Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 10-14-2012, 10:03 PM

Let's look at side by side comparisons of two explanations of the meaning of the Question of the Rich Man. The first is Tertullian's discussion of the Marcionite exegesis. He begins:

Quote:

So then when he is asked by that certain man, Good Teacher, what shall I do to obtain possession of eternal life?, he inquired whether he knew—which means, was keeping—the Creator's commandments, in such form as to testify that by the Creator's commandments eternal life is obtained: and when that man replied, in respect of the chief of them, that he had kept them from his youth up, he got the answer, One thing thou lackest; sell all that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. Come now, Marcion, and all you companions in the misery and sharers in the offensiveness of that heretic, what will you be bold enough to say? Did Christ here rescind those former commandments, not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to bear false witness, to love father and mother? Or is it that he both retained these and added what was lacking? And yet, even this commandment of distributing to the poor is spread about everywhere in the law and the prophets, so that that boastful keeper of the commandments was convicted of having money in much higher esteem.

So then this also in the gospel remains valid, I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil. At the same time also he relieved of doubt those other questions, by making it clear that the name of God, and of supremely good, belongs to one only, and that eternal life and treasure in heaven, and himself besides, pertain to that one, whose commandments, by adding what was lacking, he both conserved and enriched. So he is to be recognized as in agreement with Micah, in this passage where he says, Hath he then shewed thee, O man, what is good? Or what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice, to love mercy, and to be prepared to follow the Lord thy God?c For Christ is that Man, declaring what is good: the knowledge of the law, Thou knowest the commandments: to do justice, Sell the things thou hast: to love mercy, And give to the poor: to be prepared to go with the Lord, And come, follow me. The Jewish race was from the beginning so clearly distinguished into tribes and communes and families and households, that no man could easily be of unknown descent, at least from the recent census of Augustus, of which perhaps the records were still on display.

But Marcion's Jesus—yet there could be no doubt that one had been born, who was seen to be a man—he indeed, not having been born, could have had in the public records no note of his descent, but would have had to be reckoned as one from among those persons who in some way or other were classed as unknown. When then that blind man had been told that he was passing by, why did he cry out, Jesus thou son of David, have mercy on me, except that he was with good reason regarded as the son of David, which
means, of the family of David, in consideration of his mother and his brethren, who had in fact on one occasion because of people's knowledge of them, been reported to him as being present? But they that went before rebuked the blind man, that he should hold
his peace. Quite properly: because he was making a noise, not because he was wrong about the son of David. Or else you must prove that those who rebuked were convinced that Jesus was not the son of David, if you wish me to believe that that was their reason
for putting the blind man to silence. Yet even if you did prove this, the man would more readily assume that those people were in ignorance, than that the Lord could have allowed to pass a false description of himself. But the Lord is patient. He is not however one who stands surety for error—but rather a revealer of the Creator—so that he would not have failed first to take away the cloud of this aspect of that man's blindness, and so prevent him from thinking any longer that Jesus was the son of David. Far from it: to preclude you from speaking ill of his patience, or from attaching to him any charge of keeping back the truth, or from saying he is not the son of David, he expressed the clearest possible approval of the blind man's commendation, rewarding it with the gift of healing, and with witness to his faith.

Thy faith, he says, hath made thee whole. What do you say was the substance of that blind man's faith? That Jesus had come down from that god of yours with intent to overthrow the Creator and destroy the law and the prophets? that he was not the one foreordained to come forth from the root of Jesse and from the fruit of David's loins, a giver of gifts also to the blind? No, there did not yet exist, I think, people of Marcion's sort of blindness, that such should have been the content of that blind man's faith which
he expressed in the cry, Jesus, thou son of David. Jesus knew that this was what he is, and wished it to be known of all men, so that although the man's faith was based on better eyesight, although it was possessed of the true light, he gave it the further gift of
external vision, so that we too might be taught what is the rule, and also the reward, of faith. He who wishes to see Jesus, must believe him the son of David by descent from the virgin: he who does not so believe will never be told by him, Thy faith hath saved thee, and consequently will remain blind, falling into the ditch of an antithesis, which itself falls into a ditch. For this is what happens when the blind leads the blind. For if, <as you suggest>, blind men once came into conflict with David at his recapture of Sion,e fighting back to prevent his admission— though these are a figure of that nation equally blind, which was some time to deny admission to Christ the son of David—
and therefore Christ came to the blind man's help by way of opposition so that by this he might show himself not the son of David, being of opposite mind, and kind to blind men, such as David had ordered to be slain: <if this is so> why did he say he had granted this to the man's faith, and false faith at that? But in fact by this expression son of David I can, on its own terms, blunt the point of the antithesis. Those who came into conflict with David were blind: but here a man of the same infirmity had presented himself as suppliant to the son of David. Consequently, when he gave this satisfaction, the son of David was in some sort appeased and restored his sight, adding also a testimony to
the faith by which he had believed this very fact, that he must address his prayer to the son of David. For all that, David I think will have been offended by the insolence of those Jebusites, not by the state of their health.

Salvation also comes to the house of Zacchaeus. How did he earn it? Was it that even he believed that Christ was come from Marcion? No, for there remained still in the ears of all of them that blind man's cry, Have mercy upon me, Jesus thou son of David,a and all the people were giving praises to God—not Marcion's god, but David's. For in fact Zacchaeus, though a foreigner, yet perhaps had breathed in some knowledge of the scriptures by converse with Jews, or, what is more, without knowing about Isaiah, had fulfilled his instructions. Break thy bread, he says, to the hungry, and bring into thy house them that have no covering—and this he was even then doing when he brought the Lord into his house and gave him to eat. And if thou see the naked, cover him—at that very moment he promised this, when he offered the half of his goods for all works of mercy, thus loosing the bonds of enforced contracts, and letting loose the oppressed, and breaking down every unjust assessment, in the words, And if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore it fourfold. And so our Lord says, Today is salvation <come> to this house: he bears witness that those were works of salvation which the Creator's prophet had enjoined. But when he says, For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost, I do not at present claim that he who had come to save that which was lost, was he to whom belonged, and from whom had become lost, that which he had come to save; I turn my steps towards a different subject. There is no doubt that a man is under discussion. Since a man consists of two substances, body and soul, the question we must consider is, in respect of which kind of substance he may be supposed to have become lost. If of the body, then his body was lost, his soul was not. That which was lost, is what the Son of man saves: and so the flesh obtains salvation. If he was lost in respect of his soul, then it is the loss of the soul which is intended for salvation: the flesh, which has not got lost, is safe already. If the whole man was lost, in respect of both substances, then the whole man must of necessity be brought to salvation, and there is an end of that opinion of the heretics who say the flesh finds no salvation. And besides, there is confirmation of the fact that Christ belongs to the Creator, since in full accord with the Creator he promised salvation of the whole man. Also the parable of the servants, who are judged variously according as they account for their lord's money entrusted to them, indicates that God is a judge, even on the side of severity, not only promoting to honour, but even taking away that which a man thinks he has. Or else, if here too it is a pretence of his, that the Creator is an austere one, taking up that which he has not laid down, and reaping that which he has not sown, here again the instruction comes to me from him whose the money is which <the parable> advises me to put on usury.

When you look at this - "and when that man replied, in respect of the chief of them, that he had kept them from his youth up" - this is an acknowledgement that someone (the Marcionites, the earliest readers of the material) recognized that this is a discussion of the ten commandments as 'all of the law.'

Vorkosigan · 10-14-2012, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I am not sure Jay and Michael are understanding what I am saying. The narrative was written for an audience. If we assume that Mark chapter 10 was not a historical event but something Mark or someone else made up, it makes very little sense to imagine that Mark strove for such realism that he created a realistic Jewish subtext for a Gentile audience. After all none of this actually ever happened.

He didn't "strive for realism." He had a set of texts, probably among them Josephus, which described the various Jewish groups. He used that information to create Pharisees/Sadducees who were foils for Jesus' wit and for his speeches. After all, if he "strove for realism" he would have mentioned who the chief priest was and what his (sadducee) affiliation was (to give only one example). The jewish elites are there to set off Jesus.

Furthermore, your OP notes that in fact that WAS INDEED a second-century Jewish understanding for you claim was abandoned only after Marcion started using it. Well into the second century, in other words. Timewise, it's no problem for those of us who see Mark as post-135. Marcion was only becoming active about this time, and giving up these understandings of the law was a long process and no doubt persisted in many jewish communities and families, because elites/mainstreamers don't represent the whole of their religion. Like polygamy in Mormonism. Or honor killings in many communities. Or the continuing racism in the American South. Or the way debt slavery replaced chattel slavery in the American South, meaning that slavery went on for nearly another century after its alleged termination. Etc.

Quote:

Indeed I can't see why Mark would need to have the narrative read that way. Why mention the outdated conception that Moses wrote all the commandments beside those 'God given ones' at Sinai? Clearly this must have been Mark's own conviction or that of his audience. The underlying point is very serious. The Law of Moses was no longer valid. How does this fit in the second century cultural milieu?

Did not Jews believe that Moses wrote those books? And didn't Marcion rubbish the Law? Marcion was second century....

Vorkosigan

aa5874 · 10-14-2012, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I am not sure Jay and Michael are understanding what I am saying. The narrative was written for an audience. If we assume that Mark chapter 10 was not a historical event but something Mark or someone else made up, it makes very little sense to imagine that Mark strove for such realism that he created a realistic Jewish subtext for a Gentile audience. After all none of this actually ever happened.

Indeed I can't see why Mark would need to have the narrative read that way. Why mention the outdated conception that Moses wrote all the commandments beside those 'God given ones' at Sinai? Clearly this must have been Mark's own conviction or that of his audience. The underlying point is very serious. The Law of Moses was no longer valid. How does this fit in the second century cultural milieu?

A comparable event is described in the rabbinic literature. There is a Jewish sect which says that with the destruction of the temple they can't consume wine or eat meat. This is very Marcionite.

Do you not realize that the author of gMark falsely implied that the Jewish Temple was still standing.

Mark 13:2-4

Quote:

2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,

4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

That is exactly the problem with gMark and all the Gospels.

Anonymous authors wrote stories about Jesus knowing full well that the Jewish Temple had already fallen and implied Jesus was a prophet.

And further, there is a very serious problem with gMark.

We actually have two Canonised Gospels, the short and Long gMark, attributed to the same author and we know One must be a forgery and that Both have falsely attributed authorship.

The Gospels according to Mark, the short and Long Mark, are the Flagships of forgery and fiction in the NT.

The short and Long Mark cannot be accepted as works of history.

stephan huller · 10-15-2012, 12:19 AM

H

Quote:

e didn't "strive for realism." He had a set of texts, probably among them Josephus, which described the various Jewish groups. He used that information to create Pharisees/Sadducees who were foils for Jesus' wit and for his speeches. After all, if he "strove for realism" he would have mentioned who the chief priest was and what his (sadducee) affiliation was (to give only one example). The jewish elites are there to set off Jesus.

But if he didn't 'strive for realism' why have the text reflect actual Jewish opinions of the first century?

stephan huller · 10-15-2012, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Furthermore, your OP notes that in fact that WAS INDEED a second-century Jewish understanding for you claim was abandoned only after Marcion started using it. Well into the second century, in other words. Timewise, it's no problem for those of us who see Mark as post-135. Marcion was only becoming active about this time, and giving up these understandings of the law was a long process and no doubt persisted in many jewish communities and families, because elites/mainstreamers don't represent the whole of their religion. Like polygamy in Mormonism. Or honor killings in many communities. Or the continuing racism in the American South. Or the way debt slavery replaced chattel slavery in the American South, meaning that slavery went on for nearly another century after its alleged termination. Etc.

Clement says that Marcion became a Christian "when Simon was hearing the preaching of Peter" or something to that effect = first century. Clement's testimony about Marcion is very different from what developed at the same time in the writings of Irenaeus. He is not a second century phenomenon. Something of a extreme Platonism.

stephan huller · 10-15-2012, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Did not Jews believe that Moses wrote those books? And didn't Marcion rubbish the Law? Marcion was second century....

Heschel notes (I will eventually cite the relevant passage in the Heavenly Torah) that there was always a concept of 'the heavenly Torah' which is distinct from the earthly Torah (= the Pentateuch). The core idea is that only the ten utterances came from heaven. The rest (including the actual narrative of the five books) were written on the authority of Moses. As Heschel notes this is Jesus argument in Mark 10:2 - 16 with respect to divorce.

The interesting part of his survey of rabbinic literature is that it was the established tradition among the Jews (the Sadducees and the Samaritans) that the Pentateuch was not divinely inspired. Later Jews complained that the emphasis on the sanctity only of what was given by god (Gk dositheus) i.e. the ten utterance gave rise to Christianity.

The same arguments were then developed against those who held this opinion among the heresies (Christianity) that we see against Marcion (= he rubbished the Law). When in reality they were saying only a portion were divinely inspired - something that I think is very applicable to our current discussion.

stephan huller · 10-15-2012, 12:29 AM

A classic argument which develops from this distinction is that associated with the translator Aquila (sometimes put in the mouth of other people including Hadrian) that since circumcision was not included among the commandments brought down from the mountain it was established only on human authority (= Moses) and was not binding. This is clearly supportive of Christian arguments especially associated with Paul. Aquila was a proselyte and some might argue identified as Priscilla's husband in Acts (18:2 - 3). How many Aquila of Pontus's could there be?

sotto voce · 10-15-2012, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Did not Jews believe that Moses wrote those books? And didn't Marcion rubbish the Law? Marcion was second century....

Heschel notes (I will eventually cite the relevant passage in the Heavenly Torah) that there was always a concept of 'the heavenly Torah' which is distinct from the earthly Torah (= the Pentateuch). The core idea is that only the ten utterances came from heaven.

It's a core idea of those who know what they want to know.

'When Moses went and told the people all the Lord's words and laws, they responded with one voice, "Everything the Lord has said we will do."

Moses then wrote down everything the Lord had said.' Ex 24:3-4 NIV

sotto voce · 10-15-2012, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

A classic argument which develops from this distinction is that associated with the translator Aquila (sometimes put in the mouth of other people including Hadrian) that since circumcision was not included among the commandments brought down from the mountain it was established only on human authority (= Moses) and was not binding. This is clearly supportive of Christian arguments especially associated with Paul. Aquila was a proselyte and some might argue identified as Priscilla's husband in Acts (18:2 - 3). How many Aquila of Pontus's could there be?

Circumcision pre-dated Moses by centuries. Moreover, it is recorded as commanded directly by deity. By Paul it was most certainly binding, before the nation of Israel per se finally had no more significance, which was at Jesus' crucifixion. Of course, by many fellow Pharisees who attempted to kill Paul, circumcision remained a binding obligation.

tanya · 10-15-2012, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

How many Aquila of Pontus's could there be?

Πόντος corresponds to a fairly large region of Northeastern Turkey, inhabited, in those days, by Greeks, along the southern coast of the Black Sea, i.e. Πόντος Εύξεινος.

So, pontus is a large area, many inhabitants, and, generically, a huge area, if pontus refers to any place south of the Black Sea.

What about Aquila? Well, isn't it both the name of a constellation, readily viewed throughout the Northern Hemisphere, AND the name of the Eagle carrying Zeus' thunderbolts?

Is it a common name? Maybe not today, but back then, Zeus was an important person/deity, so, yes, one can imagine many families seeking to name their child in his honor.

You think of Aquila for his renown, according to both Origen and Jerome, in creating his own Greek version of the Tanakh, (based on ?), which differs from the Septuagint in many passages, most notably, from my point of view, by preserving the tetragrammaton.

His deserved fame notwithstanding, one ought not presume that the name, Aquila, was unique to this one convert to Judaism.

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

10-15-2012, 12:29 AM	#37
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	A classic argument which develops from this distinction is that associated with the translator Aquila (sometimes put in the mouth of other people including Hadrian) that since circumcision was not included among the commandments brought down from the mountain it was established only on human authority (= Moses) and was not binding. This is clearly supportive of Christian arguments especially associated with Paul. Aquila was a proselyte and some might argue identified as Priscilla's husband in Acts (18:2 - 3). How many Aquila of Pontus's could there be?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.