Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

JoeWallack wrote:Christian Bible Scholarship (CBS) continues to be in denial that GMark has a primary theme of discrediting the supposed original disciples. All subsequent Gospels attempt to undo this theme (which is evidence that GMark is the original Gospel narrative). Looking at supposed "proto-Luke" material, this is obvious:
10

10:1 Now after these things the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself was about to come.

The discrediting of "The Twelve" in GMark is overwhelming. It is the most important theme in GMark. So all subsequent Gospels, which all appear to have the opposite objective, crediting the original disciples, must deal with it. GLuke shows a logical later development that GLuke's Jesus expanded (greatly) Jesus' disciples. In quantity and quality. This reduces the problem of the base theme that GLuke inherited, discrediting of the original twelve. This is not evidence of "proto-Luke", it is evidence of post GMark.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Agreed. My impression is that Luke shifted Mark’s broader theme of “the misunderstanding of the disciples” to the problem of the passion, the death and the resurrection of Jesus, but with the resurrection “everything” has become well in GLuke. I think this was very clever from Luke. Then Acts, then Irenaeus ...

Please elaborate on "then Irenaeus" ....

There's only so far you can go off the perch.

No that's not what I mean. I stop short of publicly analyzing a friend's personality.

Secret Alias wrote:

Some of the Latin strata issues I've pointed to are not things that would have been cognisant to ancient scholars.

An assertion.

I suggest you do a study of the history of linguistics and cut the crap.

Nor those Latinisms. In your conspiracy theory, weren't they written from the perspective of Rome??

Irenaeus was using Clement's source to reconstruct his pro-Roman agenda. He clearly used Papias to reconstruct the Matthew argument. The idea that Irenaeus was using sources to reconstruct Adv Haer 2.2 is without doubt. But he's going beyond those sources. Watson and others have noted how Irenaeus twists Papias's testimony into something new to further his agenda (Papias is not likely speaking about a narrative gospel). It would not be beyond the realm of possibilities that Mark the evangelist who wrote in Rome was the starting point to the Latinisms.

Secret Alias wrote:

There's only so far you can go off the perch.

No that's not what I mean.

Oh?

Secret Alias wrote:I stop short of publicly analyzing a friend's personality.

I would have thought you'd prefer being direct. If it seemed you were peddling a conspiracy theory, shouldn't you be told?

Maybe in a private message later.

Secret Alias wrote:

Nor those Latinisms. In your conspiracy theory, weren't they written from the perspective of Rome??

Irenaeus was using Clement's source to reconstruct his pro-Roman agenda. He clearly used Papias to reconstruct the Matthew argument. The idea that Irenaeus was using sources to reconstruct Adv Haer 2.2 is without doubt. But he's going beyond those sources. Watson and others have noted how Irenaeus twists Papias's testimony into something new to further his agenda (Papias is not likely speaking about a narrative gospel). It would not be beyond the realm of possibilities that Mark the evangelist who wrote in Rome was the starting point to the Latinisms.

You are not dealing with the problem of the implications of the Latinisms at any level. You are merely asserting a conspiracy theory, for which you have no possibility of supporting sufficiently, and retrojecting the linguistic knowledge available today onto people 1800 years ago. Can you at least show evidence of some ancient writer evincing the skills you want people of the era to have? I strongly doubt you can.

MrMacSon wrote:Please elaborate on "then Irenaeus" ....

Against Heresies, Book III, 1.1

1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God.

I suggest you do a study of the history of linguistics and cut the crap.

The idea that Irenaeus was connected with the Latinisms isn't pure speculation as you suggest. There is also the possibility that Irenaeus was responsible for a bilingual edition of Adv Haer (because the Old Latin edition was available at a very early date). The consensus seems to be (once Harvey's Syriac claims are discounted) that Irenaeus's original Bible citations echo the Old Latin. Some have argued that he had before him the Greek precursor to the Old Latin https://books.google.com/books?id=tTnRz ... 22&f=false. But another possibility is that he was a native Latin-speaker and that the Old Latin was by his hand. I haven't seen a study of Adv Haer to help with the argument that Irenaeus's Greek betrays similar 'Latinized-Greek' traits as Mark but his use of the Old Latin Bible, his location in Rome plus the self-reference to speaking in a 'dialect' at the beginning of Adv Marc might assist the argument that he was capable of exaggerating the 'Romaness' of Mark purposefully or not. In other words, the last piece in the argument hasn't been completed yet but there are hints at the connection of Latinisms and Irenaeus.

The reference at the beginning of Adv Haer about Irenaeus's own barbarous Greek (if he wrote Adv Haer in Greek):

Thou wilt not expect from me, who am resident among the Keltae (or alternatively 'brothers'), and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbarous dialect, any display of rhetoric, which I have never learned, or any excellence of composition, which I have never practised, or any beauty and persuasiveness of style, to which I make no pretensions [i.intro.3]

Again the study to answer the question as to whether there are Latinisms in the Greek text of Adv Haer has not been carried out. But he seems to be predisposed towards Latinized Greek in the names he gives to heresies. The original Hebrew text of Acts (witnessed by Epiphanius) speaks of the Jesus group as 'those of Jesus (or Ishu).' This was changed by Irenaeus (or some other person) to the Latinized Greek christianoi.