Freethought & Rationalism Archive

la70119 · 01-11-2012, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Apparently Jastrow has the answer:

Va (vav-alef) abbreviation of abba Y Ber III, 6d bot. Ib 6a top; p. fr. V abba

In other words, Va is the shortform of abba and more significantly we have the origin of the so-called “patripassian” heresy. It is just a development of the kabbalistic interest in the number six (which “spears” Jesus”). Look also at the Marcosian gospel's interest in Jesus being crucified in the sixth hour (which was changed to “third” according to a process testified in Eusebius at least indirecty)

The Aramaic is more original

Well I know what the number 6 reminds me of, haha. :devil1:

And now I know why gJohn has one of the soldiers under Centurion Cassius Longinus use an actual spear on Jesus.

gJohn 19:34

Quote:

But one of the soldiers with a spear opened his side: and immediately there came out blood and water.

This is to permit Christians to FORGET about the appendage of the cross that "speared" the crucified. Merging a mythical Christ with an historically crucified would-be messiah called Yeshua (maybe) has big problems. First of which was how to turn the cruelest and most degrading of Roman punishments into something of veneration. And it didn't quite work until the mid-fourth century after Constantine allegedly abolished it.

stephan huller · 01-11-2012, 09:51 PM

The spear in the side was not present in the Marcionite text.

stephan huller · 01-11-2012, 09:53 PM

The thing I am getting from all of this is that a man 'spread out' on a pole this way is symbolic of the world. Philo says man was made after the image of the world. 'I am crucified unto the world' is an Alexandrianism

la70119 · 01-11-2012, 10:34 PM

One example of the problem was presented to Origen, by Celsus' On the True Discourse. Celsus constantly uses the noun σκολοψ (sharp stake, thorn or anything else pointed) to denote the cross, and the verb ανασκολοπίζω (impale, fix on a pole or spear) to denote crucify. Origen in his Contra Celsum himself used both those and the words σταυρος (pole, cross) and σταυροω (put on a pole, crucify).

Origen, Contra Celsum 2.36

Quote:

Celsus next says, "What is the nature of the ichor in the body of the crucified^[1] Jesus?"

^[1] anaskolopizomenon = impaled

Contra Celsum 2.55

Quote:

"But the question is, whether anyone who was really dead ever rose with a veritable body. Or do you imagine the statements of others not only to be myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in the voice from the cross^[2], when he breathed his last, and in the earthquake and in the darkness?"

^[2] skolopos = thorn, sharp stake

Contra Celsum 2.58

Quote:

Further, after these Greek stories which the Jew adduced respecting those who were guilty of juggling practices, and to have pretended to have risen from the dead, he says to those Jews who are converts to Christianity: "Do you imagine the statements of others not only to be myths, but to have the appearance as such, whilst you have discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in the voice from the cross^[3], when he breathed his last?"

^[3] skolopos = thorn, sharp stake

Contra Celsum 2.68

Quote:

But let us observe how this Jew of Celsus asserts that "If this at least would have helped to manifest his divinity, he might accordingly to have disappeared from the cross^[4]."

^[4] skolopos = thorn, sharp stake

Contra Celsum 2.69

Quote:

But we wish to show that his instantaneous bodily disappearance from the cross ^[5] was not better fitted to serve the whole purposes of the economy (lit. magical operation) of salvation (than his remaining upon it was)....

...The literal narrative, however, one might thus explain, viz., that it was appropriate for him who had resolved to endure suspension on the cross ^[6], to maintain all the accompaniments of the character he had assumed, in order that he who was a man had been put to death, and was a man who had died, that also as a man be buried....

...But even if it had been related in the gospels, according to the view of Celsus, that Jesus had immediately disappeared from the cross^[7], he and other unbelievers would have found fault with the narrative, and would have brought against it such an objection as this: "Why, pray, did he disappear after he had been put on the cross^[8], and not disappear before he suffered?"

^{[5] [6] [7]} skolopos = thorn, sharp stake
^[8] stauron = pole, cross

Contra Celsum 3.32

Quote:

He laid it down when he said, "Father, why have you forsaken me?" And when he had cried with a loud voice, he gave up the ghost, anticipating the public executioners of the crucified^[9], who break the legs of the victims^[10], and who do so in order that their punishment not be prolonged.

^[9] aneskolopismenwn = impaled
^[10] stauroumenon = put on a pole, crucified

Whew! Even if Origen believed solely in a celestial Jesus, who was crucified in the heavens on a Chi-Rho cross, he seems to spend a lot of energy and papyrus plants (six books!) refuting a criticism of the literalists' pseudo-historical Jesus and their pseudo-historical version of his crucifixion.

Celsus was said to have written his criticism around 150 CE. For Origen to write a six-volume apologetic refuting him in 225 CE shows the strength of Celsus' arguments even seventy-five years later. And judging from the preface, Origen's opus was an internal work not meant for outside reading.

la70119 · 01-11-2012, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The spear in the side was not present in the Marcionite text.

EXACTLY. Irenaeus would agree with you. The spear is only in gJohn. The Synoptics said the same thing that Marcion's gospel said about his ministry:

Against Heresies 2.22.5

Quote:

They [Synoptics and Marcion], however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month....

...On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age.

And this is the information Iranaeus supposedly received from the secord-generation disciples of John:

Quote:

Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he [John] remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement.

la70119 · 01-11-2012, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The thing I am getting from all of this is that a man 'spread out' on a pole this way is symbolic of the world. Philo says man was made after the image of the world. 'I am crucified unto the world' is an Alexandrianism

And that is what the ChiRho, especially the Laureate Chi-Rho appears to represent. But once the Orthodox-Catholic faction of the Christians historicized the celestial Christ into the 'earthly' Jesus, what did this celestial cross of the heavens mutate into?

The execution utility pole of the Romans, whereupon a man is spread out and 'speared' in the most brutal and immoral way imaginable. :angry:

If you read Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho 91, he is talking about crucifixions here on Earth. Same for Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. That is how these texts are written. Even if they believed only in a MJ, they seem to spend a lot of time and effort defending an a priori HJ who was also a Child of a Ghost (Holy).

stephan huller · 01-12-2012, 01:01 AM

My guess is that there is something very real at the bottom of all this gore. Maybe it is just the idea of crucifying Jews at the end of the first revolt from Rome. I don't know but there is a Samaritan hymn of Marqe (Mark) I posted here before you might find interesting. The original comments comments from the translator Boid after my request:

(a) The only hymn of Marqe’s I could find that fits what you said is no. I. This is recited in part on every Sabbath and every Festival. Notice this. At some time it must have been laid down that it had to be recited constantly. It will take me some time to translate. It has 22 verses, each with seven lines. 22 x 7 = 154.

This hymn speaks of death and destruction in the present, wrought by estrangement from the will of God, and urges a reversal of behaviour. One verse could be taken as referring to executions, depending on how you understand one word. This is the fifth verse. Other verses might refer to this, but not directly.

“As a consequence of the sins we have committed, we are afflicted (or punished) with the TShNYQYH. [Look up the root ShNQ in Jastrow]. We can’t blame your goodness. All the blame is on us, since we ourselves have made ourselves perish. If someone goes and hits himself, who can rescue him?”.

Tashnîqayyå is the definite plural of T Sh N Y Q tashneq from the root Sh N Q. Ben-Hayyim is not at all convinced that it always means strangulation.

(b) The hymns translated by Kippenberg are from the collection called the Durran. They are very old. These are the hymns that talk about a very recent rejection of wrong religious practice or perhaps wrong doctrine.

(c) There is a lot of work to be done on the Samaritan liturgy. Life is too short.

Something different. The old Samaritan Hebrew to Aramaic dictionary of the Torah glosses Shilo as “the unsheather of the cross”. Any suggestions? Ben-Hayyim, followed as usual by Tal (who should have copied Ben-Hayyim’s thoroughness and rigour but didn’t) translates “the uprooter of the cross” saying (as a mere guess) that it refers to Muhammad. This makes no sense. How could the rise of Islam have been what took the sceptre away from Judah? The verb shin-lamed-pe usually means to unsheathe a sword, but can mean to take a shoe off or to pull something out of the ground. I think the plain meaning is that the reference is to whoever unsheathed the cross and used it like a sword to take power away from Judah or the Jews, but I can’t work out what exactly is meant.

I hope there a few people here at this site who are aware of the traditional implications of Shilo (not Brangelina baby). The name comes from the important reference in Genesis 49:10:

The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shilo comes and the obedience of the nations is his.

The name Shilo is a numerological equivalent of Moses (i.e. they add up to 345) and is usually understood by Jews and Samaritans that the messiah/the one to come will be 'like Moses.' The Samaritans themselves allude to the fact that Marqe ben Tute (Mark the son Titus) was this figure (Mark = MRQH = 345 = Moses). The obvious question that Boid and I have is whether Mark is being cryptically referenced as 'the unsheather of the cross.' I just showed in another thread that Origen drawing from a first or second century Jewish history identifies Agrippa with the both Shilo and the messiah of Daniel 9:26. Rabbinic tradition echoes Origen's interpretation (the Samaritans didn't recognize Daniel).

In any event without further ado here is Boid's translation of the Samaritan material. If anyone needs clarification about who the scholars Boid is referencing (Kippenberg, Ben Hayyim, Tal) just let me know.

The verses run from the first letter to the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet (i.e. alef to tav). The translated section begins at lamed (l):

Quote:

Hymn I
by Marqe

...

ל Punishments don’t disconcert the sinner, nor do wounds frighten him. He doesn’t take any notice. The rebel sees himself delivered up to punishments, and finds himself crucified.[1] He turns to his possessions(?) and knows that there is no enjoyment from it.

מִ Death can be compared to a Priest making someone drink the Bitter Water of Testing.[2] Woe on whoever is found to have committed sin. Woe on all sinners, since they will be in great distress. The punishments they suffer are the result of all their offences.

נִ The soul (or individual) stands dumbfounded. Those living are in great affliction, because the Good has turned his face away from them. If the Merciful does not save, and remember those that love him, all the sinners will bewail themselves, because they are in great distress.

סִ The signs tell us that in this generation of ours there is not a single person not in partnership with sinners. The mothers and children, all of whom took part and rebelled,[3] they too are punished with[4] crucifixion.[5]

עִ The fact is that by our sins we are the ones that are the murderers, murderers of the silent and those that can speak. Innocent animals or children that have never sinned, or young adults of good descent, suffer for sins they never committed.

פִ It is the Age of Disfavor[6] that has brought all this suffering about. The fruit of the womb is stopped, and the fruit of the earth destroyed. Every place is becoming accursed for us. The mouth of punishment is open before, ready to swallow up the baby with the old man.

ר Merciful and Good, treat us justly and well as is your nature. We can’t withstand this judgment. A leaf on a tree startles a sinner, so how can we withstand judgment that startles the world? Treat us justly and well, so that we aren’t crucified [7] by punishments [8]

ADDITION: There are some more lines on the same theme in Verse Kaf and Verse Tsade, but they don’t add anything new.

[1] The word from the root tsade-lamed-bet in Verse Lamed is מצטלבה miṣṭållēbå. It is a perfectly normal ethpa’al participle (to use Syriac terminology) equivalent to the Hebrew hitpa’el. The t.et is an infix. It is the tav of the hitpa’el or ethpa’al which moves to AFTER a sibilant and changes its form to match the sibilant. Here it changes from tav to tsade. Next to zayin it will change to dalet. The only difficulty is the suffix, which in form is either feminine indefinite or masculine definite. The second grammatical interpretation of the suffix gives “The rebel sees himself vulnerable to punishments, and knows that he himself is the one crucified”. The first interpretation gives the meaning, “and knows that his identity is crucified”. The word translated “he himself” or “his identity” can only be interpreted from the context and a grammatical analysis of the components of the word, since the usage here is not attested elsewhere.
[2] I have translated according to the traditional Samaritan etymology and understanding, which is not far from the traditional Jewish understanding. Disregard the mangling by most modern translations. This is water that is drunk to establish innocence. It has a tiny little bit of the dirt of the ground round the Sanctuary in it, as well as something to make it bitter, from memory I think wormwood. A guilty person is afflicted by it. (It was a wonderful device for clearing people of slander). The innocent person unjustly accused is given better bodily and mental and spiritual health by it. (This is one of the hints of resurrection in the Torah, and Marqe seems to have it in mind along with the other meanings). The false accuser who has sworn a false oath or committed perjury or conspiracy is struck by afflictions or even in some cases death. The passage in the Torah is in Numbers. I will look up the reference later. There is a lot of traditional theory not stated in the words of the Torah but agreed on by Samaritans and Jews
[3] tashnîqayya. This is the traditional Samaritan understanding here, but Ben-Hayyim argues for the meaning “burnt up”. The Aramaic verb is apparently from the root tsade-lamed-bet, and this is how the Samaritans understand it. Ben-Hayyim thinks this to be a phonetic variant of tsade-lamed-he-bet in this place, but it seems to me that he is scratching round for alternatives to the traditional understanding because he can’t see the relevance of it
[4] maradu
[5] or 'suffer'
[6] Fanuta a core Samaritan theological concept history being divided into periods of favor and disfavor.
[7] verb is shin-nun-qof
[8] The verb shin-vav-bet is Hebrew. The Aramaic equivalent is tav-vav-bet. The participle of the Aramaic verb is Ta’eb. I think your question is whether the Aramaic tav-vav-bet occurs. No. In Verse Yod the verb h.et-zayin-resh is used to mean returning to God or repenting. This is the usual Samaritan theological equivalent of the Hebrew shin-vav-bet when writing in Aramaic. The word Ta’eb does not mean someone that repents. It means someone that comes back again. It is used in the the extant texts in the sense of someone that makes something come back again, the Tabernacle or the Ruuta. That is grammatically impossible. In that meaning the af‘al participle would be needed (=Hebrew hif‘il), i.e. metib. This means the original meaning of the return of Moses has been deliberately obscured.

stephan huller · 01-12-2012, 01:27 AM

Here's the picture we have all been looking for:

A depiction of the chi-rho as a cross.

la70119 · 01-12-2012, 02:20 PM

Looks like something that just preceded the birth of Christianity. I can see people looking for some kind of saviour figure whether actual or fictitious. And "he himself is crucified" or "his identity is crucified" could also be "his person is crucified" i.e., his body and his identity. Jastrow's lexicon shows ShNQ means not just "choked, strangled" but also "troubled, confounded." Nothing about "crucified" that I could find.

Any information on when this was dated?

The ChiRho is certainly in the center. Early Christians also used TauRho and ChiIota. In fact, the Papyrus P66 (pictured below) is chock full of them.

stephan huller · 01-12-2012, 02:40 PM

Remember Samaritan Aramaic is often very different from Jewish Aramaic. The idea of looking up and seeing yourself crucified or taking on the person of Christ is very much a part of the early mysticism in the church. There is the parody (I hate using this word because mountainman pops out of the corner and then starts his usual nonsense here) of Simon Magus giving his 'person' (= face, body etc) to the father of Clement in one of the stupid Clementine texts). But the idea also comes in more subtle ways.

I also read somewhere in my research that the familiar cross is almost unknown in the early fourth century but the chi-rho is ubiquitous in the period. I don't know how true this is.

Back to the Samaritan text. Notice how God is addressed here as 'the Merciful,' 'the Good' etc. This sounds like an Alexandrianism. I happened to have found evidence that Marqe used a Greek translation of the Pentateuch (either the Samaritikon or the LXX). There is a wonderfully interesting book by John MacDonald (the first English translation of the Mimar Marqe) where Marqe's writings are compared with Philo to argue that the text was written in the same period. I agree. I secretly think Marqe is Philo but that's another story ...

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

01-11-2012, 09:51 PM	#72
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The spear in the side was not present in the Marcionite text.

01-11-2012, 09:53 PM	#73
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The thing I am getting from all of this is that a man 'spread out' on a pole this way is symbolic of the world. Philo says man was made after the image of the world. 'I am crucified unto the world' is an Alexandrianism

01-12-2012, 01:27 AM	#78
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Here's the picture we have all been looking for: A depiction of the chi-rho as a cross.

01-12-2012, 02:20 PM	#79
la70119 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: The only Carribean port not in the Tropics. Posts: 359	Looks like something that just preceded the birth of Christianity. I can see people looking for some kind of saviour figure whether actual or fictitious. And "he himself is crucified" or "his identity is crucified" could also be "his person is crucified" i.e., his body and his identity. Jastrow's lexicon shows ShNQ means not just "choked, strangled" but also "troubled, confounded." Nothing about "crucified" that I could find. Any information on when this was dated? The ChiRho is certainly in the center. Early Christians also used TauRho and ChiIota. In fact, the Papyrus P66 (pictured below) is chock full of them.

01-12-2012, 02:40 PM	#80
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Remember Samaritan Aramaic is often very different from Jewish Aramaic. The idea of looking up and seeing yourself crucified or taking on the person of Christ is very much a part of the early mysticism in the church. There is the parody (I hate using this word because mountainman pops out of the corner and then starts his usual nonsense here) of Simon Magus giving his 'person' (= face, body etc) to the father of Clement in one of the stupid Clementine texts). But the idea also comes in more subtle ways. I also read somewhere in my research that the familiar cross is almost unknown in the early fourth century but the chi-rho is ubiquitous in the period. I don't know how true this is. Back to the Samaritan text. Notice how God is addressed here as 'the Merciful,' 'the Good' etc. This sounds like an Alexandrianism. I happened to have found evidence that Marqe used a Greek translation of the Pentateuch (either the Samaritikon or the LXX). There is a wonderfully interesting book by John MacDonald (the first English translation of the Mimar Marqe) where Marqe's writings are compared with Philo to argue that the text was written in the same period. I agree. I secretly think Marqe is Philo but that's another story ...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.