stephan huller

von Harnack and McGowan identify the Marcionite text as 'This is the type of my body.' A number of Church Fathers are aware of this reading including Theodore of Mopsuestia, John of Damscus, Cyril of Edessa and Gabriel Qatraya of Nisbis who reject it. The Testament of Our Lord, Sarapion, Cyril of Jerusalem, the Latin Canon of the Mass (Pseudo-Ambrose de Sacramentis), the Marcionites and possibly Tertullian by contrast seem to have accepted the saying. It is worth noting that those who go out of there way to reject the saying mostly come from regions where the Marcionite religion used to hold sway so they are subtly correcting the original orthodoxy.

In many of these sources it is followed by 'this is the type of my blood.' Thus we may ascertain that both the account of the Eucharist in our present gospels and the apostle's passing on of this information in the Apostolikon have suffered from interpolation. The original gospel account must have resembled something like:

It is unclear from the surviving witnesses what the original word for 'type' or 'sign' was. Was it τύπος, ἀντίτυπος (Cyril of Jerusalem), ομοίωμα (Sarapion) or some other term? My guess is that the variation demonstrates the term went back to Aramaic (look also at the examples of who knows about this saying - i.e. mostly Syriac speaking communities). My hunch is that a strong case can be made that it goes back to the Aramaic use of the Greek σημεῖον to mean 'sign' or 'figure.'

This is likely where the figure of Simon Magus originates. In other words, the name goes back to siman not a person named Shimon. The orthodox must have been horrified at the Marcionite (or heretical) Eucharist where the sacraments were mere 'signs' of Christ rather than Christ. In due course this siman became the original heretic who fooled people into taking him to be Christ rather than Jesus.

Irenaeus who is our source for the Simon material; we are told that the 'Simonians' "have an image of Simon fashioned after the likeness of Jupiter, and another of Helena in the shape of Minerva; and these they worship. In fine, they have a name derived from Simon, the author of these most impious doctrines, being called Simonians." This could be a designation of the heretics as such as 'substituters' (i.e. those who took Jesus as a mere sign). Basilides clearly takes 'Simon' to be a substitute for Jesus in the Passion:

Not only was Cerdo, Marcion's teacher said to be a student of this 'Simon' but Irenaeus concludes that the Marcionites specifically "corrupt the truth, and injuriously affect the preaching of the Church, are the disciples and successors of Simon Magus of Samaria. Although they do not confess the name of their master, in order all the more to seduce others, yet they do teach his doctrines. They set forth, indeed, the name of Christ Jesus as a sort of lure, but in various ways they introduce the impieties of Simon; and thus they destroy multitudes, wickedly disseminating their own doctrines by the use of a good name, and, through means of its sweetness and beauty, extending to their hearers the bitter and malignant poison of the serpent, the great author of apostasy." [ibid 1.27.4]

The reality is of course is that the bread and the drink are properly designated types. I don't know where the idea of identifying things that aren't actually flesh and blood as flesh and blood started but it is obviously the sign of a barbaric mentality. Conversely, the deliberate emphasis that the sacraments were 'signs' or 'types' of Christ seems to avoid the obvious difficulties about associating divinity literally with physical objects.

In my opinion, the 'type' or 'figure' of his flesh is the original and it demonstrates that Christianity only became corrupted by the Orthodox by making an appeal to the vulgarest elements in the community who were unable to see the philosophical implications of their reconstruction of dogma.

Minimalist

And those witnesses would be..................?

stephan huller

My interest for the moment is to strengthen the connection between siman and Simon so to this end Matthew Black's discussion in the Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts is especially relevant:

The point here is that the association between Simon and money in Acts is likely to be similarly derived. The question now is whether or not σημεῖον or its Aramaic equivalent is behind the saying 'type of my flesh.' I strongly suspect so but more work is needed. I am not sure the Greek or Aramaic can be stretched to mean 'seeming flesh.' If so we have also the original source for the intense (mis)reporting about the heretical interest in doceticism.

The above section of text is found in Black's 1954 text not the reprint which is sold in most bookstores as a paperback (or at least I can't find it). It occurs during a discussion of the prophesy of Simeon of which only this remains in the current reprint:

Interestingly, the identification with Jesus as the σημεῖον in a section of text rejected by the Marcionites may be seen to replace the heretical interest in the sacraments as 'types' or 'signs' of Jesus.

TedM

It sounds very awkward. What is it supposed to mean even? Is it meant to distinguish between being symbolic of his body and actually being his body? If so, why would the orthodox have a problem with that, and interpolate it out later (assuming it was original)?

Or, most likely, is it meant to make clear that since Marcion's Jesus didn't have a human body the bread couldn't actually be his body--since bread is material?

If the latter, then this seems contrived unless Marcion qualifies Jesus' 'body' with statements everyone else in Paul. If he doesn't, then I would say that this verse serves as evidence that Marcion did in fact pervert the original texts to match his own made-up philosophy, because it seems like he was trying too hard here.

Ted

stephan huller

Why should it be surprising that a new reading should be described as 'very awkward' when I just rediscovered something that lay dormant for almost two thousand years? Yes of course it sounds unusual but familiarity should not be an argument in favor of authenticity.

I don't know what the meaning of the passage is yet. I haven't sorted out the correct terminology. Once that is done we can establish the original meaning.

The reality is that the usual meaning is senseless. Bread and water or bread and wine shouldn't be said to actually be taken to be Jesus or Christ or any person. They're inanimate objects. If I call someone 'meathead' or 'rotten cabbage' or the like no one would really believe that someone literally has a head made of beef or is literally a rotten cabbage. It's only habit and ignorance that allowed for this to be taken for granted.

The question is what did the editors of Luke mean when they said Jesus would be a σημεῖον? How could bread and water be taken as simanim? What did Cyril mean when he took bread as an ἀντίτυπος? Sarapion as a ομοίωμα? Tertullian as a figura? This is how we will ultimately get to the right answer.

Solo

Or, if we are civilized ourselves, it may be, in A.N. Whitehead memorable phrase, an exhibit of fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

The idea owes its origin to Paul, no doubt about it in this aging fool's head. Forget the phoney 1 Cr 11:23-26. It's a later insert ripped out of Luke to historicize the supper with the twelve apostles. In Mark, the event is the final of an allegorical series in which Jesus figures as spiritual food (the feedings of multitude, and the search for the 'missing loaf' in the boat being the other ones). All these, I believe, are thematic variations of Paul's 1 Corinthians 10:15-18, evidently the root of the Eucharist as it was introduced as a suggestion, not an event.

Note that other than the clumsy nonsense of the apostolic inventory (Mk 3:17-19) which was appended later to synoptize Mark with Matthew, and the phoney conversion of "twelve" to "ten" (10:41) done for the same reason, the twelve in Mark are really a single body until the covenant is broken by Judas (which really is not a betrayal since it was foretold, as duly noted in 14:21). In this, Mark's Last Supper allegory basically conforms to 1 Cr 10:18. In the "ur-Mark" version, Peter and the Zebs were not present, because they were not members of the Twelve.

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller

That is a very interesting point Jiri. I am especially intrigued by the reference to ur-Mark. I have always felt that Christianity that the Orthodox debased Christianity in the late second century by appealing their message to the vulgar. It is very difficult to track down this material but I see in an article by Gero (http://www.reference-global.com/doi/...zs.1975.68.1.4) that the iconoclasts in the Byzantine period frequently invoked the sacramental body of Christ as an ομοίωμα.

On the Pauline use of ομοίωμα cf. Rom 1:23, Rom 5:14, Rom 6:5, Rom 8:3, Phil 2:7. The difficulty of course is that siman isn't a good translation for ομοίωμα here. Nevertheless I think we can see siman used in a similar way in the famous formulation ma'aseh 'avot siman la-banim, "the deed of the fathers is a sign for the sons." Also Tanhuma Lekh lekha 9: "R. Joshua of Sikhnin said: The blessed Holy One gave a sign to Abraham that everything that happened to him would happen to his children" ('Amar R. Yehoshu'a de-Sikhnin: Siman natan lo ha-qadosh barukh hu le-'Avraham she-kol tnah she-'ira' lo 'ira' le-vanaw'). I just don't know how far you can stretch the meaning of siman.

I guess if siman is the original term (and that is by no means established) it points to a different original context for the typology of the sacraments. I don't know what it would mean that Jesus said that 'this' (i.e. the bread) is the siman of my flesh. The most obvious linguistic meaning would be that Jesus simply had bread with a tau on it. This is still the Greek practice (i.e. stamping a cross on the Eucharist). But this can't be the meaning. Can it?

Iskander

Calvin’s comments on 1 Cr 11:23-26


The Supper is a memorial, (μνημόσυνον ) The bread is just bread, only a symbol; the bread does not require a local presence, nor the descent of Christ, nor infinite extension, nor anything of that nature, for the Supper being a heavenly action, there is no absurdity in saying, that Christ, while remaining in heaven, is received by us.

Accordingly, while Paul and Luke use the words — testament in the blood, Matthew and Mark employ the expression — blood of the testament, which amounts to the same thing. For the blood was poured out to reconcile us to God, and now we drink of it in a spiritual sense, that we may be partakers of reconciliation. Hence, in the Supper, we have both a covenant, and a confirmatory pledge of the covenant.

Barnes’ comments:

In remembrance of me. This expresses the whole design of the ordinance. It is a simple memorial, or remembrancer, designed to recall, in a striking and impressive manner, the memory of the Redeemer. It does this by a tender appeal to the senses—by the exhibition of the broken bread, and by the wine.

stephan huller

How interesting Iskander that you should mention the word μνημόσυνον because I was just looking at the LXX of Exodus chapter 3 where in verse twelve we read:

and then in verse 15:

What I was starting to wonder is whether the original Marcionite reading was 'this is the sign of my body' or rather simply 'this is my sign.' The reason for my suspicion is that siman has a particular prevalent form in Aramaic suma which means 'mark.' Could it be that the σῶμα in the Greek sentence touto estin to soma mou is a deliberate substitution for the original reading 'this is my sign?'

The language in the gospel Eucharist passages resembles the language of Exodus chapter 3:

The point is that in order to understand the way the LXX was interpreted we have to turn to Philo:

The point here is that we can begin to see where the Marcionites got their seemingly 'crazy' and un-Jewish idea that Jesus came to announce a God superior to the Jewish God - it was in a Jewish writer viz. Philo of Alexandria!

The parallels are so striking it is hard not to conceive now that the Marcionite narrative is understood to be a deliberate juxtaposition or parallel of what appears in Exodus chapter 3. God (= Jesus) is here 'the better God' who is presenting 'his sign' (= the Cross) against the sign of the Jewish God in Exodus. But what was the sign originally referenced in Exodus? Rashi and Rashbam understand that God is still referring to the burning bush. But it is up for debate.

Iskander

It is Exodus 24 : 8, I think
http://interlinearbible.org/exodus/24-8.htm

8--Moses took the blood and dashed it on the people, and said, ‘See the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.’

It is not easy to reconstruct Marion’s biblical writings and commentary since they were destroyed by his enemies.