Was Julius Caesar the real Jesus Christ?

[Stoneboss]

There are so many things he wrote that one finds in Gurdjieff, particularly Paul's desperation to get communities going and have them all become parts of a "body" and agreeing with one another on important matters. It takes awhile to get used to the style since it is ancient and translated, but after awhile, it starts to grow on you and you begin to read and really understand what Paul was trying to say with the language limitations he had to deal with. We can say "hyperdimensional reality" but Paul could only say a "new creation". We can talk about forming a permanent I, but Paul could only talk about "Christ in you" and you being "in Christ" and thereby becoming a "new man". But everything that is authentic (and you have to take care about corruption in the text) has an echo in things we have learned via Cs and/or Gurdjieff and/or Castaneda (borrowing from Gurdjieff, but expanding with other traditions).

Being "religious" for a good part of my life in the past (I was born and raised a Catholic, then became a "born again Christian" in my early twenties, then a member of the "World Wide Church of God" for about 9 years), I read A Lot of the Bible. Reading parts of the New Testament was something I did daily for many years. One thing that strikes me now is that I remember that whenever I read any of Paul's letters, I always felt that there was something "different" in his message. It wasn't the same as any of the other (supposed) authors of the New Testament. It's hard to explain what I felt but it was a more "spiritually practical" way of doing things.

Anyway, I'm beginning to understand now why that was so.

Thank you Laura for the time and hard work you have put into this research, it's actually quite incredible!

Maybe it's time to see if he's available for a chat? ;D

Wouldn't that be something... ;)

 

[SeekinTruth]

Thanks so much for all this research through this winding maze! Really fascination stuff.

Another connection that came to mind concerning Gurdjieff is how he keeps mentioning that all efforts of those who tried to form communities that could create more "normal" conditions for humans to grow, develop, and survive have always been destroyed by pathological and/or authoritarian types. Then there follow some or another type of cataclysm.

 

[lilies]

Excellent synopsis, AI. Yes, this book was, for me, sort of the missing link. The bit about Ignatius really turned on the lightbulb.

As for the letter of Clement where he speaks of the deaths of Peter and Paul, the more I think about it, the more I think it must be an interpolation. [..]

This will be amazing! I can't wait to read the book and fully expect it to be at least 1000 pages! Please don't spare the space and give as detailed info as possible, how you got to these conclusions.

For a couple of us, who need to make an argument and a good case by explaining in conversations, that these ideas are academic and not coming from bogus alternative internet new age sewage people, - like the holocaust deniers, who were brought up, when I mentioned elements from Hidden History: The secret origins of the First World war Ch.16 (Joe's article) during lunch -, it would be useful if the key researchers in the references could have a very short author-bio. Example:

Michael D. Goulder (Author)
Michael Douglas Goulder (31 May 1927 – 6 January 2010)
British Biblical scholar of University of Birmingham, retired as Professor of Biblical Studies in 1994. He wrote nine books and has been described as "a renowned leader in the study of the Hebrew Psalter"
Goulder was a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER) which is a division of the Council for Secular Humanism [9] and became President of Birmingham Humanists in 1993 shortly before retiring from academic life.[10]

Author achievements listed this way enable us to make notes and bring those with us to help make a strong point in conversations.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I'm almost finished Trobisch's short book "Paul's Letter Collection" (1994). It's an analysis of Paul's letters as published in the New Testament. For his doctoral studies, Trobisch spent 2 years studying all manuscripts of Paul, and every reference to published editions to determine any major differences. Conclusion: ALL available manuscripts suggest an original 13-letter collection, with letters published in the same order, with the same names for each letter.

He also studied thousands of letters, in hundreds of letter collections, from 300 BC to AD 400, to get an idea of how things were generally done. Letter collections tended to be published in 3 stages: 1) an original collection compiled by the author himself, in chronological order, 2) a posthumous 'expanded addition', with extra letters included as an appendix with those additional letters published in chronological order, 3) a comprehensive edition with all known letters. More on this below.

He doesn't make any significant mention of Marcion, but I'll get to that below, too, because it's important. From his study, he comes to the conclusion that the letters were published in 1 edition, i.e., there weren't a bunch of independent collectors of Paul's letters, which would have led to a more complicated manuscript tradition. And except for explainable variations, the letters were ALWAYS published in the same order (the only major exception being Hebrews, which suggests it was only added at a later point from the "1st edition").

So he concludes that this was the original and intended order, made by the original New Testament editor/publisher, based on ALL available manuscripts (taking into account understandable scribal decisions that result in some minor differences):

Rom - 1 Cor - 2 Cor - Gal - Eph - Phil - Col - 1 Thess - 2 Thess - 1 Tim - 2 Tm - Titus - Phlm - (Heb)

We can get an idea for how and why the letters were arranged in the way they are. First, there is a group of letters to groups (Rom - 2 Thess), followed by a group sent to individuals (1 Tim - Phlm). Second, it's clear that the letters are roughly arranged according to their length (this was a scribal technique in order to know how much paper needed to be used). But there are 2 'disruptions' in this tendency: Ephesians is longer than Galatians, which precedes it (by enough that a scribe wouldn't have made such an error - Philippians is longer than Colossians by only 100 words, but they got that sequence right), and 1 Timothy is longer than 2 Thessalonians. This last one is understandable, given the grouping mentioned above: 1 Tim begins the 'individual' section of the letters, which are then perfectly arranged by length (from 1 Tim - Phlm).

For Trobisch, this suggests that Rom - Gal is a 'literary unit', which he argues may represent an original collection (stage 1), collected by Paul himself as his response to the conflict with the Jerusalem group. The final NT 'expanded edition' can then be seen as the catholic response to that response, i.e., the same as Luke-Acts and the NT in general: to soften the edges, domesticate Paul, promote church unity, and present an image of the early church that wasn't plagued by bitter conflict. So Polycarp or whoever edited the original NT wrote Acts to whitewash history, and composed the pastorals to do the same. Trobisch argues, like others, that the pastorals written as an anti-Marcionite response. E.g., the reference in 1 Tim: "Turn away from godless chatter and from the contradictions [i.e., 'antitheses'] of what is falsely called knowledge [i.e., 'gnosis']." Antitheses was the name of Marcion's own work.

But here's the thing: even though we don't have any manuscripts, we know that Marcion was the first to circulate a collection of Paul's letters, and we know the order. Trobisch doesn't get into this, unfortunately. Looking at what we know about Marcion's collection with Trobisch's arguments in mind, several interesting things stand out.

First, as evidence that all manuscripts track back to 1 collection, Trobisch writes, regarding letters that have no address but which are uniformly identified with a specific title (e.g., Ephesians): "Thus it is clear that the oldest text of Ephesians did not have an address in the text. How then could anyone figure out the title? No two independent editors would come up with the same name." Exactly. And Marcion didn't! He called the letter "Laodiceans". And I think this was probably the original title. Colossians refers to a 'missing letter', saying to read it along with Colossians: To the Laodiceans. Col and Eph are commonly thought to be non-Pauline, but that's debatable. Either way, it looks like Colossians refers to 'Ephesians' here. They were meant to be read together.

Second, Marcion didn't arrange the letters by size! Here's the NT order, and below it, Marcion's order:

Rom - 1 Cor - 2 Cor - Gal - Eph - Phil - Col - 1 Thess - 2 Thess - 1 Tim - 2 Tm - Titus - Phlm
Gal - 1 Cor - 2 Cor - Rom - 1 Thess - 2 Thess - Eph - Col - Phil - Phlm

Note the following:

1) The pastorals (Timothy and Titus) are missing. These are pretty much universally regarded as fakes, suggesting Marcion's collection is more authentic.
2) Romans and Galatians are switched.
3) Thessalonians come before Eph/Phil/Col, and the positions of Phil and Col are switched.

In other words, very different from the NT version, but not by much. We can still determine 2 'literary units': Gal-1&2Cor-Rom, and Eph-Phil-Col-1&2Thess-Phlm.

So how did Marcion arrange his collection? It's not even close to being by length of each letter. Oddly enough, it looks like he arranged them chronologically, but only if we look at them in terms of the two 'literary units' identified by Trobisch. (Remember that one of Trobisch's conclusions is that letter collections are most often arranged chronologically.) Gal - 1 Cor - 2 Cor - Rom is the correct chronological sequence, according to scholars. As for the rest:

1 Thess - 2 Thess - Eph - Col - Phil - Phlm

1 Thess is regarded as the earliest Pauline letter. 2 Thess, Eph, and Col are usually regarded as not written by Paul, and because of the lack of datable details, Phlm is uncertain, but commonly thought to be written around the time of Philippians.

So here's my speculative look at the sequence of the development of Paul's Letter Collection:

1) Original collection of Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans (perhaps compiled by Paul himself), arranged chronoligically
2) "Expanded edition" of Marcion (or someone earlier), with appendix also arranged chronologically (roughly perhaps)
3) "Revised and expanded" edition of Polycarp (or whoever edited/published the NT), with letters rearranged by length (probably for the benefit of the scribes) and three short letters added before Phlm, as a kind of "appendix to the original appendix"

Of course, I could be off my rocker! ;)

 

[Laura]

But here's the thing: even though we don't have any manuscripts, we know that Marcion was the first to circulate a collection of Paul's letters, and we know the order. Trobisch doesn't get into this, unfortunately. Looking at what we know about Marcion's collection with Trobisch's arguments in mind, several interesting things stand out.

First, as evidence that all manuscripts track back to 1 collection, Trobisch writes, regarding letters that have no address but which are uniformly identified with a specific title (e.g., Ephesians): "Thus it is clear that the oldest text of Ephesians did not have an address in the text. How then could anyone figure out the title? No two independent editors would come up with the same name." Exactly. And Marcion didn't! He called the letter "Laodiceans". And I think this was probably the original title. Colossians refers to a 'missing letter', saying to read it along with Colossians: To the Laodiceans. Col and Eph are commonly thought to be non-Pauline, but that's debatable. Either way, it looks like Colossians refers to 'Ephesians' here. They were meant to be read together.

Second, Marcion didn't arrange the letters by size! Here's the NT order, and below it, Marcion's order:

Rom - 1 Cor - 2 Cor - Gal - Eph - Phil - Col - 1 Thess - 2 Thess - 1 Tim - 2 Tm - Titus - Phlm
Gal - 1 Cor - 2 Cor - Rom - 1 Thess - 2 Thess - Eph - Col - Phil - Phlm

Note the following:

1) The pastorals (Timothy and Titus) are missing. These are pretty much universally regarded as fakes, suggesting Marcion's collection is more authentic.
2) Romans and Galatians are switched.
3) Thessalonians come before Eph/Phil/Col, and the positions of Phil and Col are switched.

In other words, very different from the NT version, but not by much. We can still determine 2 'literary units': Gal-1&2Cor-Rom, and Eph-Phil-Col-1&2Thess-Phlm.

So how did Marcion arrange his collection? It's not even close to being by length of each letter. Oddly enough, it looks like he arranged them chronologically, but only if we look at them in terms of the two 'literary units' identified by Trobisch. (Remember that one of Trobisch's conclusions is that letter collections are most often arranged chronologically.) Gal - 1 Cor - 2 Cor - Rom is the correct chronological sequence, according to scholars. As for the rest:

1 Thess - 2 Thess - Eph - Col - Phil - Phlm

1 Thess is regarded as the earliest Pauline letter. 2 Thess, Eph, and Col are usually regarded as not written by Paul, and because of the lack of datable details, Phlm is uncertain, but commonly thought to be written around the time of Philippians.

So here's my speculative look at the sequence of the development of Paul's Letter Collection:

1) Original collection of Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans (perhaps compiled by Paul himself), arranged chronoligically
2) "Expanded edition" of Marcion (or someone earlier), with appendix also arranged chronologically (roughly perhaps)
3) "Revised and expanded" edition of Polycarp (or whoever edited/published the NT), with letters rearranged by length (probably for the benefit of the scribes) and three short letters added before Phlm, as a kind of "appendix to the original appendix"

Of course, I could be off my rocker! ;)

No, not off your rocker. Read Pervo's "Dating Acts" and Tyson's "Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle".

I would suggest that what is called "proto-Luke", i.e. the gospel that Marcion toted around, was actually a stripped down version of Mark and may even have NOT promoted a "Jewish Jesus". How else could Marcion feel so confident in ditching the Old Testament.

But, of course, in ditching the OT, he was actually not following Paul's line because he didn't realize, I don't think, that Paul got nearly everything for/about his Cosmic Christ FROM his pesher/midrash of the OT and other ancient texts.

 

[Laura]

Being "religious" for a good part of my life in the past (I was born and raised a Catholic, then became a "born again Christian" in my early twenties, then a member of the "World Wide Church of God" for about 9 years), I read A Lot of the Bible. Reading parts of the New Testament was something I did daily for many years. One thing that strikes me now is that I remember that whenever I read any of Paul's letters, I always felt that there was something "different" in his message. It wasn't the same as any of the other (supposed) authors of the New Testament. It's hard to explain what I felt but it was a more "spiritually practical" way of doing things.

Anyway, I'm beginning to understand now why that was so.

Thank you Laura for the time and hard work you have put into this research, it's actually quite incredible!

Maybe it's time to see if he's available for a chat? ;D

Wouldn't that be something... ;)

It was quite a revelation to me, too, to realize that the NT is NOT arranged chronologically, and this is apparently deliberate because it allows the church to retain the inventor of Christianity, Paul, while containing him within the boundaries that were established later, i.e. the CHURCH is in charge here!

BUT, if the NT books are arranged chronologically, and a truly reasonably accurate date is given for the composition of each text, then your mind can easily follow the developments. You can then see how Paul came up with stuff on his own, using his pesher/midrash method (it was all the rage at Qumran!) and it was all later filtered into the gospels but with some major twists here and there. Stuff that Paul wrote, based on his method, was put into the mouth of the mythical Jesus.

Earl Doherty discusses the situation from the angle of the complete silence of the epistles regarding a human Jesus (I notice that Doherty has come to the same conclusions about the origins of the eucharist as I did up to a point. He didn't manage to locate the source text, Sirach.):

Finally, to give the reader an idea of the depth of silence the epistles demonstrate, the blackness of the void they contain in regard to the Gospel Jesus and his story, let me preface my itemization of this silence with a summation. Taking into account my two or three interpolations, and Paul’s few "words of the Lord" as a product of revelation (with the Lord’s Supper scene a mythical creation), let’s put it this way:

If we were to rely entirely on the early Christian correspondence, we would know virtually nothing about the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels. We would not know where he was born or when. We would not even know the era he lived in. We would be ignorant of the names of his parents, where he grew up, where he preached. Or even that he preached. We would not be able to identify a single one of his ethical teachings, for although the epistles often make moral pronouncements very close to the ones Jesus speaks in the Gospels, no writer ever attributes them to him.

Nor would we be aware that he performed miracles. Not that he healed, that he cast out demons, that he raised the dead to life. We would not know that he had been baptized, nor would we meet the figure of John the Baptist who performed that rite on him. We would not know that Jesus had walked the hills of Galilee (or the waters of its sea), that he tramped the dusty wildernesses of Judea or entered the ancient walls of Jerusalem. Did he alienate the Jewish leaders, who plotted against him and ultimately bore the stigma of having killed him? We would know nothing about that. Did he celebrate a Last Supper with his disciples? We would not know that for certain. His betrayer, Judas: he and his evil deed would be lost to us forever, as would another betrayal, the denial of him by Peter, his chief apostle.

And what of Pontius Pilate, his executioner? He surfaces only with the letters of Ignatius and in 1 Timothy, both written early in the second century—and there is some doubt about the authenticity of the latter reference. As for the details surrounding the climax of Jesus’ life: his trials before the Jewish Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate, his brutal crucifixion, details of which should have been indelibly burned into the consciousness of every Christian writer and believer from the day they transpired, nothing of them would have come down to us. Not the words he spoke—or refused to speak—before his accusers, not the scourging and the crown of thorns, not the raising up of the cross between two thieves or the words he spoke as he hung upon it. Nor would we know where that cross was raised, for the names of Calvary and Golgotha are never mentioned. We would not have heard about the earthquake, the rending of the Temple veil, nor the darkness that covered the earth for three hours at midday during the long agony. As to where he was buried, we would not know that either, and the dramatic story of the finding of the empty tomb three days later would have passed into oblivion along with all the other details of this mysterious life and career. With only the first century Christian epistles to go on, the darkness over the man who is said to have founded the greatest religion in world history would be complete.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I would suggest that what is called "proto-Luke", i.e. the gospel that Marcion toted around, was actually a stripped down version of Mark and may even have NOT promoted a "Jewish Jesus". How else could Marcion feel so confident in ditching the Old Testament.

Well, according to the Synoptic Hypothesis, Luke used/adapted Mark, in addition to adding his own stuff. So I guess the shorter version of Marcion could represent an altered/alternate version of Mark? The attestations found in the Church Fathers for Marcion's gospel contain bits adapted from Mark as well as material unique to Luke. Question is, how much can we trust the later attestations to Marcion's gospel? Is it possible the later Marcionite church used texts different from Marcion himself?

There's a new book on Marcion coming out soon, supposed to be the first major study on him in decades. Maybe it'll clear some stuff up.

I finished Trobisch's book on Paul's letters, as well as his book "The First Edition of the New Testament". They're both short, well argued, and concise. In the last chapter of the Paul book, he too argues that 1 Corinthians is composite in nature (he argues that it's 3 different letters). He also argues that Romans 16 was a cover letter for the whole collection, which was written for the Ephesians. 1 Corinthians includes those letters written to Corinth while Paul was in Ephesus, so the Ephesians would be aware of those developments. 2 Corinthians includes those letters written after - the stuff they wouldn't be aware of yet. And it was for the purpose of setting the record straight re: the conflict with the James group.

If Rom 16 was NOT an interpolation (it's missing from Marcion's collection), perhaps it got left out or lost when Marcion's collection was made. That would actually make sense, considering how letter collections were edited and published. Inessential, personal information was usually edited out by the author or editors, including irrelevant names, trivial and time-sensitive details, and Rom 16 consists almost entirely of irrelevant names, which Trobisch argues pretty persuasively, IMO, were edited out of the other letters by Paul himself - he only left the relevant information. - e.g., he excludes the name of the church member who was 'living' with his father's widow, and he commits one "widely known and well regarded" brother of his to the memory hole by leaving out his name, suggesting he and Paul were no longer on good terms - he probably also left out a bunch of addressees, whose names would be irrelevant to the people he wanted to read the collection.

Anyways, after reading his other book, at this point I'm convinced: the NT was published in one original edition of 27 works, and with a specific purpose. Not only Luke-Acts and the Pastorals, but the entire book was put together as a response to Marcion. And the way in which it was done was just downright slimy. I also think it was done by Polycarp. He wrote Acts as a kind of bridge between his highly edited collection of gospels, and the letters of Paul, to show that whatever differences Peter and Paul may have had, in the end, they were in complete agreement, and anything 'odd' in Paul is simply a result of mis-interpretation of 'difficult passages". He wrote 2 Timothy as Paul's final testament (using the narrative he composed for Paul in Acts, perhaps inspired by his mentor Ignatius' final days), and 2 Peter as Peter's final testament. He presented himself as a disciple of John according to later church fathers, and he includes an editorial comment at the end of John suggesting this as well. At least, that's the impression he wanted to give - that John had outlived them all, and had left his 'eyewitness' for Polycarp to publish as the Gospel of John:

24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Polycarp had also published a collection of Ignatius' letters...

His motives are also revealed by the 'authors' he chose to assign the various works to (as well as the cross-references either interpolated or exploited in order to guide readers to the 'correct' interpretation of authorship and chronology):

Matthew (original disciple) - Gospel of Matthew
Mark (associate of Paul AND Peter, with hints that it is Peter's recollections recorded) - Gospel of Mark
Luke (associate of Paul, the person that would stick with Paul to the end) - Gospel of Luke and Acts
John (original disciple) - Gospel of John, 1, 2, 3 John, Revelation
James, Peter, Jude (family members of Jesus, leaders of the Jerusalem group) - Letters
Paul - Letters

Right after Acts, he included the letters of John, James, Peter and Jude. These just happen to include the only 3 people Paul includes as his enemies, and in the same order that he lists them in Galatians. Plus Jude, "brother of James and Jesus". He has set readers up for this by describing these people in the first half of Acts. So, he is attempting to reconcile Paul with the Jerusalem group and Jesus' 'family', groups which Paul gives every indication he was in conflict with.

 

[MusicMan]

Just out of interest, about 30 years ago when I was attempting to teach myself Hebrew and Ancient Greek, an old friend of mine fished out a manuscript and said to me: "I got this manuscript when I was visiting a monastery near Mount Sinai, it's in Hebrew, maybe you would like a copy?"
She wouldn't allow me to keep the original, but I photocopied it.
When I was studying the script I determined that it was not Hebrew, but Ancient Greek! The sort of Greek you see that has no spaces between the words, and no vowels. Hard going.
Anyhow, I identified the text as being from the end of the book of John, and the beginning of the book of Acts.

The piece you may find of interest was not the actual text of the books, but the signature which lay between the two books.

It was signed: PAVLVS

It's currently not in my possession, but if I can get my daughter to find it, perhaps she could photograph the signature and we'll post it here.

 

[MusicMan]

Also, I really liked the way Ellegard placed Ignatius as a kind of 'missing link' between the 1st century texts and the Gospels/Acts. Interestingly enough, Polycarp was a pal of Ignatius, and David Trobisch argues that Polycarp pretty much wrote the New Testament as a response to Marcion. It looks like Polycarp took some existing gospels (Marcion's early Luke, an early Matthew probably used by the Jewish Christians, and maybe an early John, plus Mark), expanded on them in ways to subsume those groups/beliefs into his version of the church (e.g., the gnostic aspects of John but focusing on Jesus' humanity as well, the domestication of Paul in Luke/Acts), and wrote the pastorals.

So maybe Polycarp saw it as a way of putting Ignatius' ideas into use? Interestingly, Ignatius wrote his letters on his way to Rome to die as a martyr. This is how 'Luke' presents Paul in Acts, on his way to Rome to die a martyr. Did Polycarp write Ignatius into "Paul" as a tribute to his 'master'?

Here's a link to the paper: http://www.trobisch.com/david/CV/Publications/20071226%20FreeInquiry%20Who%20Published%20Christian%20Bible%20BW.pdf

Here's Robert Price's review of Trobisch's book on the formation of the NT (before he made the Polycarp connection, but including all the ideas leading to it as the rational conclusion): http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/trobisch_first.htm

Price even throws a couple extra clues into the bargain:

Polycarp may even have, so to speak, signed his work. Trobisch notes how 2 Timothy 4 lists many names familiar from Acts and earlier Pauline Epistles, except for two. “When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Tro'as, also the books, and above all the parchments.” Carpus? And this man has Paul’s “cloak”? The cloak of Pauline authorship? For he also has charge of Paul’s manuscripts. Short for Polycarp? You bet! The other name is Crescens (v. 10); it appears nowhere else in the New Testament. Guess where it does pop up, though? Why, right there in the Epistle of Polycarp 14:1!

All right, then may I suggest that Polycarp has inserted himself into John 15:5, too? “He who abides in me, and I in him, the same shall bring forth much fruit (karpon polun)”? And then, as Alvin Boyd Kuhn and, more recently, Stephen Hermann Huller have suggested, mustn’t the Theophilus to whom Luke and Acts are addressed be Bishop of Theophilus of Antioch, Polycarp’s ally?

I should say that David Trobisch’s The First Edition of the New Testament together with his “Who Published the New Testament?” provide an ideal example of a theoretical, “Kuhnian” paradigm, a theoretical framework which, when laid over the evidence like a transparency, reveals a whole new way of making sense of the hitherto-disparate data. I’m sold.

Or, you may suggest that Paul and Carpus are two individuals conflated as one person (Polycarp)

And Bishop Theophilus may just be a 'nickname' to disguise a real person who needed to be kept under cover from the PTB of the day, when you realise that 'theophilus' translates as 'god lover'.

 

[SeekinTruth]

That's very interesting, MusicMan.

I remember around 1989 or 1990, I went to see an exhibit of ancient/medieval Armenian illuminated (they're accentuated with gold and colorful graphics) manuscripts in New York City. Not only was the language what they call "Literary" or Old Armenian, but there were no spaces between words for several centuries' manuscripts. I understand very little Old Armenian and it was even harder to know where to put the word breaks when I couldn't figure out what was written in many places. Literary / Old Armenian can be as different to the modern language as, say, Beowulf or Shakespeare is to modern English or even more different.

 

[Laura]

I highly recommend reading Earl Doherty's "The Sound of Silence" here:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/silintro.htm

Which is where I got the quote I extracted in previous post. I've just about finished it myself and the effect is truly staggering.

Also, it seems obvious to me that both Doherty AND Ellegard are correct to a great extent, but what they are both missing is the Caesar element. See: http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/BkrvEll.htm

 

[ka]

Hi, MusicMan & SeekinTruth: The links you find between Hebrew, Greek and Armenian are extremely interesting to me!

I’m remembering that Gurdjieff writes in his Meetings with Remarkable Men, that his father was a master of bardic poetry, a tradition that reached back in a continuous chain of oral transmission to Homeric times. The Gurdjieffs’ ethnicity was Armenian/Greek. G’s father performed material unmistakably taken from the Epic of Gilgamesh, that is recorded on clay tablets found in Babylonon dated to 2000 BC. So, here is yet another proof of the interrelationships between the Greek and the Semitic cultures.

 

[MusicMan]

Just out of interest, about 30 years ago when I was attempting to teach myself Hebrew and Ancient Greek, an old friend of mine fished out a manuscript and said to me: "I got this manuscript when I was visiting a monastery near Mount Sinai, it's in Hebrew, maybe you would like a copy?"
She wouldn't allow me to keep the original, but I photocopied it.
When I was studying the script I determined that it was not Hebrew, but Ancient Greek! The sort of Greek you see that has no spaces between the words, and no vowels. Hard going.
Anyhow, I identified the text as being from the end of the book of John, and the beginning of the book of Acts.

The piece you may find of interest was not the actual text of the books, but the signature which lay between the two books.

It was signed: PAVLVS

It's currently not in my possession, but if I can get my daughter to find it, perhaps she could photograph the signature and we'll post it here.

OK I got a pic of it, attached below:

 

[SeekinTruth]

Hi, MusicMan & SeekinTruth: The links you find between Hebrew, Greek and Armenian are extremely interesting to me!

I’m remembering that Gurdjieff writes in his Meetings with Remarkable Men, that his father was a master of bardic poetry, a tradition that reached back in a continuous chain of oral transmission to Homeric times. The Gurdjieffs’ ethnicity was Armenian/Greek. G’s father performed material unmistakably taken from the Epic of Gilgamesh, that is recorded on clay tablets found in Babylonon dated to 2000 BC. So, here is yet another proof of the interrelationships between the Greek and the Semitic cultures.

Yeah, as has been discussed on this forum, the connections are fascinating. Plus, as has also been discussed here and in C's sessions, who were the original Semites? By the way, I'm Armenian and Greek mix, as well, but I don't know Greek except for a few words/phrases.

 

[Laura]

Just out of interest, about 30 years ago when I was attempting to teach myself Hebrew and Ancient Greek, an old friend of mine fished out a manuscript and said to me: "I got this manuscript when I was visiting a monastery near Mount Sinai, it's in Hebrew, maybe you would like a copy?"
She wouldn't allow me to keep the original, but I photocopied it.
When I was studying the script I determined that it was not Hebrew, but Ancient Greek! The sort of Greek you see that has no spaces between the words, and no vowels. Hard going.
Anyhow, I identified the text as being from the end of the book of John, and the beginning of the book of Acts.

The piece you may find of interest was not the actual text of the books, but the signature which lay between the two books.

It was signed: PAVLVS

It's currently not in my possession, but if I can get my daughter to find it, perhaps she could photograph the signature and we'll post it here.

OK I got a pic of it, attached below:

Interesting.

Since the books of John and Acts were written probably 50 or more years after the death of Paul, it would have to be someone else with that name.