 | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Randigram for June 19, 2009
You might've noticed that 
In a far too infrequent moment of proaction (or is that proactivity?), the FDA announced that they have
Dispraxis was edited
Recent changes on Dispraxis
- File 02_mk_trc_02.pdf
- Page FrontPage
- Page FrontPage.1245502869
- Page TRC Mark Supplement
Page FrontPage
edited by John F. Felix
Welcome to DIAGroup - Digital Interlinear Analysts Group wiki!
Just added:
→ Louw-Nida Sneak Peek
Scriptures → Greek → Christian → TRC → Mark → 1 Sneak Peak Peek 2 Supplement
Scriptures → Greek → LXX → Genesis → Sneak Peak Peek
General → Science Fiction → Kubrick 2001 →MoreRuminationsonKubrick's2001-Part1
General → Science Fiction → Battlestar Galactica → Ruminations on the BSG series - Part 1
Just added:
→ Louw-Nida Sneak Peek
Scriptures → Greek → Christian → TRC → Mark → 1 Sneak
Scriptures → Greek → LXX → Genesis → Sneak
General → Science Fiction → Kubrick 2001 →MoreRuminationsonKubrick's2001-Part1
General → Science Fiction → Battlestar Galactica → Ruminations on the BSG series - Part 1
Page TRC Mark Supplement
edited by John F. Felix (diagroup@)
Supplement to the Mark Sneak Peek main article.
The Excel file as it is constructed fulfills multiple project needs at once. One sub-project is to create a "resultant Greek" version of Mark, based on the three major codexes, namely, Sinaiticus (Aleph), Vaticanus (B) and Alexandrinus (A), in the tradition of Weymouth and the dreaded (by some) Concordant Greek New Testament. If anyone knows of an e-text of Weymouth's Resultant Greek Text, I would appreciate the information. The e-text that is actually available for the CGNT is NA 26/27 and/or Westcott-Hort, although a digitized eclectic text based on A. E. Knoch's work may be in the works.
will not quite meet up to the standards of this project. Meanwhile, much more will be included in brackets (i.e., italics) than Scrivener ever dreamt of, as well as a real attempt to "reverse engineer" a Greek text to match the English translation, which is merely an academic exercise, i.e., for "fun.". "fun.".
Louw-Nida Update - 06/20/2009!
Additional resources will be adapted for the main, or primary, project, specifically the use of "Louw-Nida" numbers for the TRC, which are numbers that map the Greek to their "semantic domains." This information will be very useful in deciding the text of the TRC.
As of 06/20/2009, the LN numbers have been added to the TC (Textus Criticus) collation, to form the basis for adding them to the TRC. Having the numbers is not enought, though, or else they would be no more useful than Strong's numbers. The process begun with Matthew is continuing, i.e., the numbers will be expanded into a hierarchical system, where the two-part LN number is broken into three parts:Domain, Sub-domain and Gloss, based on the Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.). New York: United Bible societies. Here is a link to a peek at a small section of Mark 1:6-7.
Louw-Nida Sneak Peek
However, I decided that though LN numbers are two-part, to add a sub-domain for each number, regardless of whether such exists in the 2nd edition of the lexicon, but I felt no need to create a new numbering system, i.e., one that has three parts. Thus, I am extending the lexicon based on my own semantic studies. The entries will look something like this eventually:
LN15.66→Movement (Linear)→Leave/Depart/Flee/Escape/Send→send→ αποστελλω
RGNT2009
Mark's "resultant Greek NT" (RGNT2009) text, based on א, A and B, Phase 1 is also complete, and can be seen in the sneak peek PDF file link!
Finally...
More texts are to be collated; I hope to include a version of the Peshitta in square Aramaic (which was done experimentally for Matthew, another project that I work on from time to time), rather than Syriac, for more detailed use with such software programs as Logos Bible Software's Libronix Library System, to interact with its rich Aramaic resources. Of course, the new collation entitled the Textus Receptus Criticalis is the main goal, but the collation that is finalized will go on to be a project of its own. This spreadsheet will continue as a separate tool once all resources are finished, because of the concordancing properties described in the main article.
The Textus Receptus Criticalis (TRC) and this page copyright (c) 2009 by John F. Felix. All rights reserved.
The Excel file as it is constructed fulfills multiple project needs at once. One sub-project is to create a "resultant Greek" version of Mark, based on the three major codexes, namely, Sinaiticus (Aleph), Vaticanus (B) and Alexandrinus (A), in the tradition of Weymouth and the dreaded (by some) Concordant Greek New Testament. If anyone knows of an e-text of Weymouth's Resultant Greek Text, I would appreciate the information. The e-text that is actually available for the CGNT is NA 26/27 and/or Westcott-Hort, although a digitized eclectic text based on A. E. Knoch's work may be in the works.
will not quite meet up to the standards of this project. Meanwhile, much more will be included in brackets (i.e., italics) than Scrivener ever dreamt of, as well as a real attempt to "reverse engineer" a Greek text to match the English translation, which is merely an academic exercise, i.e., for
Louw-Nida Update - 06/20/2009!
Additional resources will be adapted for the main, or primary, project, specifically the use of "Louw-Nida" numbers for the TRC, which are numbers that map the Greek to their "semantic domains." This information will be very useful in deciding the text of the TRC.
As of 06/20/2009, the LN numbers have been added to the TC (Textus Criticus) collation, to form the basis for adding them to the TRC. Having the numbers is not enought, though, or else they would be no more useful than Strong's numbers. The process begun with Matthew is continuing, i.e., the numbers will be expanded into a hierarchical system, where the two-part LN number is broken into three parts:Domain, Sub-domain and Gloss, based on the Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.). New York: United Bible societies. Here is a link to a peek at a small section of Mark 1:6-7.
Louw-Nida Sneak Peek
However, I decided that though LN numbers are two-part, to add a sub-domain for each number, regardless of whether such exists in the 2nd edition of the lexicon, but I felt no need to create a new numbering system, i.e., one that has three parts. Thus, I am extending the lexicon based on my own semantic studies. The entries will look something like this eventually:
LN15.66→Movement (Linear)→Leave/Depart/Flee/Escape/Send→send→ αποστελλω
RGNT2009
Mark's "resultant Greek NT" (RGNT2009) text, based on א, A and B, Phase 1 is also complete, and can be seen in the sneak peek PDF file link!
Finally...
More texts are to be collated; I hope to include a version of the Peshitta in square Aramaic (which was done experimentally for Matthew, another project that I work on from time to time), rather than Syriac, for more detailed use with such software programs as Logos Bible Software's Libronix Library System, to interact with its rich Aramaic resources. Of course, the new collation entitled the Textus Receptus Criticalis is the main goal, but the collation that is finalized will go on to be a project of its own. This spreadsheet will continue as a separate tool once all resources are finished, because of the concordancing properties described in the main article.
The Textus Receptus Criticalis (TRC) and this page copyright (c) 2009 by John F. Felix. All rights reserved.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Keyword News: [atheism]
| Yahoo! Alerts | t |
| Thursday, June 18, 2009 6:21 PM PDT |
|
| See more news stories that match my keyword |
[TC-Alternate-list] A censored location in Vaticanus
According to standard depictions of the Tabernacle, the only article of furnishing in the Holy of Holies was the ark of the covenant. On the other side of the veil, in the Sactuary, were the golden lampstand, gold-plated table of shewbread, and gold-plated altar of incense. But in the rundown in Hebrews 9:2-5, the golden censer appears INSIDE the Holy of Holies--definitely the harder reading.
There are a lot of theories as to what was behind this move, but one striking fact is that in Codex Vaticanus, the censer is put back where it belongs!
According to the CA at LaParola.net, only B cop(sa(mss) cop(fay eth(ro read:
2. . . the setting forth of the loaves *and the golden censer*; which is called Holy. 3 And after the second veil, a tabernacle being called Holy of Holies, 4 [*]having [*] the ark of the covenant . . .
In other words, the passage was re-ordered in order to conform to the standard layout of the Sanctuary. But when we actually go to the remote parallel in Exodus 30:6, we find it to have a textual problem of its own!
Adam Clarke observes:
Verse 6. [Before the mercy-seat that is over the testimony]
"These words in the original are supposed to be a repetition, by mistake, of the preceding clause; the word happarocheth, the veil, being corrupted by interchanging two letters into haccapporeth, the mercy-seat; and this, as Dr. Kennicott observes, places the altar of incense before the mercy-seat, and consequently IN the holy of holies! Now this could not be, as the altar of incense was attended every day, and the holy of holies entered only once in the year. The five words which appear to be a repetition are wanting in twenty-six of Kennicott's and De Rossi's MSS., and in the Samaritan. The verse reads better without them, and is more consistent with the rest of the account."
To recap: The reconstructed Hebrew would then read:
"put it before the veil, which is by the ark of the testimony."
Vaticanus appears to read almost exactly thus:
"KAI QHSEIS AUTO APENANTI TOU KATAPETASMATOS, TOU ONTOS EPI THS KIBWTOU TWN MARTURIWN"
So, B's archetypal scribe of Exodus 30 is to be commended for having avoided a dittography. But what possessed him to so brazenly alter Hebrews 9, when the wording of Exodus 30 seems ambiguous enough to have allowed the altar on either side of the veil?
Daniel
------------------------------------
The informal cafe for TC chatYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/
There are a lot of theories as to what was behind this move, but one striking fact is that in Codex Vaticanus, the censer is put back where it belongs!
According to the CA at LaParola.net, only B cop(sa(mss) cop(fay eth(ro read:
2. . . the setting forth of the loaves *and the golden censer*; which is called Holy. 3 And after the second veil, a tabernacle being called Holy of Holies, 4 [*]having [*] the ark of the covenant . . .
In other words, the passage was re-ordered in order to conform to the standard layout of the Sanctuary. But when we actually go to the remote parallel in Exodus 30:6, we find it to have a textual problem of its own!
Adam Clarke observes:
Verse 6. [Before the mercy-seat that is over the testimony]
"These words in the original are supposed to be a repetition, by mistake, of the preceding clause; the word happarocheth, the veil, being corrupted by interchanging two letters into haccapporeth, the mercy-seat; and this, as Dr. Kennicott observes, places the altar of incense before the mercy-seat, and consequently IN the holy of holies! Now this could not be, as the altar of incense was attended every day, and the holy of holies entered only once in the year. The five words which appear to be a repetition are wanting in twenty-six of Kennicott's and De Rossi's MSS., and in the Samaritan. The verse reads better without them, and is more consistent with the rest of the account."
To recap: The reconstructed Hebrew would then read:
"put it before the veil, which is by the ark of the testimony."
Vaticanus appears to read almost exactly thus:
"KAI QHSEIS AUTO APENANTI TOU KATAPETASMATOS, TOU ONTOS EPI THS KIBWTOU TWN MARTURIWN"
So, B's archetypal scribe of Exodus 30 is to be commended for having avoided a dittography. But what possessed him to so brazenly alter Hebrews 9, when the wording of Exodus 30 seems ambiguous enough to have allowed the altar on either side of the veil?
Daniel
------------------------------------
The informal cafe for TC chatYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
[TC-Alternate-list] The Ethiopic Didascalia - Old Readings in Young Clothes
In 1920, J.M. Harden published the text and translation of The Ethiopic Didascalia. It contains many quotations from the Old Testament and the New Testament. Harden's book can be found and downloaded intact at Google Books.
The Ethiopic Didascalia, Harden explains, is contained in five manuscripts of the Oriental Collection of the British Museum (752, 793, 797, 798, and 799), and "All these date from the early part of the eighteenth century." Harden's English translation is based on MS #752.
Harden does not go into detail about the age of the composition. He states in his Introduction that the Ethiopic Didascalia "is one of the least known of a number of more or less similar documents that have come down to us from comparatively early times." He states that it is commonly believed that such documents are historically related, and that their earliest descendants are the Didache and Hippolytus' Apostolic Constitutions. He also mentions that the documents titled "Didascalia" are descended from a lost Greek work "which belongs in its original form probably to some part of the third century A.D." and that this Greek work's earliest extant descendant is the Syriac Didascalia.
Harden also mentions the existence of two editions of the Didascalia in Arabic. Regarding one MS of the Arabic Didascalia (belonging to the Museo Borgia and discovered by Baumstark, Harden says), "The recension in this manuscript follows the Apostolic Constitutions exactly as to order of subject-matter, containing the six books complete, and also the whole of the seventh book with the exception of chapters 47 and 48. It lacks the six extra chapters found in the other recension but, like it, contains the "preface." It is divided into 44 chapters. This manuscript is also important because it contains at the end the information that the Didascalia was translated from Coptic into Arabic by Abu Ishaq in the year 1295 A.D. As some of the manuscripts of the other recension are known to have been in existence shortly after this date, it is probable that we have to do with two independent versions of a COPTIC Didascalia."
Hmm. The plot thickens! Before 1295, the Didascalia existed in Coptic.
Harden mentions that in 1834, T. P. Platt had published the text of a single MS of the Ethiopic Didascalia, but Platt's MS was defective: "Not only is a leaf lost in the middle of its sixteenth chapter, but also it breaks off abruptly in the middle of a word in Chapter xxii." Thus Platt's text contained only a little more than half of the Ethiopic Didascalia's contents.
Harden also mentions in his Introduction that, if one makes a few logical deductions, it appears that "The Ethiopic Didascalia runs almost exactly parallel with the first seven books of the Apostolic Constitutions. The only addition is the "preface," found also, as already stated, in both of the Arabic and one of the Syriac versions." He presents a table which shows, among other things, that Apostolic Constitutions 5:8-7:17 runs parallel to the Ethiopic Didascalia, chapters 26-35.
Harden also mentions that it seems likely to him that the Ethiopic Didascalia descends from the Greek ancestor of the Apostolic Constitutions, rather than directly from the Apostolic Constitutions, because the Ethiopic Didascalia contains no part of Book VIII.
Harden also states, "The enigmatic word "nipilobanos," which is found in the "preface," points to the fact that a Coptic version lies somewhere behind the Ethiopic, and the same may probably be said of the equally strange word "'abibolosawi," which is found in the title of Chapter xii."
The NT text displayed in the Ethiopic Didascalia is interesting. One example: on page 150 of Harden's book, in the course of chapter 33 of the Ethiopic Didascalia, an interesting form of Acts 15:29 is used: "Men should abstain from anything sacrificed to (false) gods, and from that which dieth of itself, and from blood, and from fornication; and that what they hate for themselves they should not do to their neighbours. Take heed to these things and peace to you." That's the Ethiopic – and Western – form of that verse.
Now, here is an excerpt from the beginning of Apostolic Constitutions 15, compared to an excerpt from the beginning of Ethiopic Didascalia 33:
ApCon 6:15: "Be ye likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord; not that which is conferred by wicked heretics, but that which is conferred by unblameable priests, `in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' and let not that which comes from the ungodly be received by you.'"
EthDid: "Make no repetition of baptism: The first baptism which you have received sufficeth for you, for ye were buried into the death of Christ; (a baptism) which hath not been given to the ungodly and unbelieving, but to holy priests who have bestowed it upon you into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Receive not baptism at the hands of apostates from the faith."
The translation is a tad loose, but clearly we are looking at two descendants of the same ancestor. Let's keep looking at these two texts side-by-side:
ApCon 6:15: "Nay, he that, out of contempt, will not be baptized, shall be condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, `Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.' And again, `He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.' But he that says, `When I am dying I will be baptized, lest I should sin and defile my baptism,' is ignorant of God, and forgetful of his own nature. For `Do not thou delay to turn unto the Lord, for thou knowest not what the next day will bring forth.' Do you also baptize your infants, and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of God. For says He, `Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.'
EthDid 33: "Those who believe not, and are not baptized into the right faith, are transgressors of the law and condemned, for they reproach Him, and give Him not thanks. Our Lord saith, `He that is not born again of water and the Holy Spirit cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven,' but `He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned.' And he who says, `Afterwards I will be baptized,' and maketh light of baptism, the same shall be condemned and be far from God. Delay not to turn to the Lord for man knoweth not that which shall come upon him. And baptize your children, when they are babes, and feed them with spiritual food, and bring them up with admonition and wisdom, for it is said, `Suffer the little children and forbid them not to come unto Me.'"
One thing to observe here is that Apostolic Constitutions and the Ethiopic Didascalia both present a loose rendering of John 3:5 - - both inserting "Holy" before "Spirit" and both replacing "kingdom of God" with "kingdom of heaven" - - and they both quote Mark 16:16. It seems immensely improbably that the producer of Apostolic Constitutions, c. 380, *and* a later Coptic or Ethiopic translator, would independently make identical alterations to the text of John 3:5. So there are two possibilities: the Ethiopic Didascalia descends from the Apostolic Constitutions here, or else the Apostolic Constitutions and the Ethiopic Didascalia both descend here from a source earlier than the Apostolic Constitutions. As I already mentioned, Harden suspected that because the Ethiopic Didascalia does not contain any part of Book VIII of Apostolic Constitutions, it seemed more likely to him that the Ethiopic Didascalia echoes a Greek ancestor-document earlier than the Apostolic Constitutions.
Now let's see if anything can be discovered by comparing the Ethiopic Didascalia to the Syriac Didascalia Apostolurum, which is assigned a date c. 250 or a tad earlier.
At http://www.bombaxo.com/didascalia.html Kevin Edgecomb has provided an English translation of the Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum. Chapter 24 of the Syriac Didascalia parallels the part of the Ethiopic Didascalia that mentions that the apostles gathered in Jerusalem. All that Didascalia Apostolorum says here about baptism that seems connected to what the Ethiopic Didascalia says there about baptism is:
"And as for baptism also, one is enough for you, even that which has perfectly forgiven you your sins. For Isaiah said not (only) `Wash,' but `Wash, and be cleansed.'"
Near the end of Didascalia Apostolorum 24, when Acts 15:29 is used, the Silver-rule Western reading ("That which is hateful to you, do not do to others") is not found; instead the Didascalia Apostolorum has the normal text there.
Despite the late date of the Ethiopic MSS which contain it, the Ethiopic Didascalia is probably a valuable witness; its readings probably echo a NT text -- possibly a Coptic NT text -- that is earlier than what is displayed in most Ethiopic MSS of NT books.
It would be interesting to attempt to discern the exact relationship between the Ethiopic Didascalia, Books 1-6 of Apostolic Constitutions, and the Syriac Didascalia. It is practically a reflex to assume that the Ethiopic Didascalia is descended from the Apostolic Constitutions, but two problems with that assumption are (a) the Ethiopic Didascalia does not use Book VII, and (b) the Ethiopic Didascalia uses the Western form of Acts 15:29. This second objection might be overcome by reckoning that the Ethiopic translator (or a Coptic translator of a text used by the Ethiopic translator) adopted a text of Acts 15:29 familiar to him.
One more thing: in a footnote near the end of the book, Harden explains the word "nipilobanos." He notes that in an edition of the Arabic Didascalis by Funk (Vol. 2, p. xxxii), we find testimony that "the original Greek was FILOPONOI or FILOPONWS. This agrees with the Syriac version, and would explain the reading of the Ethiopic, i.e., as "ni," the Coptic definite article, and FILOPONOS. The reading is important as showing probably a close connection between the Ethiopic and Coptic versions."
Indeed! The presence of a Coptic loan-word (or an invented word based on a Coptic word) in the Arabic Didascalia and in the Ethiopic Didascalia, in a passage not attested in the Apostolic Constitutions, but found in the Syriac MS of the Didascalia Apostolorum transcribed and translated by Gibson (her book about it is also online), would seem to guarantee that the Ethiopic Didascalorum -- at least, that part of it -- does not descend (solely) from the Apostolic Constitutions but has, somewhere in its genealogy, a Coptic Didascalia which descended from an older source-document which also begat the Syriac Didascalia.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
------------------------------------
The informal cafe for TC chatYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/
The Ethiopic Didascalia, Harden explains, is contained in five manuscripts of the Oriental Collection of the British Museum (752, 793, 797, 798, and 799), and "All these date from the early part of the eighteenth century." Harden's English translation is based on MS #752.
Harden does not go into detail about the age of the composition. He states in his Introduction that the Ethiopic Didascalia "is one of the least known of a number of more or less similar documents that have come down to us from comparatively early times." He states that it is commonly believed that such documents are historically related, and that their earliest descendants are the Didache and Hippolytus' Apostolic Constitutions. He also mentions that the documents titled "Didascalia" are descended from a lost Greek work "which belongs in its original form probably to some part of the third century A.D." and that this Greek work's earliest extant descendant is the Syriac Didascalia.
Harden also mentions the existence of two editions of the Didascalia in Arabic. Regarding one MS of the Arabic Didascalia (belonging to the Museo Borgia and discovered by Baumstark, Harden says), "The recension in this manuscript follows the Apostolic Constitutions exactly as to order of subject-matter, containing the six books complete, and also the whole of the seventh book with the exception of chapters 47 and 48. It lacks the six extra chapters found in the other recension but, like it, contains the "preface." It is divided into 44 chapters. This manuscript is also important because it contains at the end the information that the Didascalia was translated from Coptic into Arabic by Abu Ishaq in the year 1295 A.D. As some of the manuscripts of the other recension are known to have been in existence shortly after this date, it is probable that we have to do with two independent versions of a COPTIC Didascalia."
Hmm. The plot thickens! Before 1295, the Didascalia existed in Coptic.
Harden mentions that in 1834, T. P. Platt had published the text of a single MS of the Ethiopic Didascalia, but Platt's MS was defective: "Not only is a leaf lost in the middle of its sixteenth chapter, but also it breaks off abruptly in the middle of a word in Chapter xxii." Thus Platt's text contained only a little more than half of the Ethiopic Didascalia's contents.
Harden also mentions in his Introduction that, if one makes a few logical deductions, it appears that "The Ethiopic Didascalia runs almost exactly parallel with the first seven books of the Apostolic Constitutions. The only addition is the "preface," found also, as already stated, in both of the Arabic and one of the Syriac versions." He presents a table which shows, among other things, that Apostolic Constitutions 5:8-7:17 runs parallel to the Ethiopic Didascalia, chapters 26-35.
Harden also mentions that it seems likely to him that the Ethiopic Didascalia descends from the Greek ancestor of the Apostolic Constitutions, rather than directly from the Apostolic Constitutions, because the Ethiopic Didascalia contains no part of Book VIII.
Harden also states, "The enigmatic word "nipilobanos," which is found in the "preface," points to the fact that a Coptic version lies somewhere behind the Ethiopic, and the same may probably be said of the equally strange word "'abibolosawi," which is found in the title of Chapter xii."
The NT text displayed in the Ethiopic Didascalia is interesting. One example: on page 150 of Harden's book, in the course of chapter 33 of the Ethiopic Didascalia, an interesting form of Acts 15:29 is used: "Men should abstain from anything sacrificed to (false) gods, and from that which dieth of itself, and from blood, and from fornication; and that what they hate for themselves they should not do to their neighbours. Take heed to these things and peace to you." That's the Ethiopic – and Western – form of that verse.
Now, here is an excerpt from the beginning of Apostolic Constitutions 15, compared to an excerpt from the beginning of Ethiopic Didascalia 33:
ApCon 6:15: "Be ye likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord; not that which is conferred by wicked heretics, but that which is conferred by unblameable priests, `in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' and let not that which comes from the ungodly be received by you.'"
EthDid: "Make no repetition of baptism: The first baptism which you have received sufficeth for you, for ye were buried into the death of Christ; (a baptism) which hath not been given to the ungodly and unbelieving, but to holy priests who have bestowed it upon you into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Receive not baptism at the hands of apostates from the faith."
The translation is a tad loose, but clearly we are looking at two descendants of the same ancestor. Let's keep looking at these two texts side-by-side:
ApCon 6:15: "Nay, he that, out of contempt, will not be baptized, shall be condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, `Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.' And again, `He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.' But he that says, `When I am dying I will be baptized, lest I should sin and defile my baptism,' is ignorant of God, and forgetful of his own nature. For `Do not thou delay to turn unto the Lord, for thou knowest not what the next day will bring forth.' Do you also baptize your infants, and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of God. For says He, `Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.'
EthDid 33: "Those who believe not, and are not baptized into the right faith, are transgressors of the law and condemned, for they reproach Him, and give Him not thanks. Our Lord saith, `He that is not born again of water and the Holy Spirit cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven,' but `He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned.' And he who says, `Afterwards I will be baptized,' and maketh light of baptism, the same shall be condemned and be far from God. Delay not to turn to the Lord for man knoweth not that which shall come upon him. And baptize your children, when they are babes, and feed them with spiritual food, and bring them up with admonition and wisdom, for it is said, `Suffer the little children and forbid them not to come unto Me.'"
One thing to observe here is that Apostolic Constitutions and the Ethiopic Didascalia both present a loose rendering of John 3:5 - - both inserting "Holy" before "Spirit" and both replacing "kingdom of God" with "kingdom of heaven" - - and they both quote Mark 16:16. It seems immensely improbably that the producer of Apostolic Constitutions, c. 380, *and* a later Coptic or Ethiopic translator, would independently make identical alterations to the text of John 3:5. So there are two possibilities: the Ethiopic Didascalia descends from the Apostolic Constitutions here, or else the Apostolic Constitutions and the Ethiopic Didascalia both descend here from a source earlier than the Apostolic Constitutions. As I already mentioned, Harden suspected that because the Ethiopic Didascalia does not contain any part of Book VIII of Apostolic Constitutions, it seemed more likely to him that the Ethiopic Didascalia echoes a Greek ancestor-document earlier than the Apostolic Constitutions.
Now let's see if anything can be discovered by comparing the Ethiopic Didascalia to the Syriac Didascalia Apostolurum, which is assigned a date c. 250 or a tad earlier.
At http://www.bombaxo.com/didascalia.html Kevin Edgecomb has provided an English translation of the Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum. Chapter 24 of the Syriac Didascalia parallels the part of the Ethiopic Didascalia that mentions that the apostles gathered in Jerusalem. All that Didascalia Apostolorum says here about baptism that seems connected to what the Ethiopic Didascalia says there about baptism is:
"And as for baptism also, one is enough for you, even that which has perfectly forgiven you your sins. For Isaiah said not (only) `Wash,' but `Wash, and be cleansed.'"
Near the end of Didascalia Apostolorum 24, when Acts 15:29 is used, the Silver-rule Western reading ("That which is hateful to you, do not do to others") is not found; instead the Didascalia Apostolorum has the normal text there.
Despite the late date of the Ethiopic MSS which contain it, the Ethiopic Didascalia is probably a valuable witness; its readings probably echo a NT text -- possibly a Coptic NT text -- that is earlier than what is displayed in most Ethiopic MSS of NT books.
It would be interesting to attempt to discern the exact relationship between the Ethiopic Didascalia, Books 1-6 of Apostolic Constitutions, and the Syriac Didascalia. It is practically a reflex to assume that the Ethiopic Didascalia is descended from the Apostolic Constitutions, but two problems with that assumption are (a) the Ethiopic Didascalia does not use Book VII, and (b) the Ethiopic Didascalia uses the Western form of Acts 15:29. This second objection might be overcome by reckoning that the Ethiopic translator (or a Coptic translator of a text used by the Ethiopic translator) adopted a text of Acts 15:29 familiar to him.
One more thing: in a footnote near the end of the book, Harden explains the word "nipilobanos." He notes that in an edition of the Arabic Didascalis by Funk (Vol. 2, p. xxxii), we find testimony that "the original Greek was FILOPONOI or FILOPONWS. This agrees with the Syriac version, and would explain the reading of the Ethiopic, i.e., as "ni," the Coptic definite article, and FILOPONOS. The reading is important as showing probably a close connection between the Ethiopic and Coptic versions."
Indeed! The presence of a Coptic loan-word (or an invented word based on a Coptic word) in the Arabic Didascalia and in the Ethiopic Didascalia, in a passage not attested in the Apostolic Constitutions, but found in the Syriac MS of the Didascalia Apostolorum transcribed and translated by Gibson (her book about it is also online), would seem to guarantee that the Ethiopic Didascalorum -- at least, that part of it -- does not descend (solely) from the Apostolic Constitutions but has, somewhere in its genealogy, a Coptic Didascalia which descended from an older source-document which also begat the Syriac Didascalia.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
------------------------------------
The informal cafe for TC chatYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Life on Mars update. Posted on the ORIGINS group: ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
A message from Dr. Terence Meaden to all members of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN on Atheist Nexus!
"Life on Mars update". Posted by Chris Arundel on "ORIGINS" group.
Visit ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN at:
http://www.atheistnexus.org/groups/group/show?id=2182797%3AGroup%3A109911
--
"Life on Mars update". Posted by Chris Arundel on "ORIGINS" group.
Visit ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN at:
http://www.atheistnexus.org/groups/group/show?id=2182797%3AGroup%3A109911
--
Monday, June 08, 2009
FW: Was Horus Crucified?
-----Original Message-----
From: Acharya S [mailto:acharya_s@]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:46 AM
To: Dispraxis
Subject: Was Horus Crucified?
Hi there -
Here's an important issue about which I just completed a brand-new, very special article entitled, "Was Horus Crucified?" This subject is being debated all over the place, and I included a 40-page chapter about it in my book "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection." I wanted to make some of the same fascinating information available at my website as well -
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/washoruscrucified.html
This issue is so vital that people have been willing to kill and die for it. In fact, with all the talk of "Armageddon," the "Apocalypse" and "End Times," we seem to be setting ourselves up for just such a self-fulfilling "prophecy." Please read my article and pass it around - it's very scholarly, but I hope I've made it accessible. And there are loads of really great illustrations!
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/washoruscrucified.html
Enjoy!
Acharya S/D.M. Murdock
Author, "The Christ Conspiracy," "Suns of God," "Who Was Jesus?," "Christ in Egypt" and "Jesus as the Sun"
http://TruthBeKnown.com
http://StellarHousePublishing.com
http://TBKNews.blogspot.com
http://FreethoughtNation.com
P.S. Check out the rest of my articles at Stellar House:
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/articles.html
From: Acharya S [mailto:acharya_s@]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:46 AM
To: Dispraxis
Subject: Was Horus Crucified?
Hi there -
Here's an important issue about which I just completed a brand-new, very special article entitled, "Was Horus Crucified?" This subject is being debated all over the place, and I included a 40-page chapter about it in my book "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection." I wanted to make some of the same fascinating information available at my website as well -
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/washoruscrucified.html
This issue is so vital that people have been willing to kill and die for it. In fact, with all the talk of "Armageddon," the "Apocalypse" and "End Times," we seem to be setting ourselves up for just such a self-fulfilling "prophecy." Please read my article and pass it around - it's very scholarly, but I hope I've made it accessible. And there are loads of really great illustrations!
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/washoruscrucified.html
Enjoy!
Acharya S/D.M. Murdock
Author, "The Christ Conspiracy," "Suns of God," "Who Was Jesus?," "Christ in Egypt" and "Jesus as the Sun"
http://TruthBeKnown.com
http://StellarHousePublishing.com
http://TBKNews.blogspot.com
http://FreethoughtNation.com
P.S. Check out the rest of my articles at Stellar House:
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/articles.html
Saturday, June 06, 2009
"Four Challenges to Darwin's theory on Evolution": ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN
A message from Dr. Terence Meaden to all members of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN on Atheist Nexus!
Here's a new topic, already being well answered: "Four Challenges to Darwin's theory on Evolution" (Posted by Kwok Fong Lo, 6 June 2009).
Visit ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN at:
http://www.atheistnexus.org/groups/group/show?id=2182797%3AGroup%3A109911
Here's a new topic, already being well answered: "Four Challenges to Darwin's theory on Evolution" (Posted by Kwok Fong Lo, 6 June 2009).
Visit ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN at:
http://www.atheistnexus.org/groups/group/show?id=2182797%3AGroup%3A109911
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Christ Conspiracy Former fundamentalist 'debunks' Bible
Former fundamentalist 'debunks' Bible
"At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries."
"Ehrman says he doesn't think the resurrection took place. There's no proof Jesus physically rose from the dead, and the resurrection stories contradict one another, he says."
- Bart Ehrman
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/05/15/bible.critic/index.html
;
------------------------------------
Please support Acharya by visiting http://www.truthbeknown.com Help spread the word and post this site wherever you can!
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Christ_Conspiracy/
"At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries."
"Ehrman says he doesn't think the resurrection took place. There's no proof Jesus physically rose from the dead, and the resurrection stories contradict one another, he says."
- Bart Ehrman
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/05/15/bible.critic/index.html
;
------------------------------------
Please support Acharya by visiting http://www.truthbeknown.com Help spread the word and post this site wherever you can!
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Christ_Conspiracy/
[TC-Alternate-list] Sinaiticus Font
Jack Kilmon,
Thanks! I aspired to give the G.U.A.M. a more early-papyrus-scriptish look than the characters in Sinaiticus provide, but your Sinaiticus font is bound to come in handy in the course of some other projects I hope to undertake. Again, many thanks!
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
------------------------------------
The informal cafe for TC chat
Thanks! I aspired to give the G.U.A.M. a more early-papyrus-scriptish look than the characters in Sinaiticus provide, but your Sinaiticus font is bound to come in handy in the course of some other projects I hope to undertake. Again, many thanks!
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
------------------------------------
The informal cafe for TC chat
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Christ Conspiracy Roger Ebert on the Christ Myth
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__._,_.___
Please support Acharya by visiting http://www.truthbeknown.com Help spread the word and post this site wherever you can!
[TC-Alternate-list] Tregelles New Testament (TNT): an exercise in scribal error
Tyndale House at Cambridge University has released a downloadable (for some) edition of Tregelles' 1879 Greek New Testament. Here is what they say about why this publication is still applicable today:
http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Download/IntroductionTregelles.pdf
"Why would one bother with a Greek New Testament printed in the 19th century? Has it not been superseded by improvements, new discoveries, and a finer methodology? Is this text not simply a relic from the past, with mere curiosity value, but of no further importance?
"First of all, in order to understand where the textual criticism of the New Testament is at the moment, it is of crucial importance to know how we arrived at this point. The principles Tregelles laid down, and the result of these principles (alongside the evidence he provides for and against his choice of text), are part of the history of the discipline and form an important contribution to that discipline.
"Secondly, even after 150 years, Tregelles's edition pays attention to variants that are not recorded in the Greek New Testament mostly used in the universities and seminaries, the Nestle-Aland 27th edition. Many of these variants are not yet covered by any of the current major projects in the textual criticism of the New Testament (though many of these will be found in Tischendorf's edition and the work by Von Soden). Though it is likely that this situation will change in the coming decades, there is still real value in the collection of the evidence.
"Thirdly, independent voices need to be heard and not forgotten. It happens all too often that students of and commentators on the Greek text find safety in the consensus text, tacitly accepting the methodology and assumptions of the day. Dissenting voices from the past such as Tregelles, who earned the right to be heard by means of his long exposure to and interaction with the evidence and methodology of the discipline, can guard us from a misplaced confidence.
"Fourthly, Tregelles can arguably be described as a theologically conservative scholar. There is a sense in which this conservatism shines through in his method. Tregelles had come to the conclusion that any speculation and reliance on a constructed history of transmission was a dangerous thing to do, but that the only sure ground for establishing the text of the New Testament was to limit oneself to what can be seen in the manuscripts as surviving artefacts. Tregelles combined this notion with his conviction that theology should follow from the text, and that therefore he stood under an obligation to print the text established to the best of his abilities."
This last point is perhaps the most important for me. While I will not necessarily agree with SPT's conclusions or even his approach, the fact that they were couched in a firm belief in the authority of the Scriptures speaks volumes.
That being said, it is also interesting to see Tyndale House's frenzied but futile attempts to eliminate scribal errors in this edition--they couldn't even avoid making one in the process of writing two sentences about how hard it was:
"It turned out harder than imagined to avoid transcriptional errors. . . . These two transcriptions where then compared against each other and the differences were reconciled."
The very defects Tregelles' text exihibit, having been typeset 150 years ago, are with us still:
"Tregelles used a series of identical printings of the then standard text of the Greek New Testament (the Textus Receptus) as the basis for his collation of manuscripts and ascertaining the text of his edition. It is almost inevitable to avoid errors caused by this base text shining through, and these are particularly visible in the errors of the printed edition. . . . And in Luke 19:41 we find the conflated reading ἐπ᾽ αὐτῄν (EP AUTHiN), a combination of the reading of the Textus Receptus, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ (EP AUTHi), and the reading Tregelles must have preferred, ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν (EP AUTHN).
"The procedure that was followed was to have two people, independent of one another, adjust existing electronic editions towards what was seen on the photographs on screen. . . . Neither electronic text proved to be completely free of accentual errors. . . . After this a print out of the transcription was compared against the actual printed text which resulted again in the correction of details that were missed at the first stage. Finally, a last proof reading of the transcript was made in conjunction with the "Table of Changes and Corrections to TNT" in which special attention was given to issues of accentuation and consistency. Especially in this phase, the expert knowledge of Dr P.J. Williams filtered out a considerable number of glitches."
And all types of scribal error are likely present, even orthodox corruptions in the TNT2 redaction:
"I am all too painfully aware that the TNT and TNT2 we are releasing will contain some errors in transcription of some accents, punctuation, and possibly even of a word or word order."
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Daniel
http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Download/IntroductionTregelles.pdf
"Why would one bother with a Greek New Testament printed in the 19th century? Has it not been superseded by improvements, new discoveries, and a finer methodology? Is this text not simply a relic from the past, with mere curiosity value, but of no further importance?
"First of all, in order to understand where the textual criticism of the New Testament is at the moment, it is of crucial importance to know how we arrived at this point. The principles Tregelles laid down, and the result of these principles (alongside the evidence he provides for and against his choice of text), are part of the history of the discipline and form an important contribution to that discipline.
"Secondly, even after 150 years, Tregelles's edition pays attention to variants that are not recorded in the Greek New Testament mostly used in the universities and seminaries, the Nestle-Aland 27th edition. Many of these variants are not yet covered by any of the current major projects in the textual criticism of the New Testament (though many of these will be found in Tischendorf's edition and the work by Von Soden). Though it is likely that this situation will change in the coming decades, there is still real value in the collection of the evidence.
"Thirdly, independent voices need to be heard and not forgotten. It happens all too often that students of and commentators on the Greek text find safety in the consensus text, tacitly accepting the methodology and assumptions of the day. Dissenting voices from the past such as Tregelles, who earned the right to be heard by means of his long exposure to and interaction with the evidence and methodology of the discipline, can guard us from a misplaced confidence.
"Fourthly, Tregelles can arguably be described as a theologically conservative scholar. There is a sense in which this conservatism shines through in his method. Tregelles had come to the conclusion that any speculation and reliance on a constructed history of transmission was a dangerous thing to do, but that the only sure ground for establishing the text of the New Testament was to limit oneself to what can be seen in the manuscripts as surviving artefacts. Tregelles combined this notion with his conviction that theology should follow from the text, and that therefore he stood under an obligation to print the text established to the best of his abilities."
This last point is perhaps the most important for me. While I will not necessarily agree with SPT's conclusions or even his approach, the fact that they were couched in a firm belief in the authority of the Scriptures speaks volumes.
That being said, it is also interesting to see Tyndale House's frenzied but futile attempts to eliminate scribal errors in this edition--they couldn't even avoid making one in the process of writing two sentences about how hard it was:
"It turned out harder than imagined to avoid transcriptional errors. . . . These two transcriptions where then compared against each other and the differences were reconciled."
The very defects Tregelles' text exihibit, having been typeset 150 years ago, are with us still:
"Tregelles used a series of identical printings of the then standard text of the Greek New Testament (the Textus Receptus) as the basis for his collation of manuscripts and ascertaining the text of his edition. It is almost inevitable to avoid errors caused by this base text shining through, and these are particularly visible in the errors of the printed edition. . . . And in Luke 19:41 we find the conflated reading ἐπ᾽ αὐτῄν (EP AUTHiN), a combination of the reading of the Textus Receptus, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ (EP AUTHi), and the reading Tregelles must have preferred, ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν (EP AUTHN).
"The procedure that was followed was to have two people, independent of one another, adjust existing electronic editions towards what was seen on the photographs on screen. . . . Neither electronic text proved to be completely free of accentual errors. . . . After this a print out of the transcription was compared against the actual printed text which resulted again in the correction of details that were missed at the first stage. Finally, a last proof reading of the transcript was made in conjunction with the "Table of Changes and Corrections to TNT" in which special attention was given to issues of accentuation and consistency. Especially in this phase, the expert knowledge of Dr P.J. Williams filtered out a considerable number of glitches."
And all types of scribal error are likely present, even orthodox corruptions in the TNT2 redaction:
"I am all too painfully aware that the TNT and TNT2 we are releasing will contain some errors in transcription of some accents, punctuation, and possibly even of a word or word order."
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Daniel
[JesusMysteries] Who Crucified Jesus?
Hi Richard Godwin,
The Pauline gospel consists of "Christ preached," (1 Cor. 15:12) and Christ portrayed (Gal. 3:1). There is not a single appeal to an eye witness for any "fact" of the life of Jesus. Other than vision and revelation, no one has any knowledge of Christ. Where are the thousands of followers who ate miraculous meals at his behest, listened to him preach, welcomed him to Jerusalem in the triumphal entry? Paul must have avoided them like the plague if the tradtional story is true. Paul must have stopped his ears and hummed loady to never know that Jesus had (supposedly) been known as a great healer, and had cast out legions of demons. Richard, something is stinky fishy in the orthodox beliefs regarding Jesus and Paul.
Who were his parents? Paul doesn't know. Where was he born, where did he die, was he buried in a tomb or eaten by dogs? Don't ask Paul. It is as if Paul and Jesus were from different planets.
The Pauline crucifixion does not mention Pontius Pilate, or the Jews, or King Herod; so it doesn't do a thing to advance the case of historicity. The Rulers that are said to crucify Jesus are as much adrift in otherworldliness as Jesus himself.
The "Lord of Glory" was crucified by unnamed "Archons of the Aeon". 1 Cor. 2:8. There are no historical anchors in the Pauline corpus as to when or in which realm Jesus was crucified. See "Who Crucified Jesus?" by Earl Doherty, http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/supp03.htm
Jesus is written of as crucified in the Pauline corpus, but not in a historical context.
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Corinthians 2:8. A similar scene is found in the _Ascension of Isaiah_ chapter 9,
http://tinyurl.com/7vx2z .
There is no indication that Jesus was crucified in the Pauline writers' recent past. In fact, the opposite is indicated. "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past" Romans 16:25.
Jesus redemptive deeds were either done in a higher realm or the primordial past. The revelation of these deeds was through the preaching of the gospel in the writers' present time.
Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: Col. 1:26.
The oldest known interpretation of 1 Cor. 2:8 is that of Marcion (Against
Marcion Book V). Marcion taught that Jesus was crucified by spiritual archons, minions of the Demiurge. Tertullian's argument is clearly secondary to Marcion's, and was only fashioned contra-Marcion, but has become the standard orthodox apology ever since.
But because (the apostle) subjoins, on the subject of
our glory, that "none of the princes of this world
knew it for had they known it they would not have
crucified the Lord of glory," the heretic [Marcion]
argues that the princes of this world crucified the
Lord (that is, the Christ of the rival god) in order
that this blow might even recoil on the Creator ... it
properly enough was unknown to all the princes and
powers of the Creator, on the principle that servants
are not permitted to know their masters' plans, much
less the fallen angels and the leader of transgression
himself, the devil Himself.
Tertullian Against Marcion Book V
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-35.htm#P7393_2130388
The Redeemer in Gnostic myth, (Christos/Chrestos), descends incognito through the spheres, and fools the archons by taking on the appearance of the beings appropriate to each realm, and gains passage through each Archonic gate by means of secret passwords. When he emerges from the last gate, he begins to preach, and is put to death in ignorance by the demiurge and his minions.
Jake Jones IV
The Pauline gospel consists of "Christ preached," (1 Cor. 15:12) and Christ portrayed (Gal. 3:1). There is not a single appeal to an eye witness for any "fact" of the life of Jesus. Other than vision and revelation, no one has any knowledge of Christ. Where are the thousands of followers who ate miraculous meals at his behest, listened to him preach, welcomed him to Jerusalem in the triumphal entry? Paul must have avoided them like the plague if the tradtional story is true. Paul must have stopped his ears and hummed loady to never know that Jesus had (supposedly) been known as a great healer, and had cast out legions of demons. Richard, something is stinky fishy in the orthodox beliefs regarding Jesus and Paul.
Who were his parents? Paul doesn't know. Where was he born, where did he die, was he buried in a tomb or eaten by dogs? Don't ask Paul. It is as if Paul and Jesus were from different planets.
The Pauline crucifixion does not mention Pontius Pilate, or the Jews, or King Herod; so it doesn't do a thing to advance the case of historicity. The Rulers that are said to crucify Jesus are as much adrift in otherworldliness as Jesus himself.
The "Lord of Glory" was crucified by unnamed "Archons of the Aeon". 1 Cor. 2:8. There are no historical anchors in the Pauline corpus as to when or in which realm Jesus was crucified. See "Who Crucified Jesus?" by Earl Doherty, http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/supp03.htm
Jesus is written of as crucified in the Pauline corpus, but not in a historical context.
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 1 Corinthians 2:8. A similar scene is found in the _Ascension of Isaiah_ chapter 9,
http://tinyurl.com/7vx2z .
There is no indication that Jesus was crucified in the Pauline writers' recent past. In fact, the opposite is indicated. "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past" Romans 16:25.
Jesus redemptive deeds were either done in a higher realm or the primordial past. The revelation of these deeds was through the preaching of the gospel in the writers' present time.
Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: Col. 1:26.
The oldest known interpretation of 1 Cor. 2:8 is that of Marcion (Against
Marcion Book V). Marcion taught that Jesus was crucified by spiritual archons, minions of the Demiurge. Tertullian's argument is clearly secondary to Marcion's, and was only fashioned contra-Marcion, but has become the standard orthodox apology ever since.
But because (the apostle) subjoins, on the subject of
our glory, that "none of the princes of this world
knew it for had they known it they would not have
crucified the Lord of glory," the heretic [Marcion]
argues that the princes of this world crucified the
Lord (that is, the Christ of the rival god) in order
that this blow might even recoil on the Creator ... it
properly enough was unknown to all the princes and
powers of the Creator, on the principle that servants
are not permitted to know their masters' plans, much
less the fallen angels and the leader of transgression
himself, the devil Himself.
Tertullian Against Marcion Book V
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-35.htm#P7393_2130388
The Redeemer in Gnostic myth, (Christos/Chrestos), descends incognito through the spheres, and fools the archons by taking on the appearance of the beings appropriate to each realm, and gains passage through each Archonic gate by means of secret passwords. When he emerges from the last gate, he begins to preach, and is put to death in ignorance by the demiurge and his minions.
Jake Jones IV
Christ Conspiracy Answers in Genesis: Atheists more likely to commit murder
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__._,_.___
Please support Acharya by visiting http://www.truthbeknown.com Help spread the word and post this site wherever you can!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)