If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

[mlinssen]

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs ... Perrin.pdf

There are other instances of the same. The word "women" (= Syriac: nesse) is found in only three logia in the collection (Gos. Thorn. 15, 46.1, 114.1).

According to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... mbdin.html

(15) Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves on your faces and worship him. That one is your father."

Funny thing is, the canonicals got their biology lessons wrong and turn the singular woman into the plural women:

Matthew 11:11 Ἀμὴν (Truly) λέγω (I say) ὑμῖν (to you), οὐκ (not) ἐγήγερται (there has risen) ἐν (among those) γεννητοῖς (born) γυναικῶν (of women) μείζων (one greater) Ἰωάννου (than John) τοῦ (the) Βαπτιστοῦ (Baptist). ὁ (-) δὲ (Yet) μικρότερος (the least) ἐν (in) τῇ (the) βασιλείᾳ (kingdom) τῶν (of the) οὐρανῶν (heavens), μείζων (greater) αὐτοῦ (than he) ἐστιν (is).

Luke 7:28 Λέγω (I say) ὑμῖν (to you), μείζων (a greater) ἐν (among) γεννητοῖς (those born) γυναικῶν (of women) Ἰωάννου (than John) οὐδείς (no one) ἐστιν (is); ὁ (-) δὲ (yet) μικρότερος (the least) ἐν (in) τῇ (the) βασιλείᾳ (kingdom) τοῦ (of) Θεοῦ (God), μείζων (greater) αὐτοῦ (than he) ἐστιν (is).”

Now, the Coptic is clear:

Code: Select all

ⲡⲉϫⲉ   ⲓ̄ⲥ̄   ϫⲉ   ϩⲟⲧⲁⲛ      ⲉ   ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄      ϣⲁⲛ        ⲛⲁⲩ     ⲉ     ⲡⲉⲧⲉ     ⲙ̅ⲡ            ⲟⲩ    ϫⲡⲟ    ϥ`   ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ̄
said  IS   :    Whenever  if  you(PL) "should"    behold [dop] he-who  there-is-not  they  beget  he   from
ⲧ       ⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ   ⲡⲉϩⲧ`          ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ̄       ⲉϫⲙ̄    ⲡⲉⲧⲛ̄         ϩⲟ   ⲛ̄     ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄      ⲟⲩⲱϣⲧ     ⲛⲁ     ϥ`   ⲡⲉⲧ      ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲩ      ⲡⲉ   ⲡⲉⲧⲛ̄        ⲉⲓⲱⲧ`
the(F)  woman  bend-self     you(PL)    upon   your(PL.)   face and   you(PL)  worship   [dop]  he   he-who  therein   is   your(PL.)  father

It would appear that Nicholas Perrin is so utterly careless and sloppy that he not only bases his "Syriac translation" on the English translation of Thomas, but even confuses that with the copies in the canonicals

Such is the state of biblical academic

[Giuseppe]

I remember that Stuart wrote that in the Gospels the polemic with the pharisees was really a polemic with Christian Judaizers, the Pharisees being a cipher for the Judaizers.

Maurige Mergui gives another explanation:

According to M. Mergui, the meaning of the NT is the following.
In judaism, today or in the old, it is intended that it serves as light and guidance for the non-Jews, the pagans, so that they can enter too in the Alliance with God.
However this entry in the Alliance can only happen when the Messiah will come.

But this coming of the Messiah can only happen at the End of the Times and when the grieves on the Jews are at their height.

However in the first century, Israel is occupied by the Romans. For some Jews at this time, the situation is mature enough so that the Messiah can come, and some groups started (Flavius Josephe was among the leaders of one of them, btw) rebelled against the Romans and strove for freedom and independance.

But here there is a internal problem of the old judaism: if the Messia comes and the pagans enter into the Alliance, what the Jews will become ? What would be their identity ?
This is because Jews viewed their Jewish identity as strongly tied to the Alliance.

That's why one of the biggest party, the Pharisees, wanted to delay as long as possible in an undefined future the coming of the Messiah and denied the signs of his coming.
For another party, that who wrote the NT, the end of the times was now !

And since the Messiah was late to come, they would create it by midrash.
...

More generally, the meaning of the pericopes that deal with miraculous healings in the Gospels is the following: the pagans are willing to enter into the Alliance, they are mature enough for that. But the Pharisees put obstacles to this entry.
And by putting obstacles they simply risk being left out of the Alliance when the end of the times will come. But the end of times is now...

https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609579.0

For Mergui, it was the apocalypticism the primal impulse for the invention of a messiah, not a historical "apocalypticist prophet" who gave rise to a Gospel legend.

[Stuart]

I remember that Stuart wrote that in the Gospels the polemic with the pharisees was really a polemic with Christian Judaizers, the Pharisees being a cipher for the Judaizers.

Point of clarification, so that no one overstates my opinions.

The Pharisees as "Judaizing" Christian Priests/Ministers, and "the Jews" to their Christian supporters among the congregation, and the chief priests their bishops (as opposed to those of the author) only applies to the gospel of John; and only in the first edition written as refutation of the positions of the gospel of Matthew. This is a version that lacks Peter, which sees Judas as a hero, lacks the second ending and many other elements we have in our canonical version. The focus of the first version of the fourth gospel was the political battle internal to the church. Stand-in characters are evident from their positions in the gospel, which are anachronistically placed on characters of the established gospel genre form.

My observation does not apply to the synoptic gospels, not even the Marcionite form of Luke. Jews in the synoptic gospels means those peoples from Judea, that is the Palestinian Jews. Only in John, first edition do they clearly mean Judaizing Christians, or rather as stand-ins for proto-Orthodox.

IMO we are dealing with a generational shift. In the synoptic gospels the Pharisees are held up as examples of behaviors of clerics which are not to be emulated by Christians (each gospels presents slightly different examples). In John they represent the rival clerical leadership within Christianity.

[Giuseppe]

My observation does not apply to the synoptic gospels, not even the Marcionite form of Luke. Jews in the synoptic gospels means those peoples from Judea, that is the Palestinian Jews. Only in John, first edition do they clearly mean Judaizing Christians,

the proponents of Mark's priority go so far that they think that also in the Synoptics the Pharises "come from Jerusalem" are allegory of the Judaizers.

My point is that under the hypothesis of a Semitic proto-Gospel, the same conflict with the Pharisees is not really a conflict, but only a reiteration of the basic claim that the Messiah has already come, "therefore" who, among the Jews, thinks the contrary, is virtually in error.

[neilgodfrey]

I refer you always to the Norman Simms' article in the book mentioned above (Teaching the Historical Jesus: Issues and Exegesis, Zev Garber, Routledge, 2014).

As to Reinach, on archive.org I have found the entire set of versions of his monumental Orpheus. What I have found more interesting is his analysis of Ignatius' epistles where there are strong clues of an ancient polemic against anti-Christian mythicist accusations (and not only docetic). See for example his articles published in Revue moderniste.

A book I am expecting along the same lines, by an our contemporary author, is: Jésus ? Une histoire qui ne peut pas être de l'Histoire, by Michel Gozard.

Thank you. I'll start with an English translation of Orpheus. (Yes, I've checked out the Simms chapter in Teaching. A good survey.) As for Gozard, it looks like there is no end of books on this theme.

[neilgodfrey]

But I fully acknowledge Christianity grew out of some splinter of Judaism. And that of course it had to have started with at least some Aramaic speakers and Hebrew writers. The question for me is, at what stage of the prototype gospel formation did the language switch to Greek? Was the entire project Greek, or was there some earlier core that was Hebrew/Aramaic?

The more I look into midrashic connections with the Hebrew scriptures I sometimes think we have no need to be looking for prototypes or ur-gospels. Rather, how about the literati studying, analysing, discussing and exchanging ideas, with the writing being limited to letters, small "talks" and mini-treatises. From here the first gospel was written -- even if in Greek, it had Hebrew discussions, ideas etc to draw upon. Perhaps the best explanation for the prototypes not surviving is that there were no such prototypes. Or what were those "memoirs of the apostles" Justin speaks of?

[neilgodfrey]

According to M. Mergui, the meaning of the NT is the following.

. . . .

That's why one of the biggest party, the Pharisees, wanted to delay as long as possible in an undefined future the coming of the Messiah and denied the signs of his coming.

For Mergui, it was the apocalypticism the primal impulse for the invention of a messiah, not a historical "apocalypticist prophet" who gave rise to a Gospel legend.

It is surely inconceivable that any large body of Jews would seek to delay the day of the messiah.

I suspect that the assumption of pre-70 messianic anticipations and apocalyptic hopes has dug a rut for understanding Christian origins. If we remove the assumptions that lead to interpreting data tendentiously in that direction we have a more viable set of possibilities, I think.

[Giuseppe]

It is surely inconceivable that any large body of Jews would seek to delay the day of the messiah.

yes, but the transfer of the day of the messiah in the indefinite future (to remove dangerous messianism and its political implications) is well documented as one of the first acts of the early rabbinical post-70 Judaism, to reassure the Romans. A move similar to the expulsion of Maccabeans books from Scriptures, isn't it?

In the Semitic prototype, as Mergui argues, this transfer of the Messiah in the indefinite future becomes allegorized as an opposition against the arrival of the Messiah in the recent past. A vain effort "to delay" his arrival.

[Giuseppe]

As evidence Mergui points out in particular:

• the 30 Denarii given to Judas. According to a Rabbinical/Talmudical teaching, the Messiah will not abolish the Law, he will limit himself to give only 30 laws to the Gentiles. Hence, by receiving only 30 denarii for Jesus, the sense is: the Scribes and Pharisees (=post-70 Judaism) value very few the Messiah. At contrary, the Gentiles deserve the end/mitigation of the Law for both Jews and Gentiles.

• the fact that with the 30 Denarii the Pharisees buy a camp*, is the proof that they think that the End will not arrive now, which is equivalent to say that, for them, the Messiah will arrive in the indefinite future.

It seems that the Gospels were written against the nascent rabbinical judaism.

claims of rabbinical Judaism	claims of the Gospels
the Messiah will arrive in the indefinite future	the Messiah is already arrived
the proselitism among the Gentiles is prohibited	the Law is mitigated to convert the Gentiles more easily
the Messiah will not abolish the Law for the Jews	the Messiah has mitigated the Law for the Gentiles

If the conditio sine qua non for the opening to Gentiles, against Rabbinical post-70 politics of self-ghettoization, was therefore the arrival of the Messiah, and the Messiah delayed to come, then the Messiah was invented.

ADDENDA: * At contrary, "to sell a camp" to follow Jesus is the recognition that the Messiah is already arrived.

[Giuseppe]

Other evidence: the accusation against Jesus that he denied the tribute to Rome.

"To pay the tribute" is equivalent to place the day of the Messiah in the indefinite future.

The end of tributes is a recognition that the Messiah is already arrived.