Papirius and Melito of Sardis

Polycrates of Ephesus in the letter he wrote to Bishop Victor of Rome as it is preserved for us by Eusebius of Caesarea says something interesting when he gets to Sardis.

"or the blessed Papirius, or Melito the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?"

I should remind people that the word Eunich in antiquity was not used only of people literally castrated, there is a lot of evidence that "Born Eunuchs" were anyone assigned male at birth who was pretty much incapable of being sexually aroused by women.  That can apply to a number of modern Sexual/Gender identifies, Gay Cis-Men, Straight Trans Women, Asexuals and more.

Now I think a relationship between these two is implied even in Eusebius wording here, but the grammar seems kind of awkward like someone tried to de-emphasize something.

I definitely feel Eusebius version of this letter is slightly corrupted, maybe not by himself but rather by how it was passed down in Rome before it got to him.  Chiefly I theorize that the name of "John" was not originally in this letter, that will possibly be the subject of a future post.

As far as this section goes, here is my theoretical reconstruction.

"or the blessed Papirius and Melito the Eunuch who lived together in the Holy Spirit, and who lie in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when they shall rise from the dead?"

I didn't change that much at all really.

Lexical vs Impressionist interpretations of The Bible.

When you say you take The Bible literally, some people (I'm addressing specifically fellow believers here) will then act like that means I'm not being logically consistent unless I think every figure of speech where God has wings means he's actually a giant bird.  No other book is treated this way, but whatever.

One Independent Baptist Pastor who's Church I attended a few times said he prefers to say he takes The Bible seriously rather then literally.  But that's being disingenuous, Allegorists believe they're taking Scripture seriously, in fact they argue we're not when we treat it like a Fantasy Novel.

And I'm not actually the most absolutely hyper literalist Christian anyway.  So I do somewhat struggle with how to define how I view Scripture.

Then Digibro who I follow for Anime reasons started a serious of videos categorizing the way different people think, both real and fictional.  The third video is the one to finally inspire me to make this post, it kind of presumes you saw the prior two longer ones but if your not interested in an hour of Digi categorizing every Anime character he cares about then you can skip them, the third one is only about 15 minutes.

How Anime Character Think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1ndTCR4aKg

Updating and Explaining
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSyGye7D2ao

Lexical vs Impressionistic Thinking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt60-Hf1Duk

[Update: You'll now have look for those on the InternetArchive.

https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Digibro%2FDigi%22

They have been reuploaded on YouTube including a channel called The Neurotypeline, who have this Playlist.  Also Digi now goes by Trixie since she came out as Trans.]

Now what I'm about to say is perhaps not where you thought I was going, but hyper Allegorical approaches to Scripture like those popularized by Origen and Augustine are in fact a highly Lexical approach.  It comes from thinking a certain word or string of words must always be saying the same thing or being said for the same reason.

Take for example when InspiringPhilosophy argues that because in many later Bible narratives someone goes to sleep before they have a dream that turns out to be a divine symbolic vision.  Then Adam going into a Deep Sleep in Genesis 2 must mean what follows is merely a symbolic vision.  When it seems to me far more obvious that God is putting Adam to sleep for the same reason any doctor puts a patient to sleep before performing an invasive surgery.

Some who you can argue are way more "Literalist" then I am are perhaps also hyper Lexical in their own way.  But once you decide a certain term must always be being used consistently, it's far easier to force an allegorical approach to an obviously literal passage then a literal approach to an obviously symbolic one.

Still the "Law of first mention" is an example of a highly lexical fallacy used by Christians of all camps.

Interpreting The Bible highly Lexically is a problem since obviously God is a more Impressionist thinker, He can communicate Lexically since the first words ever spoken were His words, and His Son is called The Word.  But He also existed before Words and I believe always wanted His message to be able to transcend the original language it was written in.

My Impressionist approach to Scripture can even allow me to view some entire books as fictional narratives that didn't necessarily actually happen, like Job and the Song of Songs.

But the general Impression of The Book Genesis is that it's telling us the actual origins of Humanity and Civilization and then more specifically The Israelite people.  That doesn't mean it's not also teaching important lessons, but they are important because they literally happened, it's documenting Humanity's first mistakes so we of later generations can try to learn from them.

The Hyper Allegorists are indeed perhaps also very Linear in thinking, you see contrary to how they often try to paint literalists, we are not denying the deeper truths that matter regardless of if it actually happened or not.  No most people labeled Literalists are the ones who understand a passage can serve different purposes at once.  Origen however was a bit more Lateral minded then his descendants.

Revelation is a book where no interpretation is free from some level of seemingly picking and choosing when to take it literally and when not to.  No one actually believes Revelation 13 is saying the world will be lead to worship Satan by a pair of Kaiiju.  But it's equally silly to then turn around and take nothing literally when the intent of The Book is still clearly that it's telling us what will happen in the future.

My Impressionist understanding of The Bible's meta-narrative is that the TNAK's prophecies of a future Temple or Tabernacle are fulfilled in The Church being The Temple of God, if that conflicts with taking certain passages literally even though they seemed literal at the time then so be it.  However I also believe we are a Temple still under-construction.

Part of why is because it is equally my Impressionist understanding of The Bible's meta-narrative that The Resurrection of The Dead is a physical bodily Resurrection, and so we are His Tabernacle already but we won't be a complete Temple until all Flesh is Resurrected.  Getting lexically lost in certain details of 1 Corinthians 15 is where the justification to Spiritualize The Resurrection comes from, but the closing verses finalize what the Impression is supposed to be.

And that leads me back to Universal Salvation and how we tend to discus it.  The clear Impression The Bible is trying to give about God's Character is that He is Love in 1 John, that His Love endures forever as the Psalms repeatedly claim.  That He is not willing that any should Perish as Matthew 18, 2 Peter 3 and 1 Timothy 2 make clear.

So who even cares if the word "Eternal" is a technically accurate translation in Matthew 25 or not.  When we remember that the Chapter Divisions weren't there originally so the start of Matthew 26 is indeed the close of that narrative, even that story in it's own Context is ending on The Impression that Jesus is about to take this Eternal Judgment upon himself.

It is the doctrines of Annihilation and Endless Torment that are dependent on the same Lexical obsessions that create allegorist heresies.  Yet we ourselves get bogged down in Lexical exercises trying to argue with them on their terms.

My own mind has too many Lexical tendencies, so on these blogs I will probably continue to employ Lexical methods in how I argue my views.   But the starting point should always understand that God is an Impressionist.  So the point of what's being said is more important then the details.

What Jesus taught matters, but The Gospel is The Resurrection

Saying The Gospel is even partly Jesus moral and ethical teachings is to fundamentally miss the point of New Testament theology.  The context of the Sermon on the Mount in it's introduction in Matthew chapter 5 is the futility of trying to earn Salvation.

Now people like MaggieMayFish in her video about Kirk Cameorn's Christmas movie don't like when Christians feel that way, saying all this over emphasis on The Resurrection is because people don't want to actually follow her interpretation of what Jesus taught.

I find it amusing how in a prior video of this series she pretends she's on the protestant side of the original Reformation when in fact her attitude on "good works" is exactly what Luther found anathema and pretty consistent with how reactionary Tridentine Catholics feel to this day.  Also Luther was not a populist reformer who's message was later co-opted by the rich and powerful, he personally aligned himself with the Feudal Nobility of northern Germany and Denmark and the proto-Capitalists of the Netherlands and in turn persecuted the Anarcho-Communist Anabaptists and Jews.

There are other forms of basically this same thing, from both the right and left, people acting like the message of unconditional Grace somehow detracts from seeing what Jesus taught as the key to true good ethics.

And I as a Communist, Universal Salvation preaching Queer affirming YEC Pre-Millennial Futurist am looking at this Teachings vs Gospel dichotomy going.

Neither Kirk Cameron or any of these other Right Wing Conservative Christians she's opposing react to our Leftist interpretation of what Jesus said with "that doesn't matter because Resurrection, Faith Alone, yadda yadda yadda".  They all believe they are being consistent with what Jesus taught however absurd that looks to us.  And Trust me you can find economic and social conservatives among those who allegorize away The Resurrection to support a Platonic or Sadducean view on life after death.  So no they aren't going to change their minds on morality, ethics or economic policy if they changed them on The Resurrection.

Everyone interprets Jesus as saying what we want Him to have said to some degree.  I have little confidence that my own approach is completely without bias.  And people observing Jesus from the outside don't entirely agree on what his message was either, some of course are instead biased towards making Him the enemy of their beliefs.  That I am at least trying I hope is demonstrated by the fact that I have changed my mind on some issues over the years.

Also according to Josephus in Antiquities 18 the Zelots agreed with the Pharisees on theology and metaphysical matters, they were the Anarchist Revolutionaries of first century Judea.  So even before Christianity it was the Resurrectionists who believed in taking action to change the world.  The Essenes who were the Platonic "Spiritual is what really matters" viewpoint practiced a form of Communism but in a purely voluntary sense, they were not revolutionaries interested in changing the world.

Even the Maccabees seem to have been Pharisees originally, Aristobolus turned against them when a group of them called his mother a whore and implied he was actually a bastard son of Antiochus Epiphanes.  The only Jewish Ruling Queen of antiquity, Salome Alexandra, was a devout Pharisee unlike her husband.

For me it's because Jesus defeated Death and Unconditionally Loves every single one of us without exception that I consider what He had to say about Ethics and Morality more valuable and trustworthy then anyone else.  A "Savior" who intends to leave us in the dirt or save only those who "Merit" saving is little better then the God of Calvinism and therefore not someone who's opinions matter to me even slightly.  The only context in which I'll care what a person from 2000 years ago has to say on anything is if He Rose from The Dead.

As a companion of sorts to this here is my latest post on my Prophecy Blog.

P.S. This isn't the first BlogPost I made partly inspired by this YT Video Essay.

There is a theory that Mark's Gospel was originally written in Latin.

I've already argued on this Blog from Biblical References that John Mark spent time in Rome but not Peter.

Mark contains over half of the New Testament's Laitnisms, Laitnisms are inevitable just because of Rome's influence at the time.  But Mark a couple of times actually explains Semitic words using Latin ones.

Now I should clarify that no one proposing this thinks The Vulgate version of Mark is the original Latin version of Mark.  That text is still viewed as Jerome's translation of a Greek Mark as it is for the rest of the New Testament.

David Bruce Gain is one scholar who's been a proponent of this theory.  He has made his own personal reconstruction of what he thinks the original Latin text was, and his own English Translation of that Latin version.  I do disagree with him sometimes, for one he ends Mark with Mark 16:8 which is a theory I reject and may be the subject of it's own post in the future.

And on the subject of Mark 16:1 I disagree with "the Sabbath was past" being an interpolation "based on Matthew 28:1".  What Mark says here is distinct form how it's phrased in Matthew, and because neither Latin or Greek had a word for "week" in the first century this detail was necessary to clarify that the Sabbath following the Passion was over.  Torah literate readers would see it as referring to the instructions for First Fruits.

There is a limit to how much I'd be willing to change Mark based on this theory.  If Mark was originally in Latin I still feel the Textus Receptus (not any Alexandrian manuscripts) version of Mark is a very accurate Greek Translation of that Latin.  And I also think the Peshita version of Mark is a translation of the original Latin not the Greek.

I believe the Simon of Matthew 16 and Mark 14 was a Jar-Maker not a Leper, what that would mean for the textual history of Mark or Matthew (which I believe was originally written in Hebrew) I can't say for certain yet.  Though the ablity of the Peshita to get it right if it was using a Latin source even though the Greek got it wrong from the same source implies that Latin text transliterated rather then translated the title.

The robe placed on Jesus at his Trial and Execution I believe was a red robe that the soldiers described as purple mockingly and that's how we reconcile apparent contradictions there.  What's interesting is how only Mark mentioned the Color Purple.  So Mark has Jesus seemingly clothed in Purple with a Crown of Thrones and a staff, and presumably blood on his face.  Mark is making Jesus look like the Triumphitor of a Roman Triumph.  Yet there are two roles in the Triumph Jesus is playing, he's also the enemy of Rome (proclaimed King of The Jews) being humiliated and sacrificed to the Heavenly Father.

Now there are reasons why my Universal Salvation allies might be a little worried about suggesting any book was originally in Latin, we like to blame Latin translations for the issues we have with how certain passages read in modern English.

However Mark has no equivalent to Matthew 25's parables, I have argued for Universal Salvation being compatible with the KJV, and again we don't think the Vulgate is the original.  4th and 5th Century Latins are a factor in these problems, but Greek speakers like Cyril of Alexandria also helped.  I think we've perhaps been too hard on Tertullian for example.

David Bruce Gain's translation of his reconstruction of Mark 3:29, the only verse in Mark where the KJV uses "Eternal" in reference to punishment.  "but one who blasphemes against the dedicated breath will be penalized.He will be guilty of wrongdoing for ever".

This reading fits pretty well with how I interpret the "unpardonable sin" issue based on studying it mainly via Matthew.  This is the one sin where you can't get out of the punishment by genuinely repenting.  But that doesn't mean the punishment is Endless Torment or Annihilation.

Later in Chapter 9 David Bruce Gain's proposed original Latin does use a Latin transliteration of Gehenna every time you see Gehenna in the Greek, it's never simply "translated" infernus like the Vulgate often does.  I don't know if he has pre-Vulgate texts to support that or if it's just an inference.

However I do feel Gain is wrong on verse 49, he removed all references to Salt and has that verse just refer to being consumed by fire.  Now I think it's possible his version of verse 50 could be correct, but even he still has salt being referenced in verse 50, he has pay off with no set up.

He recognizes that this section is drawing on the very last verse of the book of Isaiah.  But that's not the only Old Testament reference in mind here, there is also Leviticus 2:13 and Deuteronomy 29:23., and maybe also Ezekiel 16:4, 43:24 and 47:11.

Update:  I'm starting to feel like I'm guilty of some hypocrisy in how I treated the Vulgate up above.

I strongly advocate for favoring the Received Text when it comes to the Greek (Textus Receptus over Alexandrian variations) the Aramaic (Peshita) and even for favoring the Ethiopic version of the Apocalypse of Peter over the Akhmim manuscript IF I were to entertain treating it as canonical.  But once I became aware of the possibility of a book being originally in Latin the anti Vulgate sentiments of my Protestantism clouded my judgment.

My interpretation of Mark 3:29 is perfectly compatible with the Vulgate reading, since the word it uses in place of the KJV's "Damnation" is "delicti" which Google translate says simply means "offense" and "in danger of " actually means "guilty of".  So "is guiltily of an eternal offense" works perfectly.  I still consider Matthew closer to what Jesus actually said, but this can be a valid expression of the same idea.

Also, I was flat out wrong on Gehenna, the Vulgate never "translates" it Infernus, every single time Gehenna is in the Greek the Vulgate says Gehenna too.  Now David Bruce Gain's reconstruction has a different transliteration, but that's not a difference worth slipping hairs over.

Hades is what the Vulgate likes to "translate" infernus, but Hades doesn't appear in Mark.  Hell in the context of what Hel/Hella was in Norse mythology was originally a perfectly fine equivalent to the Hebrew Sheol and Greek Hades, it's using the same word for Hades that caused what Hell means to be confusing.  In 1 Corinthians 15:55 the Hades/Grave/Hell half of the verse is dropped entirely which mutilates the very poetic structure of the passage.  Somehow the Vulgate uses both inferni and tartarum in 2 Peter 2:4.

My belief that Infernus was fundamentally wrong was a mistaken understanding of Latin combined with my nerdy reasons for thinking it should have been Orcus.  I had it in my head that it meant fiery first and became a name for Hell when used in Bible translations.  It's the reverse however, it's literal Latin meaning is "the lower world".   The Aeneid, a Latin epic poem inspired by Homer's epics uses Infernus of Hades.

I think every place where I explicitly expressed disagreement with Gain would put me in agreement with the Vulgate.

Except for what I hypothesized about Simon the Leper, the Vulgate like Gain definitely says Leper here.  I'm also starting to doubt Hebrew Matthew will support the Jar-Maker reading given what I've seen from people talking about the known texts so far.  So it seems like the Peshita may be the one guilty of a scribal error there.

The fact that the name of Bethany probably comes from "House of the Poor" or "House of affliction" supports the idea that Lepers would be concerned.  I do believe the Bethany siblings themselves were wealthy, probably devoting much of their time to helping the poor in this area.  It's possible Simon wasn't called "The Leper" because he was a Leper but because of an association with helping and caring for them.

Maybe the meaning of the name of Simon/Simeon/Simonis is the key, which means hearing or to regard.  Maybe it meant the House of hearing the Lepers?

There is also the theory that Simon the Leper and Lazarus are the same person.  I've long been unsatisfied by the theory that the etymology of Lazarus is a form of the Hebrew Eleazer, every Hebrew name that begins with El still has the E in their NT Greek forms.  And Josephus used Lazarus in Wars 5.18.7 even though he used Eleazar often.  Well the Hebrew word Leper used in the Torah in Leviticus 13 and 14 is Tsara or Zara, the Hebrew letter Tzadi usually becomes a Zeta in Greek.  And L' is a Hebrew prefix usually interpreted to mean "to" but seems to sometimes be used as an alternate definitive article.  During Greco-Roman times if people knew the Hellenic/Latin words for this condition began with an L the L prefix here could have been wordplay.  The other Lazarus in The Bible in Luke 16 seems to be described as a Leper even though traditionally no word for Leper is used there, and since it's a parable personal names shouldn't be used there.

Another Update: Vetus Latina

I had thought that Pre-Vulgate versions existed only in fragments.  But this is an independent received tradition that existed along side the Vulgate virtually until Trent, and there is a roughly 350 dated manuscript of the Gospels.

The Etymology of the word Gospel

When people say "Gospel" means "Good News" they are mainly describing the meaning of the New Testament Greek word it is used to translate.

Euangelion, often via Latin influence transliterated as Evangelion, Evangeliun or Evangelium (and because of Engrish the name of a certain Anime named after this word is sometimes incorrectly spelled Evangerion).  Eu is a Greek Prefix that means good or positive, and angleion means a message or proclamation, being what the word "angel" comes from.

Some in The Hebrew Roots movement and Sacred Name movement have naturally developed a theory on what the Biblical Hebrew word for Euangelion should be, Besorah Strongs# 1309, itself the feminine form of Basar Strongs# 1319.  Neither word ever appears in the Pentateuch and it isn't used in any verse I feel confident in saying is referring to the New Testament Euangelion in advance, but none the less I agree that it is a reasonable plausible Hebrew equivalent.

These movements also have a thing for demonizing a lot of the key words used in mainstream English speaking Christianity.  The word Gospel has become a synonym for Good News regardless of it's original etymology and so I'm not making this post to argue there is anything evil about using that word to convey that meaning, and I will probably still continue to do so in the future.

Still it is an interesting observation I feel, because you see "Gospel" is a corruption of "Godspell", as in a divine spell or magical incantation.

Now people in these movements usually don't support Universal Salvation, quite the contrary the Sacred Name movement thinks Salvation is dependent on pronouncing YHWH and Y'shua correctly, and different sects of it can't agree on that pronunciation.

But in a prior post on this blog I essentially argue how it is Exclusive Salvation particularly as understood by Protestant Evangelicals that turns the Euangelion from a Positive Proclamation to a Magick spell you have to say correctly with their "Sinner's Prayer" obsession.

The Aarmaic Peshita where you expect to see Euangelion/Gospel in Mark's Gospel usually uses Sabartha/Sabarthi.  However the first verse of Mark's Gospel (it's full title basically) uses Evangeliun, a Latin form.  I have become increasingly open to the theory that Mark was originally written in Latin, and so I can't help but now see this first verse as evidence the Peshita version of Mark is a translation of a Latin version.