Thread Split from "Apelles and the gospel of John"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1160
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Thread Split from "Apelles and the gospel of John"

Post by Charles Wilson » Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:52 am

Hello everyone --

I held on to this one for a few days. I didn't want to veer off into the ditch with the the "Apelles and the gospel of John" Thread and yet there are some important variations ("to me...") in the material that I feel should be looked at from people other than me. At the end of this Post is an alternative reading that may or may not be correct. It certainly does make sense. As J L Austin said, "Deception rides on the back of non-deception". We'll see.
{Note: I also had to reformat the Post. I hope I didn't incorrectly reformat.]
MrMacSon wrote:Mentions in the NT are interesting
Corinthians 1:12

'Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ".
The next passage - is also interesting
As usual, MrMacSon, you are ahead of the game.
The following is Informational. Frans: You are invited to join in at any moment.
I believe that this section is Historical in that the identities of the Players may be known. This is more Tacitus, Histories, Book 4 stuff:

"Mucianus had also forwarded to the Senate certain letters which furnished matter for talk. It was said, "Why, if he is a private citizen, does he speak like a public man? In a few days' time he might have said the very same words in his place as a Senator. And even the invective against Vitellius comes too late, and is ungenerous; while certainly it is arrogance to the State and an insult to the Emperor to boast that he had the Imperial power in his hands, and made a present of it to Vespasian." Their dislike, however, was concealed; their adulation was open enough. In most flattering language they voted a triumph to Mucianus, a triumph for a civil war, though the expedition against the Sarmatae was the pretext. On Antonius Primus were bestowed the insignia of consular rank, on Arrius Varus and Cornelius Fuscus praetorian honours. Then they remembered the Gods..."

The paragraph that follows in Tacitus gives quite a list of people who pledge allegiance with various degrees of sincerity to various people and factions.
"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1 Cor 3: 4-6

[4]'For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?
[5] What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.
[6] I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.

An endpoint for this Intrigue is found a little later in Histories:

"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, 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..."

It is of extreme importance to understand that the next sentence in Tacitus is to be considered as the model for 1 Corinthians 1: 14 - 16


[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.)


This is the Death of Stephen Martyr - the "Household of Stephanas". "Baptism" may not be as clear-cut an idea as one might think.

"The murder of Calpurnius Galerianus caused the utmost consternation. He was a son of Caius Piso, and had done nothing, but a noble name and his own youthful beauty [ See Acts: "...And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.] 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..."

These verses are rewrites of Tacitus.
***
Acts 18: 24-28

[24] 'Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus.
[25] This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
[26] And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
[27] And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
[28] For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

There is probably more mischief here than I am able to discern. There are, however, some interesting tidbits. This person has been instructed "...in the way of the Lord". He is fervent in the spirit, usually a nod to Domitian. He knows only of the Baptism of John. AHA!! This is before Domitian yet after Titus in some manner! The Baptism of the Holy Spirit replaces the Baptism of John almost before anyone knew of the Baptism of John! This is a Marker, a Time Marker, for the Damantio'd Domitian.

Of interest again is that name "Aquila". We are invited to think of "Aquila" as a female person. I ask again: Does anyone have knowledge of the name "Aquila" before 66?

Would it be reasonable to believe that a BOAT might have been named "Eagle"?

War..., 4, 9, 2:

"Wherefore Vespasian put off at first his expedition against Jerusalem, and stood waiting whither the empire would be transferred after the death of Nero. Moreover, when he heard that Galba was made emperor, he attempted nothing till he also should send him some directions about the war: however, he sent his son Titus to him, to salute him, and to receive his commands about the Jews. Upon the very same errand did king Agrippa sail along with Titus to Galba; but as they were sailing in their long ships by the coasts of Achaia, for it was winter time, they heard that Galba was slain, before they could get to him, after he had reigned seven months and as many days. After whom Otho took the government, and undertook the management of public affairs. So Agrippa resolved to go on to Rome without any terror; on account of the change in the government; but Titus, by a Divine impulse, sailed back from Greece to Syria, and came in great haste to Cesarea, to his father..."

I believe that this "Apollos" is actually Agrippa 2. This is possible with a reading, without commas, of various translations (Etheridge, Murdock, etc.) of the Peshitta/Syriac versions:

Acts 18: 28 (Murdock):

[28] For he reasoned powerfully against the Jews, before the congregation; and showed from the scriptures, respecting Jesus, that he is the Messiah.

That WHO is the Messiah?

[from] - [book, writing, Scripture] - [on, about, concerning] - [Jesus] - [Messiah, Annointed One, Christ] - [he, it, is]

http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ve ... elo+Edessa

This is best seen in Vic Alexander's Translation (https://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-New-Test ... 1456475789 ):

Acts 18: 28 (Alexander, emphasis added):

[28] For he argued eruditely against the Jews before the congregation, while he showed from Scriptures regarding Eashoa, that he was the Messiah.

Without commas, "...while he showed from Scriptures regarding Eashoa that he was the Messiah."
This confusion is also seen in:

Matthew 24: 5 (RSV):

[5] For many will come in my name, saying, `I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray.

OR

[5] For many will come in my name saying I am the Christ and they will lead many astray.

Who
will the many claim to be the Christ? "The Many" individually?...Or the character "Jesus"? It makes a difference.

The Acts material may be about Agrippa 2.
As always, YMMV.

CW

Post Reply