Marcionite Book of Acts?

[stephan happy huller]

A suggestion from Saul Liebermann

Suetonius (Claud. 21.2) remarks about these games: vox praeconis . . . invitantis more sollemni ad ludos, quos nec spectasset quisquam nex spectaturus esset. "The herald's proclamation . . . when he invited the people, in a solemn manner, to games which no one had ever seen or would ever see again."

Herodian 3:18 "In his reign (Severus) we saw every kind of show exhibited in all the theaters simultaneously, as well as night-long revels celebrated in imitation of the Mysteries. The people of that day called them the Secular Games when they learned that they would be held only once every hundred years. Heralds were sent throughout Rome and Italy bidding all to come and see what they had never seen before and would never see again. It was thus made clear that the amount of time which elapsed between one celebration of the Secular Games and the next far exceeded the total span of any man's life."

But the same idea lies behind the gospel.

The Samaritan Arabic commentary on the Torah, on Leviticus XXV:9. Slightly condensed translation. “The High Priest and the King acting together are to send heralds out on the Day of Atonement to go into all countries over the next six months blowing the shofar in every land and region [not just Canaan] with the announcement [bashâ’ir, plural of bashîrah] of the information of the approach of the Jubilee Year and the release of captives”. The Arabic bashîrah = the Hebrew bassorah. The person doing it is the mubashshir = Hebrew mevasser, or the bashîr. Notice carefully that the bashîrah is not the information, but the announcement of it. This is the connotation of the Greek euangelion. Notice that the meaning only becomes clear and sharp in the context of the SAMARITAN halachah

[stephan happy huller]

I think I am making some progress. The word that appears in Avodah Zarah 11b for 'forger,' 'forgery' is זֵיפָ (= zip). Yes zip means 'forgery' but it also means 'to mold' which connects it with the Greek term πλάστης. More importantly it appears beside yetzer in Exodus 32:4

TgO Ex32:4 ונסֵיב מִיַדהוֹן וְצָר יָתֵיה בְזֵיפָא וְעַבדֵיה עֵיגַל he took (the gold) from them and formed it in a mold and made it into a calf

I have long argued that yetzer is behind notzrim the Jewish title for Christians. There something here in the text.

[stephan happy huller]

Hebrew Exodus 32:4 וַיִּקַּח מִיָּדָם, וַיָּצַר אֹתוֹ בַּחֶרֶט, וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ, עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה. And he received it at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made it a molten calf

Stephen A. Kaufman's study of Akkadian loanwords into other Semitic languages (The Akkadian Influence on Aramaic, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, Assyrian Studies 19, page 113). Kaufman traces the origin of a very odd word found in the Targum Onqelos (Aramaic translation) of Exodus 32:4. The word is zyp' or, omitting the article ', zyp. The Hebrew text tells us that Aaron took golden earrings "and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf" [lit. and he formed it with a heret and he made it into a molten calf]. A heret is an instrument used for cutting or engraving, but is the Aramaic zyp' a heret? According to Kaufman, zyp' is a loan word from Akkadian zipu, and he gives three changing or nuanced definitions for the word as it was used throughout the centuries: 1) mold; 2) impression; 3) cast coin.

In other words, the Targum Onqelos, by-passing the heret as engraving pen, understood the passage as follows: "and Aaron formed it in a mold [ve tsar yataya bi-zifa'a] and he thus made it into a molten calf," which gives a logical order to things and thus makes better sense. Professor Robert Alter's new translation of Exodus also yields: "and he fashioned it in a mold," with no mention of an engraving pen. (Alter clearly took a peek at Targum Onqelos.) Of his reading, Alter says: "Perhaps a term associated with a different image-making process was then applied idiomatically to all kinds of metalwork image-making," The Five Books of Moses, 494 n. 4.

Professor Kaufmann has this to say: "To my knowledge no one has previously interpreted zyp' in the Targum Onkelos passage as 'mold' (but see Aruch III 311). This interpretation is proven correct by the translation of BH hrt in our passage given in Targ. Y II and Neofiti, twps' [with emphatic t phoneme], and the medieval dictionary of Ben-Janach, dpws, and David ben Abraham al-Fasi, "mold" (for which see C.C. Torrey, "The Foundry of the Second Temple of Jerusalem," JBL LV [1936], 259f.)."

There is an Akkadian loanword in Aramaic, and it means "mold," "impression," and "cast coin." This Akkadian loanword was in turn employed by the Christian heretics as an equivalent of πλάσμα and yetzer. But it would appear that the authors of the Talmud engaged heretics who used zip to mean πλάσμα

[stephan happy huller]

An email from Tjitze Baarda which is interesting. Here is the pertinent section:

I does not possess the pertinent work of Marutha -, but starting from the transcription sākā in Harnack’s text I have consulted the pertinent lexica:

Syriac sāk (sākā) means: A) end, limit, border, extreme + B) sum, total (see Harnack’s Summa). See your: 'end' 'limit'

My difficulty with the passage in Harnack is:
is his transcription of the Syriac word correct?
(If the vocalsation would be sēkē, it would be the plural of sekta, ‘pin, splinter, nail')

The question then is whether this announcement was called 'sum' or 'nails'? If we follow the suggestion that Avodah Zarah 11b was a report about the same Marcionite 'proclamation' then possibly something like 'nails of the κύριος πλάστης'?

Here is the entry in the CAL:
1 peg JLAtg, Gal, PTA, Sam, LJLA. (a) nail, spike PTA, CPA, Sam, Syr, JBA. P Ex27:19 ܘܟܠܗܝܢ ܣܟ̈ܘܗܝ

2 wedge Syr. (a) plowshare JLAtg, Gal, Syr. TgJ 1Sam13:20 לְחָרָפָא גְבַר יָת פָרָשֵיה וְיָת סִכַת פַדָנֵיה to sharpen his goad and his plowshare. P 1S13:20 ; (b) spade JLAtg, JBAg. TgO Deut23:14 וְסִיכְתָא תְהֵי לָך עַל זֵינָך

3 thorn Sam, JBA. (a) wart Syr. (b) prickly hair (??) JBA.

4 coin stamp Syr, JBA.

Can anyone out there get me a facsimile of the pertinent page of Marutha? The more I look the more I see that there is a strong possibility that Harnack got the name wrong. Here is what I have learned about the text. Here is what this source http://books.google.com/books?id=vX9FOa ... 22&f=false tells us in a footnote to the following sentence: "its author is considered to be Marutha, bishop of Maipherqat, and the text is entitled in its most recent edition The Canons ascribed to Maruta of Maipherqat and Related Sources."

A. Vööbus , The Canons ascribed to Maruta of Maipherqat and Related Sources, CSCO 139 and 140, Script. Syr. 191 and 192 (Louvain, 1982). The first volume has the Syriac text and the second the English translation. The edition is based on various Syriac manuscripts ascribed to Marutha which Vööbus was able to collate with the help of additional sources in Syriac and Arabic. Vööbus' edition consists of three parts, which each contain several texts. The middle and main part has the 20 canons of the Synod of Nicaea as well as the 73 pseudo-Nicene canons which are attributed to Marutha. It is preceded by what Vööbus has labelled "Preliminary texts*. This contains letters of Marutha to Mar Ishaq, bishop-catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, as well as other short texts such as 'On Monasticism', 'On Persecutions', 'On the Heresies', 'On the Affair of the Synod of Nicaea' and 'On the Terms, Ranks and Orders.' The third part of the edition is entitled by Voobus 'Supplementary Texts'. This has among other things "The Creed of the Synod of Nicaea', "The Names of the Bishops' (present at the Nicene Council), 'Helena's Role', 'Helena's Letter', 'Constantine's Letter to Alexander of Jerusalem', 'The Martyrdom of Alexander', 'The Discourse about the Heresies', 'The Apology of the Confession', 'Of the True Faith of our Holy Fathers' and 'The Beginning of the Convention'. A century ago the German scholar Oskar Braun published a like text ascribed to Marutha, but this was based only on a single manuscript and does not have the Syriac text but only a German translation: O. Braun, De Sancta Nicaena Synodo. Syrische Texte des Maruta von Maipherkat nach einer HS. der Propaganda zu Rom übersetzt (Munster 1898). The manuscript is an undated and incomplete copy of an original which is kept in Mossul. The main part of Braun's text also consists of the 73 pseudo-Nicene canons as well as 6 of the 20 Nicene canons. It furthermore has among other things a list of participants of the Nicene Council, a letter of Marutha to Mar Ishaq, chapters on monasticism, persecutions, heresies as well as a chapter on Constantine, Helena and the Council of Nicaea.

Vööbus is dead.

[stephan happy huller]

Interestingly I found Vööbus's superior translation and we find there after a reference to three gods a good:

just, and an evil one. These also have injured the Scriptures and have added and reduced in the gospel and in the apostolos. The entire Book of Acts they have taken (out) from the midst and instead of this they have made another and called it the Sum (saka) so that it shall be like their own opinion. Instead of Peter they set up for themselves Marcion (as) the head of the apostles, and instead of the Psalms they have made for themselves hymns for their services. And they calumniate the resurrection of bodies.

What is interesting about this source is that it implies what we already see with Eznik - i.e. the use of the Diatessaron among the Marcionites (cf. Casey Robert). I desperately need the Vööbus edition. Can anyone get me a copy of the syriac text here so Baarda can see what else is possible with the name?

[stephan happy huller]

Let us read a part of the curious Manichaean text Kephalaion 56. It runs (in Gardner’s [1995:146–148] translation) as follows:

138, 20 Once again the enlightener (φωστήρ) speaks: The moulder (πλάστης) placed in the form (πλάσμα) of Adam and Eve limbs (μέλος), outside and within, for perception and activity. He [i.e. Adam, or the human form] was apportioned house by house. For everything that his perceptions (αἰσθήτηρια) and elements (στοιχεῖα) will receive externally there are internal storehouses (ταμιεῖα) and repositories (ἀποθήκη) and cavities (σπήλαιον); and what is received in to them is stored in them. Whenever they will be questioned about what is deposited in their internal storehouses (ταμιεῖα), they bring out what they have received within and give it to the questioner (ἀπαιτητής) who requested it of them.

138, 30 In this way his faculty (Ἐνθύμησις) ... outer limbs (μέλος) to look at ... every type within ... also the faculty (Ἐνθύμεσις) of the eyes has houses and cavities (σπήλαιον) and repositories (ἀποθήκη) and stores within, so that every image it might see, whether good or evil, whether loveable or detestable or lustful (– ἐπιθυμία), it can receive into its storehouses (ταμιεῖα) and repositories (ἀποθήκη). Also, when the faculty (Ἐνθύμησις) of the eyes is pleased to send out the image that it saw and took in, it can go in to its storehouses (ταμιεῖα) at the time and think and seek ... and it brings it out and gives it to the questioner (ἀπαιτητής) who requested it and the one who wanted it. Whether it be something from lust (ἐπιθυμία) ... or an image of love or ... ... something hateful. And thus shall that faculty (Ἐνθύμησις) [of the eyes] produce and do what it does in each category.

139,15 The faculty (Ἐνθύμησις) of the ears has its own storehouses (ταμιεῖα) also. Every sound it might receive, whether good or evil, shall be taken in and placed in its houses and inner repositories (ἀποκήθη), and it is guarded in its [storehouses (ταμιεῖα)] ... for a thousand days. After a thousand days, if someone comes and asks that faculty (Ἐνθύμησις) about the sound that it heard at this time and took into its storehouses (ταμιεῖα), immediately it shall go into its repositories (ἀποθήκη) and seek and review and search after this word, and send it out from where it was first put, the place in which it was kept.

139, 25 In like order, the faculty (Ἐνθύμησις) of scent shall function just as that of the eyes and that of the auditory organs. Every odour it shall smell it shall take in to it and deposit in its inner storehouses (ταμιεῖα). Every time it will be asked by a questioner, it shall go in ... and ... storehouse (ταμιεῖα) and remember ... only these things.

140, 1 However, even the mouth and the tongue within it, and the taste organ, have a faculty dwelling in them.

140, 3 Again, that faculty (Ἐνθύμησις) too, of taste, has thus cavities (σπήλαιον) and repositories (ἀποθήκη) set apart for it. It too receives these tastes and gathers them in. And at any moment when someone will ask of a taste, if ... it shall send it out and remember that taste. It shall snare and give even the mark of that taste; give its memory to the questioner who asks for it.

140, 10 Again, the faculty (Ἐνθύμησις) of touch by the hands is also so: When it might touch, touch shall receive its memory. And it takes it in to its inner repository (ἀποθήκη) until someone will ask this faculty (Ἐνθύμησις) for the memory. Immediately, it shall go in again and bring out the memory of this touch that it made, and give it to whoever asks for it.

140, 16 And the faculty (Ἐνθύμησις) of the heart that rules over them all is much the most like this. Every thing that these five faculties (Ἐνθύμησις) will receive and put in store (παραθήκη, depositum) for the faculty (Ἐνθύμησις) of the heart it shall receive and guard. Any time that they will ask for their deposit it shall send out and give every thing that they gave to it

[stephan happy huller]

From Vinzent:

We know from Irenaeus that Justin wrote a πρὸς Μαρκίωνα σύνταγμα and the question is, of course, whether πρός + Acc. here means ‘to’, ‘conversation with’ or ‘against’ (hostile or non-hostile?). Irenaeus’ contextualisation too quickly lead some ancient and many modern readers to the conclusion that Justin is already reprimanding Marcion as he will be in his 1Apol. and Dial. The short extract that is preserved of Justin’s πρὸς Μαρκίωνα by Irenaeus indicates a theological debate which rather points towards ‘conversation with’, or perhaps a reply ‘To Marcion’ than to a heresiological book against a definite enemy, hence the correct Latin translation that states: ‘In eo libro qui est Ad Marcionem’:

I would not have believed the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher. But because the only-begotten Son came to us from the one God, who both made this world and formed us, and contains and administers all things, summing up His own handiwork in Himself, my faith towards Him is stedfast, and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us.[Iren., Adv. haer. IV 6,2]

Lat.: ‘Quoniam ipsi quoque Domino non credidissem, alterum Deum annuntianti praetor fabricatorem et factorem et nutritorem nostrum. Sed quoniam ab uno Deo, qui et hunc mundum fecit, et nos plasmavit, et Omnia continent et administrat, unigenitus Filius venit ad nos, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans, firma est mea ad eum fides, et immobilis erga Patrem dilectio, utraque Deon obis praebente.’

The fragment starts with the assumption that Justin understood Marcion as having relied on the Lord Himself who had revealed to him his message – to which Justin adds that his belief into ‘our framer, maker, and nourisher’ could not have been shaken even by the Lord himself, let alone by Marcion. What follows is a theological reasoning which ends with an important remark that ‘my faith towards Him is stedfast, and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us’, as if the addressee (Marcion!) was still regarded by Justin as belonging to the same community (nobis) and as Marcion had assumed that Justin would agree with his thinking. The sound of this fragment is far from being hostile and, indeed, seems a reflection of an ongoing – critical – discussion between colleagues (‘Ad Marcionem’). The atmosphere had changed in the wake of a persecution by the state, when Justin wrote his First and Second Apology in which he also mentions his lost treatise Against all the heresies and which he offers the emperor to read it. Whatever his lost work entailed, we can only refer to the extant addresses to the emperor, the First and Second Apology

[stephan happy huller]

I am beginning to see parallels in the Samaritan Mark's understanding of the 'glory' angel who has a special task of 'forming' man, and the heretical context for Marcionitism - i.e. that Jesus was the angel who 'formed' man after he was created by God. Irenaeus had a terribly hard time accepting any independence for members of the divine household.