The Decisive Point for Marcionitism

[stephan happy huller]

The saying as it appears in Clement Stromata 1.28 - γίνεσθε δὲ δόκιμοι τραπεζιται, τὰ μὲν ἀποδοκιμ€ζοντες, τὸ δὲ καλὸν κατέχοντες

It is clearly part of the gospel and part of the sayings of Paul (1 Thessalonians 5:21) - πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε·

It's over. The Marcionites were right. The Catholics edited the saying out of the gospel. I don't think there is any argument once people remember the parallel.

[stephan happy huller]

In Dionysius of Alexandra (as cited in Eusebius HE 7.7): ὡς ἀποστολικῇ φωνῇ συντρέχον…γίνεσθε δόκιμοι τραπεζιται

[stephan happy huller]

Procopius of Gaza - Γίνεσθε φρόνιμοι. τραπεζιται, πάντα δοκιμάζετε, το καλον κατέχετε, απο παντος ειδους πονηροῦ ιιιπέχεοθε.

[beowulf]

[2188] hos apostolike phone suntrechon...ginesthe dokimoi trapezitai. This saying, sometimes in the brief form given here, sometimes as part of a longer sentence (e.g. in Clement of Alex. Strom. I. 28, ginesthe de dokimoi trapezitai, ta men apodokim?zontes, to de kalon katechontes), appears very frequently in the writings of the Fathers. In some cases it is cited (in connection with 1 Thess. v. 21, 22) on the authority of Paul (in the present case as an "apostolic word"), in other cases on the authority of "Scripture" (he graphe, or gegraptai, or theios logos), in still more cases as an utterance of Christ himself. There can be little doubt that Christ really did utter these words, and that the words used by Paul in 1 Thess. v. 21, 22, were likewise spoken by Christ in the same connection.


http://biblehub.com/library/pamphilius/ ... ror_of.htm
http://st-takla.org/books/en/ecf/201/2010225.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01225c.htm
The Agrapha must satisfy three conditions:
• they must be Sayings, not discourses;
• they must be Sayings of Jesus;
• they must not be contained in the canonical Gospels

[stephan happy huller]

What's interesting also is to consider a few facts about the saying.

1. what is the point of the saying? If we accept the larger context of the Clementine literature it would seem that Jesus was telling the priests that 'exchanging bad silver coins for good' is the proper method of Biblical exegesis. It assumes what Heschel says is the standard 'heretical' position that the commandments outside of the ten utterances were written on the authority of Moses. Heschel doesn't apply this concept to Mark chapter 12's discussion of marriage - he limits himself to Mark 10. But it is interesting that the Damascus Document - itself a Sadducean text - echoes the arguments at the core of Mark 12. Yet the Sadducees are condemned in the gospels and the Pharisees condemned by the Sadducees in the Damascus Document! How can that possibly be? The answer has to be that the Sadducees were only specifically condemned by the Catholic gospels. In the Marcionite and other heretical gospels we may presume Jesus was speaking to the Sadducees assuring them that it is proper for them to 'exchange bad for good' with respect to the sayings of the Pentateuch. Itself an astounding position.

This would seem to imply that the Catholic text's claim that Jesus was condemning the Sadducees was an out and out lie. A deliberate editorial smokescreen to hide something. But what? Could it be that the Sadducees venerated an angel called Ishu?

Another interesting thing I did through my reading tonight is that τραπεζιται comes from τράπεζα the table that the money changers used. The Aramaic equivalent is שלחן or שולחן but more interesting is that the root is inevitably identified in the Biblical Hebrew שלח. Yes of course there are two meanings which can attributed to שלח and 'hide' or 'leather' is the one which is the most reasonable. But it is worth noting that as a verb שלח is the root behind 'apostle' and Shilo. Moses is specifically identified as the 'apostle' שליח. The term can mean 'agent' which is the role of money changer. I can't help but think there is a typical Aramaic play with different and seemingly unrelated meanings of the same word.

[beowulf]

The Sadducees were the enemies of the Pharisees with whom they had been at war; by the time the Catholics appeared the Sadducees were extinct.

Contemporary Judaism praises the Pharisees and condemns the Sadducees.

[stephan happy huller]

But the gospel could have been written after the destruction of the temple, after the time the Sadducees had been effectively wiped out, taking over their exegetical position via 'Jesus' the private angel of the Sadducees. If the story was this angel came to them to explain or reinforce the correct interpretation of the Law, who would be able to refute the claim if - by 70 CE - most of the Sadducees had been wiped out? Moreover since we have already demonstrated that the interpretations of the gospel ARE WITNESSED as 'Sadducean' from the Qumran texts, the idea that their angel came to warn against the impending destruction would be 'authenticated' to a contemporary audience when the angel 'sounded' Sadducean ... at least before the 'corrections' of Irenaeus.