Whose farewell speech is this?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by Charles Wilson »

FransJVermeiren wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:11 am CW, it is clear to me that under the surface of the New Testament the Roman empire is omnipresent, but not in the sense of a positive or neutral connection but in the sense of deep hostility.
Correct.
100%.
No argument.
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by FransJVermeiren »

According to Christian tradition Paul was tortured and killed in Rome. Above I suggested, based on GJohn 17 and 1 Clement V:7, that maybe Paul safely returned to Jerusalem. The Dutch scholar Pierre Krijbolder is an interesting ally for this thesis. In 1976 (with a second edition in 1989 which I use below) his Jezus de Nazoreeër ('Jesus the Nazorean') was published. On p. 66-69 of his book Krijbolder discusses one of the first chapters of Josephus’s Life, verse 13-16. This fragment goes as follows (leaving aside the middle part of Josephus’s shipwreck):

Soon after I completed my twenty-sixth year it fell to my lot to go up to Rome for the reason I will proceed to relate. At the time when Felix was procurator of Judaea, certain priests of my acquaintance, very excellent men, were on a slight and trifling charge sent by him in bonds to Rome to render an account to Caesar. I was anxious to discover some means of delivering these men, more especially as I learnt that, even in affliction, they had not forgotten the pious practices of religion, and supported themselves on figs and nuts.

(the shipwreck story)

Landing safely at Dicaearchia, which the Italians call Puteoli, I formed a friendship with Aliturus, an actor who was a special favourite of Nero and of Jewish origin. Through him I was introduced to Poppaea, Caesar’s consort, and took the earliest opportunity of soliciting her aid to secure the liberation of the priests. Having, besides this favour, received large gifts from Poppaea, I returned to my own country.

These are Krijbolder’s most important observations on the relation between this story and the fate of the apostle Paul:
• Josephus is 26 years old in 63 CE. Paul arrived in Rome in 61 CE, where he was under house arrest for two years (Acts 28:30).
• Paul was arrested by Felix, who found no weighty charges for a trial (Acts 26:31) – the slight and trifling charge in Josephus.
• Paul was sent to Rome because he appealed to Caesar.
• Josephus was a crypto-Essene, while Paul clearly was an Essene priest. This explains Josephus’s ‘certain priests of my acquaintance’.

We see that the time frame is identical, and also the connection with Felix, the charge and the transfer to Rome, and finally the Essene ideological connection. Josephus tells that his mission was successful, which means that Paul was liberated. In the last sentence Josephus says that he returned home; he does not mention the return home of the liberated persons. This could be an indirect indication that Paul made a detour (through Spain) before returning home.
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by DCHindley »

We see that the time frame is identical
Identical is what identical does.

In the movie My Cousin Vinny, the prosecutor says: "The tire tracks are identical!" Yet they are not identical, because the prosecutor did not consider every bit of evidence (signs that one set of tire tracks indicated a Posi-Traction rear differential versus solid axel, and the evidence for independent rear wheel suspension in GM autos) which when compared to known production facts about different variants of Pontiac cars, tells us that one was a 63 Pontiac Tempest and the other a 64 Skylark. Actually, there was also the Chevy Corvair that had the same rear suspension, but the movie producer had winged it, and made an error himself.

A comedy of errors, Bwo ha ha!

DCH
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by FransJVermeiren »

Flavius Josephus, born in 37 CE, is 26 years old in 63 CE.

Paul is shipped to Rome by Felix’s successor Festus in the autumn of 60 CE, arrival in Rome in the spring of 61 CE. Two years of house arrest until 63 CE.

What more tires do we need?
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by Charles Wilson »

Josephus, Life:

"Accordingly I came to Rome, though it were through a great number of hazards by sea; for as our ship was drowned in the Adriatic Sea, we that were in it, being about six hundred in number, swam for our lives all the night; when, upon the first appearance of the day, and upon our sight of a ship of Cyrene, I and some others, eighty in all, by God's providence, prevented the rest, and were taken up into the other ship.

Note: From the ever politicized Wiki-P:

"During the reforms in the 1st century AD, the command structure and make-up of the legions was formally laid down, in a form that would endure for centuries. Standard centuriae consisted of 80 men each..."

There may be a Political Aspect to this story, i.e. that the astounding 600 number may be suspect and not simply for its size on the Adriatic. It may have been transporting slaves or criminals.

The 80 may have been Centurions.

CW

PS: Somebody explain "...I...prevented the rest...". No rose colored glasses allowed.
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by FransJVermeiren »

Above I argued that the apostle Paul possibly didn’t die a violent death, but may have returned to Palestine where he pronounced a farewell speech in the Temple at the conclusion of his missionary career. This thesis conflicts with the content of 1 Clement V:2 on Peter and Paul: Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted and contended unto death.

This sentence at the beginning of the paragraph on Peter and Paul has influenced the interpretation of the rest of this paragraph. Verse 4 (on Peter) and verse 7 (on Paul) have been explained and translated as describing the death of both apostles, while they may be describing events (at the end) of their career.

Recently I read Howard Teeple’s The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John (thanks CW), and one of the techniques of interpolation Teeple describes is the technique of restatement. I believe that discerning this specific interpolation mechanism in verse 1 to 3 is helpful for the analysis of 1 Clement V.

Below I have placed the LCL translation besides my translation (including ‘Roman empire’ for κόσμος) and reconstruction, showing how the restatement of verse 1c in verse 3 allows to call suspicion on verse 2, the ‘persecuted and contended unto death’ verse. Looking at the content of verse 2, we see that its author makes a premature statement on the violent death of the protagonists, before any other detail of their life or career. Careful examination of verse 4 and 7 shows a contradiction between these verses and verse 2. In other words: the martyrdom statement in verse 2 switches the interpretation of verse 4 and 7 in the direction of the death of Peter and Paul which on closer view is not present in the text. The ‘glorious place’ of verse 4 doesn’t have to be heaven, an earthly place of glory is easily imaginable. Lake (LCL) also translates the πόνοι of verse 4 as ‘trials’ (while BDAG gives ‘(hard) labor, toil / pain, distress, affliction’) suggesting a trial → execution sequence while this juridical meaning does not seem to be intended by the author.

Verse Loeb Classical Library 24 (Kirsopp Lake) My reconstruction and adapted translation (in verse 4 and 7)
1 But, to cease from the examples of old time, let us come to those who contended in the days nearest to us; let us take the noble examples of our own generation. (1) But, to cease from the examples of old time, let us come to those who contended in the days nearest to us; let us take the noble examples of our own generation.
2 Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted and contended unto death.
3 Let us set before our eyes the good apostles. (2)
4 Peter, who because of unrighteous jealousy suffered not one or two but many trials, and having thus given his testimony went to the glorious place which was his due. Peter, who because of unrighteous jealousy endured not one or two but many afflictions, and having thus given testimony went to the place to which glory is owed (3).
5 Through jealousy and strife Paul showed the way to the prize of endurance; Through jealousy and strife Paul showed the way to the prize of endurance;
6 Seven times he was in bonds, he was exiled, he was stoned, he was a herald both in the East and in the West, he gained the noble fame of his faith, Seven times he was in bonds, he was exiled, he was stoned, he was a herald both in the East and in the West, he gained the noble fame of his faith,
7 He taught righteousness to all the world, and when he had reached the limits of the West he gave testimony before the rulers, and thus passed from the world and was taken up into the Holy Place, – the greatest example of endurance. He taught righteousness to the whole Roman empire and travelled as far as the western boundary. And he gave testimony before the leaders. In this manner he left the Roman empire and went (4) to the holy place (5), as the greatest model of perseverance.

(1) The original phrase which switches from the distant past to the present time, starting with λάβωμεν.
(2) The restatement of verse 1c, identically starting with λάβωμεν.
(3) Literally ‘the indebted place of glory’.
(4) Some sources (A and C) have the verb πορεύω, ‘to go’, others (S, L and K) have ἀναλαμβάνω, ‘to take up’.
(5) In the New Testament the ‘holy place’ is always the Temple.

The death of Peter and Paul is not mentioned in the New Testament. As 1 Clement is one of the oldest Christian writings outside the New Testament, the intervention of its interpolator has been very influential. Various later early Christian writings have followed 1 Clement V:2, firmly anchoring the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Christian tradition. Undeservedly in my opinion.
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Whose farewell speech is this?

Post by Charles Wilson »

FJV --

1. Glad I could help.

2. Concerning Peter's Death: The Legend states that Peter was crucified upside-down. People immediately start to fashion all sorts of contraptions that would allow a person to be crucified in this position, with no good results. When you are crucified, you die from exhaustion of the rib cage muscles et.al. and you cannot take your next breath. This puts into question the upside-down version, unless the executioner simply let Peter stay upside-down until death at some vague future time - days, perhaps.

Another solution suggests itself and I offer it as no worse than others and as plausible as any.

If the "Original Story" of Peter is an Aramaic Tale or a tale told by a Nicholas of Damascus, Peter lives as the Child Who Saves the Priest and returns to see his death years later. This would take us as far as the end of the Priest's life (or Peter's!) at the cross screaming "My God, my God, for this was I spared?"

Peter, or one of his followers, returns to the Priesthood to finish his days:

Matthew 6: 25 - 34 (RSV):

[25] "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
[26] Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
[27] And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life?
[28] And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin;
[29] yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
[30] But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith?
[31] Therefore do not be anxious, saying, `What shall we eat?' or `What shall we drink?' or `What shall we wear?'
[32] For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.
[33] But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.
[34] "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day.

You follow God's Plan because you want to, not because you have to. This is (as in Catch-22) a rewrite, though not an inversion of Ecclesiastes. A Civil War nearly broke out among the Priests. Herod makes the High Priesthood an appointed position and he would have been killed if he had lasted another week in Jericho. Those who placed the most importance on the Priesthood and the Robes and Splendor of the Sacrifice were murdered and Passover was cancelled.

"Jairus" asks the Priest to make one more attempt to rid the Temple and the sacred country of the Romans and the Priest accepts, knowing that he will die. He does. He is crucified. The Romans are not evicted, they are more entrenched than ever.

Mark 5: 5, 9, 13 (RSV):

[5] Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out, and bruising himself with stones.
...
[9] And Jesus asked him, "What is your name?" He replied, "My name is Legion; for we are many."
...
[13] So he gave them leave. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea.

This is the Roman rewrite. The original has Peter (or follower) seeing the most righteous man going to his death after surviving Death at the Passover. "What do I do?" The only thing this person knows to do: He goes back to the Priesthood to finish his days.

The Story of Peter, then. is the story of a survivor who still gets killed trying to evict the Herodians and Romans. This Story of Peter, however, gets inverted. The crucifixion was to be the end of the Romans. It gets turned upside-down.

CW
Post Reply