The other rich man.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

The other rich man.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

One of our fragments of the so called Gospel of the Hebrews comes solely from the Latin translation of Origen's commentary on Matthew (the extant Greek text lacks this paragraph):

Pseudo-Origen, On Matthew 15.14, parallel to Matthew 19.16-26 (Vetus Interpretatio): § It is written in a certain gospel, which is called according to the Hebrews, if yet it pleases one to accept it, not as an authority, but as a manifestation of the proposed question, “Another rich man said unto him, ‘Master, what good thing can I do and live?’ He said unto him, ‘O man, do that which is in the law and the prophets.’ He answered him, ‘I have kept them.’ He said unto him, ‘Go, sell all that you own and divide it among the poor, and come, follow me.’ But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it pleased him not. And the Lord said unto him, ‘How can you say, “I have done the law and the prophets?” For it is written in the law, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” And behold, many of your brethren, sons of Abraham, are clad in filth, dying of hunger, and your house is full of many good things, and nothing at all goes out of it unto them.’ And he turned and said unto Simon his disciple, who was sitting by him, ‘Simon, son of John/Jona, it is easier for a camel to enter in by the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.’” / § Scriptum est in evangelio quodam, quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos, si tamen placet suscipere illud, non ad auctoritatem sed ad manifestationem propositae quaestionis, «Dixit,» inquit, «ad eum alter divitum, ‹Magister, quid bonum faciens vivam?› dixit ei, ‹Homo, leges et prophetas fac.› respondit ad eum, ‹Feci.› dixit ei, ‹Vade vende omnia quae possides et divide pauperibus, en veni, sequere me.› Coepit autem dives scalpere caput suum et non placuit ei. et dixit ad eumdominus, ‹Quomodo dicis, «Legem feci et prophetas?» quoniam scriptum est in lege, «Diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum.» et ecce, multi fratres tui filii Abrahae amicti sunt stercore, morientes prae fame, et domus tua plena est multis bonis, et non egreditur omnino aliquid ex ea ad eos.› Et conversus dixit Simoni, discipulo suo sedenti apud se, ‹Simon, fili Ionae/Ioanne,* facilius est camelum intrare per foramen acus quam divitem in regnum caelorum.›»

* Ionae: codices Rothomagensis/Gemmeticensis 423, Brugensis 58 (301), Londinensis (British Museum additional manuscript 26761), and Remensis (lost). Ioanne: Jacque Merlin, Latin edition of 1512, volume 3.

Exegetes of past generations assumed, I think, that this single pericope from the lost text involved two rich men, only the part about the second of the two (alter divitum), however, having been quoted in this excerpt. But more recently it has become more common to explain the "other" rich man as belonging to the second story of a sequence in the Diatessaron:

A. F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, page 57: 57 None of the synoptic Gospels speaks of a "rich" man, although Luke reads ἄρχων. However, in Mark 10,17 a number of manuscripts such as A K M W Θ f.13 georg syhmg arm and sa add the word πλούσιος which is also found in Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron and in Aphraates. The passage speaks of an alter divitum. It seems that there has been earlier reference to a rich man. This would agree with the Diatessaron in which according to the text of Liège and the Arabic version Luke 12,13-21 precedes the present quotation and Luke 16,14-15 follows on from it. This would mean that the Diatessaron gives three passages about rich men one after the other.

Petri Luomanen, Recovering Jewish-Christian Sects and Gospels, pages 184-185 (explaining the expression alter divitum in the pseudo-Origenic passage: 184 In the Liège Harmony and in the Arabic version of the Diatessaron, there is a sequence of three stories about rich men: 1) the Parable of the Rich Fool (Luke 12:13-21), 2)The Rich Young Man (Mark 10:17-22; Matthew 19:16–22; Luke 18:18–23), 3) The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus with the introductory note about the Pharisees’ love of wealth (Luke 16:14–15, 19-31). Since the Liège Harmony and 185 the Arabic version of the Diatessaron belong to different branches of Diatessaronic tradition, their agreement should be regarded as a reliable witness to the original composition of the Diatessaron. Therefore, it seems that there were three stories about rich men in Tatian’s Diatessaron of which the story about the rich young man was the second one. Dependance on the Diatessaron makes understandable the expression “another” which is inexplicable in the synoptic narratives.

This idea seems very attractive at first glance. There are three stories in a row about rich men, and the wording of this story from the Gospel of the Hebrews presumes the sequence by calling this particular rich man "another" or "a second" rich man.

To my eye, however, it becomes less attractive at second glance:

#
Arabic Diatessaron
Liège Diatessaron
1Arabic Diatessaron 28.33-41: 33 And a man of that multitude said unto our Lord, “Teacher, say to my brother 34 that he divide with me the inheritance.” Jesus said unto him, “Man, who is it that 35 appointed me over you as a judge and divider?” And he said unto his disciples, “Take heed within yourselves of all inordinate desire; for it is not in abundance of 36 possessions that life shall be.” And he gave them this parable, “The ground of a 37 rich man brought forth abundant produce, and he pondered within himself, and 38 said, ‘What shall I do, since I have no place to store my produce?’ And he said, ‘I will do this. I will pull down the buildings of my barns and build them, and make 39 them greater, and store there all my wheat and my goods. And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid by for many years; take your ease, eat, 40 drink, enjoy yourself.”’ God said unto him, ‘O you of little intelligence, this night shall your soul be taken from you; and this which you have prepared, whose shall it 41 be?’ So is he who lays up treasures for himself and is not rich in God.” (= Luke 12.13-21)Liège Diatessaron 147, folio 49 recto, lines 13b-32, and verso, lines 1-7a, apud Daniel Plooij, pages 339-344: 339-344 Then one of the people came to Jesus and said thus, “Master, tell my brother to come and divide our inheritance with me.” And Jesus answered him back thus, “Man, who has made me judge and divider over you?” Then he spoke still further to the people, “Take heed and beware of all covetousness, for neither in the enjoyment of earthly riches nor in much possessing of transitory things is man’s life.” He confirmed this with a parable and said thus, “There was once upon a time a wealyour man whose grain had thriven well upon the field. And he said to himself in his meditations thus, ‘What can I do since I have not barns enough to store my grain in? This will I do. I will demolish my old barns and and will make larger ones, and therein will I gather all the grain that I have grown. And I will console myself thus, “Now you have many more goods than you could spend in many years. Now rest yourself and eat and drink and be at ease.”’ As he thought thus, there came a voice on God’s behalf which spoke to him and said thus, ‘Wretched fool, in this night your soul shall be parted from your body, and that which you have gathered, to whom shall it go?’ Thus it fares with him who hoards and lays up, and who is not rich in God.” (= Luke 12.13-21)
2Arabic Diatessaron 28.42-29.11: 28.42 And while Jesus was going in the way, there came near to him a young man of the rulers, and he fell on his knees and asked him and said, “Good Teacher, what is 43 it that I must do that I may have eternal life?” Jesus said unto him, “Why do you call 44 me good, while there is none good but the one, even God? You know the commandments. 45 If you would enter into life, keep the commandments.” The young man said unto him, “Which of the commandments?” Jesus said unto him, 46 “You shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not kill, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not do injury, honor your father 47 and your mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.” That young man said unto 48 him, “All these have I kept from my youth; what then is it that I lack?” And Jesus 49 looked intently at him and loved him, and said unto him, “If you would be perfect, what you lack is one thing: go away and sell everything that you have and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and take your 50 cross and follow me.” And that young man frowned at this word and went away 51 feeling sad, for he was very rich. And, when Jesus saw his sadness, he looked toward his disciples and said unto them, “How hard it is for those who have possessions to enter the kingdom of God! 29.1 Verily I say unto you, it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of 2 heaven. And I say unto you also that it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of 3 a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” And the disciples were wondering at these sayings. And Jesus answered and said unto them again, “My children, how hard it is for those who rely on their possessions to enter the 4 kingdom of God!” And those who were listening wondered more and said among 5 themselves, being agitated, “Who do you think can be saved?” And Jesus looked at them intently and said unto them, “With men this is not possible, but with God it is. 6 It is possible for God to do everything.” Simon Cephas said unto him, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you; what is it do you think that we 7 shall have?” Jesus said unto them, “Verily I say unto you, you who have followed me, in the new world, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory, you also 8 shall sit on twelve thrones and shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Verily I say unto you, no man leaves houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or kinsfolk, or lands because of the kingdom of God or for 9 my sake, and for the sake of my gospel, who shall not obtain many times as much in this 10 time and in the world to come inherit eternal life: and now in this time houses, and brothers, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecution; 11 and in the world to come everlasting life. Many who are first shall be last and who are last shall be first.” (= Matthew 19.16-26 = Mark 10.17-27 = Luke 18.18-27)Liège Diatessaron 147, folio 49 verso, lines 7b-32, and folio 50 recto, lines 1-19a, apud Daniel Plooij, pages 344-353: 344-353 After that Jesus went out of the temple; and when he came upon the road, one came and fell before him on his knees and spoke thus, “Good master, what good works shall I work by which I may earn eternal life?” And Jesus answered him thus, “What do you ask me about good? No one is good but one alone, God. But, if you will come to eternal life, keep the commandments.” Then he asked, “What commandments?” And Jesus answered him thus, “You shall not commit manslaughter, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and your mother, and love your fellow Christian as yourself.” Then the youth answered him and spoke thus, “I have kept all these commandments from the days of my childhood. What do I lack yet?” Then Jesus looked upon him lovingly and said thus, “One thing you lack: if you wish to be perfect, go and sell that which you have and give it to the poor, and come and follow me: so shall you find a treasure in the kingdom of heaven.” When the youth heard that, he went away all grieved, for he was very rich and had many possessions. Then Jesus looked all round and spoke to his disciples thus, “How hard shall it be for those who have riches to come into the kingdom of heaven. And I say to you also that it is easier for a camel to creep through the hole of a needle than for a rich man to come into the kingdom of heaven.” When his disciples heard that, they were very much astonished and spoke thus, “Who then can be saved?” Then Jesus looked upon them and answered them back thus, “This is impossible for men; but all things are possible to God.” Then Peter spoke and said thus, “We have left all and have followed you. In what shall we be the better for it?” Then Jesus answered him, “Verily I say unto you that you who have followed me, in the resurrection, when the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of his power, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Verily I say unto you, whosoever leaves house or brother or sister or father or mother or wife or children or land for my sake and for the gospel, it shall be repaid to him here one hundred fold, and in the other world he shall possess eternal life.” (= Matthew 19.16-26 = Mark 10.17-27 = Luke 18.18-27)
3Arabic Diatessaron 29.12-26: 12 And when the Pharisees heard all of this, because of their love for wealth they 13 scoffed at him. And Jesus knew what was in their hearts and said unto them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men while God knows your hearts; the thing that is lofty with men is base before God.” 14 And he began to say, “A certain man was rich and wore silk and purple and enjoyed 15 himself every day in splendor. And there was a poor man named Lazarus, and 16 he was cast down at the door of the rich man, afflicted with sores, and he longed to fill his belly with the crumbs that fell from the table of that rich man; yea, 17 even the dogs used to come and lick his sores. And it happened that that poor man died, and the angels conveyed him into the bosom of Abraham; and the 18 rich man also died, and was buried. And while he was being tormented in Hades, 19 he lifted up his eyes from afar and saw Abraham with Lazarus in his bosom. And he called with a loud voice, and said, ‘My father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to wet the tip of his finger with water and moisten my tongue 20 for me; for, behold, I am burned in this flame.’ Abraham said unto him, ‘My son, remember that you received your good things in your life, and Lazarus his afflictions; 21 but now, behold, he is at rest here, and you are tormented. And in addition to all of this there is between us and you a great abyss placed so that those who would cross unto you from hence cannot, nor yet from thence do they cross unto 22 us.’ He said unto him, ‘Then I beseech you, my father, to send him to my father’s 23 house; for I have five brothers; let him go that they also not sin and come to 24 the abode of this torment.’ Abraham said unto him, ‘They have Moses and the 25 prophets; let them hear them.’ He said unto him, ‘Nay, my father Abraham, but 26 let a man from the dead go unto them and they will repent.’ Abraham said unto him, ‘If they listen neither to Moses nor to the prophets, neither if a man from the dead rose would they believe him.’” (= Luke 16.14-15, 19-31)Liège Diatessaron 147, folio 50 recto, lines 19b-33, and verso, lines 1-31a, apud Daniel Plooij, pages 353-360: 353-360 When the scribes who were covetous heard this, they derided Jesus. And Jesus spoke to them and said thus, “You are those who make yourselves righteous before man; but God knows your hearts; for that which seems great to men is an indignity before God.” After that he confirmed this with a parable and said thus, “Once upon a time there was a man who was rich and clothed with purple and buckram, and who every day held great banquets. There was also a poor man who was called Lazarus, who lay in front of that rich man’s door all full of sores and longed to eat of the pieces that fell off the rich man’s table and no one gave him thereof. But the dogs came and licked his sores. Thereafter it happened that the poor man died, and the angels came and carried his soul into Abraham’s bosom. Afterwards the rich man died, and his soul was carried into hell. And when he was in torment he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham from afar and Lazarus sitting in his bosom. Then he called to Abraham and said thus, ‘Father Abraham, have pity upon me and send Lazarus here to me, and command him to wet the tip of his finger in water and to cool therewith my tongue; for I am sorely tormented in this flame.’ Then Abraham answered him thus, ‘Son, remember that you had your pleasant things in your life, and Lazarus poverty and unpleasant things. Therefore he is now in comfort and in pleasures, and you are in torment. And above all this, there is a great abyss between us and you, so that they who want to come hence to you cannot do that, neither can they who thence want to come hither to us accomplish that.’ ‘Then I pray you, father, that you send him into my father’s house, for I have there yet five brothers, that he warn them, lest they come into the place of this torment.’ Then Abraham answered him again, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he spoke yet further, ‘Nay, father Abraham, but if one comes who has been dead and speaks to them, they will do penance.’ And Abraham answered him thus, ‘If they hear not Moses and the prophets, they will not believe what someone may say to them who is arisen from death.’” (= Luke 16.14-15, 19-31)

The fact is that, whereas there is a rich man in the second story, there is not really a rich man in the first or in the third; rather, in those stories, the rich man is part of a parable being told. Those rich men, the first and the third, are not part of the narrative of the gospel; they are part of stories within that narrative. And it does not seem very natural to me to narrate Jesus telling a parable about a rich man and then to say that "another rich man" has approached him.

I have considered that perhaps the "first" rich man was not supposed to be the fellow in the parable, but rather the man asking Jesus for help getting a share of the inheritance. But that man is not characterized as rich; to the contrary, he may well be desperate for a share of the inheritance precisely because without it he is poor.

Is it possible that the author or editor of the Gospel of the Hebrews either (A) treated the rich man with whom Jesus actually speaks in the narrative as "another" one after the rich man about whom Jesus speaks in a parable or (B) assumed that the man in the first story was already rich and wanting only to get richer? Sure. Not both at the same time, but either of these options on its own seems possible. What neither seems to be to me is self evident.

Incidentally, both Klijn and Luomanen write of three stories in a row about rich men, but the very next story in the Liège Diatessaron is also about a rich man:

Liège Diatessaron 148, folio 50 verso, lines 31b-32, and folio 51 recto, line 1a, apud Daniel Plooij, pages 360-361: 360-361 After that Jesus spoke to his disciples and said thus, “Once upon a time there was a rich man, who had a steward.” (And the rest.)

And the next pericope, in both Diatessaronic texts this time, is a parable about how the owner of a vineyard pays his workers. Even the discussion which follows thereafter in both texts presumes a situation of wealth, with advice to invite "the poor" (and other disenfranchised folks) to one's banquet.

Various gospel authors and editors seem to have liked to group stories together according to shared features (witness the "controversy stories" in Mark 2.1-3.6, for example), and to group stories about wealth together seems unsurprising. With such sequence building going on around the topic of wealth, for "another" rich man in a truncated pericope to happen to fall somewhere in position 2+ of a sequence of stories about riches in one of those texts may not be a huge coincidence.

To be clear, Klijn lists many other possible points of contact between the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Diatessaron and its (mainly Syriac and Latin) allies, and each of those points ought to stand or fall on its own merits. My observation here is that the man in this pericope being "another" rich man may not actually be one of them.

Ben.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13525
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The other rich man.

Post by Secret Alias »

... and Secret Mark's rich man who raises from the dead.
Ken Olson
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The other rich man.

Post by Ken Olson »

Ben,

Just a suggestion, but have you looked at the possibility that Pseudo-Origen might be referring to the Rich Man in the Gospel of the Hebrews as "another rich man" in relation to some Rich Man he has discussed in his own text rather than to one in the Gospel of the Hebrews? (You'd have to ignore the quotation marks, of course).

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The other rich man.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 4:04 pmJust a suggestion, but have you looked at the possibility that Pseudo-Origen might be referring to the Rich Man in the Gospel of the Hebrews as "another rich man" in relation to some Rich Man he has discussed in his own text rather than to one in the Gospel of the Hebrews? (You'd have to ignore the quotation marks, of course).
If you are asking whether I have gone through the entire Vetus Interpretatio up to this point of the text looking for other rich men which the translator has himself introduced to the text (on the grounds that only those Latin parts not corresponding to anything in the Greek would presumably count as "pseudo-Origen," the ones corresponding to the Greek simply being "Origen" himself as translated into Latin), then no, I have not considered that.

If you are asking whether there is any figure in the immediate context, even if by Origen himself, whom pseudo-Origen might be counting as the "first" rich man, well, the rich man under discussion for a good while before this paragraph is the one from Matthew 19.16-30 and its synoptic parallels, such that pseudo-Origen would pretty much have to be distinguishing the synoptic rich man as "the" rich man or "the first" rich man and the rich man from the parallel pericope in the Gospel of the Hebrews as "another" rich man, virtually giving that phrase the force of a "different" rich man, not the one referred to in the New Testament. Certainly not impossible in the abstract, but in concrete terms I think the idea fails. Pseudo-Origen seems intent both (A) to retain the love commandment in Matthew's text, despite Origen pointing out that it is lacking in the Marcan and Lucan parallels, and (B) to keep Origen's Old Testament Hexaplaic methodology of comparing different versions as far away from the New Testament as possible (in exemplariis autem Novi Testamenti hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non putavi). To that end, pseudo-Origen wheels in this parallel from the Gospel of the Hebrews to show that verum est, ergo, quia non inplevit dives mandatum, «Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum,» thus firmly identifying, it seems to me, the rich man in the synoptics with the rich man in the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Bolstering the point that the "other" rich man is part of the quotation is the Latin syntax, dixit, inquit, ad eum alter divitum. That position of the postpositive inquit is what suggests the exact scope of the quotation.

If you have a different take on this passage, though, one in which pseudo-Origen does, in fact, intend "another" rich man to be taken in comparison only to something in his or in Origen's text, rather than in the Gospel of the Hebrews, then I would be very interested to hear it.

ETA: Link 1, 2.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The other rich man.

Post by Ben C. Smith »


Greek (formatted from the TLG)
≈ Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15.14 (Matthew 19.16-30)
English (formatted and slightly modified from Justin M. Gohl if drawn from the Greek; a combination of my own translation and that of Klijn if drawn from the Latin)
Latin (formatted from Migne)
≈ pseudo-Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15.14 (Matthew 19.16-30)
Καὶ εἰ μὲν μὴ καὶ περὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφωνία ἦν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν ἀντιγράφων, ὥστε πάντα τὰ κατὰ Ματθαῖον μὴ συνᾴδειν ἀλλήλοις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ εὐαγγέλια, κἂν ἀσεβής τις ἔδοξεν εἶναι ὁ ὑπονοῶν ἐνταῦθα προσερρίφθαι οὐκ εἰρημένην ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος πρὸς τὸν πλούσιον τὴν, «ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς ἑαυτὸν,» ἐντολήν. νυνὶ δὲ δῆλον ὅτιIndeed, except for the fact that there are many disagreements in many other passages in the copies, such that the body of manuscripts for Matthew do not agree with one another — as is the case with the rest of the Gospels — one might seem to be impious in suspecting an addition in the present instance, the Savior having not spoken the commandment to the rich man, “You will love your neighbor as yourself.” Now it is clear that
πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥᾳθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς <εἴτε ἀπὸ ἀμελούντων> τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων, εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορθώσει <ἢ> προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων. τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης διαφωνίαν θεοῦ διδόντος εὕρομεν ἰάσασθαι, κριτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσιν· τῶν γὰρ ἀμφιβαλλομένων παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβδομήκοντα διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφωνίαν τὴν κρίσιν ποιησάμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων τὸ συνᾷδον ἐκείναις ἐφυλάξαμεν, καὶ τινὰ μὲν ὠβελίσαμεν <ὡς> ἐν τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ μὴ κείμενα, οὐ τολμήσαντες αὐτὰ πάντη περιελεῖν, τινὰ δὲ μετ' ἀστερίσκων προσεθήκαμεν, ἵνα δῆλον ᾖ ὅτι μὴ κείμενα παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβδομήκοντα ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδόσεων συμφώνως τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ προσεθήκαμεν,many differences in the copies have come about either from the indifference of certain scribes, or the misguided daring of some, or from those neglectful of the correction of the things written, or even from those who, in [their] correction, either added or subtracted those things according to their own opinions. The disagreement, therefore, in the copies of the Old Testament, we found to be cured, with God’s help, when making use of the rest of the copies as a criterion. For, with the doubtful matters in the LXX arising from the disagreement of the copies, we made a judgment from the rest of the editions, [and] we preserved the agreement among them, and we marked with an obelus those not found in the Hebrew, not daring to remove them completely, and we added others along with an asterisk, in order that it might be clear that we have added passages not found in the LXX from the rest of the editions in agreement with the Hebrew,Multam enim differentiam inter exemplaria invenimus, sive per negligentiam scribentium, sive ex temeritate quorundam sive propter eos qui neglegunt emendare scripturas, vel propter eow qui, quod ipsis videtur, in emendationibus vel adiciunt vel subducunt. et in exemplariis quidem veteris testamenti quaecumque fuerunt inconsonantia deo praestante coaptare potuimus, utentes iudicios ceterarum editionum; ea enim quae videbantur apud Septuaginta dubia esse propter incosonantiam exemplariorum, facientes iudicium ex editionibus reliquis convenientia servavimus; et quaedam quidem notavimus quasi non posita in Hebraeo (non audentes ea omnio auferre), quaedam autem cum asteriscis addidimus, ut sit manifestum quonidimus, ut sit manifestum quoniam, quae non fuerunt posita apud Septuaginta, ex editionibus ceteris addidimus convenienter Hebraeo.
καὶ ὁ μὲν βουλόμενος προ<σ>ῆται αὐτά, ᾧ δὲ προσκόπτει τὸ τοιοῦτον ὃ βούλεται, περὶ τῆς παραδοχῆς αὐτῶν ἢ μὴ, ποιήσῃ.and he who so wishes may accept these things, but to one whom this matter causes offense he may do what he wishes concerning their acceptance, or not.
In the exemplars, however, of the New Testament I have not thought it possible to do this very thing without peril. I thought it would not be unreasonable that I ought only to expose myself to suspicions, and to the reasons and causes of suspicions, as in this location in which it is said, “Love your neighbor just as yourself,” since according to Mark and Luke it is not placed there. May they judge, then, what they can, whether the things of which we treat may be true or false. Come, now, let us treat this place otherwise, as if this is still in place, “Love your neighbor just as yourself.”In exemplariis autem Novi Testamenti hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non putavi. tantum suspiciones exponere me debere, et rationes causasque suspicionum, non esse irrationabile existimavi, sicut in hoc loco quod dicitur, «Diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum,» quoniam apud Marcum et Lucam positum non est. iudicent autem quid possunt, utrum vera sint quae tractamus an falsa. tamen quasi posito etiam hoc, «Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum,» age aliter tractemus hunc locum.
It is written in a certain gospel, which is called according to the Hebrews, if yet it pleases one to accept it, not as an authority, but as a manifestation of the proposed question, “Another rich man said unto him: ‘Master, what good thing can I do and live?’ He said unto him: ‘O man, do that which is in the law and the prophets.’ He answered him: ‘I have kept them.’ He said unto him: ‘Go, sell all that you own and divide it among the poor, and come, follow me.’ But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it pleased him not. And the Lord said unto him: ‘How can you say, ”I have done the law and the prophets?“ For it is written in the law, ”You shall love your neighbor as yourself.“ And behold, many of your brethren, sons of Abraham, are clad in filth, dying of hunger, and your house is full of many good things, and nothing at all goes out of it unto them.’ And he turned and said unto Simon his disciple, who was sitting by him: ‘Simon, son of John/Jona, it is easier for a camel to enter in by the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.’”Scriptum est in evangelio quodam, quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos, si tamen placet suscipere illud, non ad auctoritatem sed ad manifestationem propositae quaestionis: «Dixit,» inquit, «ad eum alter divitum, ‹Magister, quid bonum faciens vivam?› dixit ei, ‹Homo, leges et prophetas fac.› respondit ad eum, ‹Feci.› dixit ei, ‹Vade vende omnia quae possides et divide pauperibus, en veni, sequere me.› Coepit autem dives scalpere caput suum et non placuit ei. et dixit ad eumdominus, ‹Quomodo dicis, «Legem feci et prophetas?» quoniam scriptum est in lege, «Diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum.» et ecce, multi fratres tui filii Abrahae amicti sunt stercore, morientes prae fame, et domus tua plena est multis bonis, et non egreditur omnino aliquid ex ea ad eos.› Et conversus dixit Simoni, discipulo suo sedenti apud se, ‹Simon, fili Ioanne/Ionae, facilius est camelum intrare per foramen acus quam divitem in regnum caelorum.›»
It is true, therefore, that the rich man did not fulfill the commandment, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” who disdained poor people, and that he shared nothing for them out of such great wealth of his. It is impossible, then, both to fulfill the commandment which says, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and to be a rich man and to have very many possessions.Verum est, ergo, quia non inplevit dives mandatum, «Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum,» qui multos despexit pauperres et non est eis partitus aliquid de tantis facultatibus suis. impossibile est enim et inplere mandatum quod dicit, «Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum,» et esse divitem et maxime tantas possessiones habere.
ὁ τοίνυν θέλων μὴ παρερρῖφθαι ἐνταῦθα τὴν «ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς ἑαυτὸν» ἐντολήν, ἀλλ' ἀληθῶς ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου μετὰ τὰς προτέρας εἰρῆσθαι τότε, ἐρεῖ ὅτι ἠρέμα καὶ ἀμισῶς ἐλέγξαι βουλόμενος ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν τὸν πλούσιον ἐκεῖνον ὡς οὐκ ἀληθεύοντα ἐν τῷ εἰρηκέναι καὶ τὴν, «ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς ἑαυτὸν,» ἐντολὴν τετηρηκέναι, ἔφη αὐτῷ τὸ «εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι, ὕπαγε πώλησόν σου τὰ ὑπάρχοντα καὶ δὸς πτωχοῖς.» οὕτως γὰρ φανήσῃ ἀληθεύων περὶ τοῦ τὴν, «ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς ἑαυτὸν,» ἐντολὴν τετηρηκέναι.The one, then, who desires not to cast aside here the commandment, “You will love your neighbor as yourself,” but rather as having truly been said by the Lord at that time after the first ones, might say that our Savior, desiring to gently and immediately reprove this rich person as not having truly kept the commandment that was spoken, “You will love your neighbor as yourself,” says to him, “If you desire to be perfect, go, sell your substance, and give to the poor.” For in this way the truth would appear concerning having kept the commandment, “You will love your neighbor as yourself.”Qui ergo non aestimat esse abiciendum verbum hoc quasi falsum diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum, sed recipiendum quasi verum a domino dictum, dicet, non satis arguitione aperta, sed quoniam strictim et non satis odibiliter volens arguere divitem illum dominus noster quasi non vera dicentem, quod ait se inplevisse etiam illud mandatum, «Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum,» dixit ad eum, «Si vis perfectus esse, vade vende omnia quae possides et da payperibus.» sic enim apparebis dicere verum, si dilexisti aut diligis proximum tuum sicut teipsum.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13525
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The other rich man.

Post by Secret Alias »

With Ben it is always the same

1. amazing topics. Really fascinating discussions. Detailed work. Amazing analysis.
2. in the end, he makes ultimately aesthetic choices which go back to rather dull 'safe' conclusions.

He might be right. I always tell my son life is boring (when he gets emotional about things). But there is definitely a pattern. All of which makes 'Ben C Smith' a likely pseudonym rather than a real name. How could someone who is so 'into scholarship' always making 'safe' choices a 'real' scholar make not be a 'real' scholar? For the rest of this, these choices don't matter. Either we don't believe there is a god or at least that Christianity is a nonsense religion and so our choices don't matter. Real scholars have the embarrassment of making bad decisions in front of their peers. But who are Ben's peers? The people he allegedly works with at his 'regular' job? Maybe he's just a guy who likes making safe choices. Maybe when he drives to pick up groceries he never goes even 1 mph above the speed limit. But you can see the way he feels most comfortable with other 'real scholars.' They likely know his real name.

Like this fucking topic. This topic like EVERYONE of his 'here are two or three choices, I pick the safe choice' discussions. No one in their right mind is suggesting that the Arabic Diatessarion IS the original Diatessaron. No one. This is why this comment:
The fact is that, whereas there is a rich man in the second story, there is not really a rich man in the first or in the third; rather, in those stories, the rich man is part of a parable being told. Those rich men, the first and the third, are not part of the narrative of the gospel; they are part of stories within that narrative. And it does not seem very natural to me to narrate Jesus telling a parable about a rich man and then to say that "another rich man" has approached him.
He simply can't imagine a world where IT IS POSSIBLE TO DRIVE A MILE ABOVE THE LISTED SPEED LIMIT. The question is 'does the structure of the various Diatessarons' know or remember or reflect the existence of an earlier (lost) gospel which pitted two rich men against one another. Or perhaps - in the case of Secret Mark - does Mark 10 and then the rich youth's resurrection in the Secret Mark portion - or perhaps another of other possibilities represent a 'more mystical gospel' OTHER THAN THE MEANINGLESS SERIES OF ANECDOTES THAT APPEAR IN OUR CANONICAL GOSPELS.

I don't know that I can 'prove' that this gospel existed but I can provide a reason for why it might have existed. The canonical gospel is meaningless. It is made to appear as a string of 'anecdotes.' Is it possible that the gospels were so arranged? I guess. But is it also possible that at one time a mystic gospel which was meaningful existed and this meaning accounted for the wild popularity of Christianity in the second century before being curtailed by a combination of political forces to make three 'stupid' gospels after the statement in Papias about Mark being a series of 'anecdotes' because the secret meaning of the gospel was bothersome to the Imperial government? Again I don't know. But to understand 'breaking the law' you can't be a ninny always following the 'speed limit.' You have to be capable of breaking the law, to have committed a crime to understand the criminal.

Otherwise, all you do is 'stay with the pack' and - historically speaking - your research just reflects law or rule abiding. To act as if there wasn't a massive campaign of rule obedience in the history of Christianity down through the ages is to ignore history. That doesn't mean that the gospels were churned through this same 'obedience school' but IF it were true then all these lackey scholars who went from high school to university to graduate school and doctorate work LIKELY at least to BE THE TYPES OF PEOPLE who wouldn't recognize the process of forming lackey gospels because IT WOULD MIRROR THEIR OWN LACKEYNESS. Again I AM NOT SAYING that I can prove that the canonical gospels were 'lackey gospels.' But it might be true and their nature be unrecognized by scholars trained to make safe choices.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1210
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The other rich man.

Post by Jax »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 5:15 am With Ben it is always the same

1. amazing topics. Really fascinating discussions. Detailed work. Amazing analysis.
2. in the end, he makes ultimately aesthetic choices which go back to rather dull 'safe' conclusions.

He might be right. I always tell my son life is boring (when he gets emotional about things). But there is definitely a pattern. All of which makes 'Ben C Smith' a likely pseudonym rather than a real name. How could someone who is so 'into scholarship' always making 'safe' choices a 'real' scholar make not be a 'real' scholar? For the rest of this, these choices don't matter. Either we don't believe there is a god or at least that Christianity is a nonsense religion and so our choices don't matter. Real scholars have the embarrassment of making bad decisions in front of their peers. But who are Ben's peers? The people he allegedly works with at his 'regular' job? Maybe he's just a guy who likes making safe choices. Maybe when he drives to pick up groceries he never goes even 1 mph above the speed limit. But you can see the way he feels most comfortable with other 'real scholars.' They likely know his real name.
Oh boy! Here we go again.

Esse, has it ever occurred to you that Ben might just be using this site as a place to store and organize his material? Feedback is just the frosting.

Do it myself and I am definitely not a 'real' scholar.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1210
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The other rich man.

Post by Jax »

^ plus, give the guy a break, as an international gun for hire, boring might just be the thing needed to unwind after toppling some despotic regime.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13525
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The other rich man.

Post by Secret Alias »

I was complimentary at the beginning. He is the best thing about the forum. It's the consistent ignoring of the hidden history of the Church, the 'text-cavation' as his site pretends to be that I take issue with. I don't know that I am right about anything. I am likely wrong more than half the time. I admit it. But come on, the gospels are not original. No chance of that being true. Someone didn't come along and 'faithfully' gather together four examples of 'the gospel' and bind them together like a modern scholar. It's not even possible. Not a chance. So why do these people pretend that this happened. Religious scholars are the descendants of the priestly authorities. The example I always give is the treatment of the Samaritans. Why do we pretend that the Israelites are 'Jews'? WTF does 'Judah' have to do with 'Israel'? The reality is that we've inherited a biased tradition - 'Judaism' - which ignores the complete lack of mention of 'Jerusalem' in the Torah. Indeed Judaism itself can be defined as the deliberate arrangement of bullshit text after bullshit text to OBSCURE the Torah. Moreover 'the Bible' is defined as 'Torah +' and the Samaritan 'only Torah' is bizarrely viewed as itself a 'sectarian reaction' of an original 'Judaism.' It's fucking stupid. To have Judaism as 'original' and Samaritanism as the 'sectarian' tradition is a complete inversion of what is logical, what is reasonable, what is likely to have happened. But this is what happens when the lackeys, those who 'made it all the way' through the system of lackey-ness are given the keys to make decisions. These are lackeys through and through. Scholarly lackeys the descendants of religious lackeys the descendants of Imperial lackeys who arranged a system which favored the Imperial government. On ongoing process of lackey-ness with only one thing as their objective - keeping order, keeping the system moving forward. It's not that the Imperial lackeys were 'evil.' It's just that they were like us, nebishes, 'nothings.' In Tony Montana [Oliver Stone]'s words, "So... what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. "
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13525
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The other rich man.

Post by Secret Alias »

I think the Christian ascetic ideal was original and was threatening to the Imperial government and the "worldly order of things." So the Gospels were changed away from asceticism.

How you prove this is above my pay grade. But I am not willing to waste a life substituting personal brilliance for the truth.
Post Reply