The evident primacy of the Gospel of John as the first of them all

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The evident primacy of the Gospel of John as the first of them all

Post by mlinssen »

Charles Wilson wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 8:01 pm
mlinssen wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:14 pm Read him in Greek and he is just astonishingly deep: let's take Berean literal as usual

ἦν (Was) δὲ (now) ὁ (the) χιτὼν (tunic) ἄραφος (seamless), ἐκ (from) τῶν (the) ἄνωθεν (top) ὑφαντὸς (woven) δι’ (throughout) ὅλου (all).

ἄραφος doesn't exist as a word, it may come from the verb ῥάπτω: un-patched, and naturally that refers to logion 47 where a new garment receives an old patch - which Marcion turned around in order to make explicit that good new religion most definitely want fit for Judaics
mlinssen --

Today was one of those days where things simply fall from the sky in front of me and I have to figure things out as best I can.
As usual, I'm not arguing against you - How could I? - but there is a different Path that opens up what the Beauty of Language illuminates, a pointer to someone else's mind.

There *IS* a word for "Seamless" that is used to describe a "Seamless Garment":

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Galba":

Not long after this he [Galba] learned that Otho held possession of the Camp,​ and when several advised him to proceed thither as soon as possible — for they said that he could win the day by his presence and prestige — he decided to do no more than hold his present position and strengthen it by getting together a guard of the legionaries, who were encamped in many different quarters of the city. He did however put on a linen cuirass, though he openly declared that it would afford little protection against so many swords.."

***
https://www.etymonline.com/word/cuirass:

"cuirass (n.)

"armor for the chest and back," mid-15c., curase, curasse, from Old French cuirace (15c.), from Late Latin coriacea vestis "garment of leather," from Latin corium "leather, hide" (see corium). Cognate with Italian corazza, Spanish coraza, Portuguese couraça. Related: Cuirassier "mounted soldier wearing a cuirass," 1620s; "the proper name of a certain type of heavy cavalry in European armies" [OED].
Entries linking to cuirass
corium (n.)

"innermost layer of the skin," 1836, from Latin corium "skin, hide, leather," related to cortex "bark," scortum "skin, hide," from PIE root *sker- (1) "to cut" (compare Sanskrit krtih "hide;" Old Church Slavonic scora "skin," Russian skora "hide," kora "bark;" Welsh corwg "boat made with leather skins," all from the same root).
*sker- (1)

also *ker-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to cut."

"It forms all or part of: bias; carnage; carnal; carnation; carnival; carnivorous; carrion; cenacle; charcuterie; charnel; corium; cortex; crone; cuiOld English sceran, scieran "to cleave, hew, cut with a sharp instrument;" Old Irish scaraim "I separate;" Welsh ysgar "to separate," ysgyr "fragment." "
τῶν is plural genitive, of-the(PL)

ἄνωθεν ἄνω

I.adv. of place from above, from on high, Hdt., Trag., etc.; ὕδατος ἄνωθεν γενομένου, i. e. rain, Thuc.: from the upper country, from inland, id=Thuc.
2.= ἄνω, above, on high, Trag.; οἱ ἄν. the living, opp. to οἱ κάτω, Aesch.:—c. gen., Hdt.
II.of Time, from the beginning, Plat., Dem.:— by descent, Theocr.; τὰ ἄν. first principles, Plat.
2.over again, anew, NTest

And again we see the excruciating banality of the NT blending everything into a bland

ὅλος doesn't mean 'all', it means 'whole'

ὑφαίνω

I. [select] to weave, ἱστὸν ὑφαίνειν to weave a web, Hom.; ἱμάτιον Plat., etc.:—absol. to weave, ply the loom, Hdt.:—Mid., ἱμάτιον ὑφαίνεσθαι to weave oneself a cloak, Plat.
II. [select] to contrive, plan, invent, Lat. texere, δόλον ὑφαίνειν Il.; μῆτιν ὑφ. Od.
III. [select] generally, to create, construct, Pind

Gently woven, contrived, created, and the connotation of a round web or wheel is beautiful

ἦν (Was) δὲ (however) ὁ (the) χιτὼν (tunic) ἄραφος (unpatched), ἐκ (from) τῶν (those-of-the) ἄνωθεν (above) ὑφαντὸς (woven) δι’ (through) ὅλου (whole)

An unpatched χιτὼν, the garment worn next the skin, through and through whole, woven by those above: pristine, perfect, untainted, is this skin, this shell, and naturally that reflects on IS, who is (one with) the father

That is John, and he is beautiful, and he really didn't deserve to get smeared by being included in the NT, redacted into the last position
***
John tells the story that the Synoptics do not. Galba is beheaded after being run through by soldiers and ...his head bandages are separated and in a corner in the Tomb. Otho falls on his sword and gets the wound at his side - Blood and water pour out , presumably at the Po River.
Vitellius finds his homosexual lover Asiaticus at a bazaar selling Posca and it's hard to imagine a more graphic crossover than putting vinegar on a sponge on a hyssop stick and placing the sponge at the mouth of that one on the cross

So I have to find a Unification of the woven Seamless Garment that had Echoes of the Gospel of Thomas, which, you assert, came first.

"So much to learn in so little time..."

Thank you again, mlinssen.

CW
Charles, what horrid typos I make!
Thank you for indulging me the way you do

Galba - thank you, never heard of him before, but the similarities can't be coincidental. Is John telling Galba's story, or the other way around? And are the passages genuine or perhaps interpolations?
But the contentual and contextual agreement, if I may, is undeniable
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: The evident primacy of the Gospel of John as the first of them all

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:58 pm * by condominium I presume you're using the olde Latin meaning of co-dominion or co-ownership or even 'co-coverage' of 'territory'
Yes. although I don't know about old Latin instances; I am told there are later Latin ones. In any event, it is an English-language word in current (Antarctica) and recent historical usage (to describe the initial Allied occupation of Germany after WW II - and who can forget the 20th Century plight of the colonized New Hebrides?), and that is indeed the sense that I meant.

-
mlinssen wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 6:39 am I am merely going along with your answer, implicitly accepting it for argument's sake Paul

But let me make that explicit then: well let's indeed suppose that the Christian movement had NOT more than a few hundred "members" by say 50 CE, How many then are there in the congregations that are being written to? One or two persons each?!
It is unclear to me how that question in orange highlight related to the question I asked, much less answered it.

Among the seven widely accepted letters, six congregations are involved (Corinth gets two of the letters, Philemon was a member of the Colossian church, not otherwise represented among the seven). "One or two persons each" would be at most a dozen people, an order of magnitude fewer than the number you'd originally conjectured about, a few hundred.

Even assuming that Paul's six correspondents are ... what? 1/10th of 60 congregations in being 13-14 years after Pilate's departure from Judea?, we're still topping out at 120, a very few hundred indeed. It is difficult therefore to construe your question as a serious answer to what I asked you:

Why ought we to think that the Christian movement had more than a few hundred "members" by say 50 CE?

Which is fine. We'll just leave it there.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Math 101 for Paul the Uncertain's feeble assumptions

Post by mlinssen »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 3:16 am
mlinssen wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 6:39 am I am merely going along with your answer, implicitly accepting it for argument's sake Paul

But let me make that explicit then: well let's indeed suppose that the Christian movement had NOT more than a few hundred "members" by say 50 CE, How many then are there in the congregations that are being written to? One or two persons each?!
It is unclear to me how that question in orange highlight related to the question I asked, much less answered it.

Among the seven widely accepted letters, six congregations are involved (Corinth gets two of the letters, Philemon was a member of the Colossian church, not otherwise represented among the seven). "One or two persons each" would be at most a dozen people, an order of magnitude fewer than the number you'd originally conjectured about, a few hundred.
That was your number, Paul:
QUOTE
Paul the Uncertain wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 4:45 am Why ought we to think that the Christian movement had more than a few hundred "members" by say 50 CE? (After which, on the consensus timeline, there is something written down - Paul's letters.)
UNQUOTE
Even assuming that Paul's six correspondents are ... what? 1/10th of 60 congregations in being 13-14 years after Pilate's departure from Judea?, we're still topping out at 120, a very few hundred indeed. It is difficult therefore to construe your question as a serious answer to what I asked you:

Why ought we to think that the Christian movement had more than a few hundred "members" by say 50 CE?

Which is fine. We'll just leave it there.
You appear oblivious to the fact that you have dug your own grave at the very beginning here, and blind to my answers of going along with your initial guesstimate of a few hundred members that you made there.
Let me try it one last time then:

"Oh hi Paul, well that is a good question indeed, 'Why ought we to think that the Christian movement had more than a few hundred "members" by say 50 CE?' - and I must respond with the answer that we don't have plausible reason to assume otherwise, I would think.
Especially given the timeline that you are assuming, '13-14 years after Pilate's departure from Judea', hundreds of people at best sounds like a decent proposal.
So, good point there really, which I gladly accept and will go along with - I see no reason to do so otherwise, and thus will go along with your hypothesis for the moment of merely a few hundred members around the time of the Pauline epistles."


But then the question arises: if there are only a few hundred people in total, most of who would logically be "in the place to be", namely Palestine, then who is Paul writing all his letters to? Let me try to quantify your guesstimate, and play a little with the numbers, alright? Bear with me please, as this will likely take a while on your part as it lays claim to calculation capabilities and a tiny bit of imagination.
Let's just maximise the toal number of Jesus-followers at 1,000 - then at the very least the division would be 60-40 for Palestine, possible even 80-20, likely 95-5. But I will humour you, and put 600 people inside palestine, and 400 outside Palestine, alright?
'60 congregations' you say? My oh my, that is a steep climb from 0 in only a decade+ - but allow me to indulge you there as well, okay?

400 divided by 60 is... hang on, let me reach for my calculus, this is pretty tough math and it has been a while since I was in elementary school - but fortunately I am sometimes aurrounded by people who haven't progressed much ever since.
7! Seven, the answer is s-e-v-e-n members per congregation on average, yet naturally Paul wouldn't lower himself to write to just the average congregation; these must have been pretty impressive ones, right? At least double that number, possibly triple, likely 4-5 times as much: 35! Thirty-five, let's go with that number okeydokey?
I hope you can still follow it all Paul, but let me jsut pat you on the back there and state that I really admire your good will and efforts

Alright, 6 correspondents you say? Six - s-i-x, and I presume you mean the letters, which would make for 6 * 35 (six times thirty-five) people in those 6 (six) congregations, plausibly, okay? And we (or rather, I myself) had gone with the number of 400 in an effort to indulge you just so thst you would allow yourself to indulge me in return, correct? Right...

400-210=190/54=3.5

Three and a half person per congregation Paul, with 6 double-whopper-sized ones that are credited with the immensely gratitudal (just making 'm up as I go there) service of the infallible Paul meriting them an epistle
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: The evident primacy of the Gospel of John as the first of them all

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 8:23 pm
Acts has it that 5,000 souls were converted. Many demographic models for the growth of the Christian community from the 1st to the 4th century are reliant upon these 5,000 newly converted Christians.
Just a note about this as a point arising, not in any sense a "rebuttal" (nor an acceptance of Acts as a work of historical accuracy).

Bart Ehrmann has already noted that the miracle of compound interest allows that a relative handful of Christians in the 1st Century can yield millions in the 4th Century with modest average annual growth rates. A corollary is that large differences in initial numbers can yield similar final numbers with only small differences in growth rates.

For example, for 5000 to grow to 10 million in 300 years requires an average annual growth rate of just over 2 1/2 percent. For 500 to do likewise requires a rate of just under 3 1/2 percent.

Neither rate raises suspicion of divine intervention. Although average compounding is the just about the crudest "demographic model" possible, nevertheless the exercise does illustrate the need for sensitivity analysis when claiming that models are "reliant" on some specific initial figure, especially in the absence of actual counts (or even a firm definition of what a "Christian" was, or any reason to suppose that adherence meant the same thing in the 4th as it had in the 1st Century).

On another point arising, @mlinssen

Actually I quoted you in framing my question to you; what I quoted from you alluded to a few hundred. It was your number, and more to the point, regardless of whose number it was, my question to you was well-posed and relevant to the claim you were making.

I asked you twice and twice have you failed to answer. I've moved on. Good bye.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The evident primacy of the Gospel of John as the first of them all

Post by mlinssen »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 3:46 am On another point arising, @mlinssen

Actually I quoted you in framing my question to you; what I quoted from you alluded to a few hundred. It was your number, and more to the point, regardless of whose number it was, my question to you was well-posed and relevant to the claim you were making.

I asked you twice and twice have you failed to answer. I've moved on. Good bye.
Given the stealth response here I am getting the impression that you want to flee the scene with your tail between your legs

My "few hundred" was in general and in regards to texts evolving around a movement, and I dropped that as a maximum number before someone would come up with a written story.
Your "few hundred" pertained to a very specific situation and limited itself to Paul and 50 CE

And I have answered your question three times already, yet you either are too thick-skulled and illiterate to accept that, or your are too proud to accept that my very acceptance of your very "well-posed question" merely closed the trap that you had set up for yourself without realising it - the choice there is yours

Your composure is exemplary, Paul the Uncertain.
And certainly comes to no surprise - if anything, your inability to have a dialogue, consider proposals and counter arguments, and in general conduct a civil conversation, is very consistent

Be-byeye
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The evident primacy of the Gospel of John as the first of them all

Post by andrewcriddle »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 3:16 am <SNIP>

Why ought we to think that the Christian movement had more than a few hundred "members" by say 50 CE?

IF we accept that the Christian movement was large enough during the reign of Nero to attract hostile Government notice, then either it grew extremely and improbably rapidly between 50 CE and the late 60's CE, or there were already several thousand members by 50 CE.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The evident primacy of the Gospel of John as the first of them all

Post by mlinssen »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 5:33 am
Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 3:16 am <SNIP>

Why ought we to think that the Christian movement had more than a few hundred "members" by say 50 CE?

IF we accept that the Christian movement was large enough during the reign of Nero to attract hostile Government notice, then either it grew extremely and improbably rapidly between 50 CE and the late 60's CE, or there were already several thousand members by 50 CE.

Andrew Criddle
Indeed, Andrew. Both your options here are possible, of course, yet one is much more likely than the other unless we present circumstantial evidence - and I don't have any.
What is even much more likely is a third option - and that is that Nero is not about Christians, but Chrestians in stead

A word which Tacitus even uses - and it is out of the question that his Christus is not an anachronism, as it doesn't exist in any text are all whatsoever. Chrestos, on the other hand, is abundantly present in the NHL
And when we look at what I call "peripheral texts" then exceptions to that rule are: Pap.Bodmer.VIII folio 13 / p. 19 (1 Peter 4:6) that says χριστιανοι (as well as ΙΗΣ and ΧΡΣ). P.Lond. 6 1917 folio 1r 2 says [τῃ Ιη]σου Χριστου, P. Oxy. 3 407 1r 5-6 says Ιησου Χρειστου, P.Lond. 6.1926 1r 3 says εν Χριστω, P.Lond. 6.1929 1r 2 says ο Χρι[στος], and that concludes an MS search up to including 4th C

Tacitus Annales 15:44 can be found at the earliest in the 11th CE MS in Beneventan script (Cornelius Tacitus, et Apuleius longobardis characteribus exarate folio 38r, shelfmark Plut.68.2 Plutei_68.02_0001)

One last comment to your thousands: that must be in Rome alone for a good riot to make it into Tacitus, and I would even make that tens of thousands. Which means that there must have been at least a hundred thousand "world wide" around 65 CE

And still Paul precedes any other text? It's not just a hilarious idea, it is completely bonkers. Paul doesn't attract anything, he has no appeal to any public whatsoever - his texts are confusing, contradictory, repetitive and boring as hell, and it can only have fulfilled the role of an addendum to a much better text, a gospel of some kind.
Other than that, Justin doesn't know him nor anybody else until Irenaeus
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: The evident primacy of the Gospel of John as the first of them all

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 5:33 am
Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 3:16 am <SNIP>

Why ought we to think that the Christian movement had more than a few hundred "members" by say 50 CE?

IF we accept that the Christian movement was large enough during the reign of Nero to attract hostile Government notice, then either it grew extremely and improbably rapidly between 50 CE and the late 60's CE, or there were already several thousand members by 50 CE.

Andrew Criddle
Thank you for your reply.

Just so there is no confusion, as your redacted quote shows, I asked another member a question. I did not, neither there nor in what you omitted, offer my own estimate of the number of Christian adherents in 50 CE.

In the absence both of hard data and also of a crisp defintion of Christian adherent, I have no estimate more precise than orders of magnitude. My best guess would be on the order of thousands, which by typical engineering conventions is 316 to 3,162 (my usual usage) or 500 to 5,000. Either way, it is unclear that my best guess necessarily conflicts with your "several" thousand nor whatever number the other poster may have in mind.

Disagreement is not a prerequisite for asking a question. Well, maybe around here it is, but blessedly not so much in the real world, nor in most gatherings of scholars.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: The evident primacy of the Gospel of John as the first of them all

Post by schillingklaus »

There was no such thing as a Christian movement in the times of Nero, regardless of what apologists like Kreuzerin try to deceive mankind into believing.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The evident primacy of the Gospel of John as the first of them all

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 8:32 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 8:12 am Matthew and John were regarded as apostles, historical companions of Jesus. Hence their superiority over Luke and Mark. The author of GThomas knew this and jumped on the bandwagon too :whistling:
I am genuinely surprised, Kunigunde. You often present fairly good posts, but your current display of dumbfounding gullibility amazes me

The results are right in front of your eyes and explicitly referenced by me in the very post that you manage to so selectively cite here.
But, like Thomas said, ...
Martijn, it's so simple. One need only take Mark's list of the names of the twelve.
Simon Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Canaanean, Judas Iscariot

They all have a gospel named after them, or a letter, or a revelation, or a "Acts of ...". Only Simon the Canaanean is an exception. Even the craziest Gnostics have accepted this list and wrote an Apocalypse of James or an Apocryphon of John or a Gospel of Thomas or a Gospel of Philip or ... :roll: All that mattered was that one of Mark's list was credited as the author or played an important role in the text. Then it could be sold.

For skeptical thinkers: Do not believe in a text whose alleged author is on Mark's list.

Post Reply