A Halloween treat

[mwh]

Not strictly Halloweenish, since the scene described is the resurrection, but here’s my favorite bit of an early gospel which some scholars think antedates the ones eventually accepted into the canon. Enough to scare the kiddies, I should think.

ειδον εξελθοντας απο του ταφου τρεις ανδρας, και τους δυο τον ενα υπορθουντας, και σταυρον ακολουθουντα αυτοις και των μεν δυο την κεφαλην χωρουσαν μεχρι του ουρανου, την δε χειρα του υπορθουμενου υπ αυτων υπερβαινουσαν τους ουρανους. και φωνης ηκουον εκ των ουρανων λεγουσης εκηρυξας τοις κοιμωμενοις και υπακοη ηκουετο απο του σταυρου το ναι.
(“They saw coming out of the tomb three men, and the two holding upright the one, and a cross following them, and the head of the two reaching up to heaven, but the head of the one who was being held up by them going beyond the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens saying, “You preached to them that sleep?” And reply was heard from the cross: “Yes.")

[jeidsath]

They saw three men exiting the tomb, and the two bore the one, and his cross extended behind them, so that his head was raised into the sky away from the two. [Then] the hand of the one being borne by them stretched up into the sky, and they heard a voice from the sky saying "Have you preached to the sleepers?" and from the cross was heard: "Indeed so!"

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Not strictly Halloweenish, since the scene described is the resurrection, but here’s my favorite bit of an early gospel which some scholars think antedates the ones eventually accepted into the canon.

And who are these scholars, Bart Ehrman? Funk, Crossan, Pagles? J.K. Ellioty places the Gospel of Peter in the 2nd century and claims it appears to be dependent on the canonical gospels.

[mwh]

Hi jeidsath, You seem to misconstrue in a few places, despite the translation I offered. But you were understandably misled by “την χειρα” in the Greek text—which should not be there! Ι copied the Greek from a bad text on the web, and translated it more the way I remembered the real text (which however I didn’t remember quite exactly). For την δε χειρα του υπορθουμενου read του δε χειραγωμενου. It’s the head of the one being led by the hand. Sorry about that.

CSB
Ron Cameron in The Other Gospels, for one, which I guess means basically Helmut Koester. I don’t know what the current state of play is.

[jeidsath]

That makes sense. Also, I've been able to find Nestle's version of the text here: http://goo.gl/NfpgRc

Apparently the original text has χειρατωτουμενου, of which χειραγωγουμένου is an emendation.

Now, my argument here is simply to say that it might make some sense to say that this is a description of people bearing someone who is still on a cross. This is still a little weird, I admit, since it's strange to imagine the cross in the tomb with Jesus. Yet any reading of the text as written has the cross in the tomb with him. (Against that, Goodacre's suggested emendation is well worth considering: http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/wa ... lking.html.)

Back to the men bearing someone still on a cross:

1. The main issue is ἀκολουθέω. I think it might be able to encompass something being dragged along behind a person. Like a wagon, for example. I have no examples of this usage, but on the other hand, it's not a walking, talking cross. Therefore "extends behind" in English.

2. καὶ τῶν μὲν δύο τῆν κεφαλὴν χωροῦσαν μέχρι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. I was thinking of Cyrus' speech to his troops about the realm of Persia "extending as far as" for my understanding μέχρι. But if the previous phrase with ἀκολουθέω is talking about the cross trailing behind (and I could of course be way off base there), then I think that the visual image to think of is the top of the cross, with Jesus' head, extending in front, sticking up into the air. And I think that this phrase would be a good, if a little poetic, description of that.

I'm afraid that the "head going beyond the heavens" version does not make much sense to me.

3. So now we get to τοῦ δὲ "χειρατωτουμενου" ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ὑπερβαίνουσαν τοὺς οὐρανούς. This version does fit the "lift off" much better, and I am willing to accept that is being described here. So the one being χειρατωτουμενου by them now goes off past them into heaven. Can I stretch χειραγωγουμένου to mean a man being borne along on a cross? Maybe. Or maybe χειρατωτουμενου, whatever that means? I think it's reasonable to say that we have a man and cross still together at this point.

And it does get rid of a walking, talking, cross, which is just crazy.

[mwh]

I have a photo of the papyrus somewhere. I'll check it if I can find it.

Your reading is ingenious, and I wasn't even aware of all the discussion about this, but I'll just say that to get rid of the walking talking cross takes some very special pleading. And I don't really understand why you want to in the first place.

Doesn't the image imply a certain fetishization of the cross on which Jesus was crucified, which in itself is not unparalleled even if not exactly in this form? The cross is an enduring symbol, and for it to function as a sort of stand-in for the crucified Jesus (currently unable to either walk or speak?) doesn't seem all that exceptionable to me. Isn't it said to have healed and even resurrected people at its touch, and alleged bits of it are venerated even today: such is the power of association. I don't know whether or not its actual animation is unique, though. It's certainly very striking.

Are you approaching this scene too veristically, perhaps? If you have trouble with a head reaching beyond the heavens (el Greco would have done it well), little wonder you balk at a walking talking cross. It’s just crazy, you say. But crazy is in the eye of the beholder, or the mind of the imaginer. Some would consider belief in resurrection to be crazy.

Interesting that it’s introduced as “a cross,” not “the cross,” btw. A nice piece of focalization.

[Paul Derouda]

This passage of the Gospel of Peter is very interesting, as is the rest of it – I had never read it before. Do you have any other good references on the subject except the aforementioned Ron Cameron?

MWH, did you check the link given by jeidsath? Does the emendation from σταυρον to σταυρωθεντα seem far-fetched to you? The blogger suggests that the corruption could have occurred if a previous manuscript had contained a short-hand στα for σταυρωθεντα, which was mistakenly read as σταυρον.

[jeidsath]

This has proved to be quite the Halloween treat, by the way!

Are you approaching this scene too veristically, perhaps? If you have trouble with a head reaching beyond the heavens (el Greco would have done it well), little wonder you balk at a walking talking cross. It’s just crazy, you say. But crazy is in the eye of the beholder, or the mind of the imaginer. Some would consider belief in resurrection to be crazy.

The head reaching beyond the heavens is the phrase that personally strikes me as most wrong. I could easily accept the cross imagery, were it described in the plain and exact language of the rest of the Gospel of Peter. But the head beyond the heavens, to me, is a big clue of some transmission or translation error. A moment before, they were exiting the tomb, and there is no narrative bridge to link to the giant Jesus imagery. As I mentioned to another forum member in a private discussion, this sort of language is gibberish in the middle of an otherwise straightforward, though free, retelling of the other Gospel accounts.

The blogger suggests...

That's not just a blogger. That is Mark Goodacre, of "The Case Against Q" fame.

[jeidsath]

An image of the manuscript in question: http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk/GP/GP.html

[jeidsath]

And here's my transcription. It's really exactly the same as the one found in Nestle, although there may be an error or two on my part:

...αποτουταφουτρειϲ
ανδρεϲκαιτουϲδυοτονεναυπορθουνταϲκαι
ϲταυρονακολοθουντααυτοιϲκαιτωνμενδυο
τηνκεφαληνχωρουϲανμεχριτουουρανου
τουδεχειρατωτουμενουυπαυτωνυπερβαινου
ϲαντουϲουρανουϲκαιφωνηηκουονεκτων
ουρανωνλεγουϲηϲεκηρυξαϲτοιϲκοινωμενοιϲ
καιυπακοηηκουετοαποτουϲταυρουτιναι...

"ηκουετο απο του ϲταυρου τι ναι"

And from the cross was heard: "What? Yes!"

[mwh]

Glad you enjoyed the treat. It seems to have gotten serious fast, though—a poisoned apple? Thanks for the image link. It’s a careless copy, and you have to wonder how much command of Greek the copyist had. I see εξελθοντος for –ας, ανδρες for –ας, and as you pointed out χειρατωτουμενον (τ/γ confusion very common). At the end it looks as if τοναι was originally written, then changed (by the copyist himself?) to τι ναι. Perhaps οτι ναι was intended (οτι introducing direct speech as often), since the cross querying the question, as you have it, doesn’t seem too likely! It’s parchment not papyrus, and rather difficult to date.

I quite see what you mean about the extraordinary nature of the description, coming out of nowhere as it were, but the language is just as “plain and exact” as elsewhere isn’t it. It’s the things described that are out of the ordinary, not the manner of the description. There’s no getting round the contrast between the respective reaches of the head(s) of the two and that of the one. This is a big moment—the emergence of the living Jesus from the tomb!—and the narrative reflects it. Everyday norms don’t apply. The symbolism is pretty obvious. The two came down from heaven in the first place (I’ve seen them referred to as angels, though that’s not how the narrative presents them), and the one is to ascend—is even now ascending—to still greater heights. At least, that’s how I see it.

Thanks for the link to Goodacre’s suggestion of σταυρωθεντα too. I did look at it, though I didn’t read much of the ensuing discussion. Frankly, I don’t think it withstands a moment’s scrutiny. Quite apart from palaeographical likelihood, it results in scarcely possible Greek, and entails very forced interpretation of the reply from the cross. σταυρωθεντα would read very oddly in itself (without article), all the more so with another participle immediately following; and the description surely precludes the identification of the one being supported with this σταυρον/σταυρωθεντα that’s following the group. It’s a tableau: three men (2+1), and a cross following them. Couldn’t be plainer. The one being supported (let’s call him Jesus) is then distinguished from his two companions by his head’s reaching even higher than theirs. (See above.) In rhetorical terminology it’s αυξησις, magnifiying, enlarging, singling out someone as special. The animation of the cross as a quasi-independent agent (the representative of Jesus on earth, you might almost say) goes along with this. At least, once again, that’s how I see it.

Paul, I’m afraid I can’t give you references. I looked into it a bit a good while ago, and jeidsath’s unargued assumption that it’s a retelling of the canonical gospel accounts (with or without John) seemed to hold sway, but things may have changed. All discussion I’ve come across has been obsessed with the question of its relation to the other gospels (cf. CSB's "And who are these scholars?" etc.) and with its obvious anti-Jew stance, more than considering it as a narrative in its own right.

—And we haven’t even mentioned Judas yet.

[Paul Derouda]

And it does get rid of a walking, talking, cross, which is just crazy.

A book I have found very thought-provoking on beliefs in the supernatural is Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained. It's an attempt to explain this sort of thing from the point of view of cognitive science. I don't really know the field and can't tell if there's some sort larger debate around this – probably yes.

[jeidsath]

I'm becoming more and more convinced by mwh's reasonableness and my reading over the passage this morning (along with the rest of the Gospel of Peter). However one thing still sticks out to me as odd. The "head of the two." Why "τῶν μὲν δὺο τὴν κεφαλὴν χωροῦσαν"? Shouldn't I have expected "καὶ τῶν μὲν δὺο αἱ κεφαλαὶ χωροῦσαι μέχρι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, τὴν δὲ κεφαλὴν τοῦ χειραγωγουμένου ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ὑπερβαίνουσαν τοὺς οὐρανούς"?

To avoid that difficulty, would there be anything wrong with saying that text should actually be read as equivalent to the following? "καὶ τῶν μὲν δύο τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ χειραγωγουμένου ὑπ’ αὐτῶν χωροῦσαν μέχρι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, τὴν δὲ ὑπερβαίνουσαν τοὺς οὐρανούς"?

[mwh]

Thanks jeidsath. I do like a civilized and intelligent discussion, and you’ve put your finger on the one oddity in the language of the passage. You’re right it's rather anomalous to have "the head" (singular) of the two rather than the plural (τας κεφαλας—it would still be accusative, as being yet another object of the opening ορωσιν), but the way the sentence runs makes the use of the singular understandable: την κεφαλην, despite its position after των μεν δυο, applies equally to του δε χειραγωγουμενου in the second phrase—who of course has just the one head. The principal contrast is set up between the two escorts on the one hand and Jesus on the other (των μεν δυο …, του δε χειραγ.)—each party with its respective head(s). It’s slightly unbalanced as a construction, and the Greek is slightly awkward, but quite intelligible. We’re not to suppose that the two share a single head, even though a strict construal would imply that! The scene’s already weird enough without that.

As perhaps you’ll now appreciate, your proposed “equivalent” καὶ τῶν μὲν δύο τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ χειραγωγουμένου ὑπ’ αὐτῶν χωροῦσαν μέχρι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, τὴν δὲ ὑπερβαίνουσαν τοὺς οὐρανούς" won’t do. It puts τοῦ χειραγωγουμένου ὑπ’ αὐτῶν in the wrong half, and messes up the μεν … δε contrast.

And thanks to Paul for the book recommendation. I'm vaguely acquainted with his thesis and find it attractive (insofar as I can understand it), but I've haven't actually read the book. Cognitive science can explain a lot!

[Paul Derouda]

But is the singular την κεφαλην really anomalous? To me it seems more natural than a plural, since each individual has just one head, and the article την works as a kind of possessive to show it's the respective head of each individual we're talking about. But perhaps this is interference from my own language, where you would clearly use the singular in this sort of situation (plurals do occur, but any teacher or other prescriptive grammarian would immediately correct them. I suspect plurals are recent and result from influence of other languages, like English). In English, I think, the plural is more natural, but is really so in Greek?

[jeidsath]

I should have caught the μέν and δέ constrast and the accusative plural. Both are such simple rules, but they are obviously not interalized enough for me yet. With the first especially, although I've known the rule by heart for a year now, it's only been a few weeks that my Greek has been good enough for phrases to really get processed together as a single unit in my head while reading, and it's going to take a while to beging to understand all the things operating at that level. I have no real excuse for mixing accusative and nominative.

@paul

I ran across the following today in Xenophon: καὶ τάχα δὴ ὁρῶμεν πολλοὺς προσθέοντας λίθους ἔχοντας ἐν ταῖς χερσί, which I think is the way I'm used to seeing it in Greek. But I feel like I understand what mwh is saying for why it's different in this case: The comparison participle is forcing an artificial agreement in number.

[Paul Derouda]

People usually have two hands, so you would use the plural even of a single individual (though you might also find a dual sometimes). In the example at hand, the definite article has meaning that is close to "his own", so it corresponds vaguely to an English possessive pronoun. I'll try to find something to support my claim that the singular is regular here.

[Paul Derouda]

Here is what Smyth says:

998. Distributive Singular.—The singular of abstract nouns may be used distributively (rarely with concrete substantives): ““ὅσοι δίκαιοι ἐγένοντο ἐν τῷ ἑαυτῶν βίῳ” all who proved themselves just in their lives” P. A. 41a, ““διάφοροι τὸν τρόοπον” different in character” T. 8.96. The distributive plural (1004) is more common than the distributive singular: cp. ““νεα_νίαι τὰ_ς ὄψεις” youths in appearance” L. 10.29 with ““ἡδεῖς τὴν ὄψιν” pleasing in appearance” P. R. 452b.

So apparently the plural is more regular, especially with concrete nouns, but not absolutely necessary. It seems that my own linguistic background was interfering with my "feeling".

[mwh]

It’s true that use of the plural would be consistent with their each having multiple heads, like Geryon or Zaphod Beeblebrox. To avoid all ambiguity you’d need something like εκαστος των δυο την κεφαλην ειχε χωρουσαν εις τον ουνον. (That’s ignoring the του δε χειραγ. phrase which necessitates the singular.) The Greek of the gospel passage as it stands would I think be deemed solecistic by a Greek grammaticus, but that’s not to say it’s not perfectly acceptable.

[Paul Derouda]

Paul, I’m afraid I can’t give you references. I looked into it a bit a good while ago, and jeidsath’s unargued assumption that it’s a retelling of the canonical gospel accounts (with or without John) seemed to hold sway, but things may have changed. All discussion I’ve come across has been obsessed with the question of its relation to the other gospels (cf. CSB's "And who are these scholars?" etc.) and with its obvious anti-Jew stance, more than considering it as a narrative in its own right.

From a larger perspective, is there something good to read about the wider context where Early Christianity came about? I mean something that neatly sorts out other contemporary and previous religious phenomena, and their influence on Christianism (Judaism, Hellenistic philosophy, cult of Dionysos and other Greco-Roman polytheistic cults, etc), as well as all those "dead ends" of Christianity, also termed "heresies", such as Gnosticism. This is something that has intrigued me for years, but I've never really got into it, as it's difficult to know where to begin.

[mwh]

Once again I must disappoint you. I myself don’t know of anything at all satisfactory, but that’s not to say there’s isn’t something of such scope out there. It’s such an enormous subject, though, and few if any will have the range of competence to deal with it. One who did was Momigliano, and I actually heard lectures by him on the origins of Christianity, but not knowing much about these things at that point (not that I know much now), and having a hard time with his accent and delivery (which never did improve), not to mention being distracted by the snowfall of dandruff steadily whitening the great man’s black-suited shoulders, I didn’t take in as much as I should. Try the Cambridge Ancient History, perhaps, at least for starters? Of course, thanks to desert discoveries much more is now known about gnosticism and manicheanism (the latter absolutely fascinating, but later of course and eastern-looking) and other para-Christian (eventually heretic) developments. On gnosticism there’s Elaine Pagels, for one. Naturally there’s no lack of books on early Christianity, and on its emergence from Judaism, but they tend to be narrow in sweep, even those not written from an orthodox Christian perspective (which I recommend avoiding). It’s not at all my field, so I’m really not the right person to answer. It takes a real cultural historian.

[Paul Derouda]

Thanks anyway. I think part of the problem is that I don't even know what I'm looking for. You know the feeling: you run into something interesting and would like to know more, but don't know how. For example, these lines from Euripides' Bacchae (384-5) are, in my opinion, an obvious parallel to wine being drunk as the Christ's blood:

οὗτος θεοῖσι σπένδεται θεὸς γεγώς,
ὥστε διὰ τοῦτον τἀγάθ᾽ ἀνθρώπους ἔχειν.

Dionysos, the god of wine, is being poured as a libation for the wellbeing of mankind.

[mwh]

Yes, I know the feeling all too well.

As to the Bacchae passage, there are of course differences. It’s Dionysus himself who’s identified with wine, there’s no blood>wine metonymy or transformation, and it’s a libation to the gods, Greek-style (and many other cultures), not carried over into christianity, christian prayer being unattended by such ritual. And the blood-water-wine complex (“bathed in the blood of the lamb” etc.) would be repellent to earlier Greeks. A closer parallel would be the Vedic soma, god and drink both. Still, here we have Demeter and Dionysus representing bread and wine, and it is bread and wine that are the foodstuffs of the eucharist. But that’s none too remarkable.

Paul (the saint-to-be, not the Finn) knew the Bacchae, though (there’s an article by Bob Renehan demonstrating this), and this line may have inspired his (if it is his) quite extraordinary εγω γαρ ηδη σπενδομαι at 2Tim.4:6.

[jeidsath]

Diarmaid MacCulloch published a great big book that got a lot of nice press a few years ago. It does not seem to be narrow in sweep. "Christianity the first 3000 years." It's popular history, of course. Here is MacCulloch with a fairly gushing review of some Bart Ehrman book or other:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n03/diarmaid-m ... -the-canon.

You'll have to register to read the review, but the discussion is pseudepigrapha, which mwh brings up as an aside in his last post.

In the review, MacCulloch recommends a book that I have been thinking of reading (and have now purchased): http://www.amazon.com/When-God-Spoke-Gr ... 0199781729

I don't have anything interesting on Dionysus, but did you know that St. John's Wort was once Balder's Blood?

[Markos]

From a larger perspective, is there something good to read about the wider context where Early Christianity came about? I mean something that neatly sorts out other contemporary and previous religious phenomena, and their influence on Christianism (Judaism, Hellenistic philosophy, cult of Dionysos and other Greco-Roman polytheistic cults, etc), as well as all those "dead ends" of Christianity, also termed "heresies", such as Gnosticism. This is something that has intrigued me for years, but I've never really got into it, as it's difficult to know where to begin.

Hi, Paul.

You have to BEGIN, I think, with Tertullian...

What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from "the porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart."

Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.

...though I don't necessarily recommend ending there.

[mwh]

Something tells me Tertullian is not quite what Paul D. is after. Still, as the original trinitarian, he is the ultimate bête noire of a certain other contributor to this forum.

There’s a good book on Tertullian by Timothy Barnes (and a review of it by Momigliano, available online), properly historicizing him. There will be more recent work, but it was Barnes’ book that stirrred my soon abandoned interest in the fights over ownership of Christ (“I am orthodox, you are heretic”) both during and after Jesus’ life. The polemics in the passage Markos quotes continues the tradition begun by Paul (the saint-to-be, that is, i.e. one of the winners).

[Paul Derouda]

Thanks for your suggestions. I'm still not sure I've found what I'm looking for, though... Some of the books by Ehrmann might be closest, but he seems pretty polemical, at least according to what I understand from that review. But I suppose the whole field is polemical... Personnally, I'm not so much interested in the textual history of the Bible (for the present, at least - fascinating as it must be, I content myself with Homer for now!) nor in the endless discussions whether the Scripture or some part of it as we have it is Genuine or not. Instead of proving or disproving the Gospels, or the theological tenets of one church or the other, I'd like to find some sort cultural historical discussion in it's own right. Something as wide in scope as possible, something that might include (beside the obvious Judaism):
-Dionysean and other mystery religions
-Hellenistic philosophy
-polytheistic state religion
-Eastern influences
-Egypt
-Apollonios of Tyana
Since I don't know the subject, the items in this list might be the wrong ones. But I do suspect that the influence of the mystery cults for example might be generally underestimated.

Perhaps I'll take a look at Cambridge Ancient history, too.

With Markos agree that in principle I should go to the original sources. But now I'm just looking for something someone has pre-digested for me, especially as it's a very large subject

[jeidsath]

I'm reviving this thread, as I have learned a little bit of Greek since I last participated in it. It's now obvious that mwh is right about everything, of course. And I've come to terms with the walking, talking cross, and am even starting to like him. But this still strikes me as strange and weird:

καὶ τῶν μὲν δύο τὴν κεφαλὴν χωροῦσαν μέχρι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, τοῦ δὲ χειραγωγουμένου ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ὑπερβαίνουσαν τοὺς οὐρανούς·

Beyond the singular, why even single out their heads?

Taking τῶν as a genitive of separation, and the head as belonging to the third man, I'll suggest this:

καὶ τῶν μὲν δύο τὴν κεφαλὴν χωροῦσαν μέχρι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, τοῦ δὲ <χεῖρα> χειραγωγουμένου ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ὑπερβαίνουσαν τοὺς οὐρανούς·

[mwh]

Please say that's a joke.

[jeidsath]

I can't claim that I was 100% serious. But I had thought that I got the grammar right and that εἶδον...τῶν μὲν δύο τὴν κεφαλὴν χωροῦσαν could mean "they saw...the head moving away from the two." I wouldn't mind being corrected.

[mwh]

No that’s out of the question. των μεν δυο is a simple possessive genitive, του δε χειραγωγουμενου likewise. I really don’t understand why you’ve come back to this.

As to why the head in particular, well it’s the highest part of a person’s body, what you use for measuring how tall someone is. And your τοῦ δὲ <χεῖρα> χειραγωγουμένου is ungrammatical nonsense.

The tableau clearly points to the ascension (Acts 1, + two men in white, cf. end of Lk. variant). The two (angels) are as high as heaven, the one (Jesus) higher still. It may be “weird” but it makes excellent symbolic sense. Someone like William Blake would have understood.

In paintings of the ascension, unlike in this Superman image, it’s often hard to tell whether Jesus is ascending or descending (Watch out below, here I come!), or just skateboarding on air, but two angelic (or whatever) escorts are often included, substituting for cupids.