Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20

Expand Messages
  • James Snapp, Jr.
    Stephen Carlson, (It looks like those questions about the Sinaitic Syriac might have not been so easy after all. While I wait for answers, I think I may have
    Message 1 of 17 , Feb 17, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Stephen Carlson,

      (It looks like those questions about the Sinaitic Syriac might have
      not been so easy after all. While I wait for answers, I think I may
      have another third-century (or thereabouts) use of the LE of Mark for
      you.)

      Eusebius, in Ecclesiastical History, Book I, Ch. 13, offers a
      translation of a Syriac text called the Story of Abgar, which is very
      closely related to another work called the "Doctrine of Addai."

      In "Doctrine of Addai," Addai (Thaddaeus?) visits sick king Abgar and
      heals Abgar of a prolonged sickness, after saying, "I place my hand
      upon you in His name."

      As the story proceeds, Addai "did wonders and marvelous works, and
      preached the word of God." Also, at one point Addai says, "We were
      commanded to preach His Gospel to the whole creation," which looks
      like a fairly solid use of Mark 16:15 -- one of several phrases in
      Addai's mouth which are taken from the Gospels.

      There's also a statement that they (i.e., the disciples) "received
      powers and authorities at the time that He ascended, by which same
      power he healed Abgar," and since Addai healed Abgar by laying hands
      on him in Jesus' name, this looks like a statement which, if it does
      not directly use Mark 16:18, is driven by a recollection of it.

      Inasmuch as Eusebius was using a Syriac copy of "Doctrine of Addai"
      when he wrote Ecclesiastical History, it seems reasonable to assign
      it a date somewhat earlier than that; I don't see any obstacle to a
      composition-date earlier than A.D. 300.

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
      Curtisville Christian Church
      Indiana (USA)
      www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
    • George F Somsel
      Mt 24.14 has καὶ κηρυχθήσεται τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ …
      Message 2 of 17 , Feb 18, 2007
      • 0 Attachment

        Mt 24.14 has

        καὶ κηρυχθήσεται τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ …

        KAI KHRUXQHSETAI TOUTO TO EUAGGELION THS BASILEIAS EN hOLHi THi OIKOUMENHi …
         
        Mt 26.13 has
         ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅπου ἐὰν κηρυχθῇ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦτο ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ,
        AMHN LEGW hUMIN, hOPOU EAN KHRUXQHi TO EUAGGELION TOUTO EN hOLWi TWi KOSMWi …
         
        Mk 13.10 has 
        καὶ εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη πρῶτον δεῖ κηρυχθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον.
        KAI EIS PANTA TA EQNH PRWTON DEI KHRUXQHNAI TO EUAGGELION
         
        Lk 24.47 has
        καὶ κηρυχθῆναι ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ μετάνοιαν εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη.
        KAI KHRUXQHNAI EPI TWi ONOMATI AUTOU METANOIAN EIS AFESIN hAMARTWN EIS PANTA TA EQHN
         
        Yet James Snapp would have it that, whenever the proclamation of the gospel throughout the world is mentioned, it MUST come from the spurious long ending of Mark.  Why would he do this?  Because it suits his purpose.  It matters not what other source there may be for such traditions -- it must come from the long ending of Mark because he wants it to come from there.  Sorry, wanting it to be so does not make it so.

         
        george
        gfsomsel
        _________


        ----- Original Message ----
        From: "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...>
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:28:30 AM
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20

        Stephen Carlson,

        (It looks like those questions about the Sinaitic Syriac might have
        not been so easy after all. While I wait for answers, I think I may
        have another third-century (or thereabouts) use of the LE of Mark for
        you.)

        Eusebius, in Ecclesiastical History, Book I, Ch. 13, offers a
        translation of a Syriac text called the Story of Abgar, which is very
        closely related to another work called the "Doctrine of Addai."

        In "Doctrine of Addai," Addai (Thaddaeus?) visits sick king Abgar and
        heals Abgar of a prolonged sickness, after saying, "I place my hand
        upon you in His name."

        As the story proceeds, Addai "did wonders and marvelous works, and
        preached the word of God." Also, at one point Addai says, "We were
        commanded to preach His Gospel to the whole creation," which looks
        like a fairly solid use of Mark 16:15 -- one of several phrases in
        Addai's mouth which are taken from the Gospels.

        There's also a statement that they (i.e., the disciples) "received
        powers and authorities at the time that He ascended, by which same
        power he healed Abgar," and since Addai healed Abgar by laying hands
        on him in Jesus' name, this looks like a statement which, if it does
        not directly use Mark 16:18, is driven by a recollection of it.

        Inasmuch as Eusebius was using a Syriac copy of "Doctrine of Addai"
        when he wrote Ecclesiastical History, it seems reasonable to assign
        it a date somewhat earlier than that; I don't see any obstacle to a
        composition- date earlier than A.D. 300.

        Yours in Christ,

        James Snapp, Jr.
        Curtisville Christian Church
        Indiana (USA)
        www.curtisvillechri stian.org/ BasicTC.html




        Get your own web address.
        Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
      • James Snapp, Jr.
        Dear George, When I said, I think I may have another third-century (or thereabouts) use of the LE of Mark, I did not mean (and do not see how those words
        Message 3 of 17 , Feb 18, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear George,

          When I said, "I think I may have another third-century (or
          thereabouts) use of the LE of Mark," I did not mean (and do not see
          how those words could fairly be construed to mean) that I have
          conclusively demonstrated that the reference in Doctrine of Addai
          "MUST come from the spurious long ending of Mark," (casual "spurious"
          swipe noted) or that it's a lock that this is third-century
          evidence. I was not trying to end and begin the examination of
          Doctrine of Addai (and its component parts) at the same time.

          Now, as I noted earlier, a phrase in Doctrine of Addai that looks
          like a usage of the LE appears after Abgar commands someone to give
          Addai silver and gold. Addai replies, "How are we able to receive
          anything which is not ours? for, behold, that which was ours we have
          forsaken, as we were commanded by our Lord to be without purses and
          without scrips, and carrying crosses upon our shoulders, we were
          commanded to preach His Gospel to the whole creation: the whole
          creation felt and suffered by His crucifixion, which was for us, for
          the salvation of all men." That bit that says, "we were commanded to
          preach His Gospel to the whole creation" closely resembles Mark
          16:15.

          Yes, Mt. 24:14 and 26:13 mention that the gospel will be preached in
          all the world, but the term "world" is not the same as the term
          "creation," and a prediction that this preaching will happen is not
          the same as a command to preach.

          And, yes, Mark 13:10 says that the gospel must first be preached to
          all the nations, but the term "nations" is not the same as the term
          "creation," and a prediction that this preaching will happen is not
          the same as a command to preach.

          And, yes, Luke 24:47 says that repentance and remission of sins
          should be preached in His name to all nations, but "repentance and
          remission of sins" is not the same as the term "gospel," and the term
          "nations" is not the same as the term "creation."

          So, compared to Mark 16:15, none of those four verses you mentioned
          has a better, or even an equal, parallel to the phrase in Doctrine of
          Addai. But did Eusebius use a term that specifically means
          "creation," or was that an English translator's doing? *That's* the
          sort of question worth discussing.

          An English translation of Doctrine of Addai can be found at
          http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/addai_1_intro.htm . The
          translator, George Phillips, working in 1876, estimated that the
          Syriac MS he was translating from came from the 500's.

          And Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book One, is online at
          http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-06.htm#P522_306670

          If you compare these two texts, you'll see that Eusebius wrapped up
          the translation from Syriac like this: "But he refused to take it,
          saying, If we have forsaken that which was our own, how shall we take
          that which is another's? These things were done in the three hundred
          andfortieth year."

          Meanwhile, in the Doctrine of Addai, there's a lot more text after
          that, and it commences almost immediately with the phrase I pointed
          out above. To give some idea of the verbosity involved, here's the
          rest of the sentence and the following sentence:

          "the whole creation felt and suffered by His crucifixion, which was
          for us, for the salvation of all men. And he narrated before Abgar
          the king, and before his princes and his nobles, and before
          Augustina, the mother of Abgar, and before Shalmath, the daughter of
          Meherdath, the wife of Abgar, the signs of our Lord and His wonders,
          and the glorious miracles which He wrought, and His divine triumphs,
          and His ascension to His Father; and how they received powers and
          authorities at the time that He ascended, by which same power he had
          healed Abgar and Abdu, the son of Abdu, the second person of his
          kingdom; and how he made them know that which would be revealed at
          the end of times, and in the consummation of all creatures, and the
          resuscitation and resurrection, which is about to be for all men, and
          the separation which is to be between the sheep and the goats, and
          between the faithful and the unbelieving."

          If Eusebius had been holding a text resembling even approximately
          what we know as "Doctrine of Addai," it's understandable that he
          would just present the part that pertains to (what Eusebius thought
          was) the correspondence between Abgar and Jesus. The rest of the
          text just goes on and on and on. I think it's fair to grant that
          Eusebius only intended to present an excerpt. But this does raise a
          question: was the part with the phrase "we were commanded to preach
          His Gospel to the whole creation" an interpolation?

          There's a section a bit farther down which could be called "How Queen
          Protonice Found the Cross of Christ." This section seems extraneous,
          as if the author of "Doctrine of Addai" liked it, and wanted to use
          it, so here he placed it. After that section, the text re-presents a
          much more verbose presentation of Addai's sermon to Abgar & Co. In
          this section, Addai says things like, "Acquire the new mind which
          worships the Maker and not the thing made, in which is represented
          the image of truth and verity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of
          the Holy Spirit, when ye believe and are baptized in the triple and
          glorious names." This section seems to begin, though, well after the
          Mark-16:15-like phrase; where the text says, "I will tell before you
          that which happened and was done in the presence of men, who, as you,
          believed in Christ, that He is the Son of the living God. Protonice,
          the wife of the Emperor Claudius . . ."

          If we figure that "How Queen Protonice Found the Cross of Christ" and
          everything after it is a fourth-century addition (or if we consider
          "Doctrine of Addai" to be an amalgamation of the text Eusebius
          possessed plus the story of Queen Protonice plus other stuff --
          treating the opening sub-heading of the book like a list of its
          source-materials), then a second possible usage of the LE -- Mk.
          16:16, to be precise -- may exist in the other stuff, where Addai
          says, "Acquire the new mind which worships the Maker and not the
          thing made, in which is represented the image of truth and verity, of
          the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, when ye believe
          and are baptized in the triple and glorious names."

          If the phase "when ye believe and are baptized" is a usage of Mk.
          16:16, rather than a fortuitous occurrence of a phrase that closely
          resembles a phrase in Mk. 16:16, and if the source-material in which
          this is found is distinct from what Eusebius possessed, what date
          should be assigned to it? I don't know, but I noticed a reference
          that might help narrow things down: at one point, Addai says, "But
          the Law, and the Prophets, and the Gospel, which ye read every day
          before the people, and the Epistles of Paul, which Simon Peter sent
          us from the city of Rome, and the Acts of the twelve Apostles, which
          John, the son of Zebedee, sent us from Ephesus; these Books read ye
          in the churches of Christ, and with these read not any others, as
          there is not any other in which the truth that ye hold is written,
          except these books, which retain you in the faith to which ye have
          been called."

          Has anyone here done any special research into "Doctrine of Addai"
          and the text that Eusebius had, or know of a good accessible resource
          about them?

          Meanwhile: it occurred to me that possibly the identification of
          Thaddaeus as Addai, combined with the notion that Addai was one of
          the 70 rather than one of the 12, might have something to do with the
          reading "Lebbaeus" in place of "Thaddaeus" in D and some Latin allies
          in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18.

          I offer the choice of a shiny Soviet ruble or Cayman Islands dime to
          whoever demonstrates the answers to my earlier questions about the
          Sinaitic Syriac's format at the end of Mark.

          Yours in Christ,

          James Snapp, Jr.
          Curtisville Christian Church
          Indiana (USA)
          www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
        • George F Somsel
          You are dealing with a translation (1) of a translation (2) of a translation (3). How can you place such emphasis on the exact words? Furthermore, These
          Message 4 of 17 , Feb 18, 2007
          • 0 Attachment

            You are dealing with a translation (1) of a translation (2) of a translation (3).  How can you place such emphasis on the exact words?  Furthermore, "These things were done in the three hundred andfortieth year"???  Doesn't this sound a bit suspicious?  I am taking a risk here since I don't fully trust Wikipedia, but according to it AD dates were first used in 525.


            george
            gfsomsel
            _________



            ----- Original Message ----
            From: "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...>
            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:42:58 PM
            Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20

            Dear George,

            When I said, "I think I may have another third-century (or
            thereabouts) use of the LE of Mark," I did not mean (and do not see
            how those words could fairly be construed to mean) that I have
            conclusively demonstrated that the reference in Doctrine of Addai
            "MUST come from the spurious long ending of Mark," (casual "spurious"
            swipe noted) or that it's a lock that this is third-century
            evidence. I was not trying to end and begin the examination of
            Doctrine of Addai (and its component parts) at the same time.

            Now, as I noted earlier, a phrase in Doctrine of Addai that looks
            like a usage of the LE appears after Abgar commands someone to give
            Addai silver and gold. Addai replies, "How are we able to receive
            anything which is not ours? for, behold, that which was ours we have
            forsaken, as we were commanded by our Lord to be without purses and
            without scrips, and carrying crosses upon our shoulders, we were
            commanded to preach His Gospel to the whole creation: the whole
            creation felt and suffered by His crucifixion, which was for us, for
            the salvation of all men." That bit that says, "we were commanded to
            preach His Gospel to the whole creation" closely resembles Mark
            16:15.

            Yes, Mt. 24:14 and 26:13 mention that the gospel will be preached in
            all the world, but the term "world" is not the same as the term
            "creation," and a prediction that this preaching will happen is not
            the same as a command to preach.

            And, yes, Mark 13:10 says that the gospel must first be preached to
            all the nations, but the term "nations" is not the same as the term
            "creation," and a prediction that this preaching will happen is not
            the same as a command to preach.

            And, yes, Luke 24:47 says that repentance and remission of sins
            should be preached in His name to all nations, but "repentance and
            remission of sins" is not the same as the term "gospel," and the term
            "nations" is not the same as the term "creation."

            So, compared to Mark 16:15, none of those four verses you mentioned
            has a better, or even an equal, parallel to the phrase in Doctrine of
            Addai. But did Eusebius use a term that specifically means
            "creation," or was that an English translator's doing? *That's* the
            sort of question worth discussing.

            An English translation of Doctrine of Addai can be found at
            http://www.tertulli an.org/fathers/ addai_1_intro. htm . The
            translator, George Phillips, working in 1876, estimated that the
            Syriac MS he was translating from came from the 500's.

            And Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book One, is online at
            http://www.ccel. org/fathers2/ NPNF2-01/ Npnf2-01- 06.htm#P522_ 306670

            If you compare these two texts, you'll see that Eusebius wrapped up
            the translation from Syriac like this: "But he refused to take it,
            saying, If we have forsaken that which was our own, how shall we take
            that which is another's? These things were done in the three hundred
            andfortieth year."

            Meanwhile, in the Doctrine of Addai, there's a lot more text after
            that, and it commences almost immediately with the phrase I pointed
            out above. To give some idea of the verbosity involved, here's the
            rest of the sentence and the following sentence:

            "the whole creation felt and suffered by His crucifixion, which was
            for us, for the salvation of all men. And he narrated before Abgar
            the king, and before his princes and his nobles, and before
            Augustina, the mother of Abgar, and before Shalmath, the daughter of
            Meherdath, the wife of Abgar, the signs of our Lord and His wonders,
            and the glorious miracles which He wrought, and His divine triumphs,
            and His ascension to His Father; and how they received powers and
            authorities at the time that He ascended, by which same power he had
            healed Abgar and Abdu, the son of Abdu, the second person of his
            kingdom; and how he made them know that which would be revealed at
            the end of times, and in the consummation of all creatures, and the
            resuscitation and resurrection, which is about to be for all men, and
            the separation which is to be between the sheep and the goats, and
            between the faithful and the unbelieving. "

            If Eusebius had been holding a text resembling even approximately
            what we know as "Doctrine of Addai," it's understandable that he
            would just present the part that pertains to (what Eusebius thought
            was) the correspondence between Abgar and Jesus. The rest of the
            text just goes on and on and on. I think it's fair to grant that
            Eusebius only intended to present an excerpt. But this does raise a
            question: was the part with the phrase "we were commanded to preach
            His Gospel to the whole creation" an interpolation?

            There's a section a bit farther down which could be called "How Queen
            Protonice Found the Cross of Christ." This section seems extraneous,
            as if the author of "Doctrine of Addai" liked it, and wanted to use
            it, so here he placed it. After that section, the text re-presents a
            much more verbose presentation of Addai's sermon to Abgar & Co. In
            this section, Addai says things like, "Acquire the new mind which
            worships the Maker and not the thing made, in which is represented
            the image of truth and verity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of
            the Holy Spirit, when ye believe and are baptized in the triple and
            glorious names." This section seems to begin, though, well after the
            Mark-16:15-like phrase; where the text says, "I will tell before you
            that which happened and was done in the presence of men, who, as you,
            believed in Christ, that He is the Son of the living God. Protonice,
            the wife of the Emperor Claudius . . ."

            If we figure that "How Queen Protonice Found the Cross of Christ" and
            everything after it is a fourth-century addition (or if we consider
            "Doctrine of Addai" to be an amalgamation of the text Eusebius
            possessed plus the story of Queen Protonice plus other stuff --
            treating the opening sub-heading of the book like a list of its
            source-materials) , then a second possible usage of the LE -- Mk.
            16:16, to be precise -- may exist in the other stuff, where Addai
            says, "Acquire the new mind which worships the Maker and not the
            thing made, in which is represented the image of truth and verity, of
            the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, when ye believe
            and are baptized in the triple and glorious names."

            If the phase "when ye believe and are baptized" is a usage of Mk.
            16:16, rather than a fortuitous occurrence of a phrase that closely
            resembles a phrase in Mk. 16:16, and if the source-material in which
            this is found is distinct from what Eusebius possessed, what date
            should be assigned to it? I don't know, but I noticed a reference
            that might help narrow things down: at one point, Addai says, "But
            the Law, and the Prophets, and the Gospel, which ye read every day
            before the people, and the Epistles of Paul, which Simon Peter sent
            us from the city of Rome, and the Acts of the twelve Apostles, which
            John, the son of Zebedee, sent us from Ephesus; these Books read ye
            in the churches of Christ, and with these read not any others, as
            there is not any other in which the truth that ye hold is written,
            except these books, which retain you in the faith to which ye have
            been called."

            Has anyone here done any special research into "Doctrine of Addai"
            and the text that Eusebius had, or know of a good accessible resource
            about them?

            Meanwhile: it occurred to me that possibly the identification of
            Thaddaeus as Addai, combined with the notion that Addai was one of
            the 70 rather than one of the 12, might have something to do with the
            reading "Lebbaeus" in place of "Thaddaeus" in D and some Latin allies
            in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18.

            I offer the choice of a shiny Soviet ruble or Cayman Islands dime to
            whoever demonstrates the answers to my earlier questions about the
            Sinaitic Syriac's format at the end of Mark.

            Yours in Christ,

            James Snapp, Jr.
            Curtisville Christian Church
            Indiana (USA)
            www.curtisvillechri stian.org/ BasicTC.html




            Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
            in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
          • Jovial
            It doesn t say 340th year AD , just 340th year . Men have always had some sort of frame of reference for time keeping. Romans did it by Olympiads. Off the
            Message 5 of 17 , Feb 20, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              It doesn't say "340th year AD", just "340th year".  Men have always had some sort of frame of reference for time keeping.  Romans did it by Olympiads.  Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what frame of reference this text would have had, but it simply means we have to find out what that was and how they measured years to know what he meant by "340th year".  You're ASSUMING he meant "AD", and then impeaching its credibility by claiming it references what you are assuming when it does not.
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 1:27 AM
              Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20

              You are dealing with a translation (1) of a translation (2) of a translation (3).  How can you place such emphasis on the exact words?  Furthermore, "These things were done in the three hundred andfortieth year"???  Doesn't this sound a bit suspicious?  I am taking a risk here since I don't fully trust Wikipedia, but according to it AD dates were first used in 525.


              george
              gfsomsel
              _________



              ----- Original Message ----
              From: "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@yahoo. com>
              To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
              Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:42:58 PM
              Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20

              Dear George,

              When I said, "I think I may have another third-century (or
              thereabouts) use of the LE of Mark," I did not mean (and do not see
              how those words could fairly be construed to mean) that I have
              conclusively demonstrated that the reference in Doctrine of Addai
              "MUST come from the spurious long ending of Mark," (casual "spurious"
              swipe noted) or that it's a lock that this is third-century
              evidence. I was not trying to end and begin the examination of
              Doctrine of Addai (and its component parts) at the same time.

              Now, as I noted earlier, a phrase in Doctrine of Addai that looks
              like a usage of the LE appears after Abgar commands someone to give
              Addai silver and gold. Addai replies, "How are we able to receive
              anything which is not ours? for, behold, that which was ours we have
              forsaken, as we were commanded by our Lord to be without purses and
              without scrips, and carrying crosses upon our shoulders, we were
              commanded to preach His Gospel to the whole creation: the whole
              creation felt and suffered by His crucifixion, which was for us, for
              the salvation of all men." That bit that says, "we were commanded to
              preach His Gospel to the whole creation" closely resembles Mark
              16:15.

              Yes, Mt. 24:14 and 26:13 mention that the gospel will be preached in
              all the world, but the term "world" is not the same as the term
              "creation," and a prediction that this preaching will happen is not
              the same as a command to preach.

              And, yes, Mark 13:10 says that the gospel must first be preached to
              all the nations, but the term "nations" is not the same as the term
              "creation," and a prediction that this preaching will happen is not
              the same as a command to preach.

              And, yes, Luke 24:47 says that repentance and remission of sins
              should be preached in His name to all nations, but "repentance and
              remission of sins" is not the same as the term "gospel," and the term
              "nations" is not the same as the term "creation."

              So, compared to Mark 16:15, none of those four verses you mentioned
              has a better, or even an equal, parallel to the phrase in Doctrine of
              Addai. But did Eusebius use a term that specifically means
              "creation," or was that an English translator's doing? *That's* the
              sort of question worth discussing.

              An English translation of Doctrine of Addai can be found at
              http://www.tertulli an.org/fathers/ addai_1_intro. htm . The
              translator, George Phillips, working in 1876, estimated that the
              Syriac MS he was translating from came from the 500's.

              And Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book One, is online at
              http://www.ccel. org/fathers2/ NPNF2-01/ Npnf2-01- 06.htm#P522_ 306670

              If you compare these two texts, you'll see that Eusebius wrapped up
              the translation from Syriac like this: "But he refused to take it,
              saying, If we have forsaken that which was our own, how shall we take
              that which is another's? These things were done in the three hundred
              andfortieth year."

              Meanwhile, in the Doctrine of Addai, there's a lot more text after
              that, and it commences almost immediately with the phrase I pointed
              out above. To give some idea of the verbosity involved, here's the
              rest of the sentence and the following sentence:

              "the whole creation felt and suffered by His crucifixion, which was
              for us, for the salvation of all men. And he narrated before Abgar
              the king, and before his princes and his nobles, and before
              Augustina, the mother of Abgar, and before Shalmath, the daughter of
              Meherdath, the wife of Abgar, the signs of our Lord and His wonders,
              and the glorious miracles which He wrought, and His divine triumphs,
              and His ascension to His Father; and how they received powers and
              authorities at the time that He ascended, by which same power he had
              healed Abgar and Abdu, the son of Abdu, the second person of his
              kingdom; and how he made them know that which would be revealed at
              the end of times, and in the consummation of all creatures, and the
              resuscitation and resurrection, which is about to be for all men, and
              the separation which is to be between the sheep and the goats, and
              between the faithful and the unbelieving. "

              If Eusebius had been holding a text resembling even approximately
              what we know as "Doctrine of Addai," it's understandable that he
              would just present the part that pertains to (what Eusebius thought
              was) the correspondence between Abgar and Jesus. The rest of the
              text just goes on and on and on. I think it's fair to grant that
              Eusebius only intended to present an excerpt. But this does raise a
              question: was the part with the phrase "we were commanded to preach
              His Gospel to the whole creation" an interpolation?

              There's a section a bit farther down which could be called "How Queen
              Protonice Found the Cross of Christ." This section seems extraneous,
              as if the author of "Doctrine of Addai" liked it, and wanted to use
              it, so here he placed it. After that section, the text re-presents a
              much more verbose presentation of Addai's sermon to Abgar & Co. In
              this section, Addai says things like, "Acquire the new mind which
              worships the Maker and not the thing made, in which is represented
              the image of truth and verity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of
              the Holy Spirit, when ye believe and are baptized in the triple and
              glorious names." This section seems to begin, though, well after the
              Mark-16:15-like phrase; where the text says, "I will tell before you
              that which happened and was done in the presence of men, who, as you,
              believed in Christ, that He is the Son of the living God. Protonice,
              the wife of the Emperor Claudius . . ."

              If we figure that "How Queen Protonice Found the Cross of Christ" and
              everything after it is a fourth-century addition (or if we consider
              "Doctrine of Addai" to be an amalgamation of the text Eusebius
              possessed plus the story of Queen Protonice plus other stuff --
              treating the opening sub-heading of the book like a list of its
              source-materials) , then a second possible usage of the LE -- Mk.
              16:16, to be precise -- may exist in the other stuff, where Addai
              says, "Acquire the new mind which worships the Maker and not the
              thing made, in which is represented the image of truth and verity, of
              the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, when ye believe
              and are baptized in the triple and glorious names."

              If the phase "when ye believe and are baptized" is a usage of Mk.
              16:16, rather than a fortuitous occurrence of a phrase that closely
              resembles a phrase in Mk. 16:16, and if the source-material in which
              this is found is distinct from what Eusebius possessed, what date
              should be assigned to it? I don't know, but I noticed a reference
              that might help narrow things down: at one point, Addai says, "But
              the Law, and the Prophets, and the Gospel, which ye read every day
              before the people, and the Epistles of Paul, which Simon Peter sent
              us from the city of Rome, and the Acts of the twelve Apostles, which
              John, the son of Zebedee, sent us from Ephesus; these Books read ye
              in the churches of Christ, and with these read not any others, as
              there is not any other in which the truth that ye hold is written,
              except these books, which retain you in the faith to which ye have
              been called."

              Has anyone here done any special research into "Doctrine of Addai"
              and the text that Eusebius had, or know of a good accessible resource
              about them?

              Meanwhile: it occurred to me that possibly the identification of
              Thaddaeus as Addai, combined with the notion that Addai was one of
              the 70 rather than one of the 12, might have something to do with the
              reading "Lebbaeus" in place of "Thaddaeus" in D and some Latin allies
              in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18.

              I offer the choice of a shiny Soviet ruble or Cayman Islands dime to
              whoever demonstrates the answers to my earlier questions about the
              Sinaitic Syriac's format at the end of Mark.

              Yours in Christ,

              James Snapp, Jr.
              Curtisville Christian Church
              Indiana (USA)
              www.curtisvillechri stian.org/ BasicTC.html




              Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
              in the Yahoo! Answers Food Drink Q&A.

            • James Snapp, Jr.
              Dear George, If we were to review the Greek text of Ecclesiastical History, we would be just one step removed from the Syriac text of the portion of the Syriac
              Message 6 of 17 , Feb 20, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear George,

                If we were to review the Greek text of Ecclesiastical History, we
                would be just one step removed from the Syriac text of the portion
                of the Syriac text that Eusebius translated. Our study (if anyone
                here at TC-list is interested and has the time!) does not need to be
                limited to the English translation. And, for the "Doctrine of
                Addai," we have the Syriac text itself – as Phillips described in
                the introduction in one of those links I provided (so, that's not a
                secondary or tertiary witness at all. The only question is one of
                access to the Syriac text (and to someone who can read Syriac)).

                You're certainly correct that a close verbal similarity in English
                does not demonstrate a close verbal similarity in Syriac, but one
                has to start somewhere. If a phrase like, "God so loved the world
                that He gave" appeared in the English translation of a Greek
                translation of a Syriac text, it would be justifiable to consider
                that extremely likely to be a usage of John 3:16, even though deeper
                investigation might render that conclusion dubious. Similarly, the
                occurrence of the phrase "we were commanded to preach His Gospel to
                the whole creation" may be fairy considered a likely usage of Mark
                16:15.

                That likelihood might be increased when one considers the word "His"
                (rather than "the") and then notices how well that interlocks with
                the Peshitta's form of Jesus' words in Mark 16:15 – "Go into all the
                world and preach My hope to all creation."

                GS: "Furthermore, "These things were done in the three hundred and
                fortieth year"??? Doesn't this sound a bit suspicious?"

                No. That's not an "A.D." reckoning. A footnote on one of the pages
                to which I provided a link explains that the "340th year" is the way
                the Edessenes reckoned what is known to us as A.D. 30. Whether
                that's exactly correct or not, the thing to see is that the "340th
                year" to which Eusebius refers is either the year in which Abgar's
                messenger visited Jesus, or the year in which Addai/Thaddaeus
                visited Abgar. "Doctrine of Addai" refers, near its beginning,
                to "The three hundred and forty and third year of the kingdom of the
                Greeks;" by that reckoning, I think "year zero" would be 311 or 312
                B.C. – what was, for Edessa, the beginning of Seleucid rule.

                Yours in Christ,

                James Snapp, Jr.
                Curtisville Christian Church
                Indiana (USA)
                www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
              • Robert Mossotti
                I believe the Romans reckoned from the year of Rome s foundation, and by consulships. Robert W. Mossotti, Esq. Jovial wrote: It doesn t
                Message 7 of 17 , Feb 21, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  I believe the Romans reckoned from the year of Rome's foundation, and by consulships.
                   
                  Robert W. Mossotti, Esq.

                  Jovial <jovial@...> wrote:
                  It doesn't say "340th year AD", just "340th year".  Men have always had some sort of frame of reference for time keeping.  Romans did it by Olympiads.  Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what frame of reference this text would have had, but it simply means we have to find out what that was and how they measured years to know what he meant by "340th year".  You're ASSUMING he meant "AD", and then impeaching its credibility by claiming it references what you are assuming when it does not.
                   
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 1:27 AM
                  Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20

                  You are dealing with a translation (1) of a translation (2) of a translation (3).  How can you place such emphasis on the exact words?  Furthermore, "These things were done in the three hundred andfortieth year"???  Doesn't this sound a bit suspicious?  I am taking a risk here since I don't fully trust Wikipedia, but according to it AD dates were first used in 525.

                  george
                  gfsomsel
                  _________


                  ----- Original Message ----
                  From: "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@yahoo. com>
                  To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
                  Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:42:58 PM
                  Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20

                  Dear George,

                  When I said, "I think I may have another third-century (or
                  thereabouts) use of the LE of Mark," I did not mean (and do not see
                  how those words could fairly be construed to mean) that I have
                  conclusively demonstrated that the reference in Doctrine of Addai
                  "MUST come from the spurious long ending of Mark," (casual "spurious"
                  swipe noted) or that it's a lock that this is third-century
                  evidence. I was not trying to end and begin the examination of
                  Doctrine of Addai (and its component parts) at the same time.

                  Now, as I noted earlier, a phrase in Doctrine of Addai that looks
                  like a usage of the LE appears after Abgar commands someone to give
                  Addai silver and gold. Addai replies, "How are we able to receive
                  anything which is not ours? for, behold, that which was ours we have
                  forsaken, as we were commanded by our Lord to be without purses and
                  without scrips, and carrying crosses upon our shoulders, we were
                  commanded to preach His Gospel to the whole creation: the whole
                  creation felt and suffered by His crucifixion, which was for us, for
                  the salvation of all men." That bit that says, "we were commanded to
                  preach His Gospel to the whole creation" closely resembles Mark
                  16:15.

                  Yes, Mt. 24:14 and 26:13 mention that the gospel will be preached in
                  all the world, but the term "world" is not the same as the term
                  "creation," and a prediction that this preaching will happen is not
                  the same as a command to preach.

                  And, yes, Mark 13:10 says that the gospel must first be preached to
                  all the nations, but the term "nations" is not the same as the term
                  "creation," and a prediction that this preaching will happen is not
                  the same as a command to preach.

                  And, yes, Luke 24:47 says that repentance and remission of sins
                  should be preached in His name to all nations, but "repentance and
                  remission of sins" is not the same as the term "gospel," and the term
                  "nations" is not the same as the term "creation."

                  So, compared to Mark 16:15, none of those four verses you mentioned
                  has a better, or even an equal, parallel to the phrase in Doctrine of
                  Addai. But did Eusebius use a term that specifically means
                  "creation," or was that an English translator's doing? *That's* the
                  sort of question worth discussing.

                  An English translation of Doctrine of Addai can be found at
                  http://www.tertulli an.org/fathers/ addai_1_intro. htm . The
                  translator, George Phillips, working in 1876, estimated that the
                  Syriac MS he was translating from came from the 500's.

                  And Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book One, is online at
                  http://www.ccel. org/fathers2/ NPNF2-01/ Npnf2-01- 06.htm#P522_ 306670

                  If you compare these two texts, you'll see that Eusebius wrapped up
                  the translation from Syriac like this: "But he refused to take it,
                  saying, If we have forsaken that which was our own, how shall we take
                  that which is another's? These things were done in the three hundred
                  andfortieth year."

                  Meanwhile, in the Doctrine of Addai, there's a lot more text after
                  that, and it commences almost immediately with the phrase I pointed
                  out above. To give some idea of the verbosity involved, here's the
                  rest of the sentence and the following sentence:

                  "the whole creation felt and suffered by His crucifixion, which was
                  for us, for the salvation of all men. And he narrated before Abgar
                  the king, and before his princes and his nobles, and before
                  Augustina, the mother of Abgar, and before Shalmath, the daughter of
                  Meherdath, the wife of Abgar, the signs of our Lord and His wonders,
                  and the glorious miracles which He wrought, and His divine triumphs,
                  and His ascension to His Father; and how they received powers and
                  authorities at the time that He ascended, by which same power he had
                  healed Abgar and Abdu, the son of Abdu, the second person of his
                  kingdom; and how he made them know that which would be revealed at
                  the end of times, and in the consummation of all creatures, and the
                  resuscitation and resurrection, which is about to be for all men, and
                  the separation which is to be between the sheep and the goats, and
                  between the faithful and the unbelieving. "

                  If Eusebius had been holding a text resembling even approximately
                  what we know as "Doctrine of Addai," it's understandable that he
                  would just present the part that pertains to (what Eusebius thought
                  was) the correspondence between Abgar and Jesus. The rest of the
                  text just goes on and on and on. I think it's fair to grant that
                  Eusebius only intended to present an excerpt. But this does raise a
                  question: was the part with the phrase "we were commanded to preach
                  His Gospel to the whole creation" an interpolation?

                  There's a section a bit farther down which could be called "How Queen
                  Protonice Found the Cross of Christ." This section seems extraneous,
                  as if the author of "Doctrine of Addai" liked it, and wanted to use
                  it, so here he placed it. After that section, the text re-presents a
                  much more verbose presentation of Addai's sermon to Abgar & Co. In
                  this section, Addai says things like, "Acquire the new mind which
                  worships the Maker and not the thing made, in which is represented
                  the image of truth and verity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of
                  the Holy Spirit, when ye believe and are baptized in the triple and
                  glorious names." This section seems to begin, though, well after the
                  Mark-16:15-like phrase; where the text says, "I will tell before you
                  that which happened and was done in the presence of men, who, as you,
                  believed in Christ, that He is the Son of the living God. Protonice,
                  the wife of the Emperor Claudius . . ."

                  If we figure that "How Queen Protonice Found the Cross of Christ" and
                  everything after it is a fourth-century addition (or if we consider
                  "Doctrine of Addai" to be an amalgamation of the text Eusebius
                  possessed plus the story of Queen Protonice plus other stuff --
                  treating the opening sub-heading of the book like a list of its
                  source-materials) , then a second possible usage of the LE -- Mk.
                  16:16, to be precise -- may exist in the other stuff, where Addai
                  says, "Acquire the new mind which worships the Maker and not the
                  thing made, in which is represented the image of truth and verity, of
                  the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, when ye believe
                  and are baptized in the triple and glorious names."

                  If the phase "when ye believe and are baptized" is a usage of Mk.
                  16:16, rather than a fortuitous occurrence of a phrase that closely
                  resembles a phrase in Mk. 16:16, and if the source-material in which
                  this is found is distinct from what Eusebius possessed, what date
                  should be assigned to it? I don't know, but I noticed a reference
                  that might help narrow things down: at one point, Addai says, "But
                  the Law, and the Prophets, and the Gospel, which ye read every day
                  before the people, and the Epistles of Paul, which Simon Peter sent
                  us from the city of Rome, and the Acts of the twelve Apostles, which
                  John, the son of Zebedee, sent us from Ephesus; these Books read ye
                  in the churches of Christ, and with these read not any others, as
                  there is not any other in which the truth that ye hold is written,
                  except these books, which retain you in the faith to which ye have
                  been called."

                  Has anyone here done any special research into "Doctrine of Addai"
                  and the text that Eusebius had, or know of a good accessible resource
                  about them?

                  Meanwhile: it occurred to me that possibly the identification of
                  Thaddaeus as Addai, combined with the notion that Addai was one of
                  the 70 rather than one of the 12, might have something to do with the
                  reading "Lebbaeus" in place of "Thaddaeus" in D and some Latin allies
                  in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18.

                  I offer the choice of a shiny Soviet ruble or Cayman Islands dime to
                  whoever demonstrates the answers to my earlier questions about the
                  Sinaitic Syriac's format at the end of Mark.

                  Yours in Christ,

                  James Snapp, Jr.
                  Curtisville Christian Church
                  Indiana (USA)
                  www.curtisvillechri stian.org/ BasicTC.html




                  Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
                  in the Yahoo! Answers Food Drink Q&A.


                  Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
                  Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.

                • James Spinti
                  Correct. The Greeks reckoned by Olympiads; the Romans calculate AUC (ad urbs condita)-from the founding of the city. But, 340 AUC would not be appropriate for
                  Message 8 of 17 , Feb 21, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Correct. The Greeks reckoned by Olympiads; the Romans calculate AUC (ad
                    urbs condita)-from the founding of the city. But, 340 AUC would not be
                    appropriate for a NT text, so there must be something else going on
                    here.

                    James
                    ________________________________
                    James Spinti
                    Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
                    Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 30 years
                    Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
                    jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
                    Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
                    Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
                    Fax: 574-269-6788


                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                    [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Mossotti
                    Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:42 AM
                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20


                    I believe the Romans reckoned from the year of Rome's foundation, and by
                    consulships.

                    Robert W. Mossotti, Esq.

                    Jovial <jovial@...> wrote:
                    It doesn't say "340th year AD", just "340th year". Men have always had
                    some sort of frame of reference for time keeping. Romans did it by
                    Olympiads. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what frame of reference
                    this text would have had, but it simply means we have to find out what
                    that was and how they measured years to know what he meant by "340th
                    year". You're ASSUMING he meant "AD", and then impeaching its
                    credibility by claiming it references what you are assuming when it does
                    not.


                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: George F Somsel
                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 1:27 AM
                    Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20


                    You are dealing with a translation (1) of a translation (2) of a
                    translation (3). How can you place such emphasis on the exact words?
                    Furthermore, "These things were done in the three hundred andfortieth
                    year"??? Doesn't this sound a bit suspicious? I am taking a risk here
                    since I don't fully trust Wikipedia, but according to it AD dates were
                    first used in 525.

                    george
                    gfsomsel
                    _________



                    ----- Original Message ----
                    From: "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...>
                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:42:58 PM
                    Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20


                    Dear George,

                    When I said, "I think I may have another third-century (or
                    thereabouts) use of the LE of Mark," I did not mean (and do not see
                    how those words could fairly be construed to mean) that I have
                    conclusively demonstrated that the reference in Doctrine of Addai
                    "MUST come from the spurious long ending of Mark," (casual "spurious"
                    swipe noted) or that it's a lock that this is third-century
                    evidence. I was not trying to end and begin the examination of
                    Doctrine of Addai (and its component parts) at the same time.

                    Now, as I noted earlier, a phrase in Doctrine of Addai that looks
                    like a usage of the LE appears after Abgar commands someone to give
                    Addai silver and gold. Addai replies, "How are we able to receive
                    anything which is not ours? for, behold, that which was ours we have
                    forsaken, as we were commanded by our Lord to be without purses and
                    without scrips, and carrying crosses upon our shoulders, we were
                    commanded to preach His Gospel to the whole creation: the whole
                    creation felt and suffered by His crucifixion, which was for us, for
                    the salvation of all men." That bit that says, "we were commanded to
                    preach His Gospel to the whole creation" closely resembles Mark
                    16:15.

                    Yes, Mt. 24:14 and 26:13 mention that the gospel will be preached in
                    all the world, but the term "world" is not the same as the term
                    "creation," and a prediction that this preaching will happen is not
                    the same as a command to preach.

                    And, yes, Mark 13:10 says that the gospel must first be preached to
                    all the nations, but the term "nations" is not the same as the term
                    "creation," and a prediction that this preaching will happen is not
                    the same as a command to preach.

                    And, yes, Luke 24:47 says that repentance and remission of sins
                    should be preached in His name to all nations, but "repentance and
                    remission of sins" is not the same as the term "gospel," and the term
                    "nations" is not the same as the term "creation."

                    So, compared to Mark 16:15, none of those four verses you mentioned
                    has a better, or even an equal, parallel to the phrase in Doctrine of
                    Addai. But did Eusebius use a term that specifically means
                    "creation," or was that an English translator's doing? *That's* the
                    sort of question worth discussing.

                    An English translation of Doctrine of Addai can be found at
                    http://www.tertulli an.org/fathers/ addai_1_intro. htm . The
                    translator, George Phillips, working in 1876, estimated that the
                    Syriac MS he was translating from came from the 500's.

                    And Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book One, is online at
                    http://www.ccel org/fathers2/ NPNF2-01/ Npnf2-01- 06.htm#P522_ 306670

                    If you compare these two texts, you'll see that Eusebius wrapped up
                    the translation from Syriac like this: "But he refused to take it,
                    saying, If we have forsaken that which was our own, how shall we take
                    that which is another's? These things were done in the three hundred
                    andfortieth year."

                    Meanwhile, in the Doctrine of Addai, there's a lot more text after
                    that, and it commences almost immediately with the phrase I pointed
                    out above. To give some idea of the verbosity involved, here's the
                    rest of the sentence and the following sentence:

                    "the whole creation felt and suffered by His crucifixion, which was
                    for us, for the salvation of all men. And he narrated before Abgar
                    the king, and before his princes and his nobles, and before
                    Augustina, the mother of Abgar, and before Shalmath, the daughter of
                    Meherdath, the wife of Abgar, the signs of our Lord and His wonders,
                    and the glorious miracles which He wrought, and His divine triumphs,
                    and His ascension to His Father; and how they received powers and
                    authorities at the time that He ascended, by which same power he had
                    healed Abgar and Abdu, the son of Abdu, the second person of his
                    kingdom; and how he made them know that which would be revealed at
                    the end of times, and in the consummation of all creatures, and the
                    resuscitation and resurrection, which is about to be for all men, and
                    the separation which is to be between the sheep and the goats, and
                    between the faithful and the unbelieving. "

                    If Eusebius had been holding a text resembling even approximately
                    what we know as "Doctrine of Addai," it's understandable that he
                    would just present the part that pertains to (what Eusebius thought
                    was) the correspondence between Abgar and Jesus. The rest of the
                    text just goes on and on and on. I think it's fair to grant that
                    Eusebius only intended to present an excerpt. But this does raise a
                    question: was the part with the phrase "we were commanded to preach
                    His Gospel to the whole creation" an interpolation?

                    There's a section a bit farther down which could be called "How Queen
                    Protonice Found the Cross of Christ." This section seems extraneous,
                    as if the author of "Doctrine of Addai" liked it, and wanted to use
                    it, so here he placed it. After that section, the text re-presents a
                    much more verbose presentation of Addai's sermon to Abgar & Co. In
                    this section, Addai says things like, "Acquire the new mind which
                    worships the Maker and not the thing made, in which is represented
                    the image of truth and verity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of
                    the Holy Spirit, when ye believe and are baptized in the triple and
                    glorious names." This section seems to begin, though, well after the
                    Mark-16:15-like phrase; where the text says, "I will tell before you
                    that which happened and was done in the presence of men, who, as you,
                    believed in Christ, that He is the Son of the living God. Protonice,
                    the wife of the Emperor Claudius . . ."

                    If we figure that "How Queen Protonice Found the Cross of Christ" and
                    everything after it is a fourth-century addition (or if we consider
                    "Doctrine of Addai" to be an amalgamation of the text Eusebius
                    possessed plus the story of Queen Protonice plus other stuff --
                    treating the opening sub-heading of the book like a list of its
                    source-materials) , then a second possible usage of the LE -- Mk.
                    16:16, to be precise -- may exist in the other stuff, where Addai
                    says, "Acquire the new mind which worships the Maker and not the
                    thing made, in which is represented the image of truth and verity, of
                    the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, when ye believe
                    and are baptized in the triple and glorious names."

                    If the phase "when ye believe and are baptized" is a usage of Mk.
                    16:16, rather than a fortuitous occurrence of a phrase that closely
                    resembles a phrase in Mk. 16:16, and if the source-material in which
                    this is found is distinct from what Eusebius possessed, what date
                    should be assigned to it? I don't know, but I noticed a reference
                    that might help narrow things down: at one point, Addai says, "But
                    the Law, and the Prophets, and the Gospel, which ye read every day
                    before the people, and the Epistles of Paul, which Simon Peter sent
                    us from the city of Rome, and the Acts of the twelve Apostles, which
                    John, the son of Zebedee, sent us from Ephesus; these Books read ye
                    in the churches of Christ, and with these read not any others, as
                    there is not any other in which the truth that ye hold is written,
                    except these books, which retain you in the faith to which ye have
                    been called."

                    Has anyone here done any special research into "Doctrine of Addai"
                    and the text that Eusebius had, or know of a good accessible resource
                    about them?

                    Meanwhile: it occurred to me that possibly the identification of
                    Thaddaeus as Addai, combined with the notion that Addai was one of
                    the 70 rather than one of the 12, might have something to do with the
                    reading "Lebbaeus" in place of "Thaddaeus" in D and some Latin allies
                    in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18.

                    I offer the choice of a shiny Soviet ruble or Cayman Islands dime to
                    whoever demonstrates the answers to my earlier questions about the
                    Sinaitic Syriac's format at the end of Mark.

                    Yours in Christ,

                    James Snapp, Jr.
                    Curtisville Christian Church
                    Indiana (USA)
                    www.curtisvillechri stian.org/ BasicTC.html







                    Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
                    in the Yahoo! Answers Food Drink Q&A.




                    Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
                    Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
                  • Jean G. Valentin
                    The years of Alexander! -- Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique jgvalentin@coditel.net Et bien que je ne prétende pas comprendre, Je continuerai à étudier
                    Message 9 of 17 , Feb 21, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The years of Alexander!

                      --
                      Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique
                      jgvalentin@...

                      "Et bien que je ne prétende pas comprendre,
                      Je continuerai à étudier jusqu'à la fin"

                      (Sutra du retour à la nature originelle -
                      texte chrétien chinois - VIIIe siècle)


                      > De : "James Spinti" <jspinti@...>
                      > Répondre à : textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                      > Date : Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:06:40 -0500
                      > À : <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Objet : RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20
                      >
                      > Correct. The Greeks reckoned by Olympiads; the Romans calculate AUC (ad
                      > urbs condita)-from the founding of the city. But, 340 AUC would not be
                      > appropriate for a NT text, so there must be something else going on
                      > here.
                      >
                      > James
                      > ________________________________
                      > James Spinti
                      > Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
                      > Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 30 years
                      > Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
                      > jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
                      > Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
                      > Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
                      > Fax: 574-269-6788
                      >
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                      > [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Mossotti
                      > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:42 AM
                      > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20
                      >
                      >
                      > I believe the Romans reckoned from the year of Rome's foundation, and by
                      > consulships.
                      >
                      > Robert W. Mossotti, Esq.
                      >
                      > Jovial <jovial@...> wrote:
                      > It doesn't say "340th year AD", just "340th year". Men have always had
                      > some sort of frame of reference for time keeping. Romans did it by
                      > Olympiads. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what frame of reference
                      > this text would have had, but it simply means we have to find out what
                      > that was and how they measured years to know what he meant by "340th
                      > year". You're ASSUMING he meant "AD", and then impeaching its
                      > credibility by claiming it references what you are assuming when it does
                      > not.
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: George F Somsel
                      > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 1:27 AM
                      > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20
                      >
                      >
                      > You are dealing with a translation (1) of a translation (2) of a
                      > translation (3). How can you place such emphasis on the exact words?
                      > Furthermore, "These things were done in the three hundred andfortieth
                      > year"??? Doesn't this sound a bit suspicious? I am taking a risk here
                      > since I don't fully trust Wikipedia, but according to it AD dates were
                      > first used in 525.
                      >
                      > george
                      > gfsomsel
                      > _________
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message ----
                      > From: "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...>
                      > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:42:58 PM
                      > Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20
                      >
                      >
                      > Dear George,
                      >
                      > When I said, "I think I may have another third-century (or
                      > thereabouts) use of the LE of Mark," I did not mean (and do not see
                      > how those words could fairly be construed to mean) that I have
                      > conclusively demonstrated that the reference in Doctrine of Addai
                      > "MUST come from the spurious long ending of Mark," (casual "spurious"
                      > swipe noted) or that it's a lock that this is third-century
                      > evidence. I was not trying to end and begin the examination of
                      > Doctrine of Addai (and its component parts) at the same time.
                      >
                      > Now, as I noted earlier, a phrase in Doctrine of Addai that looks
                      > like a usage of the LE appears after Abgar commands someone to give
                      > Addai silver and gold. Addai replies, "How are we able to receive
                      > anything which is not ours? for, behold, that which was ours we have
                      > forsaken, as we were commanded by our Lord to be without purses and
                      > without scrips, and carrying crosses upon our shoulders, we were
                      > commanded to preach His Gospel to the whole creation: the whole
                      > creation felt and suffered by His crucifixion, which was for us, for
                      > the salvation of all men." That bit that says, "we were commanded to
                      > preach His Gospel to the whole creation" closely resembles Mark
                      > 16:15.
                      >
                      > Yes, Mt. 24:14 and 26:13 mention that the gospel will be preached in
                      > all the world, but the term "world" is not the same as the term
                      > "creation," and a prediction that this preaching will happen is not
                      > the same as a command to preach.
                      >
                      > And, yes, Mark 13:10 says that the gospel must first be preached to
                      > all the nations, but the term "nations" is not the same as the term
                      > "creation," and a prediction that this preaching will happen is not
                      > the same as a command to preach.
                      >
                      > And, yes, Luke 24:47 says that repentance and remission of sins
                      > should be preached in His name to all nations, but "repentance and
                      > remission of sins" is not the same as the term "gospel," and the term
                      > "nations" is not the same as the term "creation."
                      >
                      > So, compared to Mark 16:15, none of those four verses you mentioned
                      > has a better, or even an equal, parallel to the phrase in Doctrine of
                      > Addai. But did Eusebius use a term that specifically means
                      > "creation," or was that an English translator's doing? *That's* the
                      > sort of question worth discussing.
                      >
                      > An English translation of Doctrine of Addai can be found at
                      > http://www.tertulli an.org/fathers/ addai_1_intro. htm . The
                      > translator, George Phillips, working in 1876, estimated that the
                      > Syriac MS he was translating from came from the 500's.
                      >
                      > And Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book One, is online at
                      > http://www.ccel org/fathers2/ NPNF2-01/ Npnf2-01- 06.htm#P522_ 306670
                      >
                      > If you compare these two texts, you'll see that Eusebius wrapped up
                      > the translation from Syriac like this: "But he refused to take it,
                      > saying, If we have forsaken that which was our own, how shall we take
                      > that which is another's? These things were done in the three hundred
                      > andfortieth year."
                      >
                      > Meanwhile, in the Doctrine of Addai, there's a lot more text after
                      > that, and it commences almost immediately with the phrase I pointed
                      > out above. To give some idea of the verbosity involved, here's the
                      > rest of the sentence and the following sentence:
                      >
                      > "the whole creation felt and suffered by His crucifixion, which was
                      > for us, for the salvation of all men. And he narrated before Abgar
                      > the king, and before his princes and his nobles, and before
                      > Augustina, the mother of Abgar, and before Shalmath, the daughter of
                      > Meherdath, the wife of Abgar, the signs of our Lord and His wonders,
                      > and the glorious miracles which He wrought, and His divine triumphs,
                      > and His ascension to His Father; and how they received powers and
                      > authorities at the time that He ascended, by which same power he had
                      > healed Abgar and Abdu, the son of Abdu, the second person of his
                      > kingdom; and how he made them know that which would be revealed at
                      > the end of times, and in the consummation of all creatures, and the
                      > resuscitation and resurrection, which is about to be for all men, and
                      > the separation which is to be between the sheep and the goats, and
                      > between the faithful and the unbelieving. "
                      >
                      > If Eusebius had been holding a text resembling even approximately
                      > what we know as "Doctrine of Addai," it's understandable that he
                      > would just present the part that pertains to (what Eusebius thought
                      > was) the correspondence between Abgar and Jesus. The rest of the
                      > text just goes on and on and on. I think it's fair to grant that
                      > Eusebius only intended to present an excerpt. But this does raise a
                      > question: was the part with the phrase "we were commanded to preach
                      > His Gospel to the whole creation" an interpolation?
                      >
                      > There's a section a bit farther down which could be called "How Queen
                      > Protonice Found the Cross of Christ." This section seems extraneous,
                      > as if the author of "Doctrine of Addai" liked it, and wanted to use
                      > it, so here he placed it. After that section, the text re-presents a
                      > much more verbose presentation of Addai's sermon to Abgar & Co. In
                      > this section, Addai says things like, "Acquire the new mind which
                      > worships the Maker and not the thing made, in which is represented
                      > the image of truth and verity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of
                      > the Holy Spirit, when ye believe and are baptized in the triple and
                      > glorious names." This section seems to begin, though, well after the
                      > Mark-16:15-like phrase; where the text says, "I will tell before you
                      > that which happened and was done in the presence of men, who, as you,
                      > believed in Christ, that He is the Son of the living God. Protonice,
                      > the wife of the Emperor Claudius . . ."
                      >
                      > If we figure that "How Queen Protonice Found the Cross of Christ" and
                      > everything after it is a fourth-century addition (or if we consider
                      > "Doctrine of Addai" to be an amalgamation of the text Eusebius
                      > possessed plus the story of Queen Protonice plus other stuff --
                      > treating the opening sub-heading of the book like a list of its
                      > source-materials) , then a second possible usage of the LE -- Mk.
                      > 16:16, to be precise -- may exist in the other stuff, where Addai
                      > says, "Acquire the new mind which worships the Maker and not the
                      > thing made, in which is represented the image of truth and verity, of
                      > the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, when ye believe
                      > and are baptized in the triple and glorious names."
                      >
                      > If the phase "when ye believe and are baptized" is a usage of Mk.
                      > 16:16, rather than a fortuitous occurrence of a phrase that closely
                      > resembles a phrase in Mk. 16:16, and if the source-material in which
                      > this is found is distinct from what Eusebius possessed, what date
                      > should be assigned to it? I don't know, but I noticed a reference
                      > that might help narrow things down: at one point, Addai says, "But
                      > the Law, and the Prophets, and the Gospel, which ye read every day
                      > before the people, and the Epistles of Paul, which Simon Peter sent
                      > us from the city of Rome, and the Acts of the twelve Apostles, which
                      > John, the son of Zebedee, sent us from Ephesus; these Books read ye
                      > in the churches of Christ, and with these read not any others, as
                      > there is not any other in which the truth that ye hold is written,
                      > except these books, which retain you in the faith to which ye have
                      > been called."
                      >
                      > Has anyone here done any special research into "Doctrine of Addai"
                      > and the text that Eusebius had, or know of a good accessible resource
                      > about them?
                      >
                      > Meanwhile: it occurred to me that possibly the identification of
                      > Thaddaeus as Addai, combined with the notion that Addai was one of
                      > the 70 rather than one of the 12, might have something to do with the
                      > reading "Lebbaeus" in place of "Thaddaeus" in D and some Latin allies
                      > in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18.
                      >
                      > I offer the choice of a shiny Soviet ruble or Cayman Islands dime to
                      > whoever demonstrates the answers to my earlier questions about the
                      > Sinaitic Syriac's format at the end of Mark.
                      >
                      > Yours in Christ,
                      >
                      > James Snapp, Jr.
                      > Curtisville Christian Church
                      > Indiana (USA)
                      > www.curtisvillechri stian.org/ BasicTC.html
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
                      > in the Yahoo! Answers Food Drink Q&A.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
                      > Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
                      >
                      >
                    • Tony Zbaraschuk
                      ... The Middle East used the Selucid Era (starting in 313 BC IIRC) for a very long time, well into the Roman period, so this is probably the era in use here.
                      Message 10 of 17 , Feb 21, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 01:06:40PM -0500, James Spinti wrote:
                        > Correct. The Greeks reckoned by Olympiads; the Romans calculate AUC (ad
                        > urbs condita)-from the founding of the city. But, 340 AUC would not be
                        > appropriate for a NT text, so there must be something else going on
                        > here.

                        The Middle East used the Selucid Era (starting in 313 BC IIRC) for a
                        very long time, well into the Roman period, so this is probably the
                        era in use here.

                        Possibly the "Era of Alexander" instead.


                        Tony Z
                        --
                        The Interweb gives you the power to get a lot of information on a topic
                        very quickly. (Understanding that information is something else again;
                        that's what this whole "education" business is about.) --Doug Muir
                      • George F Somsel
                        The Syriac would be a translation of the Greek. The translation from the Syriac to the Greek of Eusebius would be another. I am inclined to think that this
                        Message 11 of 17 , Feb 21, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment

                          The Syriac would be a translation of the Greek.  The translation from the Syriac to the Greek of Eusebius would be another.  I am inclined to think that this is deliberately harmonized to agree with the Long Ending of the Byzantine textform which by Eusebius' time in the 4th century was beginning to arise. 

                           

                          The reckoning from 311 or 312 BC doesn't work either.  Nor does dating from the 117th Olypiad which as the note in the ANF states would be the 15th year of Tiberius or 29 AD work.  I think it more likely that this is a gloss on Eusebius after the time that dates began to be calculated from what was supposed to be the birth of Christ. 


                           
                          george
                          gfsomsel
                          _________


                          ----- Original Message ----
                          From: "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...>
                          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 6:21:22 PM
                          Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20

                          Dear George,

                          If we were to review the Greek text of Ecclesiastical History, we
                          would be just one step removed from the Syriac text of the portion
                          of the Syriac text that Eusebius translated. Our study (if anyone
                          here at TC-list is interested and has the time!) does not need to be
                          limited to the English translation. And, for the "Doctrine of
                          Addai," we have the Syriac text itself – as Phillips described in
                          the introduction in one of those links I provided (so, that's not a
                          secondary or tertiary witness at all. The only question is one of
                          access to the Syriac text (and to someone who can read Syriac)).

                          You're certainly correct that a close verbal similarity in English
                          does not demonstrate a close verbal similarity in Syriac, but one
                          has to start somewhere. If a phrase like, "God so loved the world
                          that He gave" appeared in the English translation of a Greek
                          translation of a Syriac text, it would be justifiable to consider
                          that extremely likely to be a usage of John 3:16, even though deeper
                          investigation might render that conclusion dubious. Similarly, the
                          occurrence of the phrase "we were commanded to preach His Gospel to
                          the whole creation" may be fairy considered a likely usage of Mark
                          16:15.

                          That likelihood might be increased when one considers the word "His"
                          (rather than "the") and then notices how well that interlocks with
                          the Peshitta's form of Jesus' words in Mark 16:15 – "Go into all the
                          world and preach My hope to all creation."

                          GS: "Furthermore, "These things were done in the three hundred and
                          fortieth year"??? Doesn't this sound a bit suspicious?"

                          No. That's not an "A.D." reckoning. A footnote on one of the pages
                          to which I provided a link explains that the "340th year" is the way
                          the Edessenes reckoned what is known to us as A.D. 30. Whether
                          that's exactly correct or not, the thing to see is that the "340th
                          year" to which Eusebius refers is either the year in which Abgar's
                          messenger visited Jesus, or the year in which Addai/Thaddaeus
                          visited Abgar. "Doctrine of Addai" refers, near its beginning,
                          to "The three hundred and forty and third year of the kingdom of the
                          Greeks;" by that reckoning, I think "year zero" would be 311 or 312
                          B.C. – what was, for Edessa, the beginning of Seleucid rule.

                          Yours in Christ,

                          James Snapp, Jr.
                          Curtisville Christian Church
                          Indiana (USA)
                          www.curtisvillechri stian.org/ BasicTC.html




                          Need Mail bonding?
                          Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
                        • Jovial
                          I ve seen a lot of historical references that point to 30 AD as the year of our Savior s Resurrection. Do you have any other references that explain how they
                          Message 12 of 17 , Feb 21, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I've seen a lot of historical references that point to 30 AD as the year of our Savior's Resurrection.  Do you have any other references that explain how they kept time?  If so, that might be one more good reference pointing to that year as the year he rose from the dead.
                             
                            Joe
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:21 PM
                            Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20

                            Dear George,

                            If we were to review the Greek text of Ecclesiastical History, we
                            would be just one step removed from the Syriac text of the portion
                            of the Syriac text that Eusebius translated. Our study (if anyone
                            here at TC-list is interested and has the time!) does not need to be
                            limited to the English translation. And, for the "Doctrine of
                            Addai," we have the Syriac text itself – as Phillips described in
                            the introduction in one of those links I provided (so, that's not a
                            secondary or tertiary witness at all. The only question is one of
                            access to the Syriac text (and to someone who can read Syriac)).

                            You're certainly correct that a close verbal similarity in English
                            does not demonstrate a close verbal similarity in Syriac, but one
                            has to start somewhere. If a phrase like, "God so loved the world
                            that He gave" appeared in the English translation of a Greek
                            translation of a Syriac text, it would be justifiable to consider
                            that extremely likely to be a usage of John 3:16, even though deeper
                            investigation might render that conclusion dubious. Similarly, the
                            occurrence of the phrase "we were commanded to preach His Gospel to
                            the whole creation" may be fairy considered a likely usage of Mark
                            16:15.

                            That likelihood might be increased when one considers the word "His"
                            (rather than "the") and then notices how well that interlocks with
                            the Peshitta's form of Jesus' words in Mark 16:15 – "Go into all the
                            world and preach My hope to all creation."

                            GS: "Furthermore, "These things were done in the three hundred and
                            fortieth year"??? Doesn't this sound a bit suspicious?"

                            No. That's not an "A.D." reckoning. A footnote on one of the pages
                            to which I provided a link explains that the "340th year" is the way
                            the Edessenes reckoned what is known to us as A.D. 30. Whether
                            that's exactly correct or not, the thing to see is that the "340th
                            year" to which Eusebius refers is either the year in which Abgar's
                            messenger visited Jesus, or the year in which Addai/Thaddaeus
                            visited Abgar. "Doctrine of Addai" refers, near its beginning,
                            to "The three hundred and forty and third year of the kingdom of the
                            Greeks;" by that reckoning, I think "year zero" would be 311 or 312
                            B.C. – what was, for Edessa, the beginning of Seleucid rule.

                            Yours in Christ,

                            James Snapp, Jr.
                            Curtisville Christian Church
                            Indiana (USA)
                            www.curtisvillechri stian.org/ BasicTC.html

                          • James Snapp, Jr.
                            Dear George, GFS: The Syriac would be a translation of the Greek. What evidence do you offer to support the idea that Doctrine of Addai was first written
                            Message 13 of 17 , Feb 22, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear George,

                              GFS: "The Syriac would be a translation of the Greek."

                              What evidence do you offer to support the idea that "Doctrine of
                              Addai" was first written in Greek?

                              GFS: "I am inclined to think that this is deliberately harmonized to
                              agree with the Long Ending of the Byzantine textform which by
                              Eusebius' time in the 4th century was beginning to arise."

                              I'm not sure what you mean. Are you abandoning your initial
                              objections and acknowledging that this feature in "Doctrine of Addai"
                              is a usage of the LE of Mark?

                              GFS: "The reckoning from 311 or 312 BC doesn't work either. Nor
                              does dating from the 117th Olympiad which as the note in the ANF
                              states would be the 15th year of Tiberius or 29 AD work."

                              If you were to read Phillips' translation of "Doctrine of Addai" --
                              http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/addai_2_text.htm -- you would see,
                              near the start, the phrase "In the three hundred and forty and third
                              year of the kingdom of the Greeks, and in the reign of our lord
                              Tiberius, the Roman Emperor, and in the reign of king Abgar." The
                              343rd year is thus shown to be the same as a year in the reign of
                              Tiberius. (Btw, my thanks and applause are offered to Roger Pearse
                              for providing Phillips' text.) Eusebius says, in Eccl. Hist.
                              1:13:20, "340th year." This may be due to a casual attempt by
                              Eusebius to adjust the Edessene reckoning according to his own
                              calculations, which are noted in footnote #220 (see
                              http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-06.htm#P522_306670 for
                              the English text of Book One of Eccl. Hist.;
                              http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/footnote/fn9.htm#P932_459981
                              for the footnotes).

                              There is Absolutely No Reason to think that the "A.D." sort of year
                              is reference exists here, because the opening paragraphs of "Doctrine
                              of Addai" explicitly describe the 343rd year as a year in the reign
                              of Roman Emperor Tiberius, and as a year in the reign of Edessene
                              king Abgar, and as a year in Abgar received the report about what
                              Jesus was doing in Jerusalem. As the point at which the events in
                              "Doctrine of Addai" begin, 29 AD works just fine.

                              Yours in Christ,

                              James Snapp, Jr.
                              Curtisville Christian Church
                              Indiana (USA)
                              www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
                            • George F Somsel
                              Please pay attention and I will make it simple for you to understand. I did not say that the Doctrine of Addai was written in Greek. Hopefully you will
                              Message 14 of 17 , Feb 23, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment

                                Please pay attention and I will make it simple for you to understand.  I did not say that the "Doctrine of Addai" was written in Greek.  Hopefully you will agree that the Gospel according to Mark including its later addition in the Long Ending was in Greek.  Any reference in the "Doctrine of Addai" to this spurious ending, assuming that there was such a usage, would therefore be a translation from the Greek. 

                                 

                                george
                                gfsomsel
                                _________



                                ----- Original Message ----
                                From: "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...>
                                To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:17:38 AM
                                Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20

                                Dear George,

                                GFS: "The Syriac would be a translation of the Greek."

                                What evidence do you offer to support the idea that "Doctrine of
                                Addai" was first written in Greek?

                                GFS: "I am inclined to think that this is deliberately harmonized to
                                agree with the Long Ending of the Byzantine textform which by
                                Eusebius' time in the 4th century was beginning to arise."

                                I'm not sure what you mean. Are you abandoning your initial
                                objections and acknowledging that this feature in "Doctrine of Addai"
                                is a usage of the LE of Mark?

                                GFS: "The reckoning from 311 or 312 BC doesn't work either. Nor
                                does dating from the 117th Olympiad which as the note in the ANF
                                states would be the 15th year of Tiberius or 29 AD work."

                                If you were to read Phillips' translation of "Doctrine of Addai" --
                                http://www.tertulli an.org/fathers/ addai_2_text. htm -- you would see,
                                near the start, the phrase "In the three hundred and forty and third
                                year of the kingdom of the Greeks, and in the reign of our lord
                                Tiberius, the Roman Emperor, and in the reign of king Abgar." The
                                343rd year is thus shown to be the same as a year in the reign of
                                Tiberius. (Btw, my thanks and applause are offered to Roger Pearse
                                for providing Phillips' text.) Eusebius says, in Eccl. Hist.
                                1:13:20, "340th year." This may be due to a casual attempt by
                                Eusebius to adjust the Edessene reckoning according to his own
                                calculations, which are noted in footnote #220 (see
                                http://www.ccel. org/fathers2/ NPNF2-01/ Npnf2-01- 06.htm#P522_ 306670 for
                                the English text of Book One of Eccl. Hist.;
                                http://www.ccel. org/fathers2/ NPNF2-01/ footnote/ fn9.htm#P932_ 459981
                                for the footnotes).

                                There is Absolutely No Reason to think that the "A.D." sort of year
                                is reference exists here, because the opening paragraphs of "Doctrine
                                of Addai" explicitly describe the 343rd year as a year in the reign
                                of Roman Emperor Tiberius, and as a year in the reign of Edessene
                                king Abgar, and as a year in Abgar received the report about what
                                Jesus was doing in Jerusalem. As the point at which the events in
                                "Doctrine of Addai" begin, 29 AD works just fine.

                                Yours in Christ,

                                James Snapp, Jr.
                                Curtisville Christian Church
                                Indiana (USA)
                                www.curtisvillechri stian.org/ BasicTC.html




                                Be a PS3 game guru.
                                Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
                              • George F Somsel
                                James, Surely the announcement which Wieland posted referencing an announcement in Carlson s blog of yet another ending to Mark must come as a blow to your
                                Message 15 of 17 , Feb 23, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment

                                  James,

                                   

                                  Surely the announcement which Wieland posted referencing an announcement in Carlson's blog of yet another ending to Mark must come as a blow to your fantasy of the long ending to Mark as being, if not original, at least of near original status and canonical.  The plethora of endings can only be explained on the basis of the fact that there was no ending to the gospel which was considered satisfactory by many readers.


                                   
                                  george
                                  gfsomsel
                                  _________


                                  ----- Original Message ----
                                  From: "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...>
                                  To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:17:38 AM
                                  Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20

                                  Dear George,

                                  GFS: "The Syriac would be a translation of the Greek."

                                  What evidence do you offer to support the idea that "Doctrine of
                                  Addai" was first written in Greek?

                                  GFS: "I am inclined to think that this is deliberately harmonized to
                                  agree with the Long Ending of the Byzantine textform which by
                                  Eusebius' time in the 4th century was beginning to arise."

                                  I'm not sure what you mean. Are you abandoning your initial
                                  objections and acknowledging that this feature in "Doctrine of Addai"
                                  is a usage of the LE of Mark?

                                  GFS: "The reckoning from 311 or 312 BC doesn't work either. Nor
                                  does dating from the 117th Olympiad which as the note in the ANF
                                  states would be the 15th year of Tiberius or 29 AD work."

                                  If you were to read Phillips' translation of "Doctrine of Addai" --
                                  http://www.tertulli an.org/fathers/ addai_2_text. htm -- you would see,
                                  near the start, the phrase "In the three hundred and forty and third
                                  year of the kingdom of the Greeks, and in the reign of our lord
                                  Tiberius, the Roman Emperor, and in the reign of king Abgar." The
                                  343rd year is thus shown to be the same as a year in the reign of
                                  Tiberius. (Btw, my thanks and applause are offered to Roger Pearse
                                  for providing Phillips' text.) Eusebius says, in Eccl. Hist.
                                  1:13:20, "340th year." This may be due to a casual attempt by
                                  Eusebius to adjust the Edessene reckoning according to his own
                                  calculations, which are noted in footnote #220 (see
                                  http://www.ccel. org/fathers2/ NPNF2-01/ Npnf2-01- 06.htm#P522_ 306670 for
                                  the English text of Book One of Eccl. Hist.;
                                  http://www.ccel. org/fathers2/ NPNF2-01/ footnote/ fn9.htm#P932_ 459981
                                  for the footnotes).

                                  There is Absolutely No Reason to think that the "A.D." sort of year
                                  is reference exists here, because the opening paragraphs of "Doctrine
                                  of Addai" explicitly describe the 343rd year as a year in the reign
                                  of Roman Emperor Tiberius, and as a year in the reign of Edessene
                                  king Abgar, and as a year in Abgar received the report about what
                                  Jesus was doing in Jerusalem. As the point at which the events in
                                  "Doctrine of Addai" begin, 29 AD works just fine.

                                  Yours in Christ,

                                  James Snapp, Jr.
                                  Curtisville Christian Church
                                  Indiana (USA)
                                  www.curtisvillechri stian.org/ BasicTC.html




                                  Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
                                • Jovial
                                  That s circular logic. You re assuming what you are trying to prove is true in order to prove it. The story is about events that happened in Syria. As I
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Feb 23, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    That's circular logic.  You're assuming what you are trying to prove is true in order to prove it.
                                     
                                    The story is about events that happened in Syria.  As I understand it , it was written by Ephraim.   So the natural conclusion would be that it was written in Aramaic.  It would therefore lend credibility to the idea that the long ending is supported in multiple languages, and therefore not a Greek-only additional from a later date.
                                     
                                    Joe
                                     
                                     
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 5:37 AM
                                    Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20

                                    Please pay attention and I will make it simple for you to understand.  I did not say that the "Doctrine of Addai" was written in Greek.  Hopefully you will agree that the Gospel according to Mark including its later addition in the Long Ending was in Greek.  Any reference in the "Doctrine of Addai" to this spurious ending, assuming that there was such a usage, would therefore be a translation from the Greek. 

                                     

                                    george
                                    gfsomsel
                                    _________



                                    ----- Original Message ----
                                    From: "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@yahoo. com>
                                    To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
                                    Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:17:38 AM
                                    Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrine of Addai and Mk. 16:9-20

                                    Dear George,

                                    GFS: "The Syriac would be a translation of the Greek."

                                    What evidence do you offer to support the idea that "Doctrine of
                                    Addai" was first written in Greek?

                                    GFS: "I am inclined to think that this is deliberately harmonized to
                                    agree with the Long Ending of the Byzantine textform which by
                                    Eusebius' time in the 4th century was beginning to arise."

                                    I'm not sure what you mean. Are you abandoning your initial
                                    objections and acknowledging that this feature in "Doctrine of Addai"
                                    is a usage of the LE of Mark?

                                    GFS: "The reckoning from 311 or 312 BC doesn't work either. Nor
                                    does dating from the 117th Olympiad which as the note in the ANF
                                    states would be the 15th year of Tiberius or 29 AD work."

                                    If you were to read Phillips' translation of "Doctrine of Addai" --
                                    http://www.tertulli an.org/fathers/ addai_2_text. htm -- you would see,
                                    near the start, the phrase "In the three hundred and forty and third
                                    year of the kingdom of the Greeks, and in the reign of our lord
                                    Tiberius, the Roman Emperor, and in the reign of king Abgar." The
                                    343rd year is thus shown to be the same as a year in the reign of
                                    Tiberius. (Btw, my thanks and applause are offered to Roger Pearse
                                    for providing Phillips' text.) Eusebius says, in Eccl. Hist.
                                    1:13:20, "340th year." This may be due to a casual attempt by
                                    Eusebius to adjust the Edessene reckoning according to his own
                                    calculations, which are noted in footnote #220 (see
                                    http://www.ccel. org/fathers2/ NPNF2-01/ Npnf2-01- 06.htm#P522_ 306670 for
                                    the English text of Book One of Eccl. Hist.;
                                    http://www.ccel. org/fathers2/ NPNF2-01/ footnote/ fn9.htm#P932_ 459981
                                    for the footnotes).

                                    There is Absolutely No Reason to think that the "A.D." sort of year
                                    is reference exists here, because the opening paragraphs of "Doctrine
                                    of Addai" explicitly describe the 343rd year as a year in the reign
                                    of Roman Emperor Tiberius, and as a year in the reign of Edessene
                                    king Abgar, and as a year in Abgar received the report about what
                                    Jesus was doing in Jerusalem. As the point at which the events in
                                    "Doctrine of Addai" begin, 29 AD works just fine.

                                    Yours in Christ,

                                    James Snapp, Jr.
                                    Curtisville Christian Church
                                    Indiana (USA)
                                    www.curtisvillechri stian.org/ BasicTC.html




                                    Be a PS3 game guru.
                                    Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.

                                  • Roger Pearse
                                    ... Syriac manuscripts written up to the end of the 19th century often use Anno Graecorum in their colophons. See some of the catalogues published by Addai
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Feb 27, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Tony Zbaraschuk <tonyz@...>
                                      wrote:
                                      > The Middle East used the Selucid Era (starting in 313 BC IIRC) for a
                                      > very long time, well into the Roman period, so this is probably the
                                      > era in use here.
                                      >
                                      > Possibly the "Era of Alexander" instead.

                                      Syriac manuscripts written up to the end of the 19th century often use
                                      Anno Graecorum in their colophons. See some of the catalogues
                                      published by Addai Scher in the Journal Asiatique.

                                      All the best,

                                      Roger Pearse
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.