Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 04-27-2013, 08:11 PM

Think also in terms of the figure of barabbas. Note that Jerome read Bar Rabba "son of the master or Bar Rabbana" "son of our master" deriving it from Rabba not Abba. Again, Rabba is a title, like Ribboni.(Hebrew) or Rabbuni (Aramaic) "my master." Perhaps the best translation - my great one. Rabbinic literature uses "Rabbouni" in addresses to God but not in addresses to human beings. Gudry (Mark p 602) "the Targums use it only occasionally with regard to human beings. Thus extra-biblical usage supports a meaning even more respectful than that which would characterize a disciple's address to his teacher." There is bibliography there too.

stephan huller · 04-27-2013, 09:07 PM

Just reread Black, Aramaic Approach to the Gospels p. 23f and he agrees. This would make sense. Interesting also from a Marcionite perspective is the Turfan fragment mentioning Adonai as the god of Marcion. Have to dig up Hans-Joachim Klimkeit Gnosis on the Silk Road.

stephan huller · 04-27-2013, 09:37 PM

With respect to Jerome here is the reference from what was cited earlier "Barrabas ... in evangelio quod scribitur iuxta Hebraeos filiut magittri coram interpretatur qui propter seditionem et homicidium fuerit condemnatus." Cf. E. Klostermann, Apocrypha II, Kl.T., 83 (1929), 10: Loh. Mk. on 15:7.

stephan huller · 04-27-2013, 09:48 PM

This article by Benedict T. Viviano (unfortunately corruptly preserved in Google books) goes over most of the pertinent details:

http://books.google.com/books?id=O4z...ramaic&f=false

I can't believe though that rabbi was the original reading. I think rabbouni was corrected in the middle second century by Catholics to avoid the implications of 'Lord.' But then who am I.

stephan huller · 04-27-2013, 11:04 PM

FWIW

רבבונ = 260

יהוה = 26

This couldn't have escaped the notice of kabbalists.

stephan huller · 04-28-2013, 06:09 AM

from Baarda just now

Your question: Tertullian Against Marcion 4.36 has 'praeceptor optime' - a variant I can't explain.

Tentative Answer: if we consult Harnack’s reconstruction (page 225*f.) we find nothing here for this part of the saying (vs. 18: επέ τις πρς ατόν [ohne ἀρχων] .. but from the reconstruction of vs. 19 δέ. τί μή με λέγεις [λέγετε] ἀγαθόν; it can be deduced that only γαθός was found in the address of the rich youth.

This is probably corroborated by the references in the note of Harnack: Dial.Adam. II:17 Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ (cf. I.1) Hippol. Philos. VII.31 Clem.Hom. XVIII. cf. Orig. de princ. II,5.1 I have not found any text with the superlative optimus (ἀγαθός has hardly an own superlative, but borrows it from other adjectives > see L-S sub voce)

Then the question arises why Tertullian quotes the words ‘Praeceptor optime, quid faciens vitam aeternam possideo?’. My idea: it was influenced by Marcion’s idea of the true God as ‘optimus et ultro bonus’: cf. IV:36: ...qua deus optimus et ultro bonus...Sed quis optimus, nisi unus, inquit , deus? ...sed unum esse optimum deum solum, qui sic unus sit optimus qua solus deus, etc. etc. Therefore, I think that it is because of the emphasis on this optimus that optime crept into the quotation of Lk 18:18.

I hope this answers your question, Tjitze Baarda.

Op 27 apr 2013, om 15:29

stephan huller · 04-28-2013, 09:38 AM

I think the key is to reconstruct the known Greek and Latin translations of אָד֣וֹן (Lord) and see how many exceptions to kurios we find. BTW when I posted Baarda's email this morning I did with my phone and it didn't pick up the accented alpha (because of the browser I guess):

Your question: Tertullian Against Marcion 4.36 has 'praeceptor optime' - a variant I can't explain.

Tentative Answer: if we consult Harnack’s reconstruction (page 225*f.) we find nothing here for this part of the saying (vs. 18: επέ τις πρς ατόν [ohne ἀρχων] .. but from the reconstruction of vs. 19 δέ. τί μή με λέγεις [λέγετε] ἀγαθόν; it can be deduced that only ἀγαθός was found in the address of the rich youth.

This is probably corroborated by the references in the note of Harnack: Dial.Adam. II:17 Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ (cf. I.1) Hippol. Philos. VII.31 Clem.Hom. XVIII. cf. Orig. de princ. II,5.1 I have not found any text with the superlative optimus (ἀγαθός has hardly an own superlative, but borrows it from other adjectives > see L-S sub voce)

Then the question arises why Tertullian quotes the words ‘Praeceptor optime, quid faciens vitam aeternam possideo?’. My idea: it was influenced by Marcion’s idea of the true God as ‘optimus et ultro bonus’: cf. IV:36: ...qua deus optimus et ultro bonus...Sed quis optimus, nisi unus, inquit , deus? ...sed unum esse optimum deum solum, qui sic unus sit optimus qua solus deus, etc. etc. Therefore, I think that it is because of the emphasis on this optimus that optime crept into the quotation of Lk 18:18.

I hope this answers your question, Tjitze Baarda.

stephan huller · 04-28-2013, 10:55 AM

I wonder whether this Manichaean hymn from Turfan can help demonstrate the Marcionites identified the god of the Jews as Adonai:

Quote:

(s) The lands are confused by the idols which misled (them), by the images on walls, (made of) wood and stone.
(t) They fear deception, they bow down before it and honor it. They have abandoned the Father in Heaven and pray to deception
[the first four verses are omitted]
(h) And they who venerate the burning fire, do they not know that their end will therefore be by fire?
(v) And they say that Ohmizd and Ahriman are brothers, and because of these words they come to ruin.
(z) They display their deceit and contempt for Ohrmizd (when they say) that the demon Mahmi taught him how to fill the world with light.
(h) They kill the creatures of Ohrmizd and Ahriman and cut them into pieces; Theyhave been foes to both their families.
[two verses omitted]
(x for k) They (the Christians) call the son of Mary, the son of Adonai, the seventh one. If he (Adonai) is Lord of all, why did he crucify his own son?
(r for l) It is just that the infidels go to Hell for they themselves are the cause of sin and the ruin of evildoers (?).
(m) That which they (the Jews) did is like (the deed) of the God of Marcion, who led him who was not his own; and they seized and killed him.
[seven verses omitted]
(s) In the end, on that last day, they will be put to shame, all these who worship idols, and they will go to their ruin.
[last verse missing]

Hans-Joachim Klimkeit Gnosis on the Silk Road. p 127

Majella Franzmann writes in Jesus in the Manichaean Writings "[h]ere, clearly, Adonai, the God of Marcion. is responsible for the crucifixion, while acting through the Jews." (p. 70) But how was Adonai the God of the Marcionites as distinguished from the Manichaeans? I think this reinforces the notion that the Marcionites had three gods - good, just and evil and Adonai was the name they gave to the just god.

stephan huller · 04-28-2013, 11:05 AM

In Mandaean texts, the destruction of Jerusalem came as a punishment for the persecution of the community by the Jews, under the leadership of Adonai, Ruha, and their seven sons; see also Rudolph, "Le Mandeisme," in Puech, ed., Histoire des Religions, II (Paris: Gallimard, 1972), 517.

stephan huller · 04-28-2013, 11:10 AM

Tertullian interestingly does not list Adonai as a name of the Father in Adv Prax 17.2

Quote:

They have found it easier to think that the Father has acted in the Son's name than the Son in the Father's though the Lord himself says, I am come in my Father's name 2: and again, to the Father himself <he says>, I have manifested thy name to men 3 : and the scripture also agrees, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord 4 - evidently the Son in the name of the Father. And the Father's name is God Almighty, the Most High, the Lord of hosts, the King of Israel, I am. In as much as the scriptures so teach, we say that these also have applied to the Son, and that in these the Son came, and in these always acted, and thus in himself manifested them to men.

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

04-27-2013, 08:11 PM	#61
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Think also in terms of the figure of barabbas. Note that Jerome read Bar Rabba "son of the master or Bar Rabbana" "son of our master" deriving it from Rabba not Abba. Again, Rabba is a title, like Ribboni.(Hebrew) or Rabbuni (Aramaic) "my master." Perhaps the best translation - my great one. Rabbinic literature uses "Rabbouni" in addresses to God but not in addresses to human beings. Gudry (Mark p 602) "the Targums use it only occasionally with regard to human beings. Thus extra-biblical usage supports a meaning even more respectful than that which would characterize a disciple's address to his teacher." There is bibliography there too.

04-27-2013, 09:07 PM	#62
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Just reread Black, Aramaic Approach to the Gospels p. 23f and he agrees. This would make sense. Interesting also from a Marcionite perspective is the Turfan fragment mentioning Adonai as the god of Marcion. Have to dig up Hans-Joachim Klimkeit Gnosis on the Silk Road.

04-27-2013, 09:37 PM	#63
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	With respect to Jerome here is the reference from what was cited earlier "Barrabas ... in evangelio quod scribitur iuxta Hebraeos filiut magittri coram interpretatur qui propter seditionem et homicidium fuerit condemnatus." Cf. E. Klostermann, Apocrypha II, Kl.T., 83 (1929), 10: Loh. Mk. on 15:7.

04-27-2013, 09:48 PM	#64
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	This article by Benedict T. Viviano (unfortunately corruptly preserved in Google books) goes over most of the pertinent details: http://books.google.com/books?id=O4z...ramaic&f=false I can't believe though that rabbi was the original reading. I think rabbouni was corrected in the middle second century by Catholics to avoid the implications of 'Lord.' But then who am I.

04-27-2013, 11:04 PM	#65
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	FWIW רבבונ = 260 יהוה = 26 This couldn't have escaped the notice of kabbalists.

04-28-2013, 06:09 AM	#66
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	from Baarda just now Your question: Tertullian Against Marcion 4.36 has 'praeceptor optime' - a variant I can't explain. Tentative Answer: if we consult Harnack’s reconstruction (page 225*f.) we find nothing here for this part of the saying (vs. 18: επέ τις πρς ατόν [ohne ἀρχων] .. but from the reconstruction of vs. 19 δέ. τί μή με λέγεις [λέγετε] ἀγαθόν; it can be deduced that only γαθός was found in the address of the rich youth. This is probably corroborated by the references in the note of Harnack: Dial.Adam. II:17 Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ (cf. I.1) Hippol. Philos. VII.31 Clem.Hom. XVIII. cf. Orig. de princ. II,5.1 I have not found any text with the superlative optimus (ἀγαθός has hardly an own superlative, but borrows it from other adjectives > see L-S sub voce) Then the question arises why Tertullian quotes the words ‘Praeceptor optime, quid faciens vitam aeternam possideo?’. My idea: it was influenced by Marcion’s idea of the true God as ‘optimus et ultro bonus’: cf. IV:36: ...qua deus optimus et ultro bonus...Sed quis optimus, nisi unus, inquit , deus? ...sed unum esse optimum deum solum, qui sic unus sit optimus qua solus deus, etc. etc. Therefore, I think that it is because of the emphasis on this optimus that optime crept into the quotation of Lk 18:18. I hope this answers your question, Tjitze Baarda. Op 27 apr 2013, om 15:29

04-28-2013, 09:38 AM	#67
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think the key is to reconstruct the known Greek and Latin translations of אָד֣וֹן (Lord) and see how many exceptions to kurios we find. BTW when I posted Baarda's email this morning I did with my phone and it didn't pick up the accented alpha (because of the browser I guess): Your question: Tertullian Against Marcion 4.36 has 'praeceptor optime' - a variant I can't explain. Tentative Answer: if we consult Harnack’s reconstruction (page 225*f.) we find nothing here for this part of the saying (vs. 18: επέ τις πρς ατόν [ohne ἀρχων] .. but from the reconstruction of vs. 19 δέ. τί μή με λέγεις [λέγετε] ἀγαθόν; it can be deduced that only ἀγαθός was found in the address of the rich youth. This is probably corroborated by the references in the note of Harnack: Dial.Adam. II:17 Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ (cf. I.1) Hippol. Philos. VII.31 Clem.Hom. XVIII. cf. Orig. de princ. II,5.1 I have not found any text with the superlative optimus (ἀγαθός has hardly an own superlative, but borrows it from other adjectives > see L-S sub voce) Then the question arises why Tertullian quotes the words ‘Praeceptor optime, quid faciens vitam aeternam possideo?’. My idea: it was influenced by Marcion’s idea of the true God as ‘optimus et ultro bonus’: cf. IV:36: ...qua deus optimus et ultro bonus...Sed quis optimus, nisi unus, inquit , deus? ...sed unum esse optimum deum solum, qui sic unus sit optimus qua solus deus, etc. etc. Therefore, I think that it is because of the emphasis on this optimus that optime crept into the quotation of Lk 18:18. I hope this answers your question, Tjitze Baarda.

04-28-2013, 11:05 AM	#69
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	In Mandaean texts, the destruction of Jerusalem came as a punishment for the persecution of the community by the Jews, under the leadership of Adonai, Ruha, and their seven sons; see also Rudolph, "Le Mandeisme," in Puech, ed., Histoire des Religions, II (Paris: Gallimard, 1972), 517.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.