Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 09-07-2012, 11:30 AM

A good question (which is off the topic) is why does the narrative in 1 Samuel emphasize the knitting together of Jonathan and David? Let's accept the argument that this has nothing to do with homosexuality (which makes sense). What is this about? Could it be that Saul is still regarded as the legitimate 'anointed' and that David only can be made legitimate 'anointed' by marrying into the royal line?

stephan huller · 09-07-2012, 12:41 PM

And then you have to ask yourself - given that (a) the author of Acts and (b) the early Alexandrian tradition took a key interest in this section of text could it be that the early Christians recognized that the 'knitting of Jonathan and David' was a 'sign' set up to anticipate the development of Christianity (and the longer gospel of Mark mentioned in the Philosophumena and Clement's Letter to Theodore). Here philia (= intimacy, affection) brings together not only the two divided souls (as per Empedocles) but also Christ (literally 'the anointed one') and the heir.

One might even consider the possibility that the 'Dositheans' (Dositheus = Jonathan) were the proto-Christian sect from which the gospel developed. Dositheus was called “father” and his followers were called the children of Dositheus. They were empowered to become children of God by Dositheus. “They said the dead would rise soon as children of Dositheus the Prophet of God”. “They said the dead would rise soon as thanks to Dositheus and his sons and daughters”. John I:12 “… he gave POWER TO BECOME children of God”.

stephan huller · 09-07-2012, 12:45 PM

Pseudo-Tertullian (and Hippolytus from Photius I believe) begin with the idea that the Dositheans were the first heresy of Christianity (Epiphanius structures the Panarion as if the Samaritans were the first sect of Judaism).

stephan huller · 09-07-2012, 08:21 PM

And then I just happened to be looking tonight to find the original LXX version of the same opening lines of 1 Samuel chapter 18, and then I remembered - they've been removed from our existing manuscripts! How do we explain that? Oh, I know. Many people here say the idea that our canonical gospel of Mark is an edited redaction of an original Alexandrian text cited in the Letter to Theodore is 'controversial.' But has anyone noticed that when Origen brings together two men in Christian 'love' he cites from the very text of 1 Samuel which has been removed from all surviving copies of the LXX. Coincidence? Hardly think so.

Here is the material which has been removed from LATER COPIES of the Greek (i.e. it was present in Origen's edition):

Quote:

After David had finished talking with Saul, the soul of Jonathan became knit with the soul of David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt. 5 Whatever mission Saul sent him on, David was so successful that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the troops, and Saul’s officers as well.

Some scholars have tried to argue that 1 Samuel 18:1 - 5 is a later addition to the book. But the material is not only quoted by Origen with approval it appears in surviving fragments from Qumran. Let's face it, the editing done to Mark went across the board and included all GAY SOUNDING SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL in the LXX.

Do you want to hear what Origen does with this section of text as he joins Theodore and Athenodorus in the water? Theodore (Gregory) explains:

Quote:

And thus he continued to do with us, until, by pouring in upon us many such argumentations, one after the other, he at last carried us fairly off somehow or other by a kind of divine power, like people with his reasonings, and established us (in the practice of philosophy), and set us down without the power of movement, as it were, beside himself by his arts. Moreover, the stimulus of friendship was also brought to bear upon us—a stimulus, indeed, not easily withstood, but keen and most effective—the argument of a kind and affectionate disposition, which showed itself benignantly in his words when he spoke to us and associated with us. For he did not aim merely at getting round us by any kind of reasoning; but his desire was, with a benignant, and affectionate, and most benevolent mind, to save us, and make us partakers in the blessings that flow from philosophy, and most especially also in those other gifts which the Deity has bestowed on him above most men, or, as we may perhaps say, above all men of our own time. I mean the power that teaches us piety, the word of salvation, that comes to many, and subdues to itself all whom it visits: for there is nothing that shall resist it, inasmuch as it is and shall be itself the king of all; although as yet it is hidden, and is not recognised, whether with ease or with difficulty, by the common crowd, in such wise that, when interrogated respecting it, they should be able to speak intelligently about it. And thus, like some spark lighting upon our inmost soul, love was kindled and burst into flame within us—a love at once to the Holy Word, the most lovely object of all, who attracts all irresistibly toward Himself by His unutterable beauty, and to this man, His friend and advocate. And being most mightily smitten by this love, I was persuaded to give up all those objects or pursuits which seem to us befitting, and among others even my boasted jurisprudence,— yea, my very fatherland and friends, both those who were present with me then, and those from whom I had parted. And in my estimation there arose but one object dear and worth desire—to wit, philosophy, and that master of philosophy, this inspired man. And the soul of Jonathan was knit with David. 1 Samuel 18:1 This word, indeed, I did not read till afterwards in the sacred Scriptures; but I felt it before that time, not less clearly than it is written: for, in truth, it reached me then by the clearest of all revelations. For it was not simply Jonathan that was knit with David; but those things were knit together which are the ruling powers in man— their souls—those objects which, even though all the things which are apparent and ostensible in man are severed, cannot by any skill be forced to a severance when they themselves are unwilling. For the soul is free, and cannot be coerced by any means, not even though one should confine it and keep guard over it in some secret prison-house. For wherever the intelligence is, there it is also of its own nature and by the first reason. And if it seems to you to be in a kind of prison-house, it is represented as there to you by a sort of second reason. But for all that, it is by no means precluded from subsisting anywhere according to its own determination; nay, rather it is both able to be, and is reasonably believed to be, there alone and altogether, wheresoever and in connection with what things soever those actions which are proper only to it are in operation. Wherefore, what I experienced has been most clearly declared in this very short statement, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David; objects which, as I said, cannot by any means be forced to a separation against their will, and which of their own inclination certainly will not readily choose it. Nor is it, in my opinion, in the inferior subject, who is changeful and very prone to vary in purpose, and in whom singly there has been no capacity of union at first, that the power of loosing the sacred bonds of this affection rests, but rather in the nobler one, who is constant and not readily shaken, and through whom it has been possible to the these bonds and to fasten this sacred knot. Therefore it is not the soul of David that was knit by the divine word with the soul of Jonathan; but, on the contrary, the soul of the latter, who was the inferior, is said to be thus affected and knit with the soul of David. For the nobler object would not choose to be knit with one inferior, inasmuch as it is sufficient for itself; but the inferior object, as standing in need of the help which the nobler can give, ought properly to be knit with the nobler, and fitted dependently to it: so that this latter, retaining still its sufficiency in itself, might sustain no loss by its connection with the inferior; and that that which is of itself without order being now united and fitted harmoniously with the nobler, might, without any detriment done, be perfectly subdued to the nobler by the constraints of such bonds. Wherefore, to apply the bonds is the part of the superior, and not of the inferior; but to be knit to the other is the part of the inferior, and this too in such a manner that it shall possess no power of loosing itself from these bonds. And by a similar constraint, then, did this David of ours once gird us to himself; and he holds us now, and has held us ever since that time, so that, even though we desired it, we could not loose ourselves from his bonds. And hence it follows that, even though we were to depart, he would not release this soul of mine, which, as the Holy Scripture puts it, he holds knit so closely with himself. [Oration 7]

Adam · 09-07-2012, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Verenna

Now more to the point. The question in my mind is what exactly is 'Ur-Lukas'? The fact is 'Ur-Lukas' is just a placeholder for an earlier manifestation of our canonical version, but that doesn't mean it has to be written by someone named Luke, nor that it has to be a completely new Gospel of which no one has heard. One would be hardpressed to suggest that 'Ur-Lukas' is not an earlier gospel that we know well (i.e., Mark could easily represent 'Ur-Lukas') that Marcion than elaborated upon slightly, with instances of docetism for example, that underwent addition changes by the canonical author(s) with additional theological content to overturn Marcion's theology (by trying to further place the figure of Jesus into a historical context, mimicking Josephus' style). But even if this were not the case it seems to me that it would be difficult to differentiate 'Ur-Lukas' from Mark and Matthew (at least in terms of archetypes and topoi) and what was included in a variant of Luke and what is now canonical. So all of this really feels a little pointless outside a very specialized source-critical/literary-critical approach--which is fine, but not sure if such an issue will be narrowed here.

Proto-Luke was for practical purposes the earliest gospel in use. It is also the heart of my GattA. Here's a good approximation of it.

Quote:

Church WOW Proto-Luke including Q passages: 3:1-4:30; 5:1-11; 6:20-8:3; 9:51-18:14; 19:1-28, 37-44, 47-48; 22:14-24:53
But delete the last section from Luke and substitute Luke 22:1-38
Gospel Eyewitnesses Post #561

Huon · 09-07-2012, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Proto-Luke was for practical purposes the earliest gospel in use. It is also the heart of my GattA.

GattA : A for Adam, BTW.

outhouse · 09-08-2012, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Proto-Luke was for practical purposes the earliest gospel in use.

You dont know that.

how could it be after copying Gmark

we only know about Marcion because people talked trash about him when he was alive, and his use of Gluke

Adam · 09-08-2012, 12:49 PM

Reread my Post #85, OH,
In which I list only verses that are not in Mark, so they could not have been copied from Mark. You just don't understand the Proto-Luke theory. The top expert on it, Frederick Grant, in his book The Gospels specifically lists the Marcan inserts (pg. 130-131). He has there a most detailed list of the verses he names for Proto-Luke. I chose instead a simpler list that is almost the same.

Further complicating the issue (and usually not mentioned by me) is that the Twelve-Source portions of Mark were probably also in Proto-Luke, separately translated from Aramaic. The Passion Narrative also already existed, so that leaves only about four or five chapters that were copied from a Greek Mark text into Luke. See my
Gospel Eyewitnesses post #52

outhouse · 09-08-2012, 02:39 PM

Quote:

You just don't understand the Proto-Luke theory.

I understand the L source based on oral tradition quite well thank you.

I also understand how it was layered over a copied Gmark as a foundation.

.

Quote:

Twelve-Source

pucky

Adam · 09-08-2012, 03:32 PM

L (Simeon of Cleophas's imperfect eyewitness account) was layered over Q, becoming Proto-Luke. Later Mark (still incomplete, lacking 3 chapters) to fill in another 4 chapters, which along with the Infancy Narratives gave us Luke.

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

09-07-2012, 11:30 AM	#81
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	A good question (which is off the topic) is why does the narrative in 1 Samuel emphasize the knitting together of Jonathan and David? Let's accept the argument that this has nothing to do with homosexuality (which makes sense). What is this about? Could it be that Saul is still regarded as the legitimate 'anointed' and that David only can be made legitimate 'anointed' by marrying into the royal line?

09-07-2012, 12:41 PM	#82
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And then you have to ask yourself - given that (a) the author of Acts and (b) the early Alexandrian tradition took a key interest in this section of text could it be that the early Christians recognized that the 'knitting of Jonathan and David' was a 'sign' set up to anticipate the development of Christianity (and the longer gospel of Mark mentioned in the Philosophumena and Clement's Letter to Theodore). Here philia (= intimacy, affection) brings together not only the two divided souls (as per Empedocles) but also Christ (literally 'the anointed one') and the heir. One might even consider the possibility that the 'Dositheans' (Dositheus = Jonathan) were the proto-Christian sect from which the gospel developed. Dositheus was called “father” and his followers were called the children of Dositheus. They were empowered to become children of God by Dositheus. “They said the dead would rise soon as children of Dositheus the Prophet of God”. “They said the dead would rise soon as thanks to Dositheus and his sons and daughters”. John I:12 “… he gave POWER TO BECOME children of God”.

09-07-2012, 12:45 PM	#83
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Pseudo-Tertullian (and Hippolytus from Photius I believe) begin with the idea that the Dositheans were the first heresy of Christianity (Epiphanius structures the Panarion as if the Samaritans were the first sect of Judaism).

09-08-2012, 12:49 PM	#88
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Reread my Post #85, OH, In which I list only verses that are not in Mark, so they could not have been copied from Mark. You just don't understand the Proto-Luke theory. The top expert on it, Frederick Grant, in his book The Gospels specifically lists the Marcan inserts (pg. 130-131). He has there a most detailed list of the verses he names for Proto-Luke. I chose instead a simpler list that is almost the same. Further complicating the issue (and usually not mentioned by me) is that the Twelve-Source portions of Mark were probably also in Proto-Luke, separately translated from Aramaic. The Passion Narrative also already existed, so that leaves only about four or five chapters that were copied from a Greek Mark text into Luke. See my Gospel Eyewitnesses post #52

09-08-2012, 03:32 PM	#90
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	L (Simeon of Cleophas's imperfect eyewitness account) was layered over Q, becoming Proto-Luke. Later Mark (still incomplete, lacking 3 chapters) to fill in another 4 chapters, which along with the Infancy Narratives gave us Luke.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.