Question: Petrinism, and specifically Paulism's (?) reunion with it

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm

Question: Petrinism, and specifically Paulism's (?) reunion with it

Post by billd89 » Fri Oct 09, 2020 7:18 pm

Can someone clarify this point, from Moriz Friedländer’s “La Secte de Melchisédec et l'Épître aux Hébreux” in Revue des Études Juives Vol. 5 (1882), Part 1: p.14

L'Eglise peut avoir parfaitement raison de dire que leur hérésie se prévalait de l'Épître aux Hébreux; mais il n'est nullement prouvé de là que les Melchisédéciens n'auraient pas existé sans l'appui de cette Épître. Cette secte, en effet, avait pu exister, sans être une secte dissidente du christianisme, ou bien parce qu'elle n'avait encore aucun rapport avec lui et qu'elle ne s'en rapprocha que grâce à l'Épître aux Hébreux, ou bien, ce qui est plus probable, parce que, appartenant tout d'abord au parti du gnosticisme paulinien, elle ne devint hérétique que lorsqu'elle abandonna les doctrines du paulinisme au moment où il cessa de pousser en avant et se rapprocha du pétrinisme pour s'allier avec lui. L'Épître aux Hébreux marquerait ainsi la frontière où le melchisédécisme se sépare du paulinisme et devient hérétique.

My trans:
The Church may be perfectly right saying their {viz. Melchizedeks'} heresy predominated in the Epistle to the Hebrews; but it is by no means proven there that Melchizedekians would not have existed without support of this Epistle. In effect, this sect had been able to exist without being a dissident sect of Christianity, or else because it still had no connection and that it had only approached Christianity through Epistle to the Hebrews. Or else – which is more probable – because, belonging first of all to the party of Pauline Gnosticism, the sect only became heretical when it abandoned the doctrines of Paulism at the moment when it ceased to advance progressively and approached Petrinism, to ally with it. Epistle to the Hebrews would thus mark the border where Melchizedekism separates from Paulism and becomes heretical.

Implicitly here, Paulism ceased to push forward and - instead - returns to, or draws near again to Petrinism ... or is Melchizedekism abandoning Paulism to become Petrist? (I'm abit lost in the clauses, uncertain what's meant.) Allied when, exactly? The word "Petrinism" doesn't even appear on this forum (until now), and Google is not my friend. While I might guess what is meant and when, is there a more exact source besides Baur auf deutsche? I'm an amateur so a simple explanation would suffice.
(I presume Hebrews was originally written c.60 AD: the implication being that Melchizedekians 'slip' and their rejection of Paulism occurs sometime before Hebrews was written, say c.57 AD?)

Petrinism :(Christianity)
The Tübingen theory of F. C. Baur (1792-1860) and his school, of a doctrinal trend in primitive Christianity towards Judaism, ascribed to Peter and his party in opposition to Paulinism.


mlinssen
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Question: Petrinism, and specifically Paulism's (?) reunion with it

Post by mlinssen » Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:02 pm

billd89 wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 7:18 pm
Can someone clarify this point, from Moriz Friedländer’s “La Secte de Melchisédec et l'Épître aux Hébreux” in Revue des Études Juives Vol. 5 (1882), Part 1: p.14
Just quoting a part in order to get your attention / notification here. Your translation is pretty good but very wrong at essential points, alas

I'm Dutch, fluent in English and German, used to be fluent in French, Spanish and Portuguese, learned Latin and Greek at grammar school and taught myself Coptic in order to study Thomas - that's my context here

https://www.larousse.fr/conjugaison/fra ... aloir/7066

To benefit, se prévaloir. Heresy benefited from the letter to the Hebrews is what they say

I'll continue this later today, on mobile now and a bit difficult with only one small screen, but for now: it's all Passé simple, just about:

She didn't become heretic until when she abandoned the Pauline doctrines in the moment when she stopped advancing...

mlinssen
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Question: Petrinism, and specifically Paulism's (?) reunion with it

Post by mlinssen » Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:40 pm

And ou bien ou bien is the same as either or, that will help I suppose

User avatar
billd89
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm

Corrections (certainly needed!)

Post by billd89 » Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:05 am

Alas and alack, quick and dirty is ... quick and dirty. My working translation is admittedly a first draft, has errors, etc. In fact, I haven't read or written French (and I wasn't a good student) in over 25 years. There is no translation, so I must muddle through ...

"L'Eglise peut avoir parfaitement raison de dire que leur hérésie se prévalait de l'Épître aux Hébreux; mais il n'est nullement prouvé de là que les Melchisédéciens n'auraient pas existé sans l'appui de cette Épître."
mlinssen wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:02 pm

https://www.larousse.fr/conjugaison/fra ... aloir/7066

To benefit, se prévaloir. Heresy benefited from the letter to the Hebrews is what they say
No, 'benefited' is wrong here. (Verb se prévalait is not accurately 'predominated'/prevailed; 'made use of' or 'took advantage of' is right.)

The Austrian author is writing with a mid-19th C. knowledge of French as a third or fourth language; the modern Larousse is misleading you. Always, always use the period dictionary. See Boyer's Revised, Enlarged, etc. French-English and English-French Dictionary [1881], p.414:
Se prévaloir de, v. r. to take advantage of, make use of, glory or pride in, value one's self upon.

"The Church may be perfectly right in saying that their heresy made use of Epistle to the Hebrews; but it is by no means proven from there that the Melchizedekians would not have existed without the support of this Epistle."

mlinssen
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Corrections (certainly needed!)

Post by mlinssen » Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:09 am

billd89 wrote:
Sat Oct 10, 2020 5:05 am
Alas and alack, quick and dirty is ... quick and dirty. My working translation is admittedly a first draft, has errors, etc. In fact, I haven't read or written French (and I wasn't a good student) in over 25 years. There is no translation, so I must muddle through ...

"L'Eglise peut avoir parfaitement raison de dire que leur hérésie se prévalait de l'Épître aux Hébreux; mais il n'est nullement prouvé de là que les Melchisédéciens n'auraient pas existé sans l'appui de cette Épître."
mlinssen wrote:
Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:02 pm

https://www.larousse.fr/conjugaison/fra ... aloir/7066

To benefit, se prévaloir. Heresy benefited from the letter to the Hebrews is what they say
No, 'benefited' is wrong here. (Verb se prévalait is not accurately 'predominated'/prevailed; 'made use of' or 'took advantage of' is right.)

The Austrian author is writing with a mid-19th C. knowledge of French as a third or fourth language; the modern Larousse is misleading you. Always, always use the period dictionary. See Boyer's Revised, Enlarged, etc. French-English and English-French Dictionary [1881], p.414:
Se prévaloir de, v. r. to take advantage of, make use of, glory or pride in, value one's self upon.

"The Church may be perfectly right in saying that their heresy made use of Epistle to the Hebrews; but it is by no means proven from there that the Melchizedekians would not have existed without the support of this Epistle."
Well well well, lucky you. I'm a born Austrian...
It's your translation, so feel free to interpret! But "make use" could suggest that they actually used (parts of) its content, whereas I presume that the mere existence of the Epistle to the Hebrews was deemed to be a plus to heresy in general

Benefiting from is a more neutral way of phrasing, taking advantage of seems to imply intent, doesn't it? English is not my native language, and perhaps I'm confusing British use with American use.
Boyer, by the way, was quite focused on stressing the day-to-day use of the language. And he wasn't very fond of the French Academy

Your context is quite enlightening, I thought before that the French was rather odd, poor even. If I were you I'd just take a blunt knife and go through it once, then do a second round with a finer comb. Austrians, like all German-speaking people, are notoriously ill-equipped at foreign languages

mlinssen
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Question: Petrinism, and specifically Paulism's (?) reunion with it

Post by mlinssen » Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:11 am

Talk about which: just run it through Google translate first, it's a good base-run really. I know quite a few professional translators who do the same... not one of either myself, by the way, just an IT guy with an odd hobby - or two

Post Reply