An Early 2nd Century Txt Ignores Peter and Paul in Jerusalem

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

An Early 2nd Century Txt Ignores Peter and Paul in Jerusalem

Post by Secret Alias » Thu May 05, 2016 9:56 pm

An ignored testimony from the Preaching of Paul (mentioned in the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism) understands Galatians "gospel" in chapters 1 and 2 to be a written gospel:
Also, that when He was baptized, fire was seen to be upon the water, which is written in neither of the Gospels. And that after such long time, Peter and Paul, after the collation of the Gospel in Jerusalem, and the mutual consideration and altercation and arrangement of things to be done finally, were known to one another, as if then for the first time; and certain other things devised of this kind disgracefully and absurdly;—all which things thou wilt find gathered together into that book.
I will have to look up the original Latin for "collated" but that's what it sounds like to me.

Note upon being provided with the Latin term I realized that the original hunch was incorrect and have since moved on to another interpretation of the passage provided by a cited scholar
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri May 06, 2016 9:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 4676
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Paul and Peter Collated the Written Gospel Together in J

Post by MrMacSon » Thu May 05, 2016 11:48 pm

Secret Alias wrote:An ignored testimony from the Preaching of Paul1 (mentioned in the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism2) understands Galatians "gospel" in chapters 1 and 2 to be a written gospel:
Also, that when He was baptized, fire was seen to be upon the water, which is written in neither of the Gospels. And that after such long time, Peter and Paul, after the collation of the Gospel in Jerusalem, and the mutual consideration and altercation and arrangement of things to be done finally, were known to one another, as if then for the first time; and certain other things devised of this kind disgracefully and absurdly;—all which things thou wilt find gathered together into that book.
I will have to look up the original Latin for "collated" but that's what it sounds like to me.
1 Preaching of Paul (Praedicatio Pauli) - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/p ... gpaul.html

2 the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism (On Re-Baptism (Anonymous)) = '17.' here - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0515.htm

Introductory Note at biblehub.com -
attributed by some authorities to the pen of one Ursinus, [5425] a monk, who is said to have written in the fourth century. But internal evidence seems to point to a bishop as having been the writer; [5426] and it seems very probable that it was written while the baptismal controversy was still agitating the Church, from the manner in which he refers to it. Moreover, the bitter attack contained in the first chapter was probably levelled against Cyprian, as the leader of the party in favour of the re-baptism of heretics ...

Rigaltius, who first edited the treatise, among his notes to the works of Cyprian, judged that it was written about the time of that Father. And Fell, Cave, Tillemont, and Galland, are of the same opinion. The two latter, indeed, conjecture that it was actually intended against Cyprian.

The difficulty arising to the translator from a loose and rambling style, and very involved argument, has been enhanced by a text singularly uncertain ...

http://biblehub.com/library/novatian/a_ ... eatise.htm
It looks to be 3rd or 4th century

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Paul and Peter Collated the Written Gospel Together in J

Post by Secret Alias » Fri May 06, 2016 7:04 am

Earlier. There are agreements with Irenaeus which, as always, lead me to believe the text was translated or transformed on the third century from a late second century text.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Paul and Peter Collated the Written Gospel Together in J

Post by Secret Alias » Fri May 06, 2016 7:13 am

The idea that Galatians 1 and 2 is talking about a written gospel not an "oral teaching" is very interesting because to be honest it agrees with what we might call a "neo-Marcionite" re-interpretation of ur-Galatians. What I mean is that the Marcionites said the apostle wrote the original gospel. Galatians now has Paul receiving the gospel and then accommodating that gospel with the gospel of Jerusalem. But we are to believe that "gospel" here means oral teaching. That doesn't make sense to me. Rather I think we are better off understanding the tradition here referencing a written "gospel of the apostles" which was in the hands of Justin and his tradition which resembled but rivaled the Marcionite gospel.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Paul and Peter Collated the Written Gospel Together in J

Post by Secret Alias » Fri May 06, 2016 8:15 am

And this leads to yet another observation I made a while ago. The term 'apostolicon' (ἀποστολικόν) is far from certain the name given by the Marcionites for their collection of letters. The likelihood is that it was given to the canon as a whole rather than just the letters. But be that as it may, the idea of a certain Luke who was an 'apostolic' was certainly developed because of the name of the collection. In other words 'the apostolic' (= the canon) was so named because it was written by an apostolic - i.e. a follower of an apostle rather than by the apostle himself.

The idea that 'apostolic' means a follower of an apostle is very curious. Nevertheless it appears in books which aren't necessarily orthodox such as the Nag Hammadi gospel of Philip:
Some say that Mariam was impregnated by the Sacred Spirit. They are confused they know not what they say. Whenever has a female been impregnated by a female? Mariam is the virgin whom no power has defiled, as she is of grandeur among the consecrations for the Hebrew Apostles and for the Apostolics
and again
An Apostolic (ἀποστολικός) saw in a vision some who were confined in a house of fire, crying out [in the] air with a fiery [voice], cast in the flames [for an eraº]. There is water in [...], and they proclaim to themselves: [...] The waters can[not] save us [from death! Misled by] their desire, they received [death as] chastisement—this which is called the [outermost] darkness.
What is so odd is that like many parts of the text the first citation makes plain that the author is thinking in Syriac or Hebrew rather than Greek. For Spirit is feminine in these Semitic languages. So the terminology 'apostolic' seems to come from Syriac too?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Paul and Peter Collated the Written Gospel Together in J

Post by Secret Alias » Fri May 06, 2016 8:30 am

Owing to a familiar play on words in Syriac שליחי is both the adjective for 'apostle' (= apostolic) and 'naked.' I have always been convinced of the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore simply because of the mystical meaning of 'naked with naked' i.e. 'apostle with apostle' (γυμνὸς γυμνῷ Theod. III.13). In my estimation it solves just about everything with regards to the origins of Paul's apostlehood. Paul says he was buried, resurrected etc. So was the naked youth. Jesus is identified as 'an apostle' in Hebrews. How did Paul become an apostle? If the gospel was written in Aramaic the source of the idea is what is described in Secret Mark. The seven day initiation already tells the reader of a heavenly ascent unmentioned (at least explicitly in the text). So Paul is the naked youth who becomes an 'apostle' owing to his nakedness. Like Jacob he wrestles with Ish/Jesus in order to attain divine status. Notice also the tradition attested by Epiphanius that 'Jacob' is the naked youth of Mark 15:51f. My guess would be that both 'Paul' and 'Jacob' are adopted names for the shadowy 'apostle' in different communities. That's probably why Justin and Marcion end up with very similar gospels. In one community headed by Jacob the gospel was preserved in a slightly different form than that associated with Paul or Mark. But the underlying text and author was the same.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 3892
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Paul and Peter Collated the Written Gospel Together in J

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri May 06, 2016 8:56 am

Pseudo-Cyprian, De Rebaptismate 100.17, writing about the Preaching of Paul:

In quo libro, contra omnes scripturas, et de peccato proprio confitentem invenies Christum, qui solus omnino nihil deliquit et ad accipiendum Ioannis baptisma paene invitum a matre sua Maria esse compulsum, item cum baptizaretur ignem super aquam esse visum, quod in evangelio nullo est scriptum, et post tanta tempora Petrum et Paulum post conlationem evangelii in Hierusalem et mutuam cogitationem et altercationem et rerum agendarum dispositionem, postremo in urbe quasi tunc primum invicem sibi esse cognitos, et quaedam alia huiusmodi absurde ac turpiter conficta, quae omnia in illum librum invenies congesta.

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Paul and Peter Collated the Written Gospel Together in J

Post by Secret Alias » Fri May 06, 2016 8:58 am

For those who are unfamiliar with the play on words between 'naked' and 'apostle' in Syriac - https://books.google.com/books?id=ONJlu ... ac&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Paul and Peter Collated the Written Gospel Together in J

Post by Secret Alias » Fri May 06, 2016 9:01 am

Thanks Ben.
collātĭo (conl- ), ōnis, f. confero,
I.a bringing together, collecting.
I. Prop., of the standards in war for battle, a hostile meeting: “signorum,” Cic. de Or. 1, 48, 210: centuriarum, for voting, id. ap. Ascon. in Toga Cand. p. 85, 18 Baiter: “hyacinthorum et auri,” Plin. 37, 9, 42, § 126.—Of money, a contribution, collection, a gratuity collected together for the emperor: “stipis aut decimae,” Liv. 5, 25, 5; 4, 60, 6; 6, 14, 12; Tac. G. 29; Suet. Calig. 42; id. Ner. 38; 44; id. Tit. 7; cf. Plin. Pan. 41, 1 Schwarz.—In jurid. Lat.: “collatio bonorum,” the putting together of the possessions of several, in order to divide them equally, Dig. 37, 6, 1, § 8; cf. Cod. 6, 20: de collationibus, et saep.—
II. Trop.
A. Malitiarum, a union, combination, Plaut. Mil. 3, 3, 67: “vocum,” Dig. 47, 10, 15, § 4.—
B. A comparison, similitude, παραβολή: “collatio est oratio rem cum re ex similitudine conferens,” Cic. Inv. 1, 30, 49; id. Fin. 2, 27, 75; id. N. D. 3, 28, 70; id. Div. 2, 17, 38; id. Tusc. 4, 38, 84 (cf. Quint. 5, 11, 23; Hirt. B. G. 8, 8; Quint. 8, 3, 77; 7, 7, 2; Plin. 37, 9, 42, § 126).—
C. In philos.: “collatio rationis,” the analogy, Cic. Fin. 3, 10, 33 Madv.; id. Tusc. 4, 12, 27; cf.: “rerum saepe factarum inter se collatio,” Sen. Ep. 120, 3.—
D. In gram.: collatio secunda, the comparative: “collatio tertia,” the superlative, Fest. p. 181, 28, and 286, 26 Müll.—
E. The comparison, collation of texts, manuscripts, etc. (late Lat.): aliquem multorum codicum vetustiorum collatione confutare. Aug. c. Faust. 32, 16.
Not so sure it definitively means that the gospel was written. But why else does the author object to the statement made in the Preaching of Paul?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Paul and Peter Collated the Written Gospel Together in J

Post by Secret Alias » Fri May 06, 2016 9:09 am

This critic reads the passage very differently and says that the rather than the collation of the gospel being in the text he reads the author of Rebaptism to have objected that the author of the Preaching of Paul [Peter?] acts as if Peter and Paul met in Rome for the first time ignoring what is written in Galatians. https://books.google.com/books?id=Rnew6 ... 22&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben C. Smith, Bernard Muller, Bing [Bot], JoeWallack, lsayre, MrMacSon and 48 guests