Only Fantastically Amazing People Think We Have The Ur-Canon

[Stephan Huller]

I think I have found a confirmation of sorts of this hypothesis in the Arch of Septimius Severus in Lepcis Libya. The rare design is quadrifrons and commemorates his victories in Mesopotamia and the setting up of the province of the same name:

http://www.livius.org/le-lh/lepcis_magn ... erus2.html

"Like the arch at Oea, the corners of the monument at Lepcis Magna were directed to the four corners of the compass."



"Established as triumphal structures in pagan tradition, situated at the intersection of major thoroughfares within the street grid, monumental quadrifrons (four way arches) and tetrapyla were imperial markers over the locus mundi, the navel of the world." https://www.academia.edu/2100707/Tetrap ... E%BB%CE%BF_

[Ulan]

Is it possible that the gospels were modeled on the Roman occupation of the 'land of the four regions' of the world = Mesopotamia?

Just one little step further, and Ghost and you can finally become friends. Are you sure that Jesus Christ wasn't Julius Cesar?

[Stephan Huller]

Yes I know, Ulan, the way we are supposed to play the game at the forum is to sit on our hands and cite ideas solely that pop out of other people's imaginations. That's the safe way. But I don't play the game that way. I treat this forum like improv theater - no filter. The way I see it the point of participating in the forum is not to be 'right' all the time. That's Bernard's way and a few others. All about gathering followers to direct them back to his site so that the total number count on a meter somewhere goes form 114 to 1000 before they bury him. For me it has always been about getting to the right answer and the acknowledgement that no one knows the right answer, very few people are even near the right answer because human beings really haven't tested all the possibilities.

No one knows why Irenaeus and the text of Marutha make reference to the gospel mirroring 'the four regions of the world.' I've been thinking about this for over thirty years, never came up with an answer. Was the interest in the sacredness of four derived from Platonism and Pythagorus? That was my guiding assumption up until last night. Then at about 1:00 am after I finished doing some stuff for work I had an idea. It was a new idea. One that agreed with another observation I had about editing of the Dialogue which reflected the same military campaign which was noted by Craig Evans.

Is it a certainty that the reason Irenaeus chose 'the four corners of the world' because of contemporary political events? No certainly not. Is it even likely? That will be determined with more evidence and the final assessment (at least for me) will come over the next weeks, months and years - or if you will until the day I, like Bernard before me, will end up in the grave. Good Bernard will end up with a higher meter count on his website and I for my part will know that I exhausted every possibility in my quest to figure of the truth, even if occasionally I end being ridiculed on occasion at the forum.

And you my friend, Ulan, will have the safe anonymity of (a) never venturing forth your identity nor (b) any real contributions to the forum. That security will be yours too before you end up six feet under. I think the chance that another mind, participating at this miraculous forum might offer up that one piece of evidence I hadn't considered is worth avoiding sitting on my hands and being ridiculed. But that's just me. Everything is about getting at the truth. Other people are more concerned with other things.

[Ulan]

No one knows why Irenaeus and the text of Marutha make reference to the gospel mirroring 'the four regions of the world.' I've been thinking about this for over thirty years, never came up with an answer. Was the interest in the sacredness of four derived from Platonism and Pythagorus?

It may look as if I was ridiculing you, but this was just meant as a pointer that the idea looks a bit too far out there. I say this specifically as the list of "fours" Irenaeus delivers is quite extensive, which makes any relation to a simple cause like a specific event a bit iffy. And no, I'm not original in this regard, but I found the standard explanations relatively convincing. The image of four corners or four edges of the world is quite common in the OT (Numeri, Ezekiel, Job, Isaiah).

Isaiah 11:10-12 "10 On that day the root of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the peoples; the nations shall inquire of him, and his dwelling shall be glorious. 11 On that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that is left of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Ethiopia, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea. 12 He will raise a signal for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

If that looks like Babylon to you, sure, why not. But why would a Roman use this image?

And you my friend, Ulan, will have the safe anonymity of (a) never venturing forth your identity nor (b) any real contributions to the forum. That security will be yours too before you end up six feet under.

Thank you for the vote of confidence. I will surely contribute much less than many here, as this is purely a side gig for me. My main activities are in other fields. Which is the main reason I'll stay anonymous.

[Stephan Huller]

Hey I woke up to being compared to that fucknut who thought Jesus was Caesar. My interest was just in following up a general question asked by Bernard - what is the relationship between Marutha's testimony and Irenaeus's statement. The natural question arose - why did Irenaeus develop a fourfold gospel suddenly at the end of the second century? I have to admit I haven't come up with a good answer. I don't think anyone has up to this point (other than to repeat what Irenaeus says). I know what Bernard would say - a bunch of nonsense that sounds like an answer but doesn't explain anything. The bottom line is that we simply don't know so any working hypothesis is a start.

Have you read the reference in Justin that is generally regarded as a late second century editing of the Dialogue (by a second hand) with reference to the same historical events c 195 CE?

[Charles Wilson]

...why did Irenaeus develop a fourfold gospel suddenly at the end of the second century? I have to admit I haven't come up with a good answer.

Here I am trying to help Huller again. Maybe I'm the hopeless one...Nahhhhh...

Try this: The Tomb Scene reads as a Story or, to Jay's thinking, a Play. The entire Play follows the sun from before sunrise to just after. Atwill has analyzed a unified sequence with the sun rising and the scenes placed in their proper order. There is no contradiction with the scenes in order and it reads as a Situation Comedy with the usual mistaken identities and so on. Hilarity ensues.

So the last part of the Creation of the New Religion is to graft the Tomb Play onto the newly reworked Signs Gospel/Holy Spirit stuff but the Play with the Tomb "as is" is too obvious. "Let's break it up into...FOUR PIECES...This rewrite (Mark) is a little rough around the edges and it breaks with what the Togas tells us they want to see. They want Gospels? We'll give'em Gospels..."

CW

[Ulan]

Have you read the reference in Justin that is generally regarded as a late second century editing of the Dialogue (by a second hand) with reference to the same historical events c 195 CE?

No, I haven't read that. Maybe I should.

The natural question arose - why did Irenaeus develop a fourfold gospel suddenly at the end of the second century? I have to admit I haven't come up with a good answer. I don't think anyone has up to this point (other than to repeat what Irenaeus says). I know what Bernard would say - a bunch of nonsense that sounds like an answer but doesn't explain anything.

This may be similar to what Bernard might say, but I had the feeling that Irenaeus took the main gospels of different church traditions from different areas of the world ("Mark" Egypt?, "Matthew" proto-orthodox, Syria-Palestine or the West? "Luke" Marcionite? "John" proto-gnostic, Asia Minor?), edited them to make them fit Orthodoxy, and then told the world that the actual originals the believers in these groups had in their churches were edited fakes. Which would hopefully (for him) lead those believers into his fold. But don't ask me.

[Stephan Huller]

No, no mention of 'different parts of the world.' Matthew was written 'while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome,' (how did he know that) Mark written at Rome and Luke written apparently with Paul's last breath (if the Alexandrian tradition of Origen and Eusebius is indicative of orthodoxy generally). John was at Ephesus. But nothing about the evangelists actually being in 'four regions of the world.'

Here is the reference from Dunn, but the original source is Craig Evans:

Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 78.10, reports this transfer of Damascus from Arabia to Syrophoenicia, but without indicating that it happened when Syria was split into two. Herodian 2.7.4 reports that Pescennius Niger was governor of the whole province in 193 CE. It was soon after this that Septimius Severus divided Syria into Syria Coele and Syria Phoenicia. See Birley (1988: 114). If this is correct then the comment in Justin must be a later gloss or an indication that even before the split Syria had acquired the name Syria Phoenicia. [Dunn Tertullian http://books.google.com/books?id=kHYl6r ... 22&f=false]

[Stephan Huller]

The division of Syria into two happened during the same campaign that made Mesopotamia a province. Who would have edited Justin's work c. 195 CE?

What got me interested is the contemporary controversy over the Johannine corpus and the consistent reference to Babylon in the Apocalypse. It's just taken for granted that Rome = Babylon. But why?

[Ulan]

No, no mention of 'different parts of the world.

I'm not going for his words and his origin stories of the texts. The idea was that he wanted to unite the Christians of the different corners of the world and, for this purpose, used the holy texts of these factions. And these factions, unlike the origin legends of their texts, may well have been predominant in different parts of the Empire and beyond. That was what I wanted to express.

So, if "Mark" the precursor-text was valued in Egypt, but in a longer version only known to initiates, that would be the first puzzle piece, no matter where the figure "Mark" is supposed to have come from or written. "Luke" may be from Greece, but that may be the layer of the editor. "Matthew" might have been the Western preferred text, and "John" that of a proto-gnostic sect in Asia Minor. I have no idea about these geographical attributions, but that doesn't mean Irenaeus had no idea.