jakejonesiv

Hi Stephan,

Thanks for a very knowledable reply.

To answer your question, we must allow for some development over time, but yes, the myth of Eznik fits very well with Marcionite/hyper-Pauline doctrine. This includes a strong dualism (2 Cor. 4:4), incognito Jesus being put to death in ignorance by the Archons of the Aeon (1 Cor. 2:8), and the truth being revealed exclusively to Paul.

Nor should we be suprised that Marcion would use the Jewish scriptures in an ad homenien manner (i.e. against itself), since that is apparent in several passages in the Marcionite Recension of the Pauline epistles and AH 3.2.1. So the "legal debate" rings true to me, ymmv.

To your further points, you have dated Marcion too early (more on that at another time, but the contreversies over the law and circumcision still raged well into the 2c.). But I also agree with you that Marcion was not anti-Jewish. The proto-orthodox tried to steal the Jewish hereitage by appropriating the "Old Testament" promises for themselves. In order to do this, the Jewish claims to their own Holy Books had to be delegitimized. This is the source of much antisemitism. This was not an issue for Marcion or his followers.

Jake

stephan huller

My question in life - no less than scholarship - is 'how did this guy/this 'thing' become so successful? In the case of Marcion it is hard in my mind to argue for a late date for the tradition when it seems so clearly rooted in what happened in 70 CE in Jerusalem. In other words, I wonder what did Jews do once their temple was destroyed. Marcionitism seems to me at least to be one viable expression of Judaism in reaction to that historical event. Indeed I would argue it is THE ONLY sensible reaction to that event (much more so than rabbinic Judaism which developed much later). Marcion and Elisha ben Abuya. Meyer (Mayesha), Elisha's student is the beginning of the rabbinic tradition.

An interesting tangent on why the rabbinic tradition says that Meir's original name was Mayesha. The af’el participle mesha’ מישע and the Hebrew hif’il participle מושיע both mean “one who saves” or “saviour”, from the root ישע in both cases. The names יהושע Yehoshua’ (Samaritan pronunciation Yê’ûsha) and its shortened form ישוע Yeshua and the name הרשע Hoshea’ (anglice Hosea) all mean “the Lords saves” or “the Lord is salvation”, and allude to the last verses of Deuteronomy 33:

There is no one like the God of Jeshurun,
who rides across the heavens to help you
and on the clouds in his majesty.
The eternal God is your refuge,
and underneath are the everlasting arms.
He will drive out your enemies before you,
saying, ‘Destroy them!’
So Israel will live in safety;
Jacob will dwell secure
in a land of grain and new wine,
where the heavens drop dew.
Blessed are you, Israel!
Who is like you,
a people saved by the LORD? (עַם נוֹשַׁע בַּיהוָה)
He is your shield and helper
and your glorious sword.
Your enemies will cower before you,
and you will tread on their heights

Much of the Pauline battle imagery comes from this section of text. This is the passage Jesus had in mind when he said to the Samaritan woman in John 4 “Ye venerate what ye do not know (i.e. are not familiar with by direct acquaintance, since the Sanctuary vanished in the time of the High Priest ‘Azzi, when the Râ’ûta (Favour) ended and the Fânûta (Turning away [of the face of God] started. We venerate what we know. THE Salvation (see Deuteronomy) is from the (tribe of) Judah (not Levi, not Ephraim)”.

Note well: the verb means both” venerate” (a place) or “worship” (God” according to the case of the following noun, whether accusative or dative. See the neighbouring verses for the distinction.

All commentators and all modern translations have missed this, because the commentators and theologians are too lazy to look at the Greek rather than their translation. Besides their command of Greek is rather limited.

stephan huller

The connection between Deut 33:29 and Jesus's name appears at the end of the gospel narrative:

The person who originally wrote this line clearly was aware of Deut 33:29 and DID NOT think Jesus was a human being. He was clearly the divinity associated with Moses's blessing (Moses's only blessing for Israel). It is a deliberately ironic statement. I don't know what's wrong with people.

There is the stupid, Jesus was a carpenter from Nazareth interpretation of the gospel. This is for people who don't know anything about Judaism and Jewish tradition. Then there is THE ORIGINAL understanding shared by the original gospel writer and his initiates and for them Jesus was (secretly) the God of Israel. But you have to understand Judaism, you have to know how to read the Pentateuch. How many Christians can do that?

The god on the Cross was the Creator, the divinity of Deut 33:29.

jakejonesiv

Hi Stephan,

That is a statement that takes a while to digest, that Marcion was a "better Jew" than the Rabbis! Now I can understand your desire to bring Marcion into the Jewish fold, maybe even in the image of a Frankist Jew. . .

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

maryhelena

Jake, you need to click on 'more'......

igsfly:igsfly:igsfly:

jakejonesiv

Well, maybe. Whatever, Stephan's observations are tenditious, but many of us do the same thing at times. The arguments still must be judged on their merits regardless of motivations alleged by others.

Jake

maryhelena

Quite - no problem with that.....

However, when in a debating situation - best to be upfront and lay all ones cards on the table....

stephan huller

My position has nothing to do with my alleged ancestry. My mother also claimed we are related to BOTH Karl Marx and the Marx brothers. Never had an interest in either. The publisher just needed something for my bio

jakejonesiv

OK

stephan huller

In hindsight I should have said I was a world champion Nathan's hot dog eating champion.