stephan huller

Thanks Toto I don't know if it is like the Life of Pi (a movie I haven't seen) but it's how the Samaritans and many Jews have always interpreted the material. Look at the way the early Jewish sources take eshel (= sycamore) to be an acronym. The name yeshu is an acronym. The point here is that I didn't invent the acronym. The early rabbinic sources coined the term which is bizarre because it would be like Mormons developing a similar acronym in English for God like E.V.I.L. Why would they do this? Traditions lead us into a dark unknown where even those preserving the tradition don't fully understand what they are preserving. The Samaritan interest in the name Mark as a numerological equivalent to Moses is another example. Shilo = Moses yet another. They are more superstitions than science but still invaluable clues to the earliest understandings of scripture.

stephan huller

The latest from Baarda but I don't think I explained myself very well. I have this problem because (a) I am stupid (b) I am rushed and (c) I am overly ambitious given my lack of intellect. Here is latest response to my latest question:

May be, I am a bit stubborn, when I remain convinced of the interpretation that I gave earlier.
One of the presuppositions of your reasoning is (if I do understand you correctly) that the Hebrew/
Aramaic would explain both the teacher and the adjective ‘optimus’ (your question:
‘couldn’t the Aramaic rabbuun being beneath all the variants be the ultimate answer’).
First of all: anplm is teacher, like (Hebrew)/Aramaic מלפנא (mallefana‘), teacher, scholar.
Second: abf, is: bonus (not optimus)// טוב , whereas br = רב would be‘great’ (magnus)
Ραββουνι < Palestinian Aramaic רבון (rabbōn, ribbōn).
Your reference to the Hebrew Gospel is unclear to me: magister (just like διδάσκαλε)
might rende Semitic rab(rav), rabbi, rabban, or rabbana.

stephan huller

From discussions here - especially with Jeffrey (I can't spell this name) whom I have repeatedly credited with this insight despite constant knocks - and discussions with Baarda and others I am tentatively suggesting that:

1) the Aramaic gospel was as close to first that we know - i.e. what is preserved in Origen Comm Matt 15.14
2) this text is developed from Deuteronomy 5:33 only that the author has flipped the order

Ye shall walk in all the ways which Yahweh your Elohim hath commanded you, that ye may live, and good with you, and [that] ye may prolong [your] days in the land which ye shall possess.

This use of 'good' here is vague. Ephesians 6:3 cites another version of the material rather than the LXX εὖ σοι γένηται καὶ ἔσῃ μακροχρόνιος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (= so that it may go well with you and that you may have a long life in the land). But I think the Question of the Rich Man changes the emphasis by adding an interest in 'eternal life' rather than mere life in the land.

The Hebrew (Aramaic) gospel did not do this. It was Marcion's text which added both the emphasis 'eternal' life and then the response from Jesus that the only power that is good is God the Father. This was in turn corrupted by Mark and Luke by adding 'good' in front of teacher as if Jesus took offense at being called a good teacher. That's where I am right now.

stephan huller

Let's consult Krasovec Reward, punishment, and forgiveness: the thinking and beliefs of ancient Israel (or via: amazon.co.uk) p. 188 for some context to this material in Deuteronomy:

Yet we already know that Clement understood the fear of God to be only the first stage of initiation (= faith) in the path to godliness. The gnostic is one who has moved passed this base understanding and now only loves God through the example of his brother or 'the one who is near' = the neighbor. This would be the second stage on the path to divinity and it is equated by Clement with knowledge.

Clearly then 'doing good' (εὐποιΐα) for Clement is now divorced for the Christian from mere obedience to the commandments. The commandments are taken 'spiritually' - i.e. they are useful from keeping man from the path of wrongdoing but ultimately do not lead to the end goal of Christian initiation = perfection, another term that comes up in the Question of the Rich Man quite prominently.

The logic of the gospel is very much in keeping with this material in Deuteronomy. The author(s) are acknowledging that yes the commandments lead to 'life' and to material benefits in the here and now, but if you want 'perfection' if you want eternal life (= rather than extended life and riches in the land) Jesus explicitly says that you have to give up the riches and turn to God - "“With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” (Mark 10:27)

Even if we ignore the implications of Secret Mark (i.e. that an initiation involving death appeared immediately after this discussion) Origen's Gospel to the Hebrews is introductive regarding a parallel death narrative, visit to the underworld in the Diatessaronic tradition:

It is written in a certain Gospel which is called according to the Hebrews (if at elast any one care to accept it, not as authoritative, but to throw light on the question before us):

It has long been noted that this narrative in the Diatessaronic traditions is immediately followed by the rich man and Lazarus narrative where this 'rich man' goes into the underworld and sees another with riches tormented in hell and - importantly - where it is finally confirmed that the Law and the prophets do not lead to 'goodness' or eternal life. The bringing back of the soul of the rich man into the body of another dead individual or possibly his own body (it is hard to tell) as outlined in Secret Mark would only be the end of this well established mystical narrative.

stephan huller

And when you think about it the whole historical model is ridiculous. Why on earth would Jesus have been called 'teacher' without being able to produce any sort of pedigree for his learning? Look at the way Jeffrey attacks people - often fairly - for not having the proper education background. This is how it always ways and among Jews in the early period it would only have been only more pronounced. The idea of someone just 'dropping out of the sky' and being taken to be a magister/mallefana is fucking ludicrous. Look at the way opinions are cited in the rabbinic literature. You can't just drop out of the sky into a debate about the meaning of the law. There were established interpretations and undoubtedly very little deviation from the norms. This is where Christians - and especially Protestants - have ruined the study of the gospel. The religion of Israel was never about people 'figuring out' what to believe in the Law and the prophets. It was all already figured out for you. The idea of Jesus promulgating a whole different interpretation than the scribes was exceptional to say the least. The idea of him having authority is even more incredible. That's why the idea of Jesus as God has to stand behind everything. The idea that a 'guy' just 'came up with shit' that everyone 'liked' and started to follow simply doesn't fly. The early Christian idea is of course that he was the divine being in the burning bush. That's why he knew more than the scribes. This moronic notion that Jesus was a 'cool guy' who just taught people to be nice to each other completely misses the mark. It all comes back to Jesus as God. It's the only way that the gospel makes any sense.

stephan huller

Have you ever read the authoritative opinion of Marqe on any passage of the Torah? Here's the guy who's interpretation is law in the Samaritan tradtion and his understanding seems utterly mystical and indeed mystifying. Here's an example of Deut 32:3: