Jarek said
If the counterfeiters believed in the existence of Paul and the original letters, they would not dare to add their own products.
This is stilly. People add legendary/fictional material to the biographies of real people all the time. Just look at the last 3 presidents.
Stephen said
Jarek said
And here we come to the heart of the problem. If the counterfeiters believed in the existence of Paul and the original letters, they would not dare to add their own products. The counterfeiters saw perfectly well that this was an imaginary tradition and that there would be no witness to verify their forgery
I think just the opposite is true. You don’t counterfeit a worthless fake. You counterfeit a valuable original.
The counterfeiter obviously appreciated the first product, but was sure that it was attributed to the invented tradition. Otherwise, the risk of its forgery being detected would be too great. All his own work would be wasted if there was a credible witness who could expose him. It’s only 40 years old and you have a collection of previously unknown letters. If they are authentic, it may turn out that there are witnesses who can confirm this. I’m sure the forger knew the author of the first letters. The author was not the legendary Paul.
vergari said
Jarek said
If the counterfeiters believed in the existence of Paul and the original letters, they would not dare to add their own products.
This is stilly. People add legendary/fictional material to the biographies of real people all the time. Just look at the last 3 presidents.
I am convinced that there was the apostle Paul traveling between the clubs of the Anointed One. He didn’t write anything. Literary work in the form of letters was added to his biography …
Stephen said
Jarek said
And here we come to the heart of the problem. If the counterfeiters believed in the existence of Paul and the original letters, they would not dare to add their own products. The counterfeiters saw perfectly well that this was an imaginary tradition and that there would be no witness to verify their forgery
I think just the opposite is true. You don’t counterfeit a worthless fake. You counterfeit a valuable original.
Now that’s some good eatin’ right there, I tell ya.
Robert said
Jarek said
(Ἠλὶ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ κατὰ νόμον : ὥστε εῖναι τὸν Ἰωσὴφ καὶ τὴν Μαρίαν ἐδελφῶν παιδία). Epiphanios. Joseph and Maria were brothers’ children. One of these brothers was a Panther
CEJ said
OK. I looked up what Epiphanius said about Pantera, not in Greek, but as summarized by Tabor. The quote you gave seems to be a small chunk of his argument and, absent context, seemed off kilter to me.
TTHorne56 said
This is the best I can find, apparently sourced to The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books II and III. De Fide, 2nd rev. ed. (Brill, 2013). I can’t tell if what I am going to quote is a translation of Epiphanius or just paraphrases of what he supposedly wrote. So:
“7.5 Joseph was the brother of Cleopas but the son of Jacob surnamed Panther; both of these brothers were the sons of the man surnamed Panther. (6) Joseph took his first wife from the tribe of Judah and she bore him six children in all, four boys and two girls, as the Gospels according to Mark and John have made clear [Mark 6:3; John 19:25] (Ibid. p. 605).”
Jospeh “knew that her [Mary’s] mother was Ann and her father Joachim, that she was related to Elizabeth, that she was of the house and lineage of David.(Ibid. p. 614).”
Literally, Jarek’s Greek quotation from Epiphanius merely says this:
Ἠλὶ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ κατὰ νόμον : ὥστε εῖναι τὸν Ἰωσὴφ καὶ τὴν Μαρίαν ἐδελφῶν παιδία.
The one word I’m not certain of is ἐδελφῶν. Perhaps the correct word here should be ἀδελφῶν, in which case Jarek’s quote would simply say:
(But) Eli begat Joseph according to the law/custom, with the result that Joseph and Mary were children of brothers (possibly cousins).
Or perhaps ἐδελφῶν is a word that occurs in patristic Greek of the 4th century CE but not in more ancient Greek that I’m familiar with? It would still be very similar to the word for brothers and sisters and thus would seem to still denote relations of some kind, perhaps specifically cousins.
So, yes, as CEJ indicated, the Greek quote is only a small part of the explanation given by Epiphanius and does not say nearly enough to understand the whole of Epiphanius’ view.
Lk 3,23 says that Eli was the father of Joseph. Matthew 1,16 says that Jacob was the father of Joseph. Some say that Eli and Jacob were brothers and Eli died before he had children with his first wife and that his brother Jacob then married Eli’s widow as per the Levirite custom and had children (one of whom was Joseph) by her which were by law the children of Eli but biologically the children Jacob. Some insert additional generations here to distinguish between first and second cousins. Some also say (eg, even Tabor) that Luke is really giving the genealogy of Mary, not of Joseph. My eyes glaze over when we try to get into details of apologetic attempts to explain family trees that are at best legendary, but clearly incomplete and contradictory.
Yeah. What he said.
Robert said
Jarek said
I am convinced that there was the apostle Paul traveling between the clubs of the Anointed One. He didn’t write anything. Literary work in the form of letters was added to his biography …
Convinced by whom? And by what definitive evidence or arguments? Some scholars have barely defensible positions, but convincing to almost none of their peers and colleagues. There are reasons for that.
Convinced by benchmarks. First, new religious messages are developing in enthusiastic circles. And such people are always willing to accept, feed and support anyone who helps them understand and learn about this exciting new message. And it is time for itinerant preachers dedicated to this mission of clarifying the new message.
Then someone came up with the idea of how to multiply the message of sophisticated preachers with the help of a book read publically by simple lectors prepared for this.
Paul’s letters refer to this glorious past of itinerrant preachers after divine revelation, but they are content for an army of those who have not experienced any revelation, maybe have heard something about the LXX but exegesis are unattainable to them.
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
I am convinced that there was the apostle Paul traveling between the clubs of the Anointed One. He didn’t write anything. Literary work in the form of letters was added to his biography …
Convinced by whom? And by what definitive evidence or arguments? Some scholars have barely defensible positions, but convincing to almost none of their peers and colleagues. There are reasons for that.
Convinced by benchmarks. First, new religious messages are developing in enthusiastic circles. And such people are always willing to accept, feed and support anyone who helps them understand and learn about this exciting new message. And it is time for itinerant preachers dedicated to this mission of clarifying the new message.
Then someone came up with the idea of how to multiply the message of sophisticated preachers with the help of a book read publically by simple lectors prepared for this.
Paul’s letters refer to this glorious past of itinerrant preachers after divine revelation, but they are content for an army of those who have not experienced any revelation, maybe have heard something about the LXX but exegesis are unattainable to them.
This certainly constitutes definitive evidence if I’ve ever seen it.
(Quite obviously, Jarek as a philosophical hang-up about the creation of the Christian church; I’m sure he doesn’t doubt the authorship of Plato or of Cicero.)
Robert said
Jarek said
(Ἠλὶ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ κατὰ νόμον : ὥστε εῖναι τὸν Ἰωσὴφ καὶ τὴν Μαρίαν ἐδελφῶν παιδία). Epiphanios. Joseph and Maria were brothers’ children. One of these brothers was a Panther
Jarek, where are you getting this Greek quotation from? Can you quote more of the larger context? It doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does. I have looked up (at least some of) the texts attributed to Epiphanius in Greek and Latin and cannot find this Greek quotation or its Latin equivalent. I do find Epiphanius saying that Joseph and Κλωπας/Cleopha were brothers, both being sons of one called Panthera, but I haven’t found your Greek quotation in Epiphanius.
Robert said
Jarek said
(Ἠλὶ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ κατὰ νόμον : ὥστε εῖναι τὸν Ἰωσὴφ καὶ τὴν Μαρίαν ἐδελφῶν παιδία). Epiphanios. Joseph and Maria were brothers’ children. One of these brothers was a Panther
Jarek, where are you getting this Greek quotation from? Can you quote more of the larger context? It doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does. I have looked up (at least some of) the texts attributed to Epiphanius in Greek and Latin and cannot find this Greek quotation or its Latin equivalent. I do find Epiphanius saying that Joseph and Κλωπας/Cleopha were brothers, both being sons of one called Panthera, but I haven’t found your Greek quotation in Epiphanius.
Epiphanius Constantinopolitanus monachus : De vita B. Virginis
5. TZW. DE VITA B. VIRGINIS EPIFANIOSA MNICHA
Rozszerzona o jedno pokolenie genealogia Marii przetrwała również w tradycji na greckim wschodzie. W mowie niejakiego Epifaniosa Mnicha, zwanego też czasem Epifaniosem z Konstantynopola, znajdujemy wywód rodowodu matki Jezusa, identyczny pod tym względem z przekazem Andrzeja i Jana. Sam autor mowy jest postacią słabo znaną, do tego powszechnie mylono go z innym pisarzem, Epifaniosem Hagiopolitesem. Można jedynie ustalić, że był mnichem i kapłanem w tzw. klasztorze Kallistratosa (τὰ Καλλιστρὰτου) 873 w Konstantynopolu, działał zaś zapewne u schyłku VIII i na początku IX wieku, na co wskazują obecne w jego tekstach nawiązania do wcześniej powstałych pism Jana z Thessalonik i Hipolita z Teb oraz aluzje do współczesnych mu sporów ikonoklastycznych874. Żył zatem mniej więcej sto lat później niż Andrzej z Krety i Jan Damasceński. Epifanios zachował się w pamięci (por. Nikeforos Kallistos, HE II 23) przede wszystkim jako autor dwóch hagiograficznych utworów, czyli żywotu Marii875 oraz żywotu apostoła Andrzeja876. Nas interesuje pierwszy z nich. Tekst ten został przekazany w rękopisie przechowywanym w Bibliotheca Naniana w Wenecji. Jego fragmenty opublikował po raz pierwszy grecki uczony i teolog oraz kustosz Biblioteki Watykańskiej, Leo Allatius z Chios (1587/ 1588– 1669), w swoich Symmicta wydanych w Kolonii w 1653 roku. Całość ukazała się dopiero w XVIII wieku dzięki wysiłkom włoskiego grecysty Giovanniego Luigiego Mingarellego (1722– 1793). Opracowany przez niego tekst wszedł potem do Patrologia Graeca, gdzie widnieje jako Epiphanii Monachi et presbyteri sermo de vita santissimae Deiparae et de ipsius annis (w skrócie zwany jest: De vita B. Virginis) 877. Warto zaznaczyć, że Epifanios z jednej strony powielał w swojej pracy hagiograficzne schematy, uzależniony od poprzedników, w tym również (co dla nas bardzo istotne) od Andrzeja z Krety, na którego twórczość mariologiczną powołuje się już w pierwszym rozdziale swojej mowy (PG 120, col. 188). Z drugiej jednak strony autor miał też pewne aspiracje do stworzenia jakiejś nowej jakości przez dodatki do starszej tradycji i jej uzupełnianie. Obie te tendencje odnajdujemy w interesującym nas passusie, chociaż – co też trzeba od razu na wstępie podkreślić – jest on wyjątkowo niejasny i pełen sprzeczności. W pierwszej partii swej pracy (rozdz. 2) Epifanios zamieszcza genealogię Marii (PG 120, col. 189), wyglądającą w pierwszej chwili znajomo. Znów mamy dwóch synów króla Dawida (zob. stemma 10), Nathana i Salomona. Od pierwszego z nich pochodzi Lewi, ojciec Melchiego oraz Panthery (Λευῒ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Μελχὶ καὶ τὸν Πάνηρα). Dalej czytamy, że pierwszy z braci, Melchi, wziął sobie (bezimienną w tekście) żonę, zmarł jednak nie pozostawiwszy potomstwa (ἀπέθανεν ἄπαις). Jak zaraz przeczytamy, jest to informacja nieprawdziwa. Epifanios pisze bowiem dalej, że drugi z braci, Panther, zrodził Barpantherę, który był ojcem Joachima, ojca „Bogarodzicy” (Ὁ Πανθὴρ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Βαρπανθήρ. Ὁ Βαρπανθὴρ ἐθέννησεν τὸν Ἰωακεὶμ τὸν πατέρα τῆς Θεοτόκος). Z kolei wywodzący się od Salomona Matthan został ojcem Jakuba. Po zgonie Matthana jego (anonimowa) żona wyszła za Melchiego i urodziła mu (H) elego. Dopiero co wyżej, autor kazał umrzeć Melchiemu bezpotomnie. To nie jedyna sprzeczność w tym tekście. Epifanios pisze dalej, że gdy z kolei (H) eli zmarł, nie pozostawiwszy potomka, jego małżonka (również anonimowa) wyszła za Jakuba i urodziła mu Józefa (miał on jeszcze brata – Kleopasa lub Klopasa). Józef był zatem co do „natury” (φύσει) synem Jakuba, „według zaś prawa” (κατὰ δὲ τὸν νόμον) – synem (H) elego. I tu autor powołuje się na żydowskie prawo lewiratu. Dotąd mamy więc przekaz identyczny z genealogią podaną przez Andrzeja z Krety (zob. stemma 8) i Jana Damasceńskiego (zob. stemma 9), oczywiście z wyłączeniem dziwnej adnotacji Epifaniosa o Melchim, który zmarł bezpotomnie i jednocześnie występuje jako ojciec (H) elego. Dalej jednak relacja Epifaniosa zaczyna być jeszcze bardziej problematyczna. Oto czytamy: Ἰωακεὶμ καὶ Ἠλὶ ἐκ πατρὸς τοῦ Πανθήρι ἀδελφοι. Ἠλὶ καὶ Ἰακώβ ἐκ πατρὸς τοῦ Ματθὰν ἀδελφοί (co na łacinę tłumaczy się w PG, col. 190, jako: Joacim, et Eli ex patre Panthere fratres erant: Eli, et Jacob ex patre Matthan erant fratres). Druga część tego przekazu jest prawdziwa, to znaczy (H) eli i Jakub (syn Matthana) byli biologicznie braćmi (przyrodnimi) przez wspólną matkę. Pierwsza jednak część tej wzmianki jest nieprawdziwa, mianowicie Joachim (syn Barpanthery i wnuk Panthery) nie był bratem (H) elego; do tego (H) eli nie był synem Panthery, ale jego bratankiem. To Barpanther (syn Panthery) i ( H) eli byli stryjecznym rodzeństwem (synami rodzonych braci: Panthery i Melchiego). Albo więc Epifanios był nieuważny (choć trudno w to uwierzyć) i coś pomylił w swoim wywodzie, albo kopiści przepisujący jego tekst popsuli relację autora. Ktoś (Epifanios?, kopiści?) mógł też myśleć o innej genealogii Marii, bez Barpanthery (jak to jest chociażby w Nauczaniu Jakuba), zgodnie z którą Joachim był synem Panthery (nie Barpanthery). Wtedy rzeczywiście Joachim i ( H) eli byliby braćmi, aczkolwiek tylko stryjecznymi. To nie koniec sprzeczności, ponieważ dalej Epifanios powtarza, że (H) eli był ojcem Józefa „według prawa” (tj. lewiratu), dlatego – zdaniem autora – Józef i Maria byli dziećmi braci (Ἠλὶ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ κατὰ νόμον: ὥστε εῖναι τὸν Ἰωσὴφ καὶ τὴν Μαρίαν ἐδελφῶν παιδία). Znowu jest to przekaz nieprawdziwy, to znaczy – w ostateczności − Józef i Maria mogą być dziećmi braci, ale tylko wtedy, gdy Joachim, ojciec Marii, będzie synem Panthery (nie Barpanthery). Józef bowiem „według prawa”, a nie biologicznie, był synem (H) elego, Joachim zaś, będąc synem Panthery (nie Barpanthery), stałby się stryjecznym bratem (H) elego. Powtórzmy jednak, że będzie tak tylko wtedy, gdy usuniemy z rodziny Barpantherę878. Cała genealogia znana z przekazu Epifaniosa sprawia zatem wrażenie, jakby zdanie umieszczające Barpantherę w rodzinie (Πανθὴρ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Βαρπανθήρ. Ὁ Βαρπανθὴρ ἐθέννησεν τὸν Ἰωακεὶμ τὸν πατέρα τῆς Θεοτόκος) było jakimś zbędnym dodatkiem, który skomplikował wywód. Może więc ktoś (Epifanios?, kopiści?) wstawił je, zaciemniając i czyniąc częściowo błędnym cały przekaz. Wniosek jest więc prosty: Barpanther to nieporozumienie, Joachim jest „synem Panthery”, czyli Bar-Pantherą. Skądinąd mamy świadectwo usunięcia z rodziny Jezusa owej zbędnej postaci obecne w późniejszej tradycji i tym samym powrotu do genealogii znanej z Nauczania Jakuba. Mowa o przekazie z tzw. Dialogus contra Iudaeos autorstwa Andronikosa.
Paweł Janiszewski. Panthera – ojciec Jezusa. Geneza idei, antyczne przekazy, późniejsze polemiki. (Kindle Locations 5647-5654). Wydawnictwo Naukowe Sub Lupa.
Robert said
Convinced by benchmarks, what does that even mean?Jarek said
Paul’s letters refer to this glorious past of itinerrant preachers after divine revelation …
No way. Paul’s letters hardly refer to any glorious past of itinerant preachers. The only portrait of Paul that we can glean from his letters is that of multiple conflicts and arguments not only with his rivals but even with the communities that he himself founded. Maybe you’re thinking of an idealized legendary portrait of Paul from Acts?
Convinced by scheme common for diffusion of all kinds of innovations. Message – innovators – early adopters- early majority – late majority – laggards. No way? Paul’s letters are perfect because they show the time to fight adversity, the time of personal challenges, and the time of failure. This is the glory time. The later Paul talking to the Herodians and Seneca is a caricature of a brave, independent man on a mission known from his letters.
These itinerant preachers who refer to personal revelation, to their own exegesis of Scripture, are those of first contact with Christ. No one is closer to Christ than these preachers. It’s a great idea to write down their teachings as letters documenting their activities.
Only later will some insolent cynic take a risk and write stories about Jesus walking in Galilee. Good move. Fortune favors the brave.
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
(Ἠλὶ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ κατὰ νόμον : ὥστε εῖναι τὸν Ἰωσὴφ καὶ τὴν Μαρίαν ἐδελφῶν παιδία). Epiphanios. Joseph and Maria were brothers’ children. One of these brothers was a Panther
Jarek, … Can you quote more of the larger context?
Jarek, can you please quote more of the larger context? You can start ** you do not have permission to see this link ** if you like.
Page 95. Joacim, et Eli ex patre Panthere..
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)