betrayed Jesus. Judas is the only member of of the group directly quoted by Jesus as such.
2) Peter and the Zebedees are never assigned explicitly to any act pertaining to the "authority" of the Twelve, and they are "with" Jesus already when the appointment is made.
3) Jesus acquires disciples before the appointment of the Twelve, and many follow him (2:15),
4) in the key verses of the Marcan mystery (4:10-11), the Twelve are excluded (!) as the 'knowers' of the kingdom.

IOW, the shape and the function of the Twelve in Mark would be a good clue of a Marcionite connection from where I am sitting.

Ok, I get the drift of what you are saying. I'll look into it. Thanks again !

Jiri