Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 09-18-2011, 07:58 PM

Undecided I am whether great minds think alike or small minds seldom differ. Its a pity we dont have a reliable and consistent record of what Jesus reportedly said. The orthodox say one thing, the gnostic heretics something entirely different. I am still astounded over the brazen heretic who authored the Toledoth Yeshu. I had not bothered to read through the apocyrphal texts dated later than the end of the 4th century, and had missed the enjoyment of reading this one. Thanks.

stephan huller · 09-18-2011, 11:06 PM

I have been thinking about the parallels now between the proposed existence of a 'Signs gospel' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signs_Gospel) and Mystic Mark (= Secret Mark). I am trying to count now the maximum number of times the word 'sign' or 'symbol' might literally have been mentioned in the earliest (lost) gospel. As far as I can see:

Quote:

(a) the sign of Jonah, the 'sign of John' (see Moxon http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/conten.../1/146.extract ) or 'sign of the dove' (cf. John Howton http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=3340812 )
(b) the references at the Eucharist to bread as 'the sign of my body' and the cup as the 'sign of my blood'
(c) the sign of the Son of Man

I think these 'signs' were originally part of at least one gospel tradition. This is not surprising as Jews and Samaritans expected the messiah to prove himself by means of signs. Interestingly the late second century editors of the NT seem to have went out of their way to transform the narrative away from signs. It might be useful to take a look at the use of 'sign' in the NT:

Quote:

Mark 8:11,12:

The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.”

Matthew 12:39

“A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

Matthew 16:4

A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away.

More hostility towards 'signs' in Matthew 24

Quote:

“Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” ... For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

But notice also that 'signs' are still part of the expectation of the longer ending of Mark (c. late second century CE):

Quote:

And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues ... Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it. [Mark 16.17, 20]

The beginning of Luke (c. late second century CE) also has 'signs' associated with Jesus's birth. There is also a greater emphasis of 'signs' in the apocalyptic section before the Passion:

Quote:

There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven. [Luke 21.11]

“There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. [ibid 21.25]

Even Herod expects to see a 'sign' in Luke:

Quote:

When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform a sign of some sort. [Luke 23.8]

Yet most interesting of all is the fact that the Marcionite gospel actually seems to agree with our canonical Matthew over Luke:

Quote:

Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. [Matt 24:30]

Compare what is said in the Dialogues of Adamantius:

Quote:

EUTR. You said that what has been written must be taken as it stands. How is it, then, that He is Son of God when He calls Himself Son of Man?

MEG. He spoke figuratively (παραβολή) when He called Himself Son of Man.

EUTR. Is a figure to be understood in a spiritual sense, or in its natural sense?

MEG. In a spiritual sense.

EUTR. How is it then, that you said the Scriptures are to be understood in the literal sense? They are, thus, to be taken in the spritual, and not in the literal sense, [and where the words seems to be contradictory, the same meaning is found]

MEG. Some passages are to be taken in the spiritual sense, and some in the literal. (see previous post)

I find this particularly striking because Luke differs from Matthew in that our canonical text says there that the people shall literally see what is described in Daniel in the future:

Quote:

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. [Luke 21:27]

The Marcionite in the Dialogues of Adamantius by contrast goes out of his way to emphasize the Matthean reading - i.e. that Jesus said only a 'symbol' ( ) would manifest itself 'spiritually.' As Matthew is universally connected with an Aramaic text the word for 'sign' there (= siman) also means symbol.

Yet notice also that the Marcionite gospel seems to have retained all three 'sign' references. This is a strong argument in favor of it being connected with the earliest gospel.

stephan huller · 09-19-2011, 12:14 AM

Maybe I was a bit fast to connect Marcion to the 'sign of Jonah.' Here is what Epiphanius says:

Quote:

The saying about Jonah the prophet has been falsified; Marcion had, “This generation, no sign shall be given it.” But he did not have the passages about Nineveh, the queen of the south, and Solomon.

Also Tertullian seems to emphasize the same situation:

Quote:

He (= Jesus) too is changeable, variable, capricious, teaching one thing, doing another: he tells them to give to everyone that asks, but himself gives no sign to those who do ask. [AM 4.27]

As such it might have looked more like the gospel of Mark.

stephan huller · 09-19-2011, 10:58 AM

The other sign which clearly must have been understood to be in the gospel originally - or at least some gospel - was the sign of the cross. Irenaeus interestingly sees the sign of the cross prefigured in the pregnant prophesy of Isaiah from which so many Christian teachings are derived:

Quote:

And again Isaiah says: And they shall wish that they had been burned with fire: for unto us a child is born, and unto us a son is given; whose government is upon his shoulders, and his name is called Angel of great counsel. For I will bring peace upon the riders, again peace and health unto him. Great is his rule, and of his peace there is no bound, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to prosper and complete, to aid and undertake, in righteousness and judgment from this time forth and for evermore. For hereby the Son of God is proclaimed both as being born and also as eternal King. But they shall wish that they had been burned with fire (is said) of those who believe not on Him, and who have done to Him all that they have done: for they shall say in the judgment, How much better that we had been burned with fire before the Son of God was born, than that, when He was born, we should not have believed on Him. Because for those who died before Christ appeared there is hope that in the judgment of the risen they may obtain salvation, even such as feared God and died in righteousness and had in them the Spirit of God, as the patriarchs and prophets and righteous men. But for those who after Christ's appearing believed not on Him, there is a vengeance without pardon in the judgment. Now in this: Whose government is upon his shoulder, the cross is in a figure declared, on which He was nailed back. For that which was and is a reproach to Him, and for His sake to us, even the cross, this same is, says he, His government, being a sign of His kingdom. And, Angel of great counsel, he says; that is, of the Father whom He hath declared unto us.[ Apostolic Preaching 22]

I am not sure how to classify this. Is this a 'sign of the cross' or is the one carrying the cross 'a sign of the kingdom'? In any event, it is worth noting that if Irenaeus is understood to be the 'final editor' of our New Testament canon, he was certainly very much in favor of the idea of 'signs' confirming Jesus as the Christ. In other words, the idea that there were no signs carrying over from the Old Testament (i.e. Mark 8:12) seems Marcionite.

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

09-18-2011, 07:58 PM	#51
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Undecided I am whether great minds think alike or small minds seldom differ. Its a pity we dont have a reliable and consistent record of what Jesus reportedly said. The orthodox say one thing, the gnostic heretics something entirely different. I am still astounded over the brazen heretic who authored the Toledoth Yeshu. I had not bothered to read through the apocyrphal texts dated later than the end of the 4th century, and had missed the enjoyment of reading this one. Thanks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.