Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 02-26-2007, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben....

Hi, Jay. If I understand you correctly, you are taking indeed the apostle has said as a parenthetical:

Basilides says -- indeed the apostle has said -- I was once alive....

Is that correct?

If that is what you are trying to say, then it is absolutely imperative to look at the original Greek. I can imagine several Greek constructions that may lie behind the English translation which would make your rendition impossible.

Quote:

The translation of Thomas P. Scheck's as given in Nostri's post sufficiently resolves all questions about this passage.

Here is the translation that Notsri provided:

For [Basilides] says that the apostle says....

If that is in fact what Origen wrote, then you have no case. If Origen wrote that Basilides says that the apostle has said anything, the Origen is claiming that Basilides wrote about the apostle.

Quote:

My movement of the "He says" is trivial, done only to clarify the sentence into proper English.

The movement of any phrase to another part of the sentence is hardly trivial. Would you do me the favor of punctuating, however you see fit, the translation in its actual order? Then it might be easier to see what you are trying to say.

The rest of your post went off into Russian translation and autism, the relevance of which to our present discussion I frankly cannot see. I have tried my utmost to be polite and informative, yet I cannot help but think that perhaps your discussion of autism was meant somehow as a slur.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson · 02-26-2007, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

If that is what you are trying to say, then it is absolutely imperative to look at the original Greek. I can imagine several Greek constructions that may lie behind the English translation which would make your rendition impossible.

Is there is a more precise citation for this passage? I cannot find it on TLG, and it may only be attested in Rufinus' Latin translation of the commentary.

Stephen

Ben C Smith · 02-26-2007, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Is there is a more precise citation for this passage? I cannot find it on TLG, and it may only be attested in Rufinus' Latin translation of the commentary.

I do not know which father has this fragment; it may well be only in Rufinus, in which case of course we would be looking only at the Latin, of course. I was assuming, perhaps wrongly, that it was in Greek also, simply because it supposedly appears in the PG.

A certain page about Origen is where I got the information that this fragment is available in Migne, PG 14, column 1015. It seems Layton calls it fragment F.

Ben.

jgibson000 · 02-26-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

The rest of your post went off into Russian translation and autism, the relevance of which to our present discussion I frankly cannot see. I have tried my utmost to be polite and informative, yet I cannot help but think that perhaps your discussion of autism was meant somehow as a slur.

It seemed that way to me, too. And assuming it was, my money is on the fact that it was directed against me.

Note the correspondence between "Philosopher" Jay's claim about how one should ignore "forms of inappropriate behavior and pseudo-communication" and his repeated claim that I should be ignored for allegedly behaving badly toward him and asking him what he has deemed "irrelevant questions" in my correspondence with him.

Jeffrey Gibson

Gamera · 02-26-2007, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Well, on a general level, a number of reasons for why Paul does not contain more sayings material as that found in Q can be posed. Maybe Paul was worried about factions which used Jesus' words as a vehicle for salvation, as opposed to the Cross. This may be evidenced by extraction Paul's Corinthian correspondants. Maybe at this time there were common lists of Jesus' sayings or oral memory was strong and there was no need to focus on them in a larger written sources. As time drew on and memory faded, documents like Q would be more useful, especially in a framework of an urgent eschatology where teachings and parables have limited appeal to the all important death and resurrection of Christ which ushered in God's imminent kingdom.

Some scholars have noted, literally hundreds of allusions to Jesus' words in Paul, others only a few. The exact nature will never be known as much of what Jesus said is not disconnected from the Judaism of his day. Thus, whether one is quoting or alluding to Jesus, the OT, both or some convention is not known. Does Paul ever mention any of Jesus' sayings on the kingdom of God? How about the exorcisms? An specific miracles of Jesus? It can scarcely be argued that Paul did not hear of any of these things. The traditions are too wide-spread and multiply attested withing 30 years (the gospels) to not view them as simultaneous with Paul. Some even appear historica. Rather, for some unknown reason, Paul did not include them in his moderately occasional letters. Didn't Peter Kirby show a later letter here that ommitted a lot of specific details in favor of theological discourse? Christianity became a religion of the book later on. Maybe Paul thought the world was ending soon and his theology, as opposed to "sayings gatherers" was more urgent in its eschatology... I don't know. I could keep making stuff up but only one of reasons why Q is not in Paul is "Paul did not know it" and its not necessarily the best. Q is also hypothetical so its exact order and wording is not as perfectly known as some exegetes make it out to be. Thus mabe there are some obvious allusuions to Q that we can't find.

I view Paul's single instance of mentioning the Eucharist as a sobering example against exegesis based upon what this evangelist did not say. Another consideration is that Q does not predate the Pauline corpus.

I see no indication, granted the 2DH, that Paul knew Q. That means there is no positive evidence Paul knew Q. Unless this is turned into a valid argument from silence it is not positive evidence Paul did not know Q. Had Paul not mentioned the Eucharist that one time in his 1800 known verses and 27,000 or so words, written to 8 communities, we'd be turning this into a negative argument from silence.

Of course, there is some good evidence Mark might have known Q....thus undermining the 2DH...

There are two aspects of Paul's information about Jesus. One is what he wrote about, some examples of which we have. The other is what he preached, which we know about only secondarilly from what he mentions in his epistles.

What Paul wrote about was basically an "ars Christiania" -- his epistles are really manuals of how to live the Christian life, to communities who hadn't the slightest idea how to do so (nobody did!). His known writings are not "theology" in any sense of the word. Indeed, an argument can be made that theological discourse really hadn't been invented in Paul's time, and would await the patristic texts.

What Paul preached, it appears, is the narrative of Jesus, not the sayings or teachings. I base this on 1 Cor. 15 and other mentions of the content of his proclamation of the gospel. To him, the gospel was a narrative, not a theological treatise.

In any case, I find your article interesting in light of this analysis. I would conclude that Paul was unconcerned about Q and the sayings because Paul was actualy pretty unconcerned with Jesus' teachings per se. He was interested in the narrative, which to him was the meaning of the gospel, not the theology that the narrative sustained or propagated.

Ben C Smith · 02-26-2007, 06:51 PM

A certain Dr. Jeffrey Gibson emailed me a PDF of Migne, PG 14, column 1015 today. Here is the relevant portion:

This is indeed only in Latin (as Stephen surmised), and the relevant portion is: Dixit enim, inquit, apostolus quia: Ego vivebam.... The inquit should be cleanly removable, leaving only what the quoted person (Basilides) is saying, which includes the word apostolus (since it is written as a direct quotation). I do not see any way of salvaging the original point that Jay was trying to make. One can always suppose that Rufinus translated Origen incorrectly, but in the text as it stands Origen is clearly claiming that Basilides wrote about the apostle, using that very term. This is true both of the Latin and of all the English translations we have seen so far on this thread.

Thanks again, Jeffrey.

Ben.

jgibson000 · 02-26-2007, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

A certain Dr. Jeffrey Gibson emailed me a PDF of Migne, PG 14, column 1015 today. Here is the relevant portion:

This is indeed only in Latin (as Stephen surmised), and the relevant portion is: Dixit enim, inquit, apostolus quia: Ego vivebam.... The inquit should be cleanly removable, leaving only what the quoted person (Basilides) is saying, which includes the word apostolus (since it is written as a direct quotation). I do not see any way of salvaging the original point that Jay was trying to make. One can always suppose that Rufinus translated Origen incorrectly, but in the text as it stands Origen is clearly claiming that Basilides wrote about the apostle, using that very term. This is true both of the Latin and of all the English translations we have seen so far on this thread.

Thanks again, Jeffrey.

My pleasure. I hope this goes some way to quell the (false and, to me, inexplicable [except on the grounds of "sour grapes") accusation that I do not make positive contributions to threads/discussions).

And in case the image above proves for some too difficult to read, here's a transcription of the text (with a bit more context):

Quod de naturali lege dici in sequentibus evidenter ostendit, cum dicit: Sed ubi venit mandatum, peccatum revixit ego autem mortuus sum. Per quod declarat illius aetatis peccata fuisse quidem. sed mortua habita, quia non reputabantur ad culpam. Ubi vero coepi, inquit, scire quid agendum sit, quid cavendum et vitandum, et mandatum legis intra me vigentis accipere; tunc in me revixit peccatum, quod prius per absentiam legis mortuum videbatur, et « ego, » inquit, « mortuus sum: » coepit enim jam mihi reputari peccatum. Sed haec Basilides non advertens de lege naturali debere intelligi, ad ineptas et impias fabulas sermonem apostolicum traxit, et in μετενσωματώσεως dogma, id est, quod animae in alia atque alia corpora transfundantur, ex hoc Apostoli dicto conatur astruere. «Dixit enim, inquit, Apostolus, quia «Ego vivebam sine «lege aliquando:» hoc est, antequam in istud corpus venirem , in ea specie corporis vixi, quae sub lege non esset ; pecudis scilicet, vel avis.» Sed non respexit ad id quod sequitur, id est : « Sed ubi venit mandatum, peccatum revixit.» Non enim dixit se venisse ad mandatum, sed ad se venisse man datum; et peccatum non dixit non fuisse in se, sed mortuum fuisse, et revixisse. In quo utique ostendit quod de una eademque vita sua utrumque loqueretur. Verum Basilides, et si qui cum ipso hoc sentiunt, in sua impietate relinquantur. Nos autem Apostoli sensum secundum pietatem ecclesiastici dogmatis advertamus. Sed et hoc ipsum quod dicit. « Peccatum erat in hoc mundo,» et non dixit, in hominibus, cum utique sint in mundo et pecudes, et caetera animalia, et arbores, vel ex quibuscunque hic mundus constat, nec tamen in his creditur esse peccatum, quale sit requiramus. Videtur mihi quod hic Apostolus homines illos sentiat qui jam rationis capaces sunt, et naturalibus legibus parent : illam vero aetatem quae nondum ad capacitatem rationis accessit, non tam homines quam mundum appellaverit, pro eo quod partes quidem mundi sint, nondum tamen in hoc venerint ut imaginem in se Dei, ad quam homo factus esse dicitur, capacitate rationis expresserint.

I'd be grateful, if "Philosopher" Jay still wishes to maintain his position, that he'd do so not on the basis of a fuzzy discourse analysis of some cooked features of a fictive translation of a Russian text, let alone, as is his wont, on questionable assertions of what the above was "originally" likely to have said, but on the basis of the only "logic" that is relevant here -- the rules of Latin syntax and grammar.

Jeffrey

Vinnie · 02-27-2007, 12:22 AM

I was tidying up a paper on Papias' earlier dating and realized this:

Eusebius records that Papias made use of 1 John and 1 Peter:

"17 He himself used testimonies from the first epistle of John and similarly from that of Peter, and had also set forth another story about a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains. And let these things of necessity be brought to our attention in reference to what has been set forth. (Ecc. His, 3:39.17).

I view Papias as writing ca. 105 A.D. His use of 1 Peter and 1 John then be seen as providing another example for the article.

Vinnie

mountainman · 02-28-2007, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

This is indeed only in Latin (as Stephen surmised), and the relevant portion is: Dixit enim, inquit, apostolus quia: Ego vivebam.... The inquit should be cleanly removable, leaving only what the quoted person (Basilides) is saying, which includes the word apostolus (since it is written as a direct quotation).

I do not see any way of salvaging the original point that Jay was trying to make. One can always suppose that Rufinus translated Origen incorrectly, but in the text as it stands Origen is clearly claiming that Basilides wrote about the apostle, using that very term. This is true both of the Latin and of all the English translations we have seen so far on this thread.

We dont need to suppose Rufinus mistranslates Origen
when we already know Rufinus suspects Origen's work
as having been "tampered with by heretics", and must
therefore attract Rufinus' "corrections".

Rufinus even attempts to tender a letter purportedly
written by Origen himself, when he was alive, complaining
that the heretics were devilishly tampering with his work
in his own time.

See this thread.

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

02-26-2007, 06:51 PM	#56
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	A certain Dr. Jeffrey Gibson emailed me a PDF of Migne, PG 14, column 1015 today. Here is the relevant portion: This is indeed only in Latin (as Stephen surmised), and the relevant portion is: Dixit enim, inquit, apostolus quia: Ego vivebam.... The inquit should be cleanly removable, leaving only what the quoted person (Basilides) is saying, which includes the word apostolus (since it is written as a direct quotation). I do not see any way of salvaging the original point that Jay was trying to make. One can always suppose that Rufinus translated Origen incorrectly, but in the text as it stands Origen is clearly claiming that Basilides wrote about the apostle, using that very term. This is true both of the Latin and of all the English translations we have seen so far on this thread. Thanks again, Jeffrey. Ben.

02-27-2007, 12:22 AM	#58
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	I was tidying up a paper on Papias' earlier dating and realized this: Eusebius records that Papias made use of 1 John and 1 Peter: "17 He himself used testimonies from the first epistle of John and similarly from that of Peter, and had also set forth another story about a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains. And let these things of necessity be brought to our attention in reference to what has been set forth. (Ecc. His, 3:39.17). I view Papias as writing ca. 105 A.D. His use of 1 Peter and 1 John then be seen as providing another example for the article. Vinnie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.