Cruci f i c t i o n

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Adam »

A thoughtful response, Heretical.
What with my own outlandish claims (in the opposite, anti-Mythicist direction), I perhaps should be more cautious about what I object to.
But as it happens, the claim that Andrew must be the naked young man in Mark 14:51-52 is just the kind of induction I do myself. That "Andrew" pops up at Mark 13:3 (in contrast to absence from equivalent verses in Matthew and Luke) is the kind of thing I look to to suggest such a person as telling or writing the story and thus being Andrew also at 14:51-52 as the inferred source of the story. As it happens, I do tend to regard Andrew as actually perhaps involved in the late editing of Proto-Matthew into our Mark, but have suggested more likely that someone besides the original source, Peter, added in Peter's younger(?) brother for completeness. My idea was that his brother Andrew was "invisible" to Peter as merely his younger brother.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Giuseppe »

Thank you, Heretical! I would like to test your implication in sound. I apologize for my English, more solito.
it's not that I think I would spend much time arguing about this in here, I just wanted to see what others had about the same thing (gMark as a heretical overblown parable/riddle).
What do you think about my view on 'vade retro satana' as a prophecy of Jesus about the future destiny of Simon Peter?

My question (I hope that Ben would reply this time, too :thumbup: ): can 'vade retro satana'
Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ
be interpreted as meaning that who is ''behind'' (Peter) will assume the appearance of who is ''before'' (Jesus) ?

In other terms, may ''to get behind x'' be read allegorically or does it admit only a literal physical meaning (to walk in the footsteps of x)?

A 'yes' would make more probable your hypothesis Peter==the crucified 'Jesus', without the need of assuming that the women knew that the 'Jesus' on the cross was indeed Simon Peter.

I hope that Ben would answer this time, too, about the specific question. Thank you in advance! ;)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Giuseppe »

While hoping in a reply about the Greek question, I quote from 'The Second Treatise of the Greath Seth':
- I did not succumb to them as they had planned. But I was not afflicted at all. Those who were there punished me. And I did not die in reality but in appearance, lest I be put to shame by them because these are my kinsfolk. I removed the shame from me and I did not become fainthearted in the face of what happened to me at their hands. I was about to succumb to fear, and I <suffered> according to their sight and thought, in order that they may never find any word to speak about them. For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. For their Ennoias did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.

And I subjected all their powers. For as I came downward, no one saw me. For I was altering my shapes, changing from form to form. And therefore, when I was at their gates, I assumed their likeness. For I passed them by quietly, and I was viewing the places, and I was not afraid nor ashamed, for I was undefiled. And I was speaking with them, mingling with them through those who are mine, and trampling on those who are harsh to them with zeal, and quenching the flame. And I was doing all these things because of my desire to accomplish what I desired by the will of the Father above.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tseth.html
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Giuseppe »

In this claim:
It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I.
'their father' is the Demiurg, Satan.

Note that in this claim:
They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns.
the first 'another' (Simon of Cyrene) is a distinct person from the second ''another''.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote:My question (I hope that Ben would reply this time, too :thumbup: ): can 'vade retro satana'
Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ
be interpreted as meaning that who is ''behind'' (Peter) will assume the appearance of who is ''before'' (Jesus) ?

In other terms, may ''to get behind x'' be read allegorically or does it admit only a literal physical meaning (to walk in the footsteps of x)?
I am not sure I understand the question, but I think the statement is simply assuming that Satan is in front of Jesus right now (as an obstacle), and Jesus is commanding him to get out of the way, specifically behind him so as no longer to obstruct the path.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Giuseppe wrote:My question (I hope that Ben would reply this time, too :thumbup: ): can 'vade retro satana'
Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ
be interpreted as meaning that who is ''behind'' (Peter) will assume the appearance of who is ''before'' (Jesus) ?

In other terms, may ''to get behind x'' be read allegorically or does it admit only a literal physical meaning (to walk in the footsteps of x)?
I am not sure I understand the question, but I think the statement is simply assuming that Satan is in front of Jesus right now (as an obstacle), and Jesus is commanding him to get out of the way, specifically behind him so as no longer to obstruct the path.
That is the traditional reading, usually understood to mean that Peter has to get back into its ranks and obey Jesus, if he wants to cease to be Satan.

But what escapes in this way are two curious quirks:

1) Peter has to go behind Jesus as Satan and not as aspirant good disciple, while your reading assumes that Peter, getting behind Jesus, becomes a more bravo disciple and virtually ceases to be Satan.
2) Peter/Satan is not ''in front of Jesus right now'', because Jesus has in front of him his disciples, not Peter/Satan.


Jesus, while he rebukes Peter, sees the disciples, therefore Jesus has them in front of him.

This does the parallel with the blind of Bethsaida: he sees prima facie men as walking trees, alluding to a scriptural source 9:8-15) where the trees are allegory of riotous rebels that choose a particular tree as their king (= the disciples and Peter want their traditional Messiah because they want power and money).


The disciples = the walking trees (in front of the blind of Betsaida and in front of Jesus)

Peter = Satan.

Question: Can be that Jesus is saying a prophecy ''Peter/Satan will be behind Jesus because he will assume the face of Jesus during the passion, as a mask'' ?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Giuseppe »

This would be coupled with the promise that Jesus made to the two idiot sons of Zebedee: they will be one ''at the right'' and one ''to the left'' of Jesus, in his glory.
Similarly, here Jesus would be saying to Peter, ''you will be behind me, for you are Satan''.

In that case, the two crucified thieves will be James and John, and Peter will be ''behind'' the crucified Jesus on the cross.

In other terms: the crucified 'Jesus' will be Simon Peter, i.e. Satan himself!
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote:That is the traditional reading, usually understood to mean that Peter has to get back into its ranks and obey Jesus, if he wants to cease to be Satan.

But what escapes in this way are two curious quirks:

1) Peter has to go behind Jesus as Satan and not as aspirant good disciple, while your reading assumes that Peter, getting behind Jesus, becomes a more bravo disciple and virtually ceases to be Satan.
2) Peter/Satan is not ''in front of Jesus right now'', because Jesus has in front of him his disciples, not Peter/Satan.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... I said nothing about Peter. I said Satan, because that is what the verse says, and I was speaking to the grammar. It appears you are venturing into highly interpretative territory here, which is fine; but my response to you was only about the grammar, which has Jesus telling Satan to get behind him. I offered a bit of interpretation (the bit about Satan being an obstacle) for the sake of illustration, but the command here is quite straightforward, the grammar simple, and what you see is what you get.

The interpretation is obviously not going to be WYSIWYG, given the reference to Satan in a group of disciples. But I was not offering any interpretation of my own beyond the simplicity of the grammar.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Giuseppe wrote:That is the traditional reading, usually understood to mean that Peter has to get back into its ranks and obey Jesus, if he wants to cease to be Satan.

But what escapes in this way are two curious quirks:

1) Peter has to go behind Jesus as Satan and not as aspirant good disciple, while your reading assumes that Peter, getting behind Jesus, becomes a more bravo disciple and virtually ceases to be Satan.
2) Peter/Satan is not ''in front of Jesus right now'', because Jesus has in front of him his disciples, not Peter/Satan.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... I said nothing about Peter. I said Satan, because that is what the verse says, and I was speaking to the grammar. It appears you are venturing into highly interpretative territory here, which is fine; but my response to you was only about the grammar, which has Jesus telling Satan to get behind him. I offered a bit of interpretation (the bit about Satan being an obstacle) for the sake of illustration, but the command here is quite straightforward, the grammar simple, and what you see is what you get.

The interpretation is obviously not going to be WYSIWYG, given the reference to Satan in a group of disciples. But I was not offering any interpretation of my own beyond the simplicity of the grammar.

Ben.
I like the difference. Thanks. My question actually was whether an adverb of place (''behind'') could be interpreted as an allegory of something that needs to happen in future (at least in the Jesus's plans).

This reminds the sitting ''at the right'' of someone. Clearly it means to be physically sitting at the right hand of someone, but also to rule as vicerè in a theocracy.
the grammar simple, and what you see is what you get.
Perfect. Thanks. I want be only sure about this point, in order to make no elementary errors of interpretation at the lower level.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Cruci f i c t i o n

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote:I like the difference. Thanks. My question actually was whether an adverb of place (''behind'') could be interpreted as an allegory of something that needs to happen in future (at least in the Jesus's plans).
Well, the matter of allegory is naturally well, well beyond the realm of grammar, but you can see the range of meaning for the adverb here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... ek#lexicon (click the LSJ link under the first option). It can be used of place or of time. In the current verse, the verb of motion would point to the usage involving place. But allegory and metaphor can do lots of things beyond a lexical entry, as well you know.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply