Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 12-21-2011, 06:20 PM

I have also long argued that (a) the Acts of Archelaus developed in a Marcionite community in Osrhone and (b) Muhammad's favor shown to the Sabaeans of Edessa may well be connected to Marcionitism. Now look at all the references to 'the upright' in the Quran and notice that Abraham (a figure at the heart of the Acts of Archelaus because of his association with Harran) is also given this epithet here in the chief document of Islam:

Quote:

(1) And they say: Be Jews or Christians, then ye will be rightly guided. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Nay, but (we follow) the religion of Abraham, the upright, and he was not of the idolaters. [Al-Baqara 2.135]
(2) Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters. [Aal-e-Imran, 3.67]
(3) Say: Allah speaketh truth. So follow the religion of Abraham, the upright. He was not of the idolaters. [Aal-e-Imran 3.95]
(4) They are not all alike; of the followers of the Book there is an upright party; they recite Allah's communications in the nighttime and they adore (Him). [Aal-e-Imran 3.113]
(4) Some of those who are Jews change words from their context and say: "We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who heareth not" and "Listen to us!" distorting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said: "We hear and we obey: hear thou, and look at us" it had been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save a few. [An-Nisa 4.46]
(5) Who is better in religion than he who surrendereth his purpose to Allah while doing good (to men) and followeth the tradition of Abraham, the upright? Allah (Himself) chose Abraham for friend. [An-Nisa 4.125]
(6) Lo! I have turned my face toward Him Who created the heavens and the earth, as one by nature upright, and I am not of the idolaters. [Al-Anaam 6.79]
(7) Say: Lo! As for me, my Lord hath guided me unto a straight path, a right religion, the community of Abraham, the upright, who was no idolater. [Al-Anaam 6.161]
(8) Say: My Lord enjoineth justice. And set your faces upright (toward Him) at every place of worship and call upon Him, making religion pure for Him (only). As He brought you into being, so return ye (unto Him). [Al-Araf 7.29]
(9) And, (O Muhammad) set thy purpose resolutely for religion, as a man by nature upright, and be not of those who ascribe partners (to Allah). [Yunus 10.105]
(10) And his people came unto him, running towards him - and before then they used to commit abominations - He said: O my people! Here are my daughters! They are purer for you. Beware of Allah, and degrade me not in (the person of) my guests. Is there not among you any upright man? [Hud, Chapter 11.78]
(11) Lo! Abraham was a nation obedient to Allah, by nature upright, and he was not of the idolaters [An-Nahl 16.120]
(12) And afterward We inspired thee (Muhammad, saying): Follow the religion of Abraham, as one by nature upright. He was not of the idolaters. [An-Nahl 16.123]
(13) So set thy purpose (O Muhammad) for religion as a man by nature upright - the nature (framed) of Allah, in which He hath created man. There is no altering (the laws of) Allah's creation. That is the right religion, but most men know not [Ar-Room 30.30]
(14) Lo! those who say: Our Lord is Allah, and afterward are upright, the angels descend upon them, saying: Fear not nor grieve, but hear good tidings of the paradise which ye are promised. [Fussilat 41.30]
(15) Unto this, then, summon (O Muhammad). And be thou upright as thou art commanded, and follow not their lusts, but say: I believe in whatever scripture Allah hath sent down, and I am commanded to be just among you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord. Unto us our works and unto you your works; no argument between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and unto Him is the journeying. [Ash-Shura 42.15]
(16) Then, when they have reached their term, take them back in kindness or part from them in kindness, and call to witness two just men among you, and keep your testimony upright for Allah. Whoso believeth in Allah and the Last Day is exhorted to act thus. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, Allah will appoint a way out for him [At-Talaq 65.2]
(17) Is he who goeth groping on his face more rightly guided, or he who walketh upright on a straight road? [Al-Mulk 67.22]
(18) And they are ordered naught else than to serve Allah, keeping religion pure for Him, as men by nature upright, and to establish worship and to pay the poor-due. That is true religion.[Al-Bayyina 98.5]

stephan huller · 12-21-2011, 06:26 PM

And now the neo-Marcionite Acts of Archelaus (now a barbarous Latin translation of a Greek translation of a text originally written in Syriac):

Quote:

And consider now the multitude of laws thus existing among the several righteous men who lived a life of uprightness, at one time discovering for themselves the law of God implanted in their hearts, at another learning of it from their parents, and yet again being instructed in it further by the ancients and the elders. But inasmuch as dull, few were able to rise by this medium to the height of righteousness, that is to say, by means of the traditions of parents, when as yet there was no law embodied in writing, God had compassion on the race of man. and was pleased to give through Moses a written law to men, since verily the equity of the natural law filled to be retained in all its perfection in their hearts. In consonance, therefore, with man's first creation, a written legislation was prepared which was given through Moses in behoof of the salvation of very many. For if we reckon that man is justified without the works of the law, and if Abraham was counted righteous, how much more shall those obtain righteousness who have fulfilled the law which contains the things that are expedient for men? And seeing that you have made mention only of three several scriptures, in terms of which the apostle has declared that the law is a ministration of death, and that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, and that the law is the strength of sin, you may now advance others of like tenor, and bring forward any passages which may seem to you to be written against the law, to any extent you please. [AA 29]

stephan huller · 12-21-2011, 10:03 PM

And, therefore, accordingly to this infallible refutation and essentially undeniable evidence and unanswerable demonstration and experience which neither errs nor causes to err, Marcion, too, and Mani and Bardaisan, because they were clothed with the Body which they represent as from the Element of Evil, were clothed unable to be good in it, because, as they say, it is from the Evil One, nor (could they be) upright, because it is vicious ; nor (could they be) true, because it lies ; nor (could they be) pure, because it is turbid. And let them not be angry because these things have been spoken against them by us. For their mouth overthrows them, not our tongue ; and their Teaching, not our Will; and their Error, not our free Choice. For they said that the Body comes from the Element of Evil and lies and it is clear that because their Souls were playing on this hateful harp, the ' intoxicating Foulness of the Body ' did not allow the melody of Truth to be played on its strings. And, therefore, they have decided against themselves that they are preachers of Error, owing to the fact that they are mixed in the Body which comes from Error according to their decision. For it (i.e., the Body) speaks against them. [Ephrem Fifth Discourse Against False Teachings p. 148]

DCHindley · 12-21-2011, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The thread doesn't make sense? You're crabbiness has nothing to do with a particular thread. The point here is that Ephrem was familiar with the Greek text of the NT. He couldn't have found Iesous heretical. Is that what people are saying?

I never so much as suggested any such thing. If he is addressing his arguments against Marcionites, and in the process calls Jesus "Isu" instead of the otherwise universal orthodox form "Isho"/"Yeshu'", Mitchell draws the inference that this was how Syriac speaking Marcionites of Ephraim's time pronounced Jesus' name. Ephrain is simply using the form used by Syriac Marcionites to confound them.

Quote:

Yes Mitchell theorizes that Isu derives from Iesous and everyone goes along with it. But I'm saying it only has the appearance of making sense for those who aren't familiar with Ephrem's writings.

Everyone goes along with it because it does make sense on the face of it! Are you suggesting that all these experts are just going along for the ride, and that you have developed a special understanding of Ephraim that somehow surpasses that of mortal critics?

Will a future super critic one day say: "Of all the Jewish Skeptics the only one to attempt to really understand Ephraim was Stephan Huller, but even he misunderstood him"?

I'm just sayin', your explanation seems to mix up the Marcionite form with the orthodox form. Your alternate etymology yod-sin-alef-vav (read l to r as Isau) is supposed to explain Marcionite yod-semkath-vav (read l to r as Isu).

The sin is in the orthodox word that is used interchangeably for Joshua the successor of Moses and Jesus of the NT, yod-shin-vav-ayin (read l to r as Isho/Yeshu').

You may have something that crabbiness (I like to call it irascibility) is directly related to sin. I'd feel less crabby if you could explain how you think sin became a semkath.

DCH

stephan huller · 12-22-2011, 12:23 AM

Well let's consider the alternative suggestion יִסְעוּ֙ = they shall go/set out (the basic rule in Hebrew is that for future constructs of the plural of verbs you see a yod in the front and a vav at the end (like ysu although it is impossible to sandwich a single letter root to exist hence the obvious strangeness of ISU to any Hebrew or Aramaic speaker)

Exodus 40:36
BIB: מֵעַ֣ל הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן יִסְע֖וּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל
NAS: the sons of Israel would set out;
KJV: of Israel went onward in all their journeys:
INT: over the tabernacle set the sons of Israel

Exodus 40:37
BIB: הֶעָנָ֑ן וְלֹ֣א יִסְע֔וּ עַד־ י֖וֹם
NAS: was not taken up, then they did not set out until
KJV: were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day
INT: the cloud did not set until the day

Numbers 2:31
BIB: מֵא֑וֹת לָאַחֲרֹנָ֥ה יִסְע֖וּ לְדִגְלֵיהֶֽם׃ פ
NAS: [was] 157,600. They shall set out last
KJV: hundred. They shall go hindmost
INT: hundred last shall set their standards

Numbers 9:17
BIB: וְאַ֣חֲרֵי־ כֵ֔ן יִסְע֖וּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל
NAS: of Israel would then set out; and in the place
KJV: of Israel journeyed: and in the place
INT: after after that set the sons of Israel

Numbers 9:18
BIB: פִּ֣י יְהוָ֗ה יִסְעוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל
NAS: of Israel would set out, and at the command
KJV: of Israel journeyed, and at the commandment
INT: the command of the LORD set the sons of Israel

mountainman · 12-22-2011, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Yes Mitchell theorizes that Isu derives from Iesous and everyone goes along with it. But I'm saying it only has the appearance of making sense for those who aren't familiar with Ephrem's writings.

Everyone goes along with it because it does make sense on the face of it! Are you suggesting that all these experts are just going along for the ride, and that you have developed a special understanding of Ephraim that somehow surpasses that of mortal critics?

The very valuable sources of Ephraim and Hegemonius continue to be exposed as negative evidence in terms of historical authenticity. They are both orthodox heresiological writers who fabricated their own pseudo-historical details in matters relating to the heretics. See Gardiner (who also severely questions Saint Augustine on the Manichaeans). We cant trust Ephraim in a reconstruction of the history of the heretics. So why should we trust Ephraim in a reconstruction of the history of the orthodox?

It follows that any use of Ephraim as a source must commence with certain disclaimers.

DCHindley · 12-22-2011, 12:55 AM

I created this table in order to try and bring some alphabetic order to the universe ...

HEBREW				SYRIAC
ALEF	א			ALAPH	ܐ
BET	ב			BETH	ܒ
GIMEL	ג			GAMAL	ܓ	GAMAL GARSHUNI	ܔ
DALET	ד			DALATH	ܕ	DOTLESS DALATH RISH	ܖ
HE	ה			HE	ܗ
VAV	ו			WAW	ܘ
ZAYIN	ז			ZAIN	ܙ
HET	ח			HETH	ܚ
TET	ט			TETH	ܛ	TETH GARSHUNI	ܜ
YOD	י			YUDH	ܝ	YUDH HE	ܞ
KAF	כ	FINAL KAF	ך	KAPH	ܟ
LAMED	ל			LAMADH	ܠ
MEM	מ	FINAL MEM	ם	MIM	ܡ
NUN	נ	FINAL NUN	ן	NUN	ܢ
SAMEKH	ס			SEMKATH	ܣ	FINAL SEMKATH	ܤ
AYIN	ע			E	ܥ
PE	פ	FINAL PE	ף	PE	ܦ	REVERSED PE	ܧ
TSADI	צ	FINAL TSADI	ץ	SADHE	ܨ
QOF	ק			QAPH	ܩ
RESH	ר			RISH	ܪ
SHIN	ש			SHIN	ܫ
TAV	ת			TAW	ܬ

DCH

stephan huller · 12-22-2011, 01:36 AM

The pronunciation of יִסְע֖וּ is 'yisu' and the pronunciation of יִשְׂאוּ is 'yisu.' Please tell me why it is more plausible to argue that Ephrem was horrified at the Marcionites rendering the Greek name of Jesus into Syriac or that Isu was merely an attempt to record what Ephrem heard the Marcionites call Jesus (with a 's' sound rather than a 'sh' sound) not knowing what the hell they were really talking about?

Either way it is Ephrem rendering into Syriac something developed by the Marcionites from another language which he didn't fully understand or appreciate. And remember Ephrem prefers the LXX to the Masoretic text of the OT and condemns the Marcionites for developing arguments from the Hebrew rather than the Greek.

I think this comes down to an unfamiliarity with the writings of Ephrem (or in the case of Mitchell an inability to think out of the box). For Ephrem says on repeated occasions 'the Greek says ...' or the Greek text of the OT is to be preferred to the Hebrew. How then could he take exception to Isu if it were a Syriac rendering of Iesous? Remember he never recognizes Isu as Iesous - this is what a few scholars have supposed is at work here. I don't deny that if it were anyone other than Ephrem it might make some intuitive sense. But Ephrem?

stephan huller · 12-22-2011, 01:49 AM

It is not only curious that if Isu was developed from Iesous that Ephrem never says this but moreover how many times the references to 'bearing,' 'lifting' and 'carrying' come up beside Isu references. Here is the only Isu reference in the Five Discourses to Hypatius:

Quote:

I DESIRE to utter one more refutation against the three of them (i.e., Marcion, Mani, and Bardaisan), that is against Marcion who (says) that a heaven is found also ' beneath the Stranger. Let us ask who bears up those heavens, and of the what is in them. For a power is necessary to bear them. Or can it be that the heavens of the Stranger are resting on the heavens of the Maker, so that he is the all-sustaining Maker, as indeed is the case? But if they say that the heavens of the Stranger hang by the power of the Stranger, we also will deal frowardly with the froward, (and say) that he who is above the heavens cannot support the heavens, but (only) if he were beneath them. But if he is the same person who is above the heavens and below them, it is clear that the place of his possessions is the same, and in the midst of it are collected those Souls whom ISU brought up hence. For a Supporter is required for those heavy Souls whom he brought up thence . . [inasmuch as when his possessions are found enfolded, within his bosom there is required for them, another power which supports them.] For we cannot accept from them just as they do not accept from us that there should be anything set up without a foundation.

DCHindley · 12-22-2011, 07:20 AM

That passage is part of Ephraem's argument that if the Good God exists in the highest heaven, then he cannot be greater than the creator of the heavens and earth. It's kind of a silly argument, as the Marcionites would have likely believed that the heaven of the good god is immaterial, and "stacked" over the created heavens as a handy means of representation.

While Ephraim could have been making fun of the Marcionite Isu by means of one of those wonderful Semitic puns, and he could also have refused to use the standard form of Jesus for the Marcionite version of Jesus, two could-ofs does not equal a slam dunk would-of. Thank you for at least looking up the matter (as I also did), as it does further your argument. See if you can find more interesting stuff in support of your hypothesis! :notworthy:

One thing I noticed is that in these works Ephraim never once uses anything like the formula "Jesus Christ" or even "Jesus (the) Good." Goodness as an attribute of God (whether the Marcionite or Orthodox brand) is discussed endlessly. Perhaps first principals of divinity and cosmology is what Ephraim is most interested in, not the nature of Jesus' anointing. I think Ephraim was so sure he had mooted the Marcionite system's basic understanding of God, he would not even let the discussion stray into the nature of Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It is not only curious that if Isu was developed from Iesous that Ephrem never says this but moreover how many times the references to 'bearing,' 'lifting' and 'carrying' come up beside Isu references. Here is the only Isu reference in the Five Discourses to Hypatius:

Quote:

I DESIRE to utter one more refutation against the three of them (i.e., Marcion, Mani, and Bardaisan), that is against Marcion who (says) that a heaven is found also ' beneath the Stranger. Let us ask who bears up those heavens, and of the what is in them. For a power is necessary to bear them. Or can it be that the heavens of the Stranger are resting on the heavens of the Maker, so that he is the all-sustaining Maker, as indeed is the case? But if they say that the heavens of the Stranger hang by the power of the Stranger, we also will deal frowardly with the froward, (and say) that he who is above the heavens cannot support the heavens, but (only) if he were beneath them. But if he is the same person who is above the heavens and below them, it is clear that the place of his possessions is the same, and in the midst of it are collected those Souls whom ISU brought up hence. For a Supporter is required for those heavy Souls whom he brought up thence . . [inasmuch as when his possessions are found enfolded, within his bosom there is required for them, another power which supports them.] For we cannot accept from them just as they do not accept from us that there should be anything set up without a foundation.

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

12-21-2011, 10:03 PM	#23
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And, therefore, accordingly to this infallible refutation and essentially undeniable evidence and unanswerable demonstration and experience which neither errs nor causes to err, Marcion, too, and Mani and Bardaisan, because they were clothed with the Body which they represent as from the Element of Evil, were clothed unable to be good in it, because, as they say, it is from the Evil One, nor (could they be) upright, because it is vicious ; nor (could they be) true, because it lies ; nor (could they be) pure, because it is turbid. And let them not be angry because these things have been spoken against them by us. For their mouth overthrows them, not our tongue ; and their Teaching, not our Will; and their Error, not our free Choice. For they said that the Body comes from the Element of Evil and lies and it is clear that because their Souls were playing on this hateful harp, the ' intoxicating Foulness of the Body ' did not allow the melody of Truth to be played on its strings. And, therefore, they have decided against themselves that they are preachers of Error, owing to the fact that they are mixed in the Body which comes from Error according to their decision. For it (i.e., the Body) speaks against them. [Ephrem Fifth Discourse Against False Teachings p. 148]

12-22-2011, 12:23 AM	#25
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Well let's consider the alternative suggestion יִסְעוּ֙ = they shall go/set out (the basic rule in Hebrew is that for future constructs of the plural of verbs you see a yod in the front and a vav at the end (like ysu although it is impossible to sandwich a single letter root to exist hence the obvious strangeness of ISU to any Hebrew or Aramaic speaker) Exodus 40:36 BIB: מֵעַ֣ל הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן יִסְע֖וּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל NAS: the sons of Israel would set out; KJV: of Israel went onward in all their journeys: INT: over the tabernacle set the sons of Israel Exodus 40:37 BIB: הֶעָנָ֑ן וְלֹ֣א יִסְע֔וּ עַד־ י֖וֹם NAS: was not taken up, then they did not set out until KJV: were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day INT: the cloud did not set until the day Numbers 2:31 BIB: מֵא֑וֹת לָאַחֲרֹנָ֥ה יִסְע֖וּ לְדִגְלֵיהֶֽם׃ פ NAS: [was] 157,600. They shall set out last KJV: hundred. They shall go hindmost INT: hundred last shall set their standards Numbers 9:17 BIB: וְאַ֣חֲרֵי־ כֵ֔ן יִסְע֖וּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל NAS: of Israel would then set out; and in the place KJV: of Israel journeyed: and in the place INT: after after that set the sons of Israel Numbers 9:18 BIB: פִּ֣י יְהוָ֗ה יִסְעוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל NAS: of Israel would set out, and at the command KJV: of Israel journeyed, and at the commandment INT: the command of the LORD set the sons of Israel

12-22-2011, 01:36 AM	#28
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The pronunciation of יִסְע֖וּ is 'yisu' and the pronunciation of יִשְׂאוּ is 'yisu.' Please tell me why it is more plausible to argue that Ephrem was horrified at the Marcionites rendering the Greek name of Jesus into Syriac or that Isu was merely an attempt to record what Ephrem heard the Marcionites call Jesus (with a 's' sound rather than a 'sh' sound) not knowing what the hell they were really talking about? Either way it is Ephrem rendering into Syriac something developed by the Marcionites from another language which he didn't fully understand or appreciate. And remember Ephrem prefers the LXX to the Masoretic text of the OT and condemns the Marcionites for developing arguments from the Hebrew rather than the Greek. I think this comes down to an unfamiliarity with the writings of Ephrem (or in the case of Mitchell an inability to think out of the box). For Ephrem says on repeated occasions 'the Greek says ...' or the Greek text of the OT is to be preferred to the Hebrew. How then could he take exception to Isu if it were a Syriac rendering of Iesous? Remember he never recognizes Isu as Iesous - this is what a few scholars have supposed is at work here. I don't deny that if it were anyone other than Ephrem it might make some intuitive sense. But Ephrem?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.