Whose farewell speech is this?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by FransJVermeiren »

Below I reproduce a New Testament fragment in which I made some translation decisions, especially concerning κόσμος and λόγος. I will identify this fragment and justify my translation choices later on. For now I have only one question: to whose farewell speech does this fragment belong?

I have made your name known to the men you gave me out of the Roman empire. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have paid attention to your Christ. Now they know that everything you have given me is from you; for the commandments you gave to me I have given to them; and they have accepted them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am begging for their sakes; I am not beseeching on behalf of the Roman empire, but on behalf of those whom you gave me, because they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine; and I have been glorified in them. And now I am no longer in the Roman empire, but they are in the Roman empire, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was destroyed [except the son of destruction], that the scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to you, and I speak these things into the Roman empire so that they may have my joy made complete among themselves. I have given them your Christ, and the Roman empire has hated them because they do not belong to the Roman empire, just as I do not belong to the Roman empire. I am not begging you to take them out of the Roman empire, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one. [They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world.] Sanctify them in the truth; your Christ is truth. As you have sent me into the Roman empire, so I have sent them into the Roman empire. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.

www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

FransJVermeiren wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 4:58 am Below I reproduce a New Testament fragment in which I made some translation decisions, especially concerning κόσμος and λόγος. I will identify this fragment and justify my translation choices later on. For now I have only one question: to whose farewell speech does this fragment belong?

I have made your name known to the men you gave me out of the Roman empire. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have paid attention to your Christ. Now they know that everything you have given me is from you; for the commandments you gave to me I have given to them; and they have accepted them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am begging for their sakes; I am not beseeching on behalf of the Roman empire, but on behalf of those whom you gave me, because they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine; and I have been glorified in them. And now I am no longer in the Roman empire, but they are in the Roman empire, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was destroyed [except the son of destruction], that the scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to you, and I speak these things into the Roman empire so that they may have my joy made complete among themselves. I have given them your Christ, and the Roman empire has hated them because they do not belong to the Roman empire, just as I do not belong to the Roman empire. I am not begging you to take them out of the Roman empire, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one. [They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world.] Sanctify them in the truth; your Christ is truth. As you have sent me into the Roman empire, so I have sent them into the Roman empire. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.

Well, it belongs to Jesus in the gospel of John. Highly recognizable material, despite your unique translation choices. Or did you mean that it really sounds like somebody else's speech in some other body of literature?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by Charles Wilson »

Howard Teeple has most of this as coming from "E" - the "Editor". He states:

"In‭ ‬12:42‭ ‬the editor alludes to the Pharisees‭‘ ‬exclusion of the Christians from the synagogues‭; ‬this excommunication began about A.D.‭ ‬90.‭ ‬As we have concluded,‭ ‬one of his sources,‭ ‬S,‭ ‬was written around the year‭ ‬95.‭ ‬Thus the editor wrote after‭ ‬95.‭ ‬On the other hand,‭ ‬the redactor wrote before the famous John Rylands Library fragment,‭ ‬P52,‭ ‬was produced,‭ ‬because that papyrus contains R's insertion in‭ ‬18:32.‭ ‬The date of P52‭ ‬apparently is the second quarter of the second century,‭ ‬and considering the respective point of view of E and R,‭ ‬E probably wrote soon after G was written,‭ ‬but several decades may separate the work of E and R.‭ ‬Therefore E probably wrote around A.‭ ‬D.‭ ‬100-110,‭ ‬and R probably around‭ ‬125‭ ‬- 135.‭"

Teeple sees an E section beginning with John 17: 5. "R" - the "Radactor" - butts in at the end of verse 12, adding "...except the Son of Destruction, in order that the scripture may be fulfilled."

"G" finishes 13 and adds 14. E returns for 15 - 16 and G finishes with 17.

Obviously, this is an acquired taste. As the philosopher Popeye used to say, "Enough is enough and enough is too much." I agree with the idea you are seeing, FJV. I certainly agree with [certain details of] Teeple's Time Line here. My naive view is, of course, that this is a rewrite of some Titus material put into the mouth of the "Jesus" character. It should be enough to see the Time Line and the Intent. I don't want to get into a drunken brawl with the Good Friends Club when we all meet at the local bar for 2-for-1 pitchers of beer.

This section is still a bit "fluid" as it is being fixed. The awkwardness of John is on display. It appears that this is another section that was "finalized" with the intent of being intentionally vague, with meanings being allowed to accumulate from outside. [Edit addition: The Time Line would show that there were additions in the 20 - 30 years of authorship to change the meaning because of events that were unforeseen when the original document was written (Even changes in Theology and Cosmology). With the expulsion of Christians around 90 and the setting of "E" to around 110, there should be a plausible map for the corrections that were made, esp. after "E". YMMV.]

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Fri May 11, 2018 8:38 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Charles Wilson wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 7:39 am Howard Teeple has most of this as coming from "E" - the "Editor".
John 15-17 in their entirety are highly suspect anyway, given that in 14.31b Jesus says, "Arise; let us go from here," but then prattles on for 3 more chapters without interruption. The farewell speech which the OP mentions comes from chapter 17.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by Charles Wilson »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 8:09 am
Charles Wilson wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 7:39 am Howard Teeple has most of this as coming from "E" - the "Editor".
John 15-17 in their entirety are highly suspect anyway, given that in 14.31b Jesus says, "Arise; let us go from here," but then prattles on for 3 more chapters without interruption. The farewell speech which the OP mentions comes from chapter 17.
Yes! So...Tell us more of what you see.
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by FransJVermeiren »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 5:10 am Well, it belongs to Jesus in the gospel of John. Highly recognizable material, despite your unique translation choices. Or did you mean that it really sounds like somebody else's speech in some other body of literature?
The Gospel of John indeed, chapter 17:6-19. It was not my purpose to make a riddle, but to present this fragment without context. I hoped that this isolated presentation of the text together with my translation choices would possibly recall a different person than Jesus as the original orator of this speech.

In the OP I held out the prospect of an explanation for my translation choices. I briefly refer to BDAG for κόσμος as well as for λόγος.

In BDAG p. 561 under the κόσμος lemma two inscriptions are mentioned, one that calls Nero ‘the lord of the whole world’, and secondly the Priene Calendar Inscription. The latter contains the phrase ‘and since the birthday of Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings for the world…’ (my underlining) It is obvious that in both cases the Roman empire is meant.

For λόγος I refer to Revelation 19:13, 1John 5:7 v.l. and also GJohn 1:1, which is best understood as describing the pre-existing Christ. BDAG gives the following comment (p. 601) at John’s use of λόγος: ‘It is the distinctive teaching of the Fourth Gospel that this divine ‘Word’ took on human form in a historical person, that is, in Jesus.’

From the synoptic gospels it is clear that Jesus was not a universalist. That was embarrassing for the young church that saw its way to the Jewish people blocked after having been rejected by the Pharisees. Consequently early Christianity focused on the God-fearing messianists of the Roman empire. Who had been their apostle several decades before? Paul. I believe that the compiler of the gospel of John used Paul’s farewell speech in an effort to bring Jesus' activity in line with the universalist aspirations of early Christianity.

We hear John’s embarrassment on Jesus’ limited focus in the paragraph preceding the fragment under consideration. Verse 4 tells that Jesus glorified God ἐπἱ τῆς γῆς, and here also I believe a territorial translation is preferable, with γῆ = Palestine. As this limited focus was not a solid base for Christianity directed towards the peoples of the Roman empire, the editor of the gospel of John called Paul to his aid to change the ethnicist Jesus into a universalist.

P.S. Thank you, CW, for introducing Howard Teeple.
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by Charles Wilson »

FransJVermeiren wrote: Sun May 13, 2018 6:32 am Thank you, CW, for introducing Howard Teeple.
There was no "sarc switch" here ("/s") so thank you. Remember, Teeple came to this site from old Poster Adam. He appears to be gone from this site but he certainly found a good person in Teeple.

Update: I managed to get a copy of Teeple's Literary Origin of the Gospel of John through Inter-Library Loan from the University of Miami. It was hand corrected and no football player was harmed in the placing of this book in the Library. Not that any Miami football player would ever be found in the lib'ary.

ISBN-13: 978-0914384007, ISBN-10: 0914384007. https://www.amazon.com/Literary-Origin- ... 0914384007

I scanned it, OCR'd it and am taking WAAAAAY too long to Format the book correctly. I may be asking for help in proofing this if anyone would like. Right now, it's all in a ".doc" file, on its way to a ".pdf" from ".jpg" scans. Lemme know if interested. "For Proofing Purposes Only".

Teeple was on to something, I'm just not always sure what it was. Note: Since I still believe that Christianity was a created product and created around 110, the removal of "Christians" from Synagogues in circa 95 would be problematic. It would be Recent History on my Time Line but "Jamnia/Yavneh/etc." does involve Zakkai and I'm big on Zakkai. Problematic for the identifiable group "Christians".
That was embarrassing for the young church that saw its way to the Jewish people blocked after having been rejected by the Pharisees.
Plz remember that, on my view, the Pharisees are on the Roman's side at the Passover Slaughter of 4 BCE. We are close, FJV, but "details, ever the details"...

CW
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by FransJVermeiren »

Charles Wilson wrote: Sun May 13, 2018 10:58 am
ISBN-13: 978-0914384007, ISBN-10: 0914384007. https://www.amazon.com/Literary-Origin- ... 0914384007

I scanned it, OCR'd it and am taking WAAAAAY too long to Format the book correctly. I may be asking for help in proofing this if anyone would like. Right now, it's all in a ".doc" file, on its way to a ".pdf" from ".jpg" scans. Lemme know if interested. "For Proofing Purposes Only".
Thank you CW for the proposal, but I have a superb theological library in my backyard containing more than one million volumes. One of them is Teeple’s book.

For the farewell speech, would it help if we could discern a passage in one of the early Christian writings that possibly refers to a farewell speech pronounced by Paul?

In my opinion such a fragment exists in 1 Clement V:7, which says that Paul μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων. In most cases this phrase is translated as ‘gave testimony before the rulers’; Roberts-Donaldson even gives ‘suffered martyrdom under the prefects’. This translation suggests that Paul had to give account before Roman authorities. In my opinion this is not the case. In 1 Clement I:3 the ἡγουμένοι are clearly the leaders of the community, and this is also the case in Hebrews 13:7, 17 and 27 and in Acts 15:22. In my opinion Paul ‘gave testimony before the leaders’ of his own Essene community, more particularly to the supreme Essene leaders in Jerusalem. This was considered to be a memorable event. That’s why 1 Clement mentions it and why ‘John’ gave its written report a place in his gospel.
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by Charles Wilson »

FransJVermeiren wrote: Wed May 16, 2018 12:38 am I have a superb theological library in my backyard containing more than one million volumes. One of them is Teeple’s book.
I congratulate you on your good fortune!
For the farewell speech, would it help if we could discern a passage in one of the early Christian writings that possibly refers to a farewell speech pronounced by Paul?
...
This translation suggests that Paul had to give account before Roman authorities. In my opinion this is not the case.
1 Corinthians 1: 13 - 17 (RSV):

[13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Here is as much of a speech as you might find. It is from Tacitus, Histories, Book 4:

"While things were in this state, while there was division in the Senate, resentment among the conquered, no real authority in the conquerors, and in the country at large no laws and no Emperor [[Verse 13]], Mucianus entered the capital, and at once drew all power into his own hands. The influence of Primus Antonius and Varus Arrius was destroyed; for the irritation of Mucianus against them, though not revealed in his looks, was but ill-concealed, and the country, keen to discover such dislikes, had changed its tone and transferred its homage. He alone was canvassed and courted, and he, surrounding himself with armed men, and bargaining for palaces and gardens, ceased not, what with his magnificence, his proud bearing, and his guards, to grasp at the power, while he waived the titles of Empire. The murder of Calpurnius Galerianus caused the utmost consternation. He was a son of Caius Piso [[Verse 16. "The House of Stephanas" refers to "Stephen Martyr", Galerianus Piso above. He "had the face of an angel" in Acts. With the change of "Opened his veins" to "Stoned", this identification becomes hidden]], and had done nothing, but a noble name and his own youthful beauty made him the theme of common talk; and while the country was still unquiet and delighted in novel topics, there were persons who associated him with idle rumours of Imperial honours. By order of Mucianus he was surrounded with a guard of soldiers. Lest his execution in the capital should excite too much notice, they conducted him to the fortieth milestone from Rome on the Appian Road, and there put him to death by opening his veins. Julius Priscus, who had been prefect of the Praetorian Guard under Vitellius, killed himself rather out of shame than by compulsion.

Verse 16 is nonsense on its face. "Paul" can't remember if he baptized anyone else?
Verse 17 is an "Inside Joke". What we have now is nonsense. What does "...lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power" mean? You THINK you know but if you step back a bit, I believe that you will realize that you are supplying your own meanings (See also: "He was referring to the temple of his body...").

"Paul" was a Construction based on Mucianus. He held Imperial Power in his hands and gave it up to Vespasian. He is listed as Consul (Suffect) until around 75 when he disappears from the records.

If true, then this Fragment from 1 Corinthians must have occurred after the return to Rome at the beginning of Vespasian's rule. Thus, this may be his farewell speech. It appears more as a confession from a proud...person* and is probably from 72-ish to 75-ish.

CW

* Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Vespasian:

"He [Vespasian] bore the frank language of his friends, the quips of pleaders, and the impudence of the philosophers with the greatest patience. Though Licinius Mucianus, a man of notorious unchastity, presumed upon his services to treat Vespasian with scant respect, he never had the heart to criticize him except privately and then only to the extent of adding to a complaint made to a common friend, the significant words: "I at least am a man."
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by FransJVermeiren »

CW, it is clear to me that under the surface of the New Testament the Roman empire is omnipresent, but not in the sense of a positive or neutral connection but in the sense of deep hostility. I continue my line of thought.

In the OP I translated the κόσμος of GJohn 17 as ‘Roman empire’. Interestingly 1 Clement V:7, which contains μαρτυρησας επι των ηγουμενων (see above), also gives κόσμος twice. The whole fragment on Paul in 1 Clement V goes as follows (my emphasis):

(5) Δια ζηλον και εριν Παυλος υπομονης βραβειον υπεδειξεν, (6) επτακις δεσμα φορεσας, φυγαδευθεις, λιθασθεις, κηρυξ γενομενος εν τε τη ανατολη και εν τη δυσει, το γενναιον της πιστεως αυτου κλεος ελαβεν, (7) δικαιοσυνην διδαξας ολον τον κοσμον και επι το τερμα της δυσεως ελθων· και μαρτυρησας επι των ηγουμενων, ουτως απηλλαγη του κοσμου και εις τον αγιον τοπον επορευθη, υπομονης γενομενος μεγιστος υπογραμμος.

Verse 7 starts with ‘He taught righteousness to the whole world’. It may be clear that Paul didn’t teach righteousness to the whole then known world (including Arabia, Africa, Parthia, Scythia, Germania,…). Paul taught throughout the whole Roman empire. In the East he covered Asia Minor, Achaia and Macedonia, he visited Rome itself, the center of the empire, and finally he visited (or intended to visit) Spain. Therefore it is probable that the second κόσμος in this verse also refers to the Roman empire. That makes some translations of ουτως απηλλαγη του κοσμου quite problematic. LCL 24 gives ‘and thus passed from the world’; Ancient Christian Writers No. 1 even gives ‘ended his earthly career’! I believe this phrase simply says that Paul ‘left the Roman empire’ and returned to Palestine/Jerusalem. This translation perfectly connects with the next phrase: on returning he went to the Temple (‘εις τον ἁγιον τοπον επορευθη’). For this phrase the translations mentioned above give ‘was taken up to the holy place’, meaning heaven, but elsewhere in the New Testament the ἁγιος τοπος is always the Temple. When we translate verse 7 like this, some significant connections with GJohn 17 appear. ‘Leaving the Roman empire (κόσμος)’ connects with verse 17:11 ‘and now I am no longer in the Roman empire (κόσμος)’, which means that he recently left it. That Paul addresses God, the Holy Father, and says 'I am coming to you' in this same verse is all the more understandable if he pronounced his farewell speech in the Temple.
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
Post Reply