stephan huller

The Babylonian Talmud tells, "A certain sectarian asked Rav Idit, 'The Torah says, "He said to Moses, 'Ascend to the Lord'"!' (Exodus 24:1). If it was God talking, why didn't it say, 'Ascend to Me'? He replied, 'This refers to the Angel Metatron, whose name is like his Master's.' According to the Jerusalem Targum, Michael, the Angel of Wisdom, said to Moses, 'Ascend to the Lord.' [BT Sanhedrin 38b but see also Genesis Rabbati p. 28]

Nahmanides interpreted R. Idit's remark to mean: "The Lord said to Moses, 'Ascend to Metatron.'" R. Idit replied to the sectarian "that the scripture was referring to the angel who showed Israel the way on the earth. But Moses replied that we would not accept him even in the capacity of guide, as it says, 'If Your Presence does not accompany us, do not make us leave this place' (Exodus 33:15)— we accept no emissary except for the Divine Name.

Ibn Ezra and Maimonides both stressed that Moses actually met the highest god face to face in Exodus 24.1 but the sectarian position continued to have witnesses especially into the later period.

Rabbi Nathan bar Samuel the Physician interpreted, "Then [one] said to Moses, 'Ascend to the Lord'" (Exodus 24:1) as follows: "The Active Intellect said to Moses, 'Ascend through your well-formed thought to the Lord." And the author of Meor ha-Afelah wrote, "Scripture calls the divine effluence which reaches the prophet's intellect from the Active Intellect ... him' (Numbers 7:89)— as we wrote elsewhere, from the utterance which proceeded from the Lord was formed an angel, directly, without mediation of an angel, 'face to face.'"

R. Hayyim ibn 'Attar interpreted similarly: '"He would hear the Voice addressing him' (Numbers 7:89) — as we wrote elsewhere, from the utterance which proceeded from the Lord was formed an angel, which would speak to the the prophet. This is how I have interpreted every occurrence of the word lemor in connection with divine communication. Here, too, the 'voice' speaking to him refers to a voice created for the purpose by the Holy and Blessed One."

Views were preserved that Moses received various things from angels. "Moses' prayer was a variant of the Divine Name which he learned from Zagzagel, the rabbi and scribe of the heavenly realm." And R. Hayyim Vital wrote, "Know that when Enoch died [sic/], he was at a higher level than Moses, for he was Moses' teacher; he is the angel Zagzagel. He attained the level of hayyah, but Moses only attained neshamah. But the Messiah will achieve yehidah."

I don't there are many people who will appreciate this understanding and tradition - Christians don't have a clue what Judaism is, nor Jews earliest Christianity. But the idea is clearly reinforcing the original ground of Marcionitism refracted through the distorting lens of Irenaeus, Ephrem and the Church Fathers dependent on them.

The Marcionite tradition was seen by Jews as a Jewish sect. The connection is always present. Of course one could argue that was is being described here isn't 'Marcionitism' but a Jewish sect which came to many of the same conclusions as the Marcionites. The point isn't very useful for me at least because I have always thought that the 'Marcionites' are an artificial designation on the part of the early Church Fathers. No one actually identified themselves as the followers of Marcion. They seemed to have avoided connecting their gospel with a human author and in Edessa where their opinion was the official brand of Christianity they took position of the title 'Christian' (the Catholics were forced to accept the title 'Palutians'). In other words, 'Marcionite' was something which outsiders branded the sect with. The sect themselves called themselves 'Christian.'

The rabbis bumped up against the Marcionite interpretation time and time again and identified it as a Jewish 'sectarian' position. It stood midway between what would later be defined as 'Judaism' and 'Christianity' (undoubtedly 'helped' by the Imperial government in the late second and third centuries - the age in which the Mishnah was first codified and later the Palestinian Talmud).

Commodus had an almost paranoid obsession to destroy those who claimed there was a power about the ruler of the world. Those holding this view were classified as promoting a seditious doctrine (see Against Celsus Book Eight written c. 175 - 180 CE). Judaism, Samaritanism and Christianity were all developed away from a comon milieu (undoubtedly promoted during the 'blackhole period' c. 70 - 135 CE) into traditions superficially identified as 'conservative' (but which was really a kind of faux conservativism because the views espoused in each tradition were never held before the end of the second century).

The common denominator of all the reform efforts was to claim that in the 'golden age' before the rise of 'heresies'/sectarians the true believers of previous ages all held that there was only one power in heaven - i.e. God Almighty - who was the 'ruler of the world.' Creator, Demiurge etc. This view became orthodox in each tradition even though the earliest beliefs actually contradicted this notion.

The heretics/sectarians who lived on in the second and third centuries were marginalized and killed in various persecutions. Within Judaism the executions were undoubtedly carried out by Jews (through the 'rebellious elder' laws). Among the Samaritans and Christians the persecutions were carried out by Imperial decree.

Abu'l Fatek notes for instances that in the Commodian period the entire priestly order was wiped out and moreover the scrolls determining priestly lineage were destroyed so that priests could be cultivated from outside the limited pool of previous ages. This is a startling admission for a Samaritan chronicler to make. He also mentions the widespread destruction of Samaritan literature in the period. Another persecution occurred under Decius. There were undoubtedly more in the period. These are just the most prominent.

It should also be noted that R. Hiyyam Vital's distinction of 'hayyah' 'life' and something better reserved for the messiah (yehidah) is present in the Marcionite interpretation of the request to Jesus first for how to attain 'life' (i.e. 'I know the commandments ... Jesus responds 'Do these and you will live.') and 'eternal life' (i.e. Mark chapter 10). Yehidah means 'unique' and is related to the traditional title of Isaac i.e. yahid 'onlyborn' which becomes a title of the messiah in Christianity (see John chapter 1) and is the root behind the monastic ideal (i.e. 'oneness).

semiopen

Thanks for this Stephan, this is very valuable.

Regarding Exodus 33:15, there are some translations that go

The Hebrew isn't completely clear to me, but the majority have us.


Exodus 13:21 goes


Exodus 14:19 goes

So there may be some doubt that the writers gave a shit about who exactly was in the pillar except when it appeared at the tent of meeting, because Moses was talking to God. I wonder if 33:15, etc was added later.

stephan huller

Thank you,

I've said it a thousand times - how can people develop models for the origin of Christianity when they don't understand Judaism? It's so fucking frustrating. How do they know what is possible and what is impossible?

The Marcionites were heretics because the orthodox didn't like their message. That's it. It wasn't that they 'invented' something new. No, it's just the orthodox wanted everyone to like vanilla and the Marcionites liked chocolate. Chocolate isn't in itself heretical. It's only heretical if there someone else out there telling you that you have to like vanilla.

The way most New Testament and Patristic scholars define what's possible for early Christianity is so limiting, it allows for the IMPOSSIBLE IDEA that Marcion 'invented' this heresy. This heresy is not the invention of an individual living in the second century. It is an extension of pre-existent Jewish and Samaritan traditions of scripture. This is what's so frustrating. Everyone likes to that Judaism is the exclusive veneration of Yahweh and no one else. This has not been experience and I am Jewish.

If you buy one of Lamsa's books on the Syrian Church for instance you will see that this branch of Christianity says that Yahweh was a lower hypostasis, a kind of national divinity and that the Christian god was above this being. The Christian God was the universal 'good God. This George Lamsa and not Stephan Huller saying this and he is speaking on behalf of the Syriac speaking Church.

I really recomend that you read Abraham Heschel's Heavenly Torah (or via: amazon.co.uk). I found the book years ago at Border's of all places and it literally changed my life. It was the inspiration behind me writing my own book on Mark. The Samaritans having this idea still in the writings of Mark were 'the glory' and 'God' are two different beings. You get the same idea in various statements of heretics with regards to 'the great power' (another Samaritan term for the glory).

The basic idea that comes out of Marqe's discussion of Deuteronomy 32 (the Great Song) and elsewhere is that God created something 'good' or 'very good' but that 'the glory' will make things perfect. I think this is the essence of Christianity. That's why people joined the Church originally - to make themselves perfect, to recreate themselves after the image of perfection - Jesus. The fact that the name Jesus = 888 symbolized the superiority of the glory who presumably came from the 'eighthness' (the ogdoad).

That's the reason why the gospel is so called because the Samaritans associated the term besora with the proclamation of the Jubilee (and the Jubilee is one better than the hebdomad (7 x 7 + 1). I think this explains the interest in Sunday, baptism on the eighth day, baptism as a replacement for circumcision (which occurs on the eighth day). The list goes on and on.

HaRaAYaH

How so?

stephan huller

I just realized the context for Mark's composition of the gospel was the very position ascribed to Marcus Agrippa in the rabbinic literature

Chili

Moses was from his "mother's womb untimely ripped" which is exactly what you "public fornication" post was suggesting.