Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 08-16-2012, 09:41 PM

It is interesting that this is one of the places where the Diatessaron strangely follows Luke instead of Mark. This is odd because it happens so rarely. Compare Mark:

Quote:

Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (which means “son of Timaeus”), was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

In Luke and the Diatessaron the disciples rebuke him because when asked who this is they tell him it is 'Jesus the Nazarene.' As such their anger is reasonable. The blind man is truly blind because they told him a name and he - according to his own volition - changed 'Jesus the Nazarene' into 'Jesus the Son of David.' This makes the narrative even more unnatural and obviously symbolic in nature.

Also there is Mark's characteristic translation of something obvious in Hebrew.

The thing that has always puzzled me is why is 'bar Timaeus' (or Timaeus bar Timaeus according to the Diatessaron)? This seems to be Platonic but what does it mean?

sotto voce · 08-17-2012, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It is interesting that this is one of the places where the Diatessaron strangely follows Luke instead of Mark. This is odd because it happens so rarely. Compare Mark:

Quote:

Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (which means “son of Timaeus”), was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

In Luke and the Diatessaron the disciples rebuke him because when asked who this is they tell him it is 'Jesus the Nazarene.' As such their anger is reasonable. The blind man is truly blind because they told him a name and he - according to his own volition - changed 'Jesus the Nazarene' into 'Jesus the Son of David.' This makes the narrative even more unnatural and obviously symbolic in nature.

How can it be both unnatural and symbolic? How can it even be unnatural? If my butler was to announce "Barack Obama II, of Washington DC," would I not be justified in greeting my guest with "Welcome, Mr President," even before turning to see who he actually was?

How can it be unnatural, if, as was evidently believed, Jesus of Nazareth was actually the son of Joseph, who was of the house of David, the shepherd boy of Bethlehem who was chosen to be the monarch of Israel? And if Jesus' fame through miraculous acts and unique teaching had reached the ears of the blind man, who evidently knew his own scripture, surely it was entirely natural for him to suppose that Jesus was not just a son of David, but the promised Son of David, the messiah of Israel? What was perhaps unnatural was that many more of the Jews did not then admit the identity of Jesus. But they grew to agree with Bartimaeus, because, when Jesus later rode into Jerusalem, just 17 miles away, they shouted, "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is the King of Israel!" One might reasonably say that this change of reaction was partly due to Bartimaeus and his persistence.

Now the literal descent of Jesus from David through Joseph was obviously essential as an identifier. The Sanhedrin had the official records, and could not deny it. But Joseph Haydn is known in symbol as 'the Father of the Symphony'; Americans have similarly called themselves 'the Sons of Liberty'. Before them, Bartimaeus may have taken more note of Jesus' kindness, his miracles and unique message when using the epithet 'Son of David', or promised Messiah, saviour and king, than his genealogy.

Quote:

The thing that has always puzzled me is why is 'bar Timaeus' (or Timaeus bar Timaeus according to the Diatessaron)? This seems to be Platonic but what does it mean?

After Alexander, many Jews took Greek names. This name is a hybrid, from Aramaic and Greek: bar = son, and Greek timaios = honourable. So presumably Timaios, a Jew with a Greek name, called his son, presumably his only son, Bartimaios; which is unusual, but one might suppose that again there is symbolism here, in that this blind man was nevertheless a son of honour.

andrewcriddle · 08-18-2012, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Andrew, are you not interested in addressing my substantive questions?

I'm sorry I just don't think that the fact that ancient writer X does not in his surviving works mention fact Y is good evidence that writer X did not know fact Y. Particularly when writer X is supposed by ancient testimony to have dealt with the issue in a lost work.

FWIW some have suggested that the real target for Justin's Against Trypho, (with its arguments that Christianity fulfils the Jewish scriptures), is not the Jews but the Marcionites.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv · 08-18-2012, 06:13 PM

We aren't talking about X and Y. We're talking about two people named Justin and Marcion who allegedly lived in the same city and the same time. Justin mentions marcion but nothing about his writings and texts that are allegedly to have included a gospel and epistles of Paul, and yet no mention is made of them at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Andrew, are you not interested in addressing my substantive questions?

I'm sorry I just don't think that the fact that ancient writer X does not in his surviving works mention fact Y is good evidence that writer X did not know fact Y. Particularly when writer X is supposed by ancient testimony to have dealt with the issue in a lost work.

FWIW some have suggested that the real target for Justin's Against Trypho, (with its arguments that Christianity fulfils the Jewish scriptures), is not the Jews but the Marcionites.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 08-18-2012, 08:58 PM

Andrew, I just took a second look at Schenk's different wording from Migne's in a critical section of Origen's Commentary on the Romans:

Quote:

Indeed, Marcion, who is a man who takes no pleasure at all in allegorical interpretation, is completely at a loss in explaining the Apostle’s words, “Circumcision is of value.” Not even concerning the details which are mentioned was he able to give an account in any respect whatsoever. Indeed, not only was Marcion accustomed to oppose the God of the law who gave circumcision, and to mark him out with a certain derision but all the heretics who repudiate the Old Testament, in company with the pagans. They all repeat similar things in opposition to the God of the law, as if they were in a federation committed to detraction. "So be it," they say,409 "Circumcision may indicate some mystery and may even contain an allegorical figure. Was it then proper that the forms of figures and enigmas of the law be established with pain and danger for the little children, with torments for the infant, tender and still innocent? Did the Lawgiver not have anywhere to put mystical figures except in the mutilation of shameful places And was the law of the omnipotent and eternal God not able to arrange for a sign of the covenant except in the obscene parts of the bodily members? Is he then a good God who has ordered newborn human beings to be wounded immediately after they first look upon the light of a new day? And if, as it seems to you, he is Creator of soul and body, either he reprimands himself for forming that bodily part superfluously, since he immediately commands it to be sliced off, and he is correcting his own error through the sufferings of these unfortunate wretches; or he is unjustly commanding the removal of something he has made to be a necessary and useful bodily part. Moreover, if it is important to God to lead many people to the worship and practice of his religion, the greatest obstacle springs from circumcision, because everyone turns away from pain and flees from the derisive mockery which results from shameful deformity. Hence circumcision must be considered to be more of a hindrance to religion than an emblem of it." Either pagans opposed to the Lawgiver or heretics make great noises like these and many others similar to them." Commentary on Romans 2.13 Schenk p. 159

The edition of Migne has the Stoics say these words rather than the Marcionites. While there are still some superficial difficulties - i.e. Origen saying Marcion isn't much for allegory - it has to be remembered that (a) that means he isn't much for the allegorical interpretation of the Law and (b) that he does interpret the command to circumcise allegorically (= that it should be applied to castration).

Duvduv · 08-18-2012, 09:07 PM

And people go on talking about this Marcion as if they know all about him based on uncorroborated claims of ancient propagandists accepted on faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

We aren't talking about X and Y. We're talking about two people named Justin and Marcion who allegedly lived in the same city and the same time. Justin mentions marcion but nothing about his writings and texts that are allegedly to have included a gospel and epistles of Paul, and yet no mention is made of them at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I'm sorry I just don't think that the fact that ancient writer X does not in his surviving works mention fact Y is good evidence that writer X did not know fact Y. Particularly when writer X is supposed by ancient testimony to have dealt with the issue in a lost work.

FWIW some have suggested that the real target for Justin's Against Trypho, (with its arguments that Christianity fulfils the Jewish scriptures), is not the Jews but the Marcionites.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 08-19-2012, 01:07 AM

The testimony of Origen continues about the Marcionites until we get the clearest proof (a) Origen was castrated and (b) Origen thought Jesus and the apostles were too:

Quote:

Enough has been said against the pagans, to whom it was not proper to speak more openly concerning the mysteries of our law. Now our discourse should be directed against those who indeed believe in Christ but do not receive the law and the prophets. Without doubt you confess it to be true what is written in Peter's epistle, “We have been redeemed not at a corruptible price of silver and gold but with the precious blood of the only begotten." If then we have been bought at a price, as Paul also undoubtedly we were bought from someone whose slaves we were, who also demanded the price he wanted so that he might release from his authority those whom he was holding. Now it was the devil who was holding us, to whom we had been dragged off by our sins. Therefore he demanded the blood of Christ as the price for us. So then, until the blood of Jesus was given, which was so precious that it alone would suffice for the redemption of all, it was necessary for those who were being trained up in the law to offer their own blood for themselves as a kind of foreshadowing of the future redemption.

... And if the cutting off of someone's bodily part appeared to be mandatory, what could be more suitable than to find what appeared obscene and to remove that part whose diminution would not at all impede the body'sfunction? But they say, “If that bodily member was not necessary, it ought not have been made by the Creator; if it was made as something necessary, it should not be removed. Let us also ask them whether they would call the procreation of children necessary. Doubtless they will respond that it is necessary. Then those who, by their affirmation of continence and virginity, do not attend to the necessary duties of nature shall be reproachable; and everyone is to be compelled to get married, even those who, in accordance with the laws of the Gospel, “have castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of God,” even though these people have the authorityfor this precedent both in many other saints and even in the Lord Jesus himself.

Finally it ought to be said that just as many baptisms were necessary before the baptism of Christ, and many purifications were carried out before the purification through the Holy Spirit, and many sacrifices before the one sacrifice, the the spotless lamb, Christ, offered himself to the Father as a sacrifice, so also there was need of many circumcisions until the one circumcision in Christ was imparted to all. The pouring out of the blood of many came first until the redemption of all was accomplished through the blood of the one.

andrewcriddle · 08-19-2012, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Andrew, I just took a second look at Schenk's different wording from Migne's in a critical section of Origen's Commentary on the Romans:

Quote:

Indeed, Marcion, who is a man who takes no pleasure at all in allegorical interpretation, is completely at a loss in explaining the Apostle’s words, “Circumcision is of value.” Not even concerning the details which are mentioned was he able to give an account in any respect whatsoever. Indeed, not only was Marcion accustomed to oppose the God of the law who gave circumcision, and to mark him out with a certain derision but all the heretics who repudiate the Old Testament, in company with the pagans. They all repeat similar things in opposition to the God of the law, as if they were in a federation committed to detraction. "So be it," they say,409 "Circumcision may indicate some mystery and may even contain an allegorical figure. Was it then proper that the forms of figures and enigmas of the law be established with pain and danger for the little children, with torments for the infant, tender and still innocent? Did the Lawgiver not have anywhere to put mystical figures except in the mutilation of shameful places And was the law of the omnipotent and eternal God not able to arrange for a sign of the covenant except in the obscene parts of the bodily members? Is he then a good God who has ordered newborn human beings to be wounded immediately after they first look upon the light of a new day? And if, as it seems to you, he is Creator of soul and body, either he reprimands himself for forming that bodily part superfluously, since he immediately commands it to be sliced off, and he is correcting his own error through the sufferings of these unfortunate wretches; or he is unjustly commanding the removal of something he has made to be a necessary and useful bodily part. Moreover, if it is important to God to lead many people to the worship and practice of his religion, the greatest obstacle springs from circumcision, because everyone turns away from pain and flees from the derisive mockery which results from shameful deformity. Hence circumcision must be considered to be more of a hindrance to religion than an emblem of it." Either pagans opposed to the Lawgiver or heretics make great noises like these and many others similar to them." Commentary on Romans 2.13 Schenk p. 159

The edition of Migne has the Stoics say these words rather than the Marcionites. While there are still some superficial difficulties - i.e. Origen saying Marcion isn't much for allegory - it has to be remembered that (a) that means he isn't much for the allegorical interpretation of the Law and (b) that he does interpret the command to circumcise allegorically (= that it should be applied to castration).

Hi Stephan

Two points.

a/ I'm afraid I don't see the claim that circumcision is a painful mutilation as implying that when the Bible speaks about circumcision it really means castration. (I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your argument here.)

b/ I don't think that Origen is claiming that Marcion interpreted circumcision allegorically, he seems to be saying that Gnostics who agreed with Marcion in distinguishing the God of the Old Testament from the God of the New Testament interpreted circumcision allegorically.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay · 08-19-2012, 07:09 AM

Hi stephan huller,

Could it not suggest that the material of Ireneaus has been tampered with for ideological purposes?

The idea on a Christian Bishop in Lyon in the Second Century is utterly absurd. Why convert barbarian tribes in Gaul to a Jewish/Greco-Roman religion when 99% of Jews and Greco-Romans were not converted?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I also acknowledge that Nicaea is traditional seen as focused on marginalizing the Arians. Why then does the pattern extend to Irenaeus in an age when the Arians didn't even exist? The creed may well have been established as the focus of what has to be believed about the gospel narrative - a reaction against an earlier allegorical interpretation which like Strawberry Fields saw that nothing was real.

sotto voce · 08-19-2012, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The idea on a Christian Bishop in Lyon in the Second Century is utterly absurd.

How can it be absurd, when 'bishop' is capitalised?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.