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:

Irenaeus Against Heresies Names and Places - all of them

Post by mlinssen »

I went through Adv. H I-V, from 0130-0202 – Iraeneus – Adversus Haereses libri 5

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.html

Schaff is not be trusted at all given his "emendations" in among others Tertullian, but on this level it seems safe to collect.
I went through the text, reformatted it completely, and attached is the clean version from the PDF - the Greek got lost though
Irenaeus Agains Heresies Book I-V.TXT
(1.38 MiB) Downloaded 27 times
I took everything capitalised, threw away what was English yet not all of it, so YMMV.
The words below are guaranteed to be present at least once in any of his five books "Against Heresies".
If you have any comments, please shoot - this is how I do research, I digitise everything down to a searchable format which allows me to handle dozens, even hundreds of texts on one single topic

Aaron
Abba
Abednego
Abel
Abiron
Abiud
Abraham
Abraham’s
Abraxas
Acataleptos
Achamoth
Achilles
Acinetos
Acphranœ
Adam
Adamas
Addonai
Adonai
Adoneus
Agape
Agennetos
Ageratos
Ahaz
Ainos
Aionios
Alas
Aletheia
Alexander
Alexandria
Amalek
Amorites
Amos
Anacletus
Ananias
Anaxagoras
Anaxilaus
Anaximander
Anennoetos
Anicetus
Anna
Annas
Anonomastos
Anthropos
Antichrist
Antioch
Antiphanes
Aoratos
Apator
Aphtharsia
Aquila
Arche
Aristotle
Armenian
Armogenes
Arrhetos
Arrhetus
Artaxerxes
Artificer
Astanphæus
Augustus
Authadia
Autogenes
Autophyes
Azarias
Azazel
Babaphor
Babylon
Balaam
Barachias
Barbeliotes
Barbelos
Barnabas
Basema
Basilides
Bathsheba
Baœnaora
Bel
Beta
Bethany
Bethlehem
Borborians
Burgon
Burton
Bythi
Bythius
Bythus
Cadmus
Caiaphas
Cain
Cainites
Cana
Canaan
Capernaum
Carmel
Carpistes
Carpocrates
Catholic
Caulacau
Cerdo
Cerdon
Cerinthus
Chaldœaur
Chamosse
Chaos
Charis
Chi
Chore
Chreistus
Christ
Christi
Christian
Christians
Christus
Cilicia
Claudius
Clement
Colorbasus
Colossians
Corinth
Corinthians
Cornelius
Cosmocrator
Counsellor
Creator
Crescens
Cucumber
Cynics
Cyprus
Cyrene
Cyrus
Cæsar
Cæsarea
Daleth
Dalmatia
Damascus
Daniel
Daphne
Dathan
David
Decad
Decalogue
Deity
Deliverer
Delta
Demas
Demiurge
Demiurgi
Demiurgo
Demiurgum
Demiurgus
Democritus
Deum
Deus
Deuteronomy
Diatheses
Domitian’s
Duo
Duodecad
Dyad
Dynamis
Dædalus
Ebionites
Ecclesia
Ecclesiasticus
Eden
Egypt
Egyptians
El
Ele
Eleazar
Eleleth
Eleutherius
Elias
Elijah
Elisabeth
Elisha
Elizabeth
Eloeus
Eloi
Eloë
Elpis
Emmanuel
Empedocles
Encratites
Encratitæ
Ennœa
Enoch
Enthymesis
Ep
Epaphroditus
Ephesian
Ephesians
Ephesus
Ephraim
Ephron
Epicurus
Episemon
Epistle
Epistles
Epithymia
Epsilon
Erinnys
Esaias
Esau
Esdras
Eta
Ethiopia
Ethiopians
Eucharist
Eudocetos
Evangelists
Evanthas
Evaristus
Eve
Ezekiel
Fashioner
Father
Founder
Framer
Gabriel
Galatia
Galatians
Galilee
Gamma
Gaul
Genesis
Gentile
Gentiles
Ghost
Gideon
Gnosis
Gnostic
Gnostics
God
God-like
Godhead
Gomorrah
Gospel
Gospels
Gourd
Greek
Greeks
Habakkuk
Hades
Hagar
Haggai
Ham
Harvey
Hebdomad
Hebdomas
Hebraicis
Hebrew
Hebrews
Hecatads
Hedone
Helena
Hen
Henosis
Henotes
Herod
Hesiod
Hittites
Homer
Homeric
Horeb
Horos
Horothetes
Horus
Hosea
How
Hyginus
Hystera
Ialdabaoth
Iao
Ignatius
Iota
Irenæo
Irenæus
Isaac
Isaiah
Israel
Israelite
Israelites
Ithamar
Iu
Jacob
James
Jechoniah
Jeremiah
Jeroboam
Jerusalem
Jesse
Jesus
Jew
Jewish
Jews
Joachim
Joel
John
Jonah
Jonas
Jordan
Joseph
Joshua
Jove
Judah
Judaic
Judas
Judea
Judæa
Jupiter
Justin
Justin’s
Kakia
Kalachthei
Kappa
Keltæ
Korah
Kousta
Lagus
Lambda
Lateinos
Latin
Latins
Lazarus
Lernæan
Levi
Levites
Liberator
Libya
Linus
Logos
London
Lord
Luke
Lyons
Lytrotes
Macaria
Macariotes
Macedonia
Macedonians
Magi
Magus
Maker’s
Malachi
Mamuel
Marcellina
Marcion
Marcionites
Marcosians
Marcus
Mary
Massuet’s
Master
Matt
Matthew
Matthias
Meander
Medes
Mediator
Melon
Menander
Meshach
Messia
Metagoges
Metricos
Metropator
Micah
Michael
Michaiah
Miletus
Minerva
Misaël
Mistadia
Mixis
Monad
Monads
Monas
Monogenes
Monotes
Montanists
Mosaic
Moses
Mosomedœa
Mu
Murray
Mystic
Nadab
Nahum
Namempsœman
Nathan
Nathanael
Nazareth
Nazaria
Nebuchadnezzar
Nicolaitanes
Nicolaitans
Nicolas
Nile
Ninevites
Noah
Noe
Norea
Nous
Nu
Nun
Oceanus
Ogdoad
Ogdoads
Omega
Omicron
Oniropompi
Ophites
Oreus
Origen’s
Palamedes
Pan
Pandora
Pandoros
Papias
Paraclete
Paracletus
Paradise
Paredri
Paris
Pater
Patricos
Paul
Pentad
Pentecost
Persians
Peter
Pharaoh
Phares
Pharisee
Pharisees
Pheu
Phi
Philip
Philippi
Philippians
Phronesis
Phthonos
Phœnicia
Pi
Pilate
Pistis
Pius
Plato
Plenitude
Pleroma
Pleromas
Pluto
Polycarp
Pontius
Pontus
Preserver
Principality
Proanennoetos
Proarche
Prognosis
Promises
Propator
Proper
Protarchontes
Proön
Prunica
Prunicus
Psalm
Psaua
Psi
Ptolemy
Ptolemæus
Puteoli
Pythagoras
Pythagorean
Pythagoreans
Quotations
Rabbi
Raca
Raguel
Rebekah
Retributor
Rho
Rhone
Roman
Romans
Rome
Ruada
Sabaoth
Sabbath
Sabbaths
Sadducees
Sage
Samael
Samaria
Samaritan
Samaritans
Samothracia
Samuel
Sarah
Satan
Saturninus
Saul
Saviour
Sciolus
Scripture
Scriptures
Searcher
Secundus
Septenad
Seth
Sethians
Shadrach
Sige
Sigma
Silas
Siloam
Simeon
Simon
Simonians
Sinistra
Sixtus
Smyr
Smyrna
Sodom
Sodomites
Sodore
Solomon
Sophia
Sorer
Soter
Souls
Spain
Spirit
Spiritus
Stauros
Stephen
Stoics
Strange
Sustainer
Syncrasis
Synesis
Syria
Syriac
Tamar
Tartarus
Tatian
Tau
Teitan
Telephorus
Terra
Testament
Testaments
Tethys
Tetrad
Tetrads
Thales
Thamar
Thelema
Thelesis
Theletos
Theletus
Theodotion
Theogony
Thessalonians
Thessalonica
Theta
Tiberias
Tiberius
Timothy
Titan
Titus
Tobias
Trajan
Treats
Triacontad
Triad
Troas
Tyre
Ultramontane
Uphareg
Upsilon
Uriah
Utter-Emptiness
Valentinian
Valentinians
Valentinus
Virtues
Wisdom
Wist
Zaccheus
Zacharias
Zara
Zebedee
Zechariah
Zelos
Zephaniah
Zerubbabel
Zeta
Zion
Zoe
Zohar

User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

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

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 4:48 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 3:19 pm So what are skeptical thinkers to think when these crazy Gnostics thought to do such a thing to Mark's twelve? Even Pontius Pilate gets an Act and Clement gets a Recognition. In the 20th century Monty Python produced "The Life of Brian".
Pilate is just another type of a (alleged) historical witness like Mary.
In his Acts, Pilate hears the complaints of the Jews that Jesus heals by Beezlebub. But then Pilate informs them that Jesus actually heals by the power of Asclepius. That is why I mentioned Monty Python's "Life of Brian". The Acts of Pilate is a satirical treatment. Eusebius is our first witness of the narrative form. Eusebius would like us to believe it was circulated by the very large pagan demographic prior to the Arian controversy. I don't believe him. Dozens of other examples of satire can be produced from the NT apocryphal literature.

My contention is that the Arian controversy involved satirizing Constantine's NT+LXX bible codex. The "crazy gnostics" are chiefly the final and raised voices of the Platonists responding to the outlandish proposition that the Greek civilisation needed a "holy writ" like the one the Pontifex Maximus had been supporting, circulating and legislating on behalf of. Most modern (and ancient) biblical scholars cannot envisage that Jesus and the Twelve could have been the object of satire, lampoon and parody. Except of course in the Toledot Yeshu which they claim is late. Christian origins is supposed to be a serious and gravitas subject. Jesus does not laugh except in the gnostic material. That the gnostics are satirising and parodying the gospels does not seem to be on the radar of scholarship. (If I am wrong I am happy to be corrected on this.)

Even though, as you first pointed out, the apocryphal authors wrote so many gospels and acts and apocalypses and letters in the names of characters who have major or minor parts as characters in the canonical texts.

The hero of the Pseudo-Clementines is not Clement, but Peter, who defeats Paul (in the figure of Simon) as a non-historical witness.
The Clementine Homilies is currently thought by some to be authored by an Arian during the rule of Constantine. If this is the case what do we expect in it? Again it appears to have all the hallmarks of a satire. As you say the author pitches Simon Magus (with the words of Paul) as a foil against the orthodoxy of Peter. The author has the orthodoxy squabbling against each other over matters of Pauline and Petrine doctrine.

Here are two summaries:

INTRODUCTION to the Clementine Literature by Rendel Harris (1921):
  • "Harnack gave a very complete summary of all the literary parallels on the Patristic side, and his work is a standard of reference for those who approach the subject. He made, however, one bad mistake is supposing, as others had done, that the Recognitions were quoted by Origen, thus determining a literary terminus ad quem for their composition; and it fell to the lot of Dr. Armitage Robinson to show that the supposed reference in the Philocalia of Origen was not Origen's at all, but was to be credited to the editorial hands of Basil and Gregory"

    Our first witness is Eusebius

We have two leading forms in which the Clementine traditions have come down to us; the one is known as the Clementine Homilies, the other as the Clementine Recognitions, the former being preserved in Greek, the latter in a Latin translation from the Greek, by no less a person than Rufinus, the contemporary of Jerome.

The Homilies are so called because they profess to give us the discourses of St. Peter on a journey which he is making through Palestine to N. Syria and Antioch, with the object of confuting a certain wicked magician, named Simon, who, from one point of view, is a disguise of St. Paul. Thus they are not Clement's Homilies but Peter's.

The Recognitions are so-called, because in the novel which the writer has constructed, the Clementine family lose one another on the grand scale and then find one another again. Clement's father loses his wife and his twin sons; then the wife loses the boys also, and finally the father himself becomes lost. Clement's ro1e is to go in search of them, successively to recover his long-lost brethren, his mother and finally his father, and so to reunite them all on a Christian basis in the entourage of St. Peter. They may therefore be properly called Clementine Recognitions. Between these two voluminous writings, the Homilies and the Recognitions, there is a close internal connection of agreement and difference, but no one has yet succeeded in explaining the connection.

It becomes clear that the author or authors of the Clementines had a library of philosophical books, from which extracts were being made in the course of the composition. They have told us, almost in so many words, that this library comprised writers of all the great schools;

We conclude then, that an erotic epistle of Chrysippus has been borrowed, wholly or in part, by the author of the Clementines. We have in the foregoing rapid sketch reduced the Clementine Homilies to a skeleton in the shape of a familiar folktale, clothed with flesh and form by the use of a series of Greek and Oriental philosophical writers. We found traces of Epicurean and Stoic hands, and a possible use of a lost Christian Apology. The study of the Clementine literature will become easier, when we have in our mind such writers as Metrodorus, Chrysippus, Bardaisan, and an anonymous Stoic writer on Providence.

Notes on the Clementine Romances:
Rendel Harris, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 40, No. 3/4 (1921),
pp. 125-145


Introduction to the Chronology of Authorship by Annette Reed (2008)

The Homilies dates to the first half of the fourth century. [27] It is likely, in my view, that this text does indeed preserve earlier sources. Whatever the precise scope and character of these sources, however, the authors/redactors of the Homilies have clearly reworked their received material in ways that speak to their own time. [29] The language used to describe Jesus, for instance, betrays their engagement with Christological debates of the Nicene age. [30] Moreover, the story of Clement is here framed as an extended defence of apostolic succession and an assertion of the antiquity and necessity of ecclesiastical offices. [31]

Throughout novel, tales about Peter’s travels along from city to city are punctuated by his ordination of bishops. [32] The Homilies’ overarching narrative also functions to assert Clement’s close relationship with Peter and, by extension, the connections between Rome and Jerusalem. [33] The novel’s heresiological concerns, as embodied in its accounts of Peter’s debates with Simon Magus (3.30–59; 16.1–21; 18.1–23; 19.24–20.10), similarly reflect its late antique context, as perhaps most clear from its approach to the genealogy of error as an inverse parallel to apostolic succession. [34] The Homilies has usually been dismissed as a record of a heterodox movement with no influence on the late antique church and/or treated as a relic of an apostolic “Jewish Christianity” rendered irrelevant by the rise of “Gentile Christianity” and Christianity’s “Parting of the Ways” with Judaism.35 When we turn our attention to its final form and fourth-century context, however, this text may emerge as an important piece of evidence for the variety of voices in the late antique Christian discourse about “orthodoxy,” Judaism, and the apostolic past. [36]


Footnotes

[27] See [36] and [38] below.

[29] The value of situating the Homilies in its fourth-century context has explored in a number of recent conference papers, including various papers presented at the 2006. /// These new approaches build on insights in 19th century research on the Homilies, on which see [36] below.

[30] Note the Homilies’ statement – unparalleled in the Recognitions – that Christ the Son is “of the same substance (tês autês ousias)” as God the Father (16.15) and the use of the term homoousios in Hom. 20.5, 7. These references were pivotal for Biggs’ initial establishment of a date for the Homilies in the decades surrounding the Council of Nicaea (“Clementine Homilies,” 167, 191–92). Biggs’ suggestion of the Homilies’ affinities with Arianism, however, have never been fully explored.

[31] Esp. Ep. Clem. 6–7, 12–18; Hom. 3.60–72.

[36] The final form of the Homilies has not been a topic of focused inquiry since the 19th century. Especially notable – for our purposes – is the work of Gerhard Uhlhorn, who stressed the unity of the Homilies in its present form and the need to consider the aims of its redactors. These studies, however, were penned prior to the establishment of its fourth-century date and thus seek to locate the text in the second century CE. Some interesting suggestions about the late antique context of the Pseudo-Clementines were made at the turn of the century, when its fourth-century date was established in Biggs, “Clementine Homilies,” 157–93; J. Chapman, “On the Date of the Clementines,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 9 (1908) 147–59. Until recently, however, these suggestions have been largely ignored, consistent with the source-critical focus of almost all 20th century research on the Pseudo-Clementines

[38] Since Biggs (see [36]), scholars have concurred that the Homilies should be dated to the first half of the fourth century. A topic of continued debate, however, is whether it should be placed before or after the Council of Nicaea. C. Schmidt, O. Cullman, and G. Strecker, for instance, see the Homilies as pre-Nicene composition, while H. Waitz and B. Rehm place its composition shortly after 325 CE.


Annette Y. Reed, “Jewish Christianity as Counter-history?
The Apostolic Past in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History
and the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies,”
in Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-Roman World (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 173-216 | Annette Y. Reed - Academia.edu

User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

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

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 5:05 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 4:04 am
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 3:16 am ie. The list of the Twelve could have been made from the names attributed to various gospels, Acts, or epistles.
Theoretically that proposition might be possible but what evidence supports it?

The contrary view has some evidence. Irenaeus and the Fathers leading to Eusebius cite and quote the canonical literature a great deal. On the other hand how many of the non canonical books are mentioned and how much material is cited from them. Eusebius is the earliest witness for many of the other acts and gospels. You would need to explain Christian origins in a completely different light.
http://gnosis.org/library/advh1.htm

The question is not whether you have even scanned Irenaeus, as the answer to that is blatantly obvious

The question is: when one makes statements like you do, when and where is the boundary crossed between incompetence, neglect, ignorance, outright stupidity - and intentional falsification, distortion of facts?
You don't get it. The object of the highlighted stuff are texts. Specifically NT apocryphal texts. Gospels and Acts and Revelations of the Heretics.

No doubt Irenaeus makes reference to scores and scores of completely wishy-washy sects, schismatics and heretical schools never mentioned outside of church literature. This is standard practice of dissembling. Irenaeus points at Valentinians and Sethians and Marcosians and stacks of "schools". The archeologists can't find one.

The question was how many NT apocryphal texts (which we have in the 21st century) does Irenaeus specifically name and quote material from. I will start the list for you. There is less than a handful:

* The Gospel of Judas.
* The Apocryphon of John

Don't bother to cite NT Apocryphal texts for which we have no text. Such as The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion], The Gospel of the Egyptians, The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of the Hebrews, The Gospel of the Nazoreans. Cite texts which have been preserved independently from antiquity. OTOH Eusebius represents the earliest witness to attest to a great many more of the NT apocryphal texts.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

The death of Jesus in splendid isolation and anonimity

Post by mlinssen »

IS died, such is what all gospels tell us.
But what the gradual evolution is, is that he dies in increasing anonimity - because he has to be buried in anonimity and resurrect in anonimity

John:

John 19:17 And bearing His own cross, He went out to the place called the Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha
John 19:25 Now His mother, and the sister of His mother, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene, had been standing by the cross of Jesus. 26 Therefore Jesus, having seen His mother and the disciple whom He loved standing by, says to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” 27 Then He says to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her to the own.
_____
John 19:38 And after these things, Joseph from Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but concealed through the fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave permission. So he came and took away His body.
John 20:1 Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb early, it being still dark, and she sees the stone having been removed from the tomb.
+++++
John 20:2 So she runs and comes to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and she says to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”
John 20:9 For not yet did they understand the Scripture that it behooves Him to rise out from the dead.

The triple Mary stands at the stake - this likely is original although I doubt the underlined part. Do note that IS carries his own cross.
_____
Then we enter anonimity, and
+++++
we resurface among knowns: Simon Peter and the beloved disciple. But do observe very well that it explicitly states that no one had any idea of IS rising from the dead

Mark:

_____
Mark 15:21 And they compel one passing by, Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, coming from the country, that he might carry His cross.
Mark 15:40 And there were also women looking on from afar off, among whom also were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the least and of Joseph, and Salome,
Mark 15:43 having come, Joseph from Arimathea, a prominent Council member, who was also himself waiting for the kingdom of God, having boldness, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.
Mark 15:47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph d d were watching where He was laid.
Mark 16:1 And the Sabbath having passed, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that having come, they might anoint Him.

Mark moves up the anonimity by a notch.
Observe that the first unknown is introduced erlier: Simon the carrier - but in order to make that less unintimate (forgive me for using this word, this is not the last LOL) , Mark adds the touch about him being father of two other unknowns.
Mark removes Mary the mother and replaces her by Salome, and swaps the other Mary for another Mary.
In order to lend it a greater sense of unintimacy, he adds verse 47 - but highly likely only because he wants to keep emphasising the role of these three, who get the memo from the angel and then sod off into eternity without telling anyone, thereby fulfilling the entire goal of Mark: to invent the resurrection INCLUDING the reason that no one had ever heard of it before - and we can see how that got retrofitted to John

Luke:

_____
Luke 23:26 And as they led Him away, having laid hold on Simon, a certain man of Cyrene coming from the country, they put upon him the cross, to carry it behind Jesus.
Luke 23:27 And a great multitude of the people were following Him, and of women, who were mourning and lamenting for Him.
Luke 23:49 And all from those who knew Him, and women, those having followed Him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.
Luke 23:50 And behold, a man named Joseph, being also a Council member, a good and righteous man— 51 he was not having consented to their counsel and deed—from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was waiting for the kingdom of God.
Luke 23:55 And the women who were come with Him out of Galilee, having followed, saw the tomb and how His body was laid. 56 And having returned, they prepared spices and anointing oils. And they rested indeed on the Sabbath according to the commandment.
Luke 24:9 And having returned from the tomb, they related all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.
+++++
10 Now it was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who were telling these things to the apostles. 11 And their words appeared before them like folly, and they did not believe them.

Observe that Luke's Simon of Cyrene is Mark expanded, as that is how story telling goes: either something is kept and "prettied up", or ditched entirely.
A touch of intimacy gets added, yet all these are unknowns. What IS VERY INTERESTING is that his BFF's get mentioned (and not named or identified) yet put at a great distance.
Naturally the Thomasine / Chrestian women now get anonimised - that wouldn't have gone down very well with the intended audience of Luke.
Splendid expansion of Joseph here, including how righteous a Jew he was - two extra points there!
More expansion of the now unknown women who even get depicted as devout Judaics.
+++++
We enter intimacy again, although Salome has been dropped now but Mary Magdalene is still present, and Lawd knows who Joanna is. Is it irrefutable that these were the women present at the tomb? No, but the point here is that "Chrestian women" testify to the resurrection, and that it is explicitly stated that neither the disciples nor anyone else believed them

Matthew:

Matthew 27:32 And going forth, they found a man of Cyrene, named Simon. They compelled him that he might carry His cross.
Matthew 27:39 And those passing by kept railing at Him, wagging their heads
Matthew 27:55 And many women were there, looking on from afar off, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him— 56 among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
Matthew 27:57 And evening having arrived, a rich man from Arimathea named Joseph came, who himself also was discipled to Jesus.
Matthew 60:1 And after the Sabbaths, it being dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.
Matthew 60:8 And having gone out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, they ran to tell His disciples.
+++++
9 And b b behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Greetings!” And having approached, they took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.

_____
As usual, Matthew cuts the crap: Simon is compelled, period.
The bystanders in Matthew are even negative towards poor IS!
Matthew names the women of course, neatly following up on Luke's intro there. Apparently Mary Magdalene suffices as pointer, and I do wonder about the persistency on Mary the mother of James and Joseph - help me out if you please.
A touch of fake intimacy to Joseph: he also is a disciple!
Mary Magdalene "and the other Mary": the focus clearly needs to be on the Magdalene alone.
+++++
Perhaps the most preposterous scene in all of the gospels: Matthew obviously is tired of all the writing, lying and making up. What a great one-liner to say as the very first words after one's resurrection - it utterly amazes me how any of this can be believed, even by sheeple. This really is the most careless and unattentive story telling ever. But Matthew ends the bickering about whom to blame and "solves" it this way

The story continues after this, with Luke taking away the blame from the women and shifting it to the disciples, and Matthew putting an end to that by having IS bluntly appear to the combined both with a childish "Greetings" right after the memo from the angel

CONCLUSION

John is first, with a nice intimate scene where IS is executed in front of his mom - and perhaps also mary Magdalene, which may be the reason for her mention throughout the Synoptics.
The Synoptics not only remove that, but move up the dying in anonimity by a notch via stealing the carrying of the cross and introducing the first unknown already there - and notice the slight detail that Mark and Matthew compel the poor man, yet in Luke there is some reciprocity.
The goal of all that? Jesus has to die in anonimity so he can buried in anonimity - so it won't come as a surprise that he resurrects in anonimity.
Now why does he need to resurrect in anonimity? Because it has to be plausible that nobody had heard of it while "it factually happened" nonetheless; and in order to not make it suspect that all his BFF suddenly are gone, IS is slowly deprived of all of them - yet not in John, because that gospel came before all the others.
And ended with the death of IS, of course - and this is what it originally said: παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα

John 19:25 Now His mother, and the sister of His mother, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene, had been standing by the cross of Jesus. 26 Therefore Jesus, having seen His mother and the disciple whom He loved standing by, says to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” 27 Then He says to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her to the own. 28 After this, Jesus, knowing that now all things had been accomplished, says, “I thirst.” And having bowed the head, He yielded up the spirit.


παραδίδωμι

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... adi%2Fdwmi

I.to give or hand over to another, transmit, τί τινι, Lat. tradere, Hdt.; of transmission to one's successor, id=Hdt.; π. τὴν ἀρετήν to transmit, impart as a teacher, Plat.:—c. inf., π. τινὶ τοὺς νέους διδάσκειν id=Plat.
2.to give a city or person into another's hands, Hdt.; esp. as an hostage, to deliver up, surrender, Lat. dedere, id=Hdt., Thuc., etc.; also, with notion of treachery, to betray, Xen.: τύχῃ αὑτὸν π. to commit oneself to fortune, Thuc.
3.to give up to justice, ἑωυτὸν Κροίσῳ Hdt.; τινὰ εἰς τὸν δῆμον Xen.
4.to hand down legends, opinions, and the like, Lat. memoriae prodere, Dem.
II.to grant, bestow, κῦδός τινι Pind.:—in pres. and imperf. to offer, allow, αἵρεσιν id=Pind.: c. inf. to allow one to do, Hdt.; so, c. acc. rei, ὁ θεὸς τοῦτό γε οὐ παρεδίδου id=Hdt.:—absol., τοῦ θεοῦ παραδιδόντος if he permits, id=Hdt.

Simply astonishingly poetic and spiritual.
Mark has ἐξέπνευσεν from ἐκπνέω, 'to breathe out'.
Luke has the exact same.
Matthew has to imitate John but fails: ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα, from ἀφίημι, 'to send forth, discharge'. Like a wet fart! Close but no cigar
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

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

Post by Irish1975 »

mlinssen—

1. I could be misreading this thread, but is the argument that the popularity of gJohn from 200 onwards should count as evidence for its being written before Marcion/Synoptics/Thomas? (To me the abundance of some writers over others in the manuscripts is shakey evidence to begin with, but really only reflects popularity over the centuries. I don’t see what relevance it has to the question of dating and source criticism.)

2. What about external witnesses to gJohn? We don’t see the “apostolic fathers” citing it, and more importantly, Justin seems to know only the synoptic material. Ignatius and Justin have ideas about the logos and pre-existence, and so (it could be argued) would have cited John if they could have. As you say, Irenaeus is our first catholic witness.

3. What about the Valentinians? Aren’t they the prime suspects for originating this heretical Gospel? Turmel thought it was Marcion, and there is an association (although vague and dubious) between John and Marcion in the Latin prologue. I doubt it. And I never know what to make of the stories about “Cerinthus.”
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 »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 7:47 pm mlinssen—

1. I could be misreading this thread, but is the argument that the popularity of gJohn from 200 onwards should count as evidence for its being written before Marcion/Synoptics/Thomas? (To me the abundance of some writers over others in the manuscripts is shakey evidence to begin with, but really only reflects popularity over the centuries. I don’t see what relevance it has to the question of dating and source criticism.)

2. What about external witnesses to gJohn? We don’t see the “apostolic fathers” citing it, and more importantly, Justin seems to know only the synoptic material. Ignatius and Justin have ideas about the logos and pre-existence, and so (it could be argued) would have cited John if they could have. As you say, Irenaeus is our first catholic witness.

3. What about the Valentinians? Aren’t they the prime suspects for originating this heretical Gospel? Turmel thought it was Marcion, and there is an association (although vague and dubious) between John and Marcion in the Latin prologue. I doubt it. And I never know what to make of the stories about “Cerinthus.”
1. The picture shows that John is the earliest and most abundantly found gospel from beginning to end - I don't understand why you frame it the way you do. And naturally, it is one piece of evidence

2. Agreed, they don't quote it yet they mention it - and quite a lot, and Tertullian even mentions him more often than Mark and Matthew combined. Irenaeus even places him first when he presents his infamous four pillars speech. So he gets a lot of attention yet no quotes - which raises suspicion as well.
And indeed, the logos gets cited but John doesn't - so where did they get it from?
John gets named, his words get used, but his text is never put on stage - odd, isn't it?

3. I have no opinion even on the Valentinians, I strictly look at texts. The entire search for authorship is futile until one knows exactly what a text stands for, how it works, etc
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Irenaeus Against Heresies Names and Places - all of them

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 8:27 am The words below are guaranteed to be present at least once in any of his five books "Against Heresies".
If you have any comments, please shoot - this is how I do research, I digitise everything down to a searchable format which allows me to handle dozens, even hundreds of texts on one single topic
What text manipulation tool / program do you use?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Irenaeus Against Heresies Names and Places - all of them

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:26 pm
mlinssen wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 8:27 am The words below are guaranteed to be present at least once in any of his five books "Against Heresies".
If you have any comments, please shoot - this is how I do research, I digitise everything down to a searchable format which allows me to handle dozens, even hundreds of texts on one single topic
What text manipulation tool / program do you use?
Several OCR programs, depending on the text - but there is very very little these days that hasn't already been digitised in some way, and it certainly has been a while for me.
Notepad++ and UltraEdit for minor text manipulation.
Linux add on for Windows for the real deal, and awk / sed for the brutal work, and I am fairly proficient in regexp.
I use Excel to handle data, with VLOOKUP being pivotal

And for the finding of search terms in documents I use a simple grep

But the essence to it all is that you break down every document into single lines, preferably as small as possible
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

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

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:51 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 7:47 pm mlinssen—

1. I could be misreading this thread, but is the argument that the popularity of gJohn from 200 onwards should count as evidence for its being written before Marcion/Synoptics/Thomas? (To me the abundance of some writers over others in the manuscripts is shakey evidence to begin with, but really only reflects popularity over the centuries. I don’t see what relevance it has to the question of dating and source criticism.)

2. What about external witnesses to gJohn? We don’t see the “apostolic fathers” citing it, and more importantly, Justin seems to know only the synoptic material. Ignatius and Justin have ideas about the logos and pre-existence, and so (it could be argued) would have cited John if they could have. As you say, Irenaeus is our first catholic witness.

3. What about the Valentinians? Aren’t they the prime suspects for originating this heretical Gospel? Turmel thought it was Marcion, and there is an association (although vague and dubious) between John and Marcion in the Latin prologue. I doubt it. And I never know what to make of the stories about “Cerinthus.”
1. The picture shows that John is the earliest and most abundantly found gospel from beginning to end - I don't understand why you frame it the way you do. And naturally, it is one piece of evidence
John has a special place in the NHL as well and the four copies of the Apocryphon of John leaves practically all other manuscripts in the dust. The question of dating and source criticism must be applied to the global set of manuscripts which existed physically and hypothetically in antiquity. The NHL will revise things. At that time we must recall that the canonical books and the "uncanonical" books were circulating in competition with one another.
2. Agreed, they don't quote it yet they mention it - and quite a lot, and Tertullian even mentions him more often than Mark and Matthew combined. Irenaeus even places him first when he presents his infamous four pillars speech. So he gets a lot of attention yet no quotes - which raises suspicion as well.
And indeed, the logos gets cited but John doesn't - so where did they get it from?
John gets named, his words get used, but his text is never put on stage - odd, isn't it?
It is exceedingly odd that Irenaeus is our first catholic witness but that's the hand the church "history" has dealt to us. As you know I suspect them of dealing from the bottom of the deck. The Pope has a coin which always flips heads.
3. I have no opinion even on the Valentinians, I strictly look at texts. The entire search for authorship is futile until one knows exactly what a text stands for, how it works, etc
The Valentinians are IMO a fictional construction of the heresiologists. Again the NHL will provide a better perspective on Christian literature once it is properly translated and analyzed.
Post Reply