Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 09-14-2011, 04:21 PM

Yes it is difficult but it is fun. In case I wasn't explicit enough the phrase 'the sign of the Cross' in Greek = το σημειον του σταυρου. It is undeniable though that Philo's interpretation of Exodus 3:15 anticipates Marcionitism.

There is no convincing explanation as to what the sign was that God gave to Moses in Exodus 3:12. None of the rabbinic commentaries work well enough that some other guy comes along and provides a better explanation. I will ask my Samaritan friend what the Samaritans say

stephan huller · 09-14-2011, 04:40 PM

Actually I figured out how the Samaritans interpreted the passage by looking at Marqe. The 'sign' was the reception of the name which Philo identifies as the 'name of this age':

Quote:

I intend to produce a sign this day and raise your status from now on. You are the one who will exact vengeance for the whole congregation, and deliver them in my name with exceedingly great power." [MM 1:1]

This name which I reveal to you, my prophet, is the sign that they may know of deliverance. Consider and hear now from me what it is, and do not be too eager to proclaim it in their presence." The world and all the creatures in it trembled when God said to Moses,

I am who I am (Ex. iii. 1 4 ) , who was and will be, a root without a beginning.
I am who I am, the one who existed in the beginning and will be on Mount Sinai.
I am who I am, commander of the world and summoner of the creatures.
I am who I am, creator of the body and originator of the soul.
I am who I am, who set up the Garden and brought about the recompense on Sodom.
I am who I am, maker of life and establisher of death.
J am who I am, God of the Righteous and Lord of the Hebrews.

Whenever they hear from you this great name, they will all be ready to listen and obey. You will say to the Israelites, I AM has sent me to you (Ex. iii. 14) in peace. The Powerful One who covenanted with Abraham, swore to Isaac and apportioned to Jacob, this is my name for ever and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations (Ex. iii. 1 5 ; Targ.), the living one who does not die, who abides unchangingly. By this great name I have strengthened them, but the Hebrews do not now hearken to it. [MM 1.2]

As always the Samaritan explanation is the best and it helps explain Jesus continued reference to giving 'his name' to his followers. But can 'sign' in Greek or Hebrew mean 'name'?

Iskander · 09-14-2011, 05:11 PM

The Institution of the Lord’s Supper

23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is fork you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
1 cor 11:23-26

I cannot find type or sign in the NRSV bible or in any other

stephan huller · 09-14-2011, 07:21 PM

The word for sign in Ex 3:12 is 'ot which also means 'a letter' of the alphabet which means the Samaritan interpretation makes sense (not surprisingly). It is also worth noting that the Aramaic siman often replaces the Hebrew 'ot in the Targumic literature. Now to see whether or not siman is found in the Targums for 'sign' in Ex 3:12. I will start with the Samaritan Targum.

Just to make it clear to Iskander, the Marcionite reading is reported to have read 'this is the figure of my body' according to a reference in Tertullian. The report is slightly garbled. I am wondering now if Jesus was understood to have just held up the equivalent of the Greek Eucharist and said 'this is my siman' (i.e. the Cross). Judas taking the piece has significance in light of the Islamic pseudepigrapha

stephan huller · 09-14-2011, 08:23 PM

I checked the Targums and yes the Aramaic term for 'sign' is siman. In Pseudo-Jonathan it סימן in Neofiti we read סימנא. Marqe references it as סימנה.

The Samaritan tradition gives the following account of Aaron's explanation of the 'sign' received by Moses from God. We hear that Moses and Aaron:

Quote:

entered Egypt without being unduly expectant about anything, but the Good One was with them in the unseen, invisible. They slept that night and arose next morning and hastily assembled the Elders of the congregation (Ex. iv. 29). Aaron revealed to them the name which his Lord had disclosed to Moses (Ex. iv. 30). Their hearts were gladdened when they heard that; they said to one another, "This is a sign showing us that deliverance is near." [MM 1.4]

As a side note, I don't think people understand where the idea of Marcionite redemption comes from. Let Marqe explain in what follows:

Quote:

(Moses and Aaron) said, "He has not sent us to you without a sign (simanah) and wonder, in order that you may believe that He is true God. He would not have sent requesting this people from you had He not known that truth is not with you. They are pledged in His hand by a word, and the time for it has arrived. Their Lord desires the redemption of the pledge now, and He desires to take His own property." [ibid]

stephan huller · 09-14-2011, 10:12 PM

Another interesting parallel. There are recorded references to 'the sign of my blood' no less than 'the sign of my body.' Matthew 26:28 preserves:

Quote:

This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

If there was a 'this is the sign of my body' it begins to look remarkably similar to Exodus 12:13 which Marqe cites from the Samaritan Targum:

Quote:

The blood shall be a sign (סימן) to you upon the houses (Ex. xii. 13; Targ.), that the Destroyer may see it and pass by.
The blood shall be sign (סימן) to you upon the houses, that (my) anger may observe it and stop.
The blood shall be a sign (סימן) to you upon the houses, on the outside, and the glory of God on the inside.
I need no sign (סימן), only that it may be a subject of commemoration to all generations; an ordinance for ever (Ex. xii. 14 ; Targ.) it shall be for your generations. [MM 1.9]

stephan huller · 09-14-2011, 10:35 PM

Perhaps it might be better to start over and look at simple explanations for the Marcionite reading - 'this is the type of my body' or 'this is the sign of my body.' Augustine apparently - a former Manichaean - develops a particularly relevant discussion of this concept:

Quote:

And lastly, in proof of the Roman theory of Transubstantiation we have, of course, quoted the passages — " When committing to us His body He said, This is My body. Christ was borne in His own hands. He bore that body in His hands. How was He borne in His hands ? ' he asks in the next Sermon on the same Psalm. — 'Because, when He gave His own body and blood. He took into His hands what the faithful know, and He bore Himself in a certain manner when he said, "this is my body."

I have elsewhere examined this passage, showing that Augustine fell into an error, not knowing the Hebrew language, but he fully explains himself when he stated that in saying " This is my body," He gave the sign of His body, and that He warned the Disciples not to fall into what otherwise would be an obvious error: — "You shall not eat this body which you see, nor drink that blood which they will shed that will crucify Me. I have commanded a certain Sacrament unto you, which, being spiritually understood, will quicken you." [Saint Augustin, his life and writings as affecting the controversy with Rome By Charles Hastings Collette p 114]

And now the original passage in Augustine's writings:

Quote:

And elsewhere, " The Lord had made no difficulty in saying, ' This is my body,' when He gave the sign of His body in that repast where He intrusted and gave to His disciples the figure of His body and His blood. And it is thus that the sacrament of His blood is His blood; for sacraments usually take the name of the things which they represent." [Serm. in Psalm 37, Cont. Adim. c 10]

He [Christ] committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood” [Augustine, on Psalm 3].

[The sacraments] bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood” [Augustine, Letter 98, From Augustine to Boniface].

stephan huller · 09-14-2011, 11:16 PM

The idea seems very firmly grounded in the Latin Church - no less than the Marcionite reading in 1 Corinthians 15:3 dealt with in the other thread. When I start reading all these references I get the distinct feeling that not only did the reading once exist in the New Testament but more importantly it probably had nothing to do with the false claim that the heretics believed Jesus was a phantom. Indeed Roman Catholicism with its celibate clergy begins to look more and more like it had some ancient connection with Marcionitism:

Quote:

Tertullian uses the technical language of typology, in which the expression figura corporis originated. He did not coin the phrase; rather, it comes certainly from the text of some anaphora or paleoanaphora, as the Latin equivalent of antitypos.10 There are, in fact, various testimonies \hatfigura corporis, or its Greek and Syriac equivalents, belonged to the text of archaic eucharistic prayers, such as we have seen, at least in part, at the beginning of the present book. In addition, the phrase is also found in the primitive redaction of the Roman Canon to which Ambrose bears witness11 and in Mozarabic developments of that Eucharistic Prayer.

In using the expression figura corporis Tertullian is making clear the sacramental status of the eucharistic bread, in order then to conclude to the reality of Christ's incarnation. The argument begins by recalling that at the Last Supper Jesus clearly said "This is my body," meaning by this that "this is the figure of my body" However, a figura exists only in relation to a veritas or reality. Therefore, the figural nature of the eucharistic bread necessarily relates to the truth or reality of the incarnation.12 What is the significance of the word figura? At the Last Supper, by saying "This is my body," Jesus turned 8 This the bread into the figura of his body, and figura should therefore be taken in a realistic sense. Here are the steps in the argument: (1) the body which Christ assumed in the incarnation is called veritas, while the eucharistic bread is called figura; (2) because of the ontological relationship of figura and veritas, if the figura belongs to the real order, so must the veritas; (3) Tertullian concludes that if the figura of the Body of Christ (the eucharistic bread) is real, then the body which Christ assumed in the incarnation must also be real. If the latter were not real, the Sacrament could not be called a figura.

The term figura, then, is used not to signify a purely symbolic interpretation but to show the sacramental realism of the Eucharist. This terminology (figura, repraesentare, and so on) is part of the language specific to the interpretation of the Bible and expresses the relationship between the Old Testament and the New, that is, between the announcement and fulfillment are not two different phases or two different realities of salvation, but are one; the Old Testament participates in the New, and the announcement in the fulfillment. The ontological relationship (of participation) between the event and the prior announcement of it suggested to the early Fathers that they should take over, en bloc, the entire special terminology of biblical interpretation and apply it to the liturgy. We should always bear in mind that the reason for transferring the technical vocabulary of biblical interpretation to the liturgy was that it could ensure the ontological value of the relationship between the two realities, namely, the announcement and the fulfillment. Consequently, since sacramental realism is characteristic of the language of typology — of figure and representation — it is not surprising that Tertullian should apply this language to the Eucharist, thereby staying within a strongly realistic conception of sacramentality.

The expression figura corporis, then, is not to be understood as implying a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist that is opposed to realism, for the expression is one of the technical terms of sacramental realism in the original formulation of the latter, that is, the typological formulation. Also to be emphasized is that in the logic of typology the term veritas signifies not the Sacrament but the historical body of Christ. [Enrico Mazza, The Celebration of the Eucharist (or via: amazon.co.uk) p. 121]

stephan huller · 09-15-2011, 12:18 AM

The reality is that when you look at how widespread the use of 'the sign of the body' really is it is difficult to argue that this was either invented by a particular individual or a particular tradition. Rather it must go back to the earliest possible New Testament text type and which in turn established the earliest liturgies and that in turn the idea continued even after the texts themselves were altered or edited:

Quote:

[Theodoret] n the second dialogue, entitled "Without Confusion," "The divine mysteries are signs of the true body," he introduces a Eutychian heretic shortly after, maintaining transubstantiation, to whom he answers in these words : " Thou art taken in the net thou hast framed ; for the mystic signs do not change their own nature after consecration, but remain in their former substance, figure and form. In the same dialogue it is demanded : " Tell me, then, what do the mystic signs offered unto God represent?* It is answered, " The body and blood of the Lord."

In the books on the Sacrament attributed to Ambrose, we have the following clause of the public formulary, used in celebrating the Eucharist: "Grant that this oblation, which is a figure of the body of Christ, may be placed to our account, as reasonable and acceptable." (Lib 4.c 5) This cannot be understood of unconsecrated bread, for it is not an acceptable oblation for our sins. This clause- still remains in the Mass, but the word figure is now deleted. In the Demonstration of Eusebius, b. 1, c. 8 - "We have been instructed to celebrate, at the table, the memory of this sacrifice, by the signs of his body and blood, according to the laws of the New Testament." And in b. 8, after having said " that Jesus Christ gave the signs or symbols of his dispensation to the disciples," he adds, " commanding them to celebrate the image or figure of his own body."

Ephraim, patriarch of Antioch, saith : " The body of Jesus Christ, which the faithful receive, does not lose its sensible substance, nor is it separated from intelligible grace. In like manner, baptism being wholly spiritual and one, preserves the property of its sensible substance — namely, of water — and ceases not to be what it was." This passage is one of great force, for bread is here called the body of Christ, but it is not admitted that any change of substance has taken place ; nay, it is asserted, that there is no more change of substance in the Eucharist than there is in baptism, in which the water always remains water. Gregory of Nazianzen speaks of the participation of the Eucharist, in the second oration on the Passover, as follows : " We shall indeed participate in the passover in a figure, yet more clearly than in the ancient passover, for, if I may so say, the ancient passover was an obscurer figure of a figure."The same Father, in his oration laudatory of his sister Gorgonia, commends her devotion in that when she received the Sacrament in her hand, she carried a part of it home. " If (said he,) her hand had treasured up any portion of the symbols or antitypes of the body and blood of the Lord, she mingled it with her tears." " Consider diligently (said Ephrem, deacon of Edessa,*) how the Lord having taken bread into his hands, blessed it, and brake it for a figure of his immaculate body, and blessed the cup for a figure of his precious blood, and gave it to his disciples."

In the eleventh homily of the imperfect work upon Matthew, attributed to Chrysostom, referring to those who used the sacred vessels, such as plates and cups, for profane purposes, it is thus written : " If it be so dangerous to transfer to private uses the sacred vessels, which do not contain the true body of Christ, but merely the mystery of his body, how much more dangerous is it to profane the vessels of our bodies, which the Lord hath prepared for his own habitation?" Observe, he does not say that the body of Christ was not in these vessels, but that it is not in them, and that they contain the mystery of his body, lest it should be thought that he spoke merely of the vessels in the temple of Solomon. Jerome says, in the second book against Jovinian, " Our Lord did not offer water but wine to typify his blood." — And in the Commentary on 1 Cor. ii., attributed to Jerome : " Christ hath left us a last token of remembrance, like a man going on a journey, who should leave some pledge to him whom he loves." [Pierre Du Moulin, Robert Shanks The Anatomy of the Mass p. 222 - 224]

My guess is that in the third and fourth centuries the New Testament became edited in such a way so as to diminish mysticism. The ideas survived because of the liturgy but that originally the original texts had Jesus offer up 'the sign of my body' rather than 'his body.'

stephan huller · 09-15-2011, 11:13 AM

Another interesting parallel in the Apostolikon is the saying at the end of Galatians in the mouth of the apostle:

Quote:

I bear the marks of Jesus on my body

ἐγὼ γὰρ τὰ στίγματα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματί μου βαστάζω

The Greek στίγμα can be seen as a literal translation of the Aramaic siman (assuming the apostle wrote in Aramaic - side note, I have always thought the Peshitta 'reads better' than the Greek). Aside from the various legends in the rabbinic literature about Jesus and his followers marking their flesh with the divine name and receiving divine powers, it is interesting to note how many traditions associated with Mohammed have Jews, Samaritans and Christians recognize him as the world ruler because of certain 'marks' on his flesh.

As I noted in a previous post the Samaritan tradition's preservation of the idea that the giving of God's divine name (= the 'name of this aion' according to Philo) is clearly behind the original significance of the Eucharist. Let's not forget the strange passage in Luke where a figure - previously unidentified as 'Christ' or Jesus - proves his identity by means of simanim:

Quote:

They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet [Luke 24:37 - 40]

Once again the term siman in Aramaic would encompass both the 'mark' (= marks) on the body of the Christ after the crucifixion no less than the 'sign' associated with (a) the Eucharist, (b) baptism and (c) the Cross.

I am still wondering if the term siman is at the core of the Simon Magus legend (i.e. that the original tradition of Christianity was attacked for its magical beliefs associated with signs and symbols) who were the people doing the attacking? It couldn't have been the Catholics as the Catholics ended up taking over much of the symbolic and supernatural interest. I can't help but think that there was a small group of 'Jewish Christians' (= the Ebionite i.e. those 'poor' in understanding according to the prominent allegorist Origen) who argued that Jesus was literally the Christ, was a historical person and were horrified at the magical interest of the great 'heretical Church).

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

09-14-2011, 04:21 PM	#11
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Yes it is difficult but it is fun. In case I wasn't explicit enough the phrase 'the sign of the Cross' in Greek = το σημειον του σταυρου. It is undeniable though that Philo's interpretation of Exodus 3:15 anticipates Marcionitism. There is no convincing explanation as to what the sign was that God gave to Moses in Exodus 3:12. None of the rabbinic commentaries work well enough that some other guy comes along and provides a better explanation. I will ask my Samaritan friend what the Samaritans say

09-14-2011, 05:11 PM	#13
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	The Institution of the Lord’s Supper 23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is fork you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 1 cor 11:23-26 I cannot find type or sign in the NRSV bible or in any other

09-14-2011, 07:21 PM	#14
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The word for sign in Ex 3:12 is 'ot which also means 'a letter' of the alphabet which means the Samaritan interpretation makes sense (not surprisingly). It is also worth noting that the Aramaic siman often replaces the Hebrew 'ot in the Targumic literature. Now to see whether or not siman is found in the Targums for 'sign' in Ex 3:12. I will start with the Samaritan Targum. Just to make it clear to Iskander, the Marcionite reading is reported to have read 'this is the figure of my body' according to a reference in Tertullian. The report is slightly garbled. I am wondering now if Jesus was understood to have just held up the equivalent of the Greek Eucharist and said 'this is my siman' (i.e. the Cross). Judas taking the piece has significance in light of the Islamic pseudepigrapha

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.