Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 04-10-2013, 02:39 PM

I asked Alex Poulos of Catholic University to translate a section of text from Severian of Gabala which has an interesting interpretation of Mark 10:17-18.
The usual interpretation of the material (or at least the early interpretation) is that Jesus is saying that only God the Father is good, based as it is on the common Alexandrian reading 'God the Father' in place of merely 'God.' The reading appears in Clement, Origen (before he arrived in Caesarea), Marcion and I believe Marcus the heretic.

Severian's explanation is very different in this text. We read here, immediately following a citation of John 20:27 that Jesus rejected being called 'Good Teacher' because he wanted to be called 'Good Lord':

Quote:

Thus Thomas’s finger has ended the quarrel of the heretics, for this is the finger, over which the the Egyptian magicians could not prevail, saying “this is the finger of the Lord” (Ex 8:15). It was thus fitting for St. Thomas, after this assurance, to proclaim the words of David, “in the day of my affliction I have pursued God” (Ps. 77:2/76:3 LXX), and after enquiring with his hands to declare also what follows, “in the night, my hands are stretched out before him, and I have not been deceived” (Ps. 77:2/76:3 LXX) [1].

“Do not disbelieve, but rather believe” (Jn. 20:27). Thomas, then, having recognized from the wound the one who suffered, due to Jesus’ foreknowledge, called him God, saying, “my Lord and my God” (Jn 20:28). (6) Let the heretics hear this! If the son had actually rejected this, and does not possess identical honor with the Father, why then does he not dismiss this all-surpassing honor? For he heard from someone else, “good teacher,” and he said, “why do you gall me good? No one is good, except God, who is one” (Mk. 10:17-18), even though the word “good” is in use among us. By your understanding, he refused the epithet “good.” How much more should he have refused to accept “Lord and God”? [In that passage, the man says] “Good Teacher,” and [Jesus] replied, “why do you call me good?” But here we have, “my Lord and my God,” but he did not say, “why do you call me ‘Lord and God?’” In the prior case, since the word used was unworthy of him (for [the man] did not say, “Good Lord,” but “Good teacher”), he dismissed the worthless title and accepted the honorable one. In this instance, he also offers a rebuke, but on opposite grounds: he rebuked Thomas because [Thomas] spoke too late. He did not rebuke him for saying “my Lord,” but because he spoke later than he should have. “After you have seen, you have believed, but blessed are those who do not see, yet believe” (Jn 20:29). Though only one man [Thomas] has been summoned, all of us have been blessed, for this blessing was spoken over all of us and those after us. Because we have not received these miraculous things by sight, but rather received them in faith, we become fellow partakers in this great and renowned blessing.

(7) But let us turn from this story, which we have treated succinctly, and move on to another word of the prophet, lest you all grow weary from an abundance of words. Which passage shall we discuss? “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord” (Is. 2:3 / Micah 4:2)… [2]

All of the pertinent details and background of the text are available at Alex's blog which is here - http://mapoulos.wordpress.com/2013/0.../#comment-1408. The question I have now is whether this is a sensible reading of the material.

Let's take it from the top again. A man runs up to Jesus and says 'Good Teacher' and - the interpretation of the material by Severian - is that the point of what follows is that Jesus wants the man (and us as voyeurs to the narrative) to learn that it is inappropriate to identify Jesus as a 'good teacher.'

Surely this is an unusual - if not implausible - interpretation of the material. I don't deny that it is Severian's. I am just saying that it is curious to say the least. Clement of Alexandria for one identifies Jesus openly as 'the Instructor' (admittedly a Παιδαγωγός is something different than a 'teacher'). But still since it seems the word 'good' is the subject of Jesus's response it seems a little forced to imagine that Jesus was demanding recognition as a Lord rather than a teacher. The variant Alexandrian reading 'God the Father' denies the association with Jesus entirely.

The only point in Severian's favor is the difficulty with believing that Jesus wasn't good or that Jesus ascribed all goodness to the Father - even to the point of rebuking someone for identifying him as 'good' or a 'good teacher.'

The Latin of Tertullian (= Praeceptor optime) is interesting too because it departs from the Vulgate and the Old Latin (= Magister bone). A praeceptor has as its primary meaning interestingly enough (= One who seizes beforehand, an anticipator). The second meaning is "commander, ruler." The third is "teacher, instructor, preceptor."

I am not sure that Tertullian's meaning here is 'teacher' given the way the Vulgate translates Luke 17.13

They lifted up their voices, saying, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!"

et levaverunt vocem dicentes Iesu praeceptor miserere nostri

The Greek here is:

καὶ αὐτοὶ ἦραν φωνὴν λέγοντες· Ἰησοῦ ἐπιστάτα, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς.

ἐπιστάτα as I am sure you know is from ἐπιστάτης. Here are the examples in Luke:

Luke 5:5 N-VMS
BIB: Σίμων εἶπεν Ἐπιστάτα δι' ὅλης
NAS: and said, Master, we worked hard
KJV: unto him, Master, we have toiled
INT: Simon said Master through whole

Luke 8:24 N-VMS
BIB: αὐτὸν λέγοντες Ἐπιστάτα ἐπιστάτα ἀπολλύμεθα
NAS: Him up, saying, Master, Master,
KJV: saying, Master, master,
INT: him saying Master Master we are perishing

Luke 8:45 N-VMS
BIB: ὁ Πέτρος Ἐπιστάτα οἱ ὄχλοι
NAS: said, Master, the people
KJV: him said, Master, the multitude throng
INT: Peter Master the people

Luke 9:33 N-VMS
BIB: τὸν Ἰησοῦν Ἐπιστάτα καλόν ἐστιν
NAS: to Jesus, Master, it is good
KJV: unto Jesus, Master, it is good
INT: Jesus Master good it is

Luke 9:49 N-VMS
BIB: Ἰωάννης εἶπεν Ἐπιστάτα εἴδομέν τινα
NAS: and said, Master, we saw
KJV: answered and said, Master, we saw one
INT: John said Master we saw someone

Luke 17:13 N-VMS
BIB: λέγοντες Ἰησοῦ ἐπιστάτα ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς
NAS: Jesus, Master, have mercy
KJV: Jesus, Master, have mercy
INT: saying Jesus Master have compassion on us

The Vulgate consistently translates each one of these examples of ἐπιστάτα with Præceptor. Interestingly Mark does not render the first two of these examples of 'Lord.' In Mark 1:16 - 20 Peter's Lord does not appear. In Mark 4:39 - 41 the disciples cry is silenced. With Luke 9:33 Mark renders it ῥαββί while Matthew has κύριε interestingly enough. With 9:49 Mark renders it Διδάσκαλε. Luke 17:13′s ten lepers narrative appears nowhere else but Luke.

It seems curious to me that either Tertullian or Marcion might have had something other than ‘teacher’ in the equivalent of Mark 10:17. I think the original (Marcionite) reading was the man called out - 'Good Lord' (Κύριε ἀγαθέ) or words to this effect - the very thing that Severian says was the point of the story.

I am interested if anyone else can make better sense of the material.

Logical · 04-10-2013, 05:57 PM

Doesn't it make more sense that the mark author portrayed Jesus as a man, while gJohn portrayed him as a god? What's the mystery?

stephan huller · 04-10-2013, 06:13 PM

The question is - why was the man rebuked for running after Jesus and calling out to him?

steve_bnk · 04-10-2013, 06:49 PM

His taget audience was the poor and lower class Jews.

The Lord's Prayer '..give us this day our dialy bread..' was not a prayer said at a dinner table with a good spread. It was said by people who gave thanks for having enough food for one more day.

In the NT James also makes a diatribe against the rich.The message of JC, according to the gospels as they are, was prepare spiritually for an afterlife in eternity and bear suffering.

Vorkosigan · 04-10-2013, 07:48 PM

Quote:

The question is - why was the man rebuked for running after Jesus and calling out to him?

He's not rebuked for either of those acts. He's rebuked for calling Jesus "good". The text is massively unstable at that point. I don't think we can read too much into it, since the entire passage is a literary invention of the writer of Mark.

Logical · 04-10-2013, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The question is - why was the man rebuked for running after Jesus and calling out to him?

Because the Marcan Jesus was just like any other humble Jew, denying his own goodness and attributing all goodness to God alone.

stephan huller · 04-10-2013, 08:17 PM

But you have to admit that there are worse insults than calling someone 'good.' It's very odd.

stephan huller · 04-10-2013, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Because the Marcan Jesus was just like any other humble Jew, denying his own goodness and attributing all goodness to God alone.

But Jesus is God and the Gospel of Mark begins without any reference to a human birth. It doesn't make sense.

steve_bnk · 04-10-2013, 10:36 PM

Tto make sense of the gosples may not make sense.

Two views from Christian theologians from a PBS show.

1. The gospels were likely written as promotional literature of the times, certainly embellished to attract converts. The gospels were never intended to be a biography or a historical rendering.

Even today an evangelical may approach you on the street with a bible open to the gospels, and saying to you 'Have you heard the Good News? Jesus Christ arose from the dead'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

'...The word gospel derives from the Old English gōd-spell [11] (rarely godspel), meaning "good news" or "glad tidings". The gospel was the "good news" of the coming Kingdom of Messiah, and of redemption through the life and death of Jesus, the central Christian message.[12] Gospel is a calque (word-for-word translation) of the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον, euangelion (eu- "good", -angelion "message") or in Aramaic (ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ewang'eliyawn). The Greek word euangelion is also the source (via Latinised evangelium) of the terms "evangelist" and "evangelism" in English. The authors of the four canonical Christian gospels are known as the Four Evangelists...'

2. The four gospels reflect four different writers separted in time and distance. Christianity evolved and the message shifted over time.

The four gospels were selected by commitee long after JC and after they were writtenmand some writings rejected. I do not see how one can expect any consistency in the NT cannon.

They are a dynamic literature. Consider the variations in the Artherian stories as a rough analogy.

The only thing in the gospels that really matters to Christians is the alleged eyewitnesses to the ressurection. That is what Christianity is about, that faith.

stephan huller · 04-11-2013, 06:49 AM

I don't see how any of this is relevant to the simple question I asked.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-10-2013, 05:57 PM	#2
Logical Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: USA Posts: 802	Doesn't it make more sense that the mark author portrayed Jesus as a man, while gJohn portrayed him as a god? What's the mystery?

04-10-2013, 06:13 PM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The question is - why was the man rebuked for running after Jesus and calling out to him?

04-10-2013, 06:49 PM	#4
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	His taget audience was the poor and lower class Jews. The Lord's Prayer '..give us this day our dialy bread..' was not a prayer said at a dinner table with a good spread. It was said by people who gave thanks for having enough food for one more day. In the NT James also makes a diatribe against the rich.The message of JC, according to the gospels as they are, was prepare spiritually for an afterlife in eternity and bear suffering.

04-10-2013, 08:17 PM	#7
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But you have to admit that there are worse insults than calling someone 'good.' It's very odd.

04-10-2013, 10:36 PM	#9
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	Tto make sense of the gosples may not make sense. Two views from Christian theologians from a PBS show. 1. The gospels were likely written as promotional literature of the times, certainly embellished to attract converts. The gospels were never intended to be a biography or a historical rendering. Even today an evangelical may approach you on the street with a bible open to the gospels, and saying to you 'Have you heard the Good News? Jesus Christ arose from the dead' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel '...The word gospel derives from the Old English gōd-spell [11] (rarely godspel), meaning "good news" or "glad tidings". The gospel was the "good news" of the coming Kingdom of Messiah, and of redemption through the life and death of Jesus, the central Christian message.[12] Gospel is a calque (word-for-word translation) of the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον, euangelion (eu- "good", -angelion "message") or in Aramaic (ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ewang'eliyawn). The Greek word euangelion is also the source (via Latinised evangelium) of the terms "evangelist" and "evangelism" in English. The authors of the four canonical Christian gospels are known as the Four Evangelists...' 2. The four gospels reflect four different writers separted in time and distance. Christianity evolved and the message shifted over time. The four gospels were selected by commitee long after JC and after they were writtenmand some writings rejected. I do not see how one can expect any consistency in the NT cannon. They are a dynamic literature. Consider the variations in the Artherian stories as a rough analogy. The only thing in the gospels that really matters to Christians is the alleged eyewitnesses to the ressurection. That is what Christianity is about, that faith.

04-11-2013, 06:49 AM	#10
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't see how any of this is relevant to the simple question I asked.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.