Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-18-2013, 07:00 PM

Marqe (the founder of Samaritanism as we know it) takes special interest in the third and fourth verses of Deuteronomy 32. He writes in the fourth book of his surviving writings:

Quote:

I will proclaim the name of the LORD, [I will] praise the greatness of our God! He is the Rock (tsur), his works are perfect, and all his ways are just.

This to show that at the end of time humanity itself would become transformed by a power referred to in the Torah as “the glory.” The Rock, or tsur, is equated with the very concept of tamym po’olo [Deut 32:4] by the Samaritan apostle Mark - i.e. as if "the Rock" was the "perfect work” of God - in the very same manner as our apostle Paul viz. “the rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4).

jakejonesiv · 03-18-2013, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

My working hypothesis as to the name Mark for Paul. Kronholm (Motifs from Genesis 1-11 in the genuine hymns of Ephrem the Syrian with particular reference to the influence of Jewish exegetical tradition, LiberLäromedel/Gleerup, 1978) notices an interesting play on words in Ephrem's refutation of Marcion. He writes that according to Ephrem:

Quote:

Marcion is entirely a child and servant of the Evil One (eg CH 1.9 - 18; XXXII,2). Playing on the name of Marcion, Ephrem remarks that the Evil One 'polished Marcion intensely' (lmrqywn [MSS AE mrqywn] mrq 'sgy, CH 2, 1 - 4]

The full citation in Ephrem is "Marcion he polished so much as to make him rusty. He scoured him to the point of blunting his mind with blasphemy." The play on words is between Marqion and maroq "to polish, to finish, to perfect."

Although Mark is a personal name in Latin and Greek, an Aramaic-speaker would have taken it as a TITLE if it had been useful to do so. The Samaritan Targum translates Sh-L-M as maroq or mirroq, this definitely doesn’t mean that the Samaritans would have expected to use either of these two specific forms as a name or a title. These two forms are only the infinitives of the root M-R-Q, and the form marqa would have been felt as the ABSTRACT NOUN from the same root. As for speakers of what is attested in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, and Jewish and Samaritan speakers of Hebrew, they would have felt the form marqa to be the abstract noun from the root M-R-Q meaning in legal usage “signed, sealed, and delivered”.

None of the extant Jewish Targums use this word in this place, but the LXX has a translation that looks like the equivalent, which means there was probably once a Jewish Targum with this form. Besides, how else can you explain why it is that the massively important figure Mårqe is not known to us by his Hebrew or Aramaic personal name? So” John Mark” would be a personal name followed by a title.

Is John Mark a Catholic response to an original understanding of the apostle as 'maroq po'olo' (Deut 32:4) = the perfect work of God?

We are on the yellow brick road to a diminutive Marcus Julius Agrippa. It would be nice if you could provide an abstract of your thesis.

stephan huller · 03-18-2013, 07:14 PM

No not at all. Hippolytus (Philosophumena) says the Marcionite gospel is Mark. Here Marcion is mrq. I am one of the only people here who doesn't have an agenda save for seeking out the truth.

The name Marcion goes back to Mark. The only question is how. Hilgenfeld says it is a diminutive of Mark. I am not so sure but its possible. An Aramaic speaker would have felt a linguistic relationship between Mark and mrq whether or not you are capable of understanding it.

More on mrq (used in the reference to Marcion in Ephrem above) which - outside of Samaria seems to take on the meaning 'cleanse' and later 'pay' http://books.google.com/books?id=Sew...ramaic&f=false

stephan huller · 03-18-2013, 07:18 PM

The way to unravel Marcion is going to be found in the Syriac testimonies. The Greek and Latin material is a dead end because there likely weren't any real Marcionites in the west in the third century.

Again the reference in Ephrem:

Quote:

the Devil cleansed Marcion intensely (lmrqywn mrq 'sgy).

A play on maroq (mrq) is universally acknowledged (by those capable of understanding it).

Bernard Muller · 03-18-2013, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Hi Bernard,
It would seem to make quite a bit of difference from your point of view. The longer the time interval after the alleged career of Paul, the less certain we can be that the documents that were at long last collected are the unadulterated words of the Apostle. Or were even written by him in the case of Marcion being the colletor.
Whereas, a very early collection would secure a set of texts with greater appeal to both authenticity and integrity.
Jake

I am sure that the epistles were adultered.
For example, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and Philippians were the result of a combination of 3 letters for each for reasons I explained here
These letters were interpolated also, as shown here, and here, and here
For Romans without the two last chapters and with the doxology, I addressed the problem here.
Galatians, 1 Thessalonians were also interpolated (explained on my website. Shown on demand).
But none of that involved Marcion who received the combined letters.
Cordially, Bernard

stephan huller · 03-18-2013, 07:30 PM

One more to provide a context for the use of maroq in Judaism. From Brown's the Jewish Objection to Jesus Vol 2:

Quote:

In the event, however, that he (the criminal) is guilty of profaning the divine Name, the merits of his repentance, the Day of Atonement, and his chastisements are all suspended (or provide partial atonement), and it is only death that cleanses (mitah memareqet) and secures complete atonement. As it says ... surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord God of hosts" (Isa. 22:14) http://books.google.com/books?id=mpY...ing%22&f=false

Here in the Targum it has the connotation 'anointed' from the Targum on Canticles:

Quote:

When the Children of Israel went up from the Wilderness and crossed the Jordan with Joshua, the son of Nun,*26 the peoples of the land said: "What chosen nation is this that goes up? from the Wilderness, anointed/rubbed (mtmrqa) with the oil of high office through the righteousness of Isaac, who was bound at the site of the Temple, that is called the Mountain of Frankincense,30 [a nation] for whom miracles are performed,.^ through the piety of Jacob, with whom a man wrestled till the dawn broke, and [Jacob] prevailed over him, and was delivered, he and his twelve tribes. (Targum on Canticle 3:6)

From the translators's notes:

Quote:

The verb mrq can mean "to cleanse." The reference might be to the use of oil in place of soap, a practice common in antiquity, but one would not use "the oil of high office" (= kingship) for one's toilet, hence Jast. 847a is probably correct to see the sense here as "scented, perfumed" — a learned substitute for mtgmry. He links with the biblical tamruq. For tamruqei nashim see Esth 2:3, 9. 12, where the context suggests the reference is to ointments and perfumes. The balanced clauses here and the learned synonyms indicate an attempt at high style.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hDw...eansed&f=false

The original sense of the Syriac play on words in Ephrem:

Quote:

the Devil rubbed Marcion (with oil) intensely (lmrqywn mrq 'sgy).

is almost certainly related to an anointing or rubbing (mrq) after baptism identified as Marcionite. This is probably the original context of the statement found in Irenaeus:

Quote:

And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou recognize me?" "I do recognize thee, the first-born (son) of Satan."

Since baptism is an adoption ritual, Marcion was rubbed, anointed and adopted as a (firstborn) son by the Devil/Satan.

aa5874 · 03-18-2013, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There may not be enough available information to find out who actually wrote the Pauline letters due to the massive amount of fraud surrounding the Pauline character and letters.

In any event, there would have been a big black hole in the History of the Church without the Pauline letters and the Acts of the Apostles.

Essentially, the Roman Church NEEDED the Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles to write Their History.
...
Who were the DIRECT benefactors of the so-called Authentic Acts of the Apostles and the UNDISPUTED Pauline letters??

Justin?? Marcion?? The Church of Rome??

Dear aa5874,

Thanks for the reply.

I appreciate that you are honest enough to admit that "There may not be enough available information to find out who actually wrote the Pauline letters.."

The Pauline epistles must have been written by one or more individuals. There had to be a time when they were revealed to the world. It weakens the impact of your theory if all you can say is "I do not know."

Best regards,
Jake Jones IV

Do you understand the meaning of "MAY NOT"??

My argument is that the Pauline writings were composed AFTER 180 CE or After "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus and BEFORE c 350 CE or Before "Against the Galileans" attributed to Julian the Emperor.

I will only argue for who wrote the Pauline Epistles when I have evidence.

Your argument is severely flawed when you give the impression you know who wrote the Pauline letters when you do not have the supporting evidence.

There is no credible or corroborative evidence of antiquity that Marcion wrote the Pauline Epistles.

Grog · 03-18-2013, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You can read the short gMark.

Mark 15

Dear AK47,

What is this nonsense you keep posting about short gMark? There is no such thing as short gMark, only the short ending and the long ending to the gospel.
"Truly this man was the Son of God" does not have textual variations that correlate to the absence or presence of the long ending.
So your comments have been shown to be :hitsthefan:

WHY DO YOU NOT QUOTE THE VERSE of Mark 15:37??? What are you afraid of?

15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the GHOST.
Whatt??? How could Jesus BE a ghost and give up the GHOST. The cross would be empty and there would be no body to take to the tomb. YOU EXPLAIN now.

Coincidentally, Jesus ben Ananias also gives up the ghost following interrogation by first the jewish authorities, second the Roman Governor, including a flogging, etc etc:

!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

6.5.3 Jewish Wars

Grog · 03-18-2013, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You fail to explain or give any reasons how or why this Centurion, a Roman Officer was able to recognize Jesus as being the Son of God,
or why the author of Mark would elevate this otherwise totally unmentioned, unknown, and never again mentioned character to such a exclusive position.

There is nothing to be found anywhere within these texts that makes this Roman centurion privy to more information or insight on Jezus than anyone else.

.

How? The centurion knows because he is simply a mouthpiece for what the author want to say. aa has made the point: you cannot separate the centurion from the author. The centurion knows because the author wants the centurion to know. It's a plot hole, one that the author did not much worry about covering.

Why? The clear reason is that it is the gentile centurion, irony of ironies, who recognizes the true nature of Jesus while the disciples were always doubtful or ignorant.

I don't find the sarcastic reading of the centurion's words at all persuasive and I think on this point, aa is correct.

Bernard Muller · 03-18-2013, 08:05 PM

Something to think about:

a) Mk16:20a (interpolation made after other gospels were known) "And they [the disciples, right after the alleged ascension] went out and preached everywhere ..."

b) Aristides "... ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world ..."

c) Justin Martyr, who wrote (150-160), in his 1Apology XLV "His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere".
Also from Justin's works:
- 1Apology XXXIX "For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking"
- 1Apology XXXIX "But the Gentiles, who had never heard anything about Christ, until the apostles set out from Jerusalem and preached concerning Him"
- Trypho LIII "For after His crucifixion, the disciples that accompanied Him were dispersed, until He rose from the dead, and persuaded them that so it had been prophesied concerning Him, that He would suffer; and being thus persuaded, they went into all the world, and taught these truths."

d) Despite attesting 'Acts' in 'Against Heresies', Irenaeus wrote in his 'Demonstration apostolic':
"His disciples, the witnesses of all His good deeds, and of His teachings and His sufferings and death and resurrection, and of His ascension into heaven after His bodily resurrection----these were the apostles, who after (receiving) the power of the Holy Spirit were sent forth by Him into all the world, and wrought the calling of the Gentiles"

e) Also acknowledging 'Acts', Origen wrote (246-248), in 'Commentary of the gospel according to Matthew' X, 18:
"And the Apostles on this account left Israel and did that which had been enjoined on them by the Saviour, "Make disciples of all the nations," and, "Ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judæa and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." For they did that which had been commanded them in Judæa and Jerusalem; but, since a prophet has no honour in his own country, when the Jews did not receive the Word, they went away to the Gentiles."

f) Another reason for 'Acts' being largely ignored in the second century would be Paul was not liked in some orthodox circles. Tertullian (207) wrote, in 'Against Marcion' V, I:
"I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace."
"'Christ did not know beforehand that he would have need of him,"
"He [i.e., Paul] himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ. Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by another person’s attestation. One person writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records."

First, that would explain why 'Acts' and Paul's epistles being not popular among "orthodox" during that period (120- 220). They had Paul (not one of the twelve, not an eyewitness of Jesus) doing the preaching outside Palestine, and also to the Gentiles. That goes against the idealistic picture of the twelve, immediately after the ascension, going all over the known world in order to make converts and essentially creating the Christian world.

Second, why would the "orthodox" create 'Acts' late in the second century and destroy that idealistic picture?

Cordially, Bernard

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

03-18-2013, 07:14 PM	#523
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	No not at all. Hippolytus (Philosophumena) says the Marcionite gospel is Mark. Here Marcion is mrq. I am one of the only people here who doesn't have an agenda save for seeking out the truth. The name Marcion goes back to Mark. The only question is how. Hilgenfeld says it is a diminutive of Mark. I am not so sure but its possible. An Aramaic speaker would have felt a linguistic relationship between Mark and mrq whether or not you are capable of understanding it. More on mrq (used in the reference to Marcion in Ephrem above) which - outside of Samaria seems to take on the meaning 'cleanse' and later 'pay' http://books.google.com/books?id=Sew...ramaic&f=false

03-18-2013, 08:05 PM	#530
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	Something to think about: a) Mk16:20a (interpolation made after other gospels were known) "And they [the disciples, right after the alleged ascension] went out and preached everywhere ..." b) Aristides "... ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world ..." c) Justin Martyr, who wrote (150-160), in his 1Apology XLV "His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere". Also from Justin's works: - 1Apology XXXIX "For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking" - 1Apology XXXIX "But the Gentiles, who had never heard anything about Christ, until the apostles set out from Jerusalem and preached concerning Him" - Trypho LIII "For after His crucifixion, the disciples that accompanied Him were dispersed, until He rose from the dead, and persuaded them that so it had been prophesied concerning Him, that He would suffer; and being thus persuaded, they went into all the world, and taught these truths." d) Despite attesting 'Acts' in 'Against Heresies', Irenaeus wrote in his 'Demonstration apostolic': "His disciples, the witnesses of all His good deeds, and of His teachings and His sufferings and death and resurrection, and of His ascension into heaven after His bodily resurrection----these were the apostles, who after (receiving) the power of the Holy Spirit were sent forth by Him into all the world, and wrought the calling of the Gentiles" e) Also acknowledging 'Acts', Origen wrote (246-248), in 'Commentary of the gospel according to Matthew' X, 18: "And the Apostles on this account left Israel and did that which had been enjoined on them by the Saviour, "Make disciples of all the nations," and, "Ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judæa and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." For they did that which had been commanded them in Judæa and Jerusalem; but, since a prophet has no honour in his own country, when the Jews did not receive the Word, they went away to the Gentiles." f) Another reason for 'Acts' being largely ignored in the second century would be Paul was not liked in some orthodox circles. Tertullian (207) wrote, in 'Against Marcion' V, I: "I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace." "'Christ did not know beforehand that he would have need of him," "He [i.e., Paul] himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ. Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by another person’s attestation. One person writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records." First, that would explain why 'Acts' and Paul's epistles being not popular among "orthodox" during that period (120- 220). They had Paul (not one of the twelve, not an eyewitness of Jesus) doing the preaching outside Palestine, and also to the Gentiles. That goes against the idealistic picture of the twelve, immediately after the ascension, going all over the known world in order to make converts and essentially creating the Christian world. Second, why would the "orthodox" create 'Acts' late in the second century and destroy that idealistic picture? Cordially, Bernard

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.