FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-06-2012, 02:55 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default The Marcionite Term נָכְרִי Means 'Gentile' = Stranger from the Jewish Perspective

This is another idiotic feature of Marcionitism. Yes, נָכְרִי means 'alien' or 'stranger' but everyone at this forum is a nukraya (Syriac) from the Jewish perspective. Does this imply that everyone is from outer space or an 'alien' in the Marcionite sense? Well in this forum that might be true of course. But in the strictest sense it is not. The standard Pauline notion of Paul as an 'apostle to the Gentiles' could well have been developed using the root נֹ֫כֶר given that all white people are 'strangers' to the Jews at least traditionally or from the perspective of the Pentateuch.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 01-06-2012, 06:29 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
Default

According to my handy dandy Young's Analytical Concordance (or via: amazon.co.uk) (beats Strongs hands down for usefulness) In the AV (KJV) the Hebrew noun Nekar is translated alien (1x), strange (17x) or stranger (6x). It is derived from the verb Nakar which in its various forms has (based on the 50 translated words listed) the basic meaning of something that is 'known,' 'acknowledged' or 'perceived.' I suppose the noun is simply the term applied to someone who is obviously different.

The Greek word for Gentile is ἔθνη (ethnE) which means simply 'nations.' Technically, Israelites are also a 'nation' along with all the other nations, but the idea of the word when used in the plural is almost always "(the other) nations (besides Israelites or the Hebrew people)." However, the Hebrew analog is גּוֹי (gôy) which means, wait for it, 'nation' or 'people.'

If you compare "perceived (to be different)" to "(different) nations." I am not quite sure how they are supposed to relate, as in both cases the 'otherness' or 'difference' is assumed and not inherent in the words themselves. It does not appear to me to be the case that the Pauline "apostleship to the gentiles" [the peoples/nations] has anything to do with the Syriac 'nukraya' [strangers].

DCH

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
This is another idiotic feature of Marcionitism. Yes, נָכְרִי [Nekar] means 'alien' or 'stranger' but everyone at this forum is a nukraya (Syriac) from the Jewish perspective. Does this imply that everyone is from outer space or an 'alien' in the Marcionite sense? Well in this forum that might be true of course. But in the strictest sense it is not.

The standard Pauline notion of Paul as an 'apostle to the Gentiles' could well have been developed using the root נֹ֫כֶר [Nekar] given that all white people are 'strangers' to the Jews at least traditionally or from the perspective of the Pentateuch.
DCHindley is offline  
Old 01-06-2012, 07:29 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

If my theory holds up we would be examining the Aramaic use of nakar and related terms. An example. Jastrow discusses nun-kaf-resh-yod (typing this on my phone) and notes:

Stranger, gentile [in editions published under the censor's supervision our word is frequently changed into goy, kuthi (Samaritan), Cushite (Negro), idolators etc

Some examples

Hull 13b gentiles outside of Palestine are not to be considered as idolaters

Gitt 61a we must support the poor of the Gentiles

Gitt V 9 (61a) we must lament for the dead of the Gentile
stephan huller is offline  
Old 01-06-2012, 08:47 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Let's not forget that the most important epitome of Christian salvation represents the Gentiles quite implicitly as 'strangers':

Quote:
Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
Yes certainly this is the orthodox version of the text. We can spend hours debating what the original Marcionite recension looked like. Nevertheless the core concept is clear - the Gentiles were originally 'removed' or estranged from Israel. Christ as the nukraya or the apostle as nukraya (it is very difficult to get a handle on who or what is 'strange' in Ephrem's report about the Marcionites - is it the Son? the Father? the whole family?) This is the implications of the Hebrew/Aramaic terminology.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 01-06-2012, 09:08 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

I think arguing about the implications of the original Syriac of Ephrem are going to be fruitless. I happen to know about five of the most authoritative scholars on the subject of Marcion and they can't do any better with Syriac texts. Let's look at some of the Latin references to the stranger concept in relation to Marcion. Irenaeus cites this saying from Matthew 25:

Quote:
our Lord says: "Come, ye blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you. For I was an hungered, and ye gave Me to eat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took Me in: naked, and ye clothed Me; sick, and ye visited Me; in prison, and ye came to Me."
Clearly the idea of Jesus being identified as the stranger does not require him being an extraterrestrial. Irenaeus clearly and unmistakably understands the term to mean 'Gentile' as we see in a discussion against the Marcionites a little later in the same book where he cites the same verse in Matthew:

Quote:
For, because He knew that we would make a good use of our substance which we should possess by receiving it from another, He says, "He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise." And, "For I was an hungered, and ye gave Me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink; I was naked and ye clothed Me." And, "When thou doest thine alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth." And we are proved to be righteous by whatsoever else we do well, redeeming, as it were, our property from strange hands. But thus do I say, "from strange hands," not as if the world were not God's possession, but that we have gifts of this sort, and receive them from others, in the same way as these men had them from the Egyptians who knew not God; and by means of these same do we erect in ourselves the tabernacle of God: for God dwells in those who act uprightly, as the Lord says: "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that they, when ye shall be put to flight," may receive you into eternal tabernacles." For whatsoever we acquired from unrighteousness when we were heathen, we are proved righteous, when we have become believers, by applying it to the Lord's advantage. [AH 4.30.3]
In case you are wondering the context here is Irenaeus answering to Marcionite objections that the Catholic Church is in the pockets of the Roman government. 'Strange hands' = Gentiles throughout this passage. The reference to Matthew 25 clearly underscores knowledge of the Marcionite interpretation of 'strange' meaning 'the Egyptians who knew not God' (the Marcionites object here to the Israelites taking the gold from Egypt but this is familiar exegesis within Judaism; the criticism of the ancient Israelites is found in the rabbinic sources connected to the debe Jannai).

That 'strange' again means 'Gentiles' to both Irenaeus and the Marcionites is seen in another passage in the same book:

Quote:
But in Christ every blessing [is summed up], and therefore the latter people has snatched away the blessings of the former from the Father, just as Jacob took away the blessing of this Esau. For which cause his brother suffered the plots and persecutions of a brother, just as the Church suffers this self-same thing from the Jews. In a foreign country were the twelve tribes born, the race of Israel, inasmuch as Christ was also, in a strange country, to generate the twelve-pillared foundation of the Church. [AH 4.17.3]
This chapter is devoted to the figure of Abraham who is above all else 'the stranger' in the Jewish and Samaritan traditions and so Irenaeus identifies Abraham throughout Against Heresies. In Book Five we read:

Quote:
Thus, then, the promise of God, which He gave to Abraham, remains stedfast. For thus He said: "Lift up thine eyes, and look from this place where now thou art, towards the north and south, and east and west. For all the earth which thou seest, I will give to thee and to thy seed, even for ever." And again He says, "Arise, and go through the length and breadth of the land, since I will give it unto thee;"(5) and [yet] he did not receive an inheritance in it, not even a footstep, but was always a stranger and a pilgrim therein. [Ah 5.32.3]
Interestingly the term 'stranger' is most often applied to the seed of Abraham speaking of the time when they sojourn in Egypt as Irenaeus cites Stephen's speech from Acts:

Quote:
"The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, ... and said to him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee; ... and He removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. And He gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on; yet He promised that He would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him. ... And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land, and should be brought into bondage, and should be evil-entreated four hundred years; and the nation whom they shall serve will I judge, says the Lord. And after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place. And He gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so [Abraham] begat Isaac."
Now with regards to the Marcionites being strangers because of Jesus the stranger, Irenaeus writes a little later:

Quote:
A spiritual disciple of this sort truly receiving the Spirit of God, who was from the beginning, in all the dispensations of God, present with mankind, and announced things future, revealed things present, and narrated things past--[such a man] does indeed "judge all men, but is himself judged by no man."(11) For he judges the Gentiles, "who serve the creature more than the Creator,"(12) and with a reprobate mind spend all their labour on vanity. And he also judges the Jews, who do not accept of the word of liberty, nor are willing to go forth free, although they have a Deliverer present [with them]; but they pretend, at a time unsuitable [for such conduct], to serve, [with observances] beyond [those required by] the law, God who stands in need of nothing, and do not recognise the advent of Christ, which He accomplished for the salvation of men, nor are willing to understand that all the prophets announced His two advents: the one, indeed, in which He became a man subject to stripes, and knowing what it is to bear infirmity,(13) and sat upon the foal of an ass,(14) and was a stone rejected by the builders,(15) and was led as a sheep to the slaughter,(16) and by the stretching forth of His hands destroyed Amalek;(17) while He gathered from the ends of the earth into His Father's fold the children who were scattered abroad,(18) and remembered His own dead ones who had formerly fallen asleep,(19) and came down to them that He might deliver them: but the second in which He will come on the clouds,(20) bringing on the day which burns as a furnace?(21) and smiting the earth with the word of His mouth?(22) and slaying the impious with the breath of His lips, and having a fan in His hands, and cleansing His floor, and gathering the wheat indeed into His barn, but burning the chaff with unquenchable fire.(23)

2. Moreover, he shall also examine the doctrine of Marcion, [inquiring] how he holds that there are two gods, separated from each other by an infinite distance. In what way will he be good who draws the strangers away from him who created them and calls them to his kingdom? And why is his goodness, which does not save all [thus], defective? Also, why does he, indeed, seem to be good as respects men, but most unjust with regard to him who made men, inasmuch as he deprives him of his possessions? Moreover, how could the Lord, with any justice, if He belonged to another father, have acknowledged the bread to be His body, while He took it from that creation to which we belong, and affirmed the mixed cup to be His blood? And why did He acknowledge Himself to be the Son of man, if He had not gone through that birth which belongs to a human being? How, too, could He forgive us those sins for which we are answerable to our Maker and God? And how, again, supposing that He was not flesh, but was a man merely in appearance, could He have been crucified, and could blood and water have issued from His pierced side? What body, moreover, was it that those who buried Him consigned to the tomb? And what was that which rose again from the dead? [AH 4.33]
Some of Tertullian's use of the term 'strange' and 'stranger' in relation to the Marcionite might be useful too. In Book One Tertullian notes:

Quote:
I submit that the goodness of Marcion's god is not rational, on this account first, that it has brought itself into action for the salvation of man, who belonged to someone else. I know they will object that primary and perfect goodness is precisely this, when without any obligation of kinship it is willingly and liberally expended upon strangers (hominis alieni: in extraneos); just as we are ordered to love even our enemies, in which reckoning strangers are included. When then he did not from the beginning have regard for man, who from the beginning was a stranger, by this delay he established the principle that with the stranger he has no concern. Now the rule about loving the stranger or the enemy comes after that command to love your neighbour as yourself, which, though taken from the Creator's law, you also will have to adopt, since by Christ it has not been overthrown but more firmly established.a To cause you to love your neighbour the more, you are told to love the enemy and the stranger ... Even suppose there could be a rationality of goodness, which began at the second degree, that in respect of the stranger, not even this second degree could be firmly based upon rationality: there is another means of casting it down. Not even secondary goodness, towards the stranger, can be considered rational unless it functions without injustice to him to whom the property belongs. Any goodness whatsoever is in first instance made rational by its justice. Even as in the primary degree the goodness, if it is just, will be rational when it is exercised in respect of its own belongings, so also towards the stranger it will be seen to be rational if it is not unjust. Otherwise, what sort of goodness is this, which comes to exist by means of an injustice, and even that on behalf of a stranger? Perhaps on behalf of one of the household an unjust goodness may be conceived of as to some extent rational: but on behalf of a stranger, to whom not even honest goodness was lawfully due, by what reasoning can goodness so unjust be defended as rational? [Tertullian Against Marcion 1.23]
In Book Two we see the term defined as follows:

Quote:
Both aspects, the goodness and the judgement, combine to produce a complete and worthy conception of a divinity to which nothing is impossible: and so I am for the time being content to have rebutted in summary fashion those antitheses which, by criticism of the moral value of the Creator's works, his laws, and his miracles, indicate anxiety to establish a division, making Christ a stranger to the Creator—as it were the supremely good a stranger to the judge, the kind to the cruel, the bringer of salvation a stranger to the author of destruction. [2.29]
This most clearly references 'stranger' as meaning 'other' or 'another' (a shade of meaning in Aramaic). In Book Three there is yet another clear example that 'stranger' meant 'Gentile':

Quote:
So then, since heretical madness was claiming that that Christ had come who had never been previously mentioned, it followed that it had to contend that that Christ was not yet come who had from all time been foretold: and so it was compelled to form an alliance with Jewish error, and from it to build up an argument for itself, on the pretext that the Jews, assured that he who has come was an alien, not only rejected him as a stranger but even put him to death as an opponent, although they would beyond doubt have recognized him and have treated him with all religious devotion if he had been their own. [3.6]
The same meaning (stranger = Gentile) is explicitly referenced in the next chapter of the same book:

Quote:
If these facts are thus considered, it is now apparent for what reason the Jews both rejected Christ and put him to death—not because they took Christ for a stranger, but because though their own, they did not accept him. For how could they have taken for a stranger one of whom no announcement had ever been made, when they had been incapable of understanding him who had at all times been the subject of prophecy? The possibility of being understood or not being understood arises when some fact, by having a foundation in prophecy, is able also to provide subject-matter for acknowledgement or for error: whereas that which is devoid of subject-matter has no room for wisdom or its outcome. Consequently, it was not as belonging to another god that they objected to Christ and persecuted him, but as being nothing more than a man, whom they supposed to be a magician in his miracles, and their opponent in his doctrines: with the result that this man, as belonging to them, being a Jew, yet a perverter and overthrower of Judaism, they brought to judgement and punished by their law: a stranger they would certainly not have judged. So far are they from appearing to have taken Christ for a stranger, that it was not as a stranger that they brought his manhood5 to judgement. [3.7]
Tertullian (= Justin) is clearly reacting to the original Marcionite meaning of the term (i.e. that their Christ was a foreigner, an argument which resurfaces time and again in the rabbinic literature with regards to Jesus). Marcion then takes Jesus's words from the gospel to mean that he had a mission to the 'strangers':

Quote:
As the saying goes, let us get down to it: to your task, Marcion: remove even this from the gospel, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and, It is not <meet> to take away the children's bread and give it to dogs:c for this gives the impression that Christ belongs to Israel. I have plenty of acts, if you take away his words. Take away Christ's sayings, and the facts will speak; See how he enters into the synagogue: surely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. See how he offers the bread of his doctrine to the Israelites first: surely he is giving them preference as sons. See how as yet he gives others no share of it: surely he is passing them by, like dogs. Yet on whom would he have been more ready to bestow it than on strangers to the Creator, if he himself had not above all else belonged to the Creator? [4.7]
And again in the next chapter Jesus is not recognized and thus a stranger to the demons (who live in the temple):

Quote:
Therefore that which shall be born in thee shall be called holy, the Son of God:d and, Thou shalt call his name Jesus. Also, though he was only a demon, he had in fact some sense of the Lord's purpose, more than if it had been a stranger's and not yet well enough known. For he began by asking, What have we to do with thee, Jesus?, not as though addressing a stranger, but as one whose concern the Creator's spirits are. For his words were not, What hast thou to do with us?, but, What have we to do with thee?, in sorrow for himself and in regret at his own case: and as he now sees what this is he adds, Thou art come to destroy us. To that extent he had recognized Jesus as the Son of the judge, the avenger, and <if I may say so> the severe God, not of that perfectly good god who knows nothing of destruction and punishment. [4.8]
In the next chapter Jesus the stranger EXPLICITLY means 'Gentile' or God on a mission to the strangers (= Gentiles):

Quote:
But even though Elisha, the Creator's prophet, cleansed no more than one leper, Naaman the Syrian, when there were all those many lepers in Israel, even this does not indicate that Christ was in some sense different, as though he were in this respect superior, that being a stranger he cleansed an Israelite leper, whom his own Lord had not had power to cleanse: because the Syrian was more easily cleansed as a sign throughout the gentiles of their cleansing in Christ the light of the gentiles, who were marked with those seven stains of capital sins, idolatry, blasphemy, homicide, adultery, fornication, false witness, fraud. [4.9]
The argument is clearly defined again by Biblical notions of 'strangeness' (i.e. not extraterrestrial ones) in what follows:

Quote:
After that the pharisees watch if he will heal a man on the sabbath, that they might accuse him—evidently <accuse him> as a breaker of the sabbath, not as the setter forth of a strange god [4.12]
And again 'strange' does not mean extraterrestrial but 'outsider' in chapter 14:

Quote:
And of the same a little later, when she sees the unknown and the strangers: And thou shall say to thine heart, Who hath begotten me these? and who hath brought me up these? and these, tell me, where have they been?n Must not this be the Christ of the prophets? So who can the Christ of the Marcionites be? If perversity is to their mind, the Christ who was not of the prophets. [4.14]
In chapter 16 'strange' clearly means Gentile:

Quote:
But about the loan, more hereafter. Now if anyone wishes to argue that the Creator ordered gifts to be given to the brethren, but that Christ said they must be given to all who ask, so that this is something new and different, I answer that this will be one of those points in which the Creator's law is found in Christ. For Christ has prescribed the same action towards all men, as the Creator did towards the brethren. For although that kindness is greater which is exercised towards strangers, it takes no precedence of that which was previously a debt towards the people next door. For who is there that is able to love strangers? But if the second degree of kindness, towards strangers, is the same as that first degree, towards one's neighbours, that second degree will have to belong to the same one to whom the first belonged—much more easily than that the second degree
should belong to one whose first was non-existent. So it was in accordance with the course of nature that the Creator first taught of kindness towards neighbours, intending afterwards to extend it towards strangers, and, according to the reckoning of his own dispensation, at first towards the Jews, and afterwards also towards every race of men. [4.16]
In chapter 22 speaking of the Transfiguration and Jesus standing beside Moses and Elijah:

Quote:
Is this the way he shows they are strangers to him, by having them with him? Is this the way he teaches us to repudiate them, by linking them with himself? [4.22]
It is clearly against the identification of Jesus as 'the stranger' in Matthew 25 (ghettoized as it were because it founded the Marcionite understanding Tertullian pulls out another saying of Jesus to disprove the association:

Quote:
The Creator however was in a position to give such injunctions through Christ, to the intent that because man by sinning had offended his own God, he might toil, and by persistence in asking might receive, by persistence in seeking might find, and by persistence in knocking obtain admission. With that in view, the parable that comes before this represents that man who at night asks for bread, as a friend, not a stranger, knocking at the door of a friend, not of one unknown. Now man, even if he has offended, is more the friend of the Creator than of Marcion's god: and so he knocks at the door of him to whom he has the right to come, whose door he can easily find, who he knows has the bread, who is now in bed with those children whose birth was to his liking. Even that he knocks late at night—the tune belongs to the Creator: the late hour belongs to him. whose are all the ages, and the sunset of the ages. At this new god's door no one would have knocked late at night: he is only just waking up into daylight. It was the Creator who long ago shut up against the gentiles that door at which the Jews long ago were knocking: he it is who rises and gives, if not yet as to a friend, at any rate not to an entire stranger, but, as it says, because he is troublesome. [4.26]
And again with respect to the saying render unto Caesar etc.:

Quote:
Let Marcion's god go and fetch coinage for himself—Christ's command is for the penny, which is man, to be rendered to its own Caesar, not to a stranger—except that one has to do this, who has not a penny of his own. [4.26]
In Book Five Tertullian attempts to squirm away from the passage I cited earlier which has clear significance for the Marcionites:

Quote:
Remembering that ye were in time past gentiles in the flesh, who are called the uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh, made by hands: that ye were at that time without Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants and their promise, having no hope, and without God, in the world. Without which god does he mean the gentiles were, and without which Christ? Evidently him to whom pertained the commonwealth of Israel, and the covenants and the promises. But now, he says, in Christ ye who were afar off are made nigh by his blood. From whom were they formerly far off? From those mentioned, above from the Creator's Christ, from the commonwealth of Israel, from the covenants, from the hope of the promise, from God himself. If that is so, the gentiles are now in Christ being made nigh to those from whom they were then far off. But if in Christ we have been brought very near to the commonwealth of Israel, which is in the religion of God the Creator, and to their covenants and promise, and even to their God, it is very strange if the Christ of a different god has from far off brought us near to the Creator. [5.7]
and again with respect to this same passage

Quote:
So then as he preaches peace to them that are nigh and to those afar off, we have along with them obtained access to the Father, and are no longer strangers or resident aliens, but fellow citizens of the saints, and resident in the household of God— evidently that God from whom we have just shown we were formerly foreigners, set at a far distance—being built upon the foundation of the apostles. [ibid]
and later:

Quote:
But what point was there in asserting the ignorance of a Creator who was a stranger separated by far distances, when even those of the household of your superior god remained ignorant?
and again:

Quote:
On behalf of whom, once more, does he reconcile all things unto himself, making peace by the blood of his cross, if not of him whom all things had offended, against whom they had rebelled by that transgression—him in short to whom they belonged? For they might have been conciliated to a stranger, but reconciled to no god except their own. [5.19]
I have to go. This took far too long. But this is all the relevant passages in Irenaeus and Tertullian and it is patently clear that 'alien' in the sense of extraterrestrial is NOT the meaning of the Marcionite terminology but 'non-Jewish' or 'Gentile.'

Brock notes that nukraya is still used by the Syrian monks as a term they choose to identify themselves with. Oops. I went back to Syriac.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 01-06-2012, 11:35 PM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Let's look at Clement's citations of that passage from Matthew chapter 25 to see if anything is unusual. The most obvious thing is that Clement is not citing from canonical Matthew which - strangely - turns what is for Clement a saying of Jesus into a parable:

Quote:
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Clement's gospel - whatever it was - simply had a saying from Jesus that in effect he (Jesus) was spread throughout the bodies of strangers all over the world:

Quote:
Respecting giving a share (μεταδόσεως) He said: “Come to me, ye blessed, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungry, and ye gave Me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took Me in; naked, and ye clothed Me; sick, and ye visited Me; in prison, and ye came unto Me.” And when have we done any of these things to the Lord? The Instructor Himself will say again, loving to refer to Himself the kindness of the brethren, “Inasmuch as ye have done it to these least, ye have done it to Me. And these shall go away into everlasting life.” [Matt. xxv. 34–36, 40, 46] Such are the laws of the Word, the consolatory words not on tables of stone which were written by the finger of the Lord, but inscribed on men’s hearts, on which alone they can remain imperishable. Wherefore the tablets of those who had hearts of stone are broken, that the faith of the children may be impressed on softened hearts. However, both the laws served the Word for the instruction of humanity, both that given by Moses and that by the apostles. [Paed 3.12]
Quote:
Here again arise the cavillers, who say that joy and pain are passions of the soul: for they define joy as a rational elevation and exultation, as rejoicing on account of what is good; and pity as pain for one who suffers undeservedly; and that such affections are moods and passions of the soul. But we, as would appear, do not cease in such matters to understand the Scriptures carnally; and starting from our own affections, interpret the will of the impassible Deity similarly to our perturbations; and as we are capable of hearing; so, supposing the same to be the case with the Omnipotent, err impiously. For the Divine Being cannot be declared as it exists: but as we who are fettered in the flesh were able to listen, so the prophets spake to us; the Lord savingly accommodating Himself to the weakness of men. Since, then, it is the will of God that he, who is obedient to the commands and repents of his sins should be saved, and we rejoice on account of our salvation, the Lord, speaking by the prophets, appropriated our joy to Himself; as speaking lovingly in the Gospel He says, “I was hungry, and ye gave Me to eat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me to drink. For inasmuch as ye did it to one of the least of these, ye did it to Me.” [Matt. xxv. 35, 40]. As, then, He is nourished, though not personally, by the nourishing of one whom He wishes nourished; so He rejoices, without suffering change, by reason of him who has repented being in joy, as He wished. And since God pities richly, being good, and giving commands by the law and the prophets, and more nearly still by the appearance of his Son, saving and pitying, as was said, those who have found mercy; and properly the greater pities the less; and a man cannot be greater than man, being by nature man; but God in everything is greater than man; if, then, the greater pities the less, it is God alone that will pity us. For a man is made to communicate by righteousness, and bestows what he received from God, in consequence of his natural benevolence and relation, and the commands which he obeys. [Strom 2.16]
Quote:
How can there be a person who asks, receives, and borrows if there is no one who possesses, grants, and lends? What does the Lord say? "I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you took me into your home. I was naked and you gave me clothes to wear." Then he adds, "Insofar as you have done so to one of the humblest of these, you have done so to me." The same law is established in the Old Testament in the words "Anyone who gives to a begger is making a loan to God" and "Do not evade doing good to one in need." [Strom 3.6]
Quote:
And though maintaining parrots and curlews, they do not receive the orphan child; but they expose children that are born at home, and take up the young of birds, and prefer irrational to rational creatures; although they ought to undertake the maintenance of old people with a character for sobriety, who are fairer in my mind than apes, and capable of uttering something better than nightingales; and to set before them that saying, “He that pitieth the poor lendeth to the Lord;” [Prov. xix. 17] and this, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these My brethren, ye have done it to Me.” [Matt. xxv. 40] But these, on the other hand, prefer ignorance to wisdom, turning their wealth into stone, that is, into pearls and Indian emeralds. And they squander and throw away their wealth on fading dyes, and bought slaves; like crammed fowls scraping the dung of life. “Poverty,” it is said, “humbles a man.”16261626 Prov. x. 4. By poverty is meant that niggardliness by which the rich are poor, having nothing to give away. [Paed 3.4]
Quote:
For this is the first-born Church, composed of many good children; these are “the first-born enrolled in heaven, who hold high festival with so many myriads of angels.” We, too, are first-born sons, who are reared by God, who are the genuine friends of the First-born, who first of all other men attained to the knowledge of God, who first were wrenched away from our sins, first severed from the devil. And now the more benevolent God is, the more impious men are; for He desires us from slaves to become sons, while they scorn to become sons. O the prodigious folly of being ashamed of the Lord! He offers freedom, you flee into bondage; He bestows salvation, you sink down into destruction; He confers everlasting life, you wait for punishment, and prefer the fire which the Lord “has prepared for the devil and his angels.” [Exhortation 9]
stephan huller is offline  
Old 01-07-2012, 12:00 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

This is the Clementine gospel saying of Jesus:

Quote:
δεῦτε εἶπε πρός με πάντες οἱ εὐλογημένοι, κληρονομήσατε τὴν ἡτοιμασμένην ὑμῖν βασιλείαν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. Ἐπείνασα γὰρ καὶ δεδώκατέ μοι φαγεῖν, ἐδίψησα καὶ ἐποτίσατέ με, ξένος ἤμην καὶ συνηγάγετέ με, γυμνὸς καὶ περιεβάλετέ με, ἀσθενὴς καὶ ἐπεσκέψασθέ με, ἐν φυλακῇ ἤμην καὶ ἤλθετε πρός με. Ἐφ' ὅσον ἐποιήσατε τοῖς μικροῖς τούτοις, ἐμοὶ ἐποιήσατε. Καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οἱ τοιοῦτοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον
Here is the garbage that appears in the gospel of Matthew (now transformed into a parable):

Quote:
δεῦτε οἱ εὐλογημένοι τοῦ πατρός μου, κληρονομήσατε τὴν ἡτοιμασμένην ὑμῖν βασιλείαν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. 35ἐπείνασα γὰρ καὶ ἐδώκατε μοι φαγεῖν, ἐδίψησα καὶ ἐποτίσατε με, ξένος ἤμην καὶ συνηγάγετε με, 36γυμνὸς καὶ περιεβάλετε με, ἠσθένησα καὶ ἐπεσκέψασθε με, ἐν φυλακῇ ἤμην καὶ ἤλθατε πρός με, 37τότε ἀποκριθήσονται αὐτῷ οἱ δίκαιοι λέγοντες· κύριε, πότε σε εἴδομεν πεινῶντα καὶ ἐθρέψαμεν, ἢ διψῶντα καὶ ἐποτίσαμεν; 38πότε δέ σε εἴδομεν ξένον καὶ συνηγάγομεν, ἢ γυμνὸν καὶ περιεβάλομεν; 39πότε δέ σε εἴδομεν ἀσθενοῦντα ἢ ἐν φυλακῇ καὶ ἤλθομεν πρός σε; 40καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐρεῖ αὐτοῖς· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐφ’ ὅσον ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν ἐλαχίστων, ἐμοὶ ἐποιήσατε. 41τότε ἐρεῖ καὶ τοῖς ἐξ εὐωνύμων· πορεύεσθε ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ κατηραμένοι εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον τὸ ἡτοιμασμένον τῷ διαβόλῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ. 42ἐπείνασα γὰρ καὶ οὐκ ἐδώκατε μοι φαγεῖν, [καὶ] ἐδίψησα καὶ οὐκ ἐποτίσατε με, 43ξένος ἤμην καὶ οὐ συνηγάγετε με, γυμνὸς καὶ οὐ περιεβάλετε με, ἀσθενὴς καὶ ἐν φυλακῇ καὶ οὐκ ἐπεσκέψασθε με. 44τότε ἀποκριθήσονται καὶ αὐτοὶ λέγοντες· κύριε, πότε σε εἴδομεν πεινῶντα ἢ διψῶντα ᾒ ξένον ἢ γυμνὸν ἢ ἀσθενῆ ἢ ἐν φυλακῇ καὶ οὐ διηκονήσαμεν σοι; 45τότε ἀποκριθήσεται αὐτοῖς λέγων· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐφ’ ὅσον οὐκ ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων, οὐδὲ ἐμοὶ ἐποιήσατε. 46καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 12:22 AM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

I wonder if the terminology developed from Genesis 15:18 - i.e. where God tells Abraham:

Quote:
Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.
Yes to be sure nukraya does not appear here in any of the Targums. But the idea would certainly have made sense to Clement's Alexandrian community. Early Egyptian Christians may have imagined themselves as wandering as strangers on the earth.
stephan huller is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:28 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.