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

[textualcriticism] Julian the Apostate and the Mark ending and the apologetic-harmony-contradiction issues

Expand Messages
  • Steven Avery
    Hi, There is a question about a reference from Hugo Grotius (and may be discussed in his writings or other writings in Latin at the time, most of the learned
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 19, 2013
      Hi,

      There is a question about a reference from Hugo Grotius (and may be discussed in his writings or other writings in Latin at the time, most of the learned Bible writings from that era are not translated out of Latin.)

      First, please note this:

      Julian the Apostate, Against the Galileans (1923) pp.313-317.  Introduction.
      Wilmer Cave Wright - Translator's Introduction
      http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_0_intro.htm

      Though Julian borrowed from Porphyry's lost polemic in fifteen Books, he does not discuss questions of the chronology and authorship of the Scriptures as Porphyry is known to have done.

      I've done some checking, and so far that seems to be the case, in the public editions available today. (In Against the Galileans there is a mention of contradictions in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.)  Wright's section is sometimes spelled Against the Galilaeans and the original date may be 1913. And this translator-editor is Emily Wilmer Cave France Wright (1865-1951), married to the mathematician Joseph Edmund Wright.

      Now note this, Richard Simon about Hugo Grotius (1583-1645).  Both men are known for careful writing, in terms of factual accuracy.  Note the part in bold at bottom.

      A critical history of the text of the New Testament: wherein is firmly establish'd the truth of those acts on which the foundation of Christian religion is laid (1689)
      Richard Simon
      http://books.google.com/books?id=nYzPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA94

      Grotius hath believed with many other authors, that it is not possible that S.Mark should have omitted in his Gospel the entire history of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He cannot also imagine that it hath been written, and lost afterwards, insomuch that that which we read at present is only a supplement made by a later writer. It is not credible (saith he) that this should have happened to a book of which so many copies have been made as soon as it was published. Besides, he that is supposed to have added this supplement would have followed S. Matthew. He adds farther that the Latin, Syriack and Arabick Copies, as also S. Irenaeus, who is a most ancient witness, do all confirm this chapter. He confesseth nevertheless that it was not found in some Greek copies from the time of S. Gregory Nyssen. Lastly he judgeth for the reasons that we have now related, that this defect in the Greek copies ought to be attributed to the transcribers, who nor being able to make that which this Evangelist saith touching the resurrection of Jesus Christ conformable to S. Matthew, have taken away from S.Mark all this history. Indeed the Emperor Julian hath opposed to the Christians the contradiction of their Gospels in this place; and there have been learned writers among the Grecians who have composed works on purpose on this subject to reconcile them.

      So far, I have no idea here Julian might have dealt with this apologetic contradiction issue.  Which is well known from as early as the discussion of  Ad Marinum by Eusebius. It is possible also that the Grotius reference goes back to the answers to Julian by Cyril of Alexandria or Gregory Nazianzen.

      Questions:

      Do you have any idea what is the story here behind the Grotius (through Simon) reference?  
      e.g. Could Grotius have had some material no longer extant? 
      Do we have a summary of the learned writers that discussed this apologetic-harmony aspect?

      Thanks.
      Any help appreciated.

      Yours in Jesus,
      Steven Avery
      Bayside, NY

      ======================================

      The rest below is related, but not the contradiction issues, just for background.

      Porphyry/Hierocles-according-to-Macarius-Magnes 
      ... Here's a quotation of the pagan writer cited in "Apocritus,"... http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefathers/macarius_apocriticus.htm#3_16 "Again, consider in detail that other passage, where He says, "Such signs shall follow them that believe: they shall lay hands upon
      sick folk, and they shall recover, and if they drink any deadly drug, it shall in no wise hurt them."

      http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html#notes-24
      Macarius Magnes (~390 AD) reports that Mark 16:18 was an object of attack by the Neoplatonist Porphyry or his student Hierocles (whose works are generally dated about a century earlier), discussing both their objections to the message of the verse (but not its authenticity) and Macarius' own defense of the same.
      (24) - Macarius Magnes, Apocritus, Chs. 16 and 24 respectively

      Porphyry and Macarius Magnes
      James Snapp - March 1, 2011
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/6317

      ======================================

    • sunn_rise1973
      Most probably, the material which Grotius had still exist. This is not the first time I read about this story, though I don t remember which book(history?) was
      Message 2 of 3 , Oct 26, 2013

         Most probably, the material which Grotius had still exist. This is not the first time I read about this story, though I don't remember which book(history?) was it or in which language.

        Grotius' note can be found here: https://archive.org/stream/hugonisgrotiian01grotgoog#page/n108/mode/1up



        ---In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

        Hi,

        There is a question about a reference from Hugo Grotius (and may be discussed in his writings or other writings in Latin at the time, most of the learned Bible writings from that era are not translated out of Latin.)

        First, please note this:

        Julian the Apostate, Against the Galileans (1923) pp.313-317.  Introduction.
        Wilmer Cave Wright - Translator's Introduction
        http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_0_intro.htm

        Though Julian borrowed from Porphyry's lost polemic in fifteen Books, he does not discuss questions of the chronology and authorship of the Scriptures as Porphyry is known to have done.

        I've done some checking, and so far that seems to be the case, in the public editions available today. (In Against the Galileans there is a mention of contradictions in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.)  Wright's section is sometimes spelled Against the Galilaeans and the original date may be 1913. And this translator-editor is Emily Wilmer Cave France Wright (1865-1951), married to the mathematician Joseph Edmund Wright.

        Now note this, Richard Simon about Hugo Grotius (1583-1645).  Both men are known for careful writing, in terms of factual accuracy.  Note the part in bold at bottom.

        A critical history of the text of the New Testament: wherein is firmly establish'd the truth of those acts on which the foundation of Christian religion is laid (1689)
        Richard Simon
        http://books.google.com/books?id=nYzPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA94

        Grotius hath believed with many other authors, that it is not possible that S.Mark should have omitted in his Gospel the entire history of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He cannot also imagine that it hath been written, and lost afterwards, insomuch that that which we read at present is only a supplement made by a later writer. It is not credible (saith he) that this should have happened to a book of which so many copies have been made as soon as it was published. Besides, he that is supposed to have added this supplement would have followed S. Matthew. He adds farther that the Latin, Syriack and Arabick Copies, as also S. Irenaeus, who is a most ancient witness, do all confirm this chapter. He confesseth nevertheless that it was not found in some Greek copies from the time of S. Gregory Nyssen. Lastly he judgeth for the reasons that we have now related, that this defect in the Greek copies ought to be attributed to the transcribers, who nor being able to make that which this Evangelist saith touching the resurrection of Jesus Christ conformable to S. Matthew, have taken away from S.Mark all this history. Indeed the Emperor Julian hath opposed to the Christians the contradiction of their Gospels in this place; and there have been learned writers among the Grecians who have composed works on purpose on this subject to reconcile them.

        So far, I have no idea here Julian might have dealt with this apologetic contradiction issue.  Which is well known from as early as the discussion of  Ad Marinum by Eusebius. It is possible also that the Grotius reference goes back to the answers to Julian by Cyril of Alexandria or Gregory Nazianzen.

        Questions:

        Do you have any idea what is the story here behind the Grotius (through Simon) reference?  
        e.g. Could Grotius have had some material no longer extant? 
        Do we have a summary of the learned writers that discussed this apologetic-harmony aspect?

        Thanks.
        Any help appreciated.

        Yours in Jesus,
        Steven Avery
        Bayside, NY

        ======================================

        The rest below is related, but not the contradiction issues, just for background.

        Porphyry/Hierocles-according-to-Macarius-Magnes 
        ... Here's a quotation of the pagan writer cited in "Apocritus,"... http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefathers/macarius_apocriticus.htm#3_16 "Again, consider in detail that other passage, where He says, "Such signs shall follow them that believe: they shall lay hands upon
        sick folk, and they shall recover, and if they drink any deadly drug, it shall in no wise hurt them."

        http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html#notes-24
        Macarius Magnes (~390 AD) reports that Mark 16:18 was an object of attack by the Neoplatonist Porphyry or his student Hierocles (whose works are generally dated about a century earlier), discussing both their objections to the message of the verse (but not its authenticity) and Macarius' own defense of the same.
        (24) - Macarius Magnes, Apocritus, Chs. 16 and 24 respectively

        Porphyry and Macarius Magnes
        James Snapp - March 1, 2011
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/6317

        ======================================

      • sunn_rise1973
        p.s. After a second read to his note, Grotius did not mention the story in bold; it seems to be Simon s. ... Most probably, the material which Grotius had
        Message 3 of 3 , Oct 26, 2013

           p.s. After a second read to his note, Grotius did not mention the story in bold; it seems to be Simon's.



          ---In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

           Most probably, the material which Grotius had still exist. This is not the first time I read about this story, though I don't remember which book(history?) was it or in which language.

          Grotius' note can be found here: https://archive.org/stream/hugonisgrotiian01grotgoog#page/n108/mode/1up



          ---In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

          Hi,

          There is a question about a reference from Hugo Grotius (and may be discussed in his writings or other writings in Latin at the time, most of the learned Bible writings from that era are not translated out of Latin.)

          First, please note this:

          Julian the Apostate, Against the Galileans (1923) pp.313-317.  Introduction.
          Wilmer Cave Wright - Translator's Introduction
          http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_0_intro.htm

          Though Julian borrowed from Porphyry's lost polemic in fifteen Books, he does not discuss questions of the chronology and authorship of the Scriptures as Porphyry is known to have done.

          I've done some checking, and so far that seems to be the case, in the public editions available today. (In Against the Galileans there is a mention of contradictions in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.)  Wright's section is sometimes spelled Against the Galilaeans and the original date may be 1913. And this translator-editor is Emily Wilmer Cave France Wright (1865-1951), married to the mathematician Joseph Edmund Wright.

          Now note this, Richard Simon about Hugo Grotius (1583-1645).  Both men are known for careful writing, in terms of factual accuracy.  Note the part in bold at bottom.

          A critical history of the text of the New Testament: wherein is firmly establish'd the truth of those acts on which the foundation of Christian religion is laid (1689)
          Richard Simon
          http://books.google.com/books?id=nYzPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA94

          Grotius hath believed with many other authors, that it is not possible that S.Mark should have omitted in his Gospel the entire history of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He cannot also imagine that it hath been written, and lost afterwards, insomuch that that which we read at present is only a supplement made by a later writer. It is not credible (saith he) that this should have happened to a book of which so many copies have been made as soon as it was published. Besides, he that is supposed to have added this supplement would have followed S. Matthew. He adds farther that the Latin, Syriack and Arabick Copies, as also S. Irenaeus, who is a most ancient witness, do all confirm this chapter. He confesseth nevertheless that it was not found in some Greek copies from the time of S. Gregory Nyssen. Lastly he judgeth for the reasons that we have now related, that this defect in the Greek copies ought to be attributed to the transcribers, who nor being able to make that which this Evangelist saith touching the resurrection of Jesus Christ conformable to S. Matthew, have taken away from S.Mark all this history. Indeed the Emperor Julian hath opposed to the Christians the contradiction of their Gospels in this place; and there have been learned writers among the Grecians who have composed works on purpose on this subject to reconcile them.

          So far, I have no idea here Julian might have dealt with this apologetic contradiction issue.  Which is well known from as early as the discussion of  Ad Marinum by Eusebius. It is possible also that the Grotius reference goes back to the answers to Julian by Cyril of Alexandria or Gregory Nazianzen.

          Questions:

          Do you have any idea what is the story here behind the Grotius (through Simon) reference?  
          e.g. Could Grotius have had some material no longer extant? 
          Do we have a summary of the learned writers that discussed this apologetic-harmony aspect?

          Thanks.
          Any help appreciated.

          Yours in Jesus,
          Steven Avery
          Bayside, NY

          ======================================

          The rest below is related, but not the contradiction issues, just for background.

          Porphyry/Hierocles-according-to-Macarius-Magnes 
          ... Here's a quotation of the pagan writer cited in "Apocritus,"... http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefathers/macarius_apocriticus.htm#3_16 "Again, consider in detail that other passage, where He says, "Such signs shall follow them that believe: they shall lay hands upon
          sick folk, and they shall recover, and if they drink any deadly drug, it shall in no wise hurt them."

          http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html#notes-24
          Macarius Magnes (~390 AD) reports that Mark 16:18 was an object of attack by the Neoplatonist Porphyry or his student Hierocles (whose works are generally dated about a century earlier), discussing both their objections to the message of the verse (but not its authenticity) and Macarius' own defense of the same.
          (24) - Macarius Magnes, Apocritus, Chs. 16 and 24 respectively

          Porphyry and Macarius Magnes
          James Snapp - March 1, 2011
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/6317

          ======================================

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