Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

From... 1 Timothy 1:3... the admonition is to ignore such things... to what is it referring if not the major synoptics?

Valentinianism

GuillermoHunt wrote:From... 1 Timothy 1:3... the admonition is to ignore such things... to what is it referring if not the major synoptics?

Paul seems to be warning against what some authors later called that " diabolical art of disputing" : the consideration of idle speculation , from which no advantage is derived.

Genealogies is chosen as an example of one such idle speculations.

Secret Alias wrote:Valentinianism

Secret (if that's your real name ),

I can understand the "myths" part, but how would "endless genealogies" come to play if the statement was alluding to Valentinian or a similar gnostic system(s)?

DCH

The original word in the Pastoral means "generations" and taken together with "myths" refers to the extended Creation myths http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=1653

The meaning of "toledoth" in our earliest source at Qumran is famously ambiguous https://books.google.com/books?id=Z2bsy ... th&f=false

Secret Alias wrote:https://books.google.com/books?id=Iv8VA ... ur&f=false

I suppose you are referring to the statement "For the Gnosticism of the heretics, Baur produces the following grounds:—(1) The myths and genealogies by which the Valentinian series of aeons and the whole fantastic history of the pleroma
were denoted. This, he says, is apparent from the adjective γραώδης, which was chosen because the Sophia-Achamoth was denoted as an old mother."

The Greek word γραώδης refers to something "old womanly". I am not seeing anything about endless genealogies, γενεαλογίαις ἀπεράντοις, in the book you cited. The only other place the word γενεαλογίαις is Titus 3:9, and there they are included in a list of "foolish" things that engender (sorry for the pun) dissention. The only places where ἀπεράντοις (endless) is used are in the Judean scriptures, referring to God's age, or the boundaries of the earth. What exactly are these "genealogies', and why would they be endless? Or does endless mean pointless or undeterminable?

DCH

Since there is no ready explanation to the reference I propose 'genealogies' was a Greek translation of the Semitic toledoth. Baur was the first to suggest (a) that the reference to 'genealogies' was to gnostic speculation about the aeons and (b) that the passage is lifted from Hegesippus. I put the two together and note that Hegesippus wrote in Aramaic hence 'genealogies' probably = toledoth. Compare the famous work Toledoth Yeshu. Toledoth here doesn't mean 'genealogies' at all but something more akin to stories, accounts, narratives covering the deeds of Jesus.

Secret Alias wrote:Since there is no ready explanation to the reference I propose 'genealogies' was a Greek translation of the Semitic toledoth. Baur was the first to suggest (a) that the reference to 'genealogies' was to gnostic speculation about the aeons and (b) that the passage is lifted from Hegesippus. I put the two together and note that Hegesippus wrote in Aramaic hence 'genealogies' probably = toledoth. Compare the famous work Toledoth Yeshu. Toledoth here doesn't mean 'genealogies' at all but something more akin to stories, accounts, narratives covering the deeds of Jesus.

Well, Secret, I think you overstate what we can know about him when you state "Hegesippus wrote in Aramaic". It was Eusebius who thought that he was a Hebrew by birth. However, we don't know where he came from, only that he traveled to Corinth and Rome for whatever purpose he had. Yet his general knowledge of the "Hebrew dialect" (we don't know if this meant "Hebrew" or "Aramaic") and ability to read the Gospel of the Hebrews and know about "unwritten traditions of the Jews", may mean he could at least read and speak Aramaic. As you know, I have proposed that Hegesippus used propaganda put out by Simon bar Giora to embellish his account of James the bishop of Jerusalem after Jesus' death, and I have to suppose that this would have been written in Aramaic, or less certainly, Hebrew. However, no early Christian writer I am aware of says he actually wrote in Aramaic.

DCH

Henry Wace, [i]Christian Bio & Lit to 6th Century (1 vol ed, 1911[/i]) wrote:Hegesippus (l), commonly known as the father of church history, although his works, except a few fragments which will be found in Routh (Rel. Sacr. i. pp. 207-219) and in Grabe (Spicil. ii. 203-214), have perished. Nothing positive is known of his birth or early circumstances. From his use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, written in the Syro-Chaldaic [why can't the author of this article just say "Aramaic"] language of Palestine, his insertion in his history of words in the Hebrew dialect, and his mention of unwritten traditions of the Jews, Eusebius infers that he was a Hebrew (H.E. iv. 22), but possibly, as conjectured by Weizsacker (Herzog, Encyc. v. 647), Eusebius knew this as a fact from other sources also.