On the anti-marcionite spittle of Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

On the anti-marcionite spittle of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:17 am


They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. 23 He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man’s eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, “Do you see anything?”
24 He looked up and said, “I see people; they look like trees walking around.”
25 Once more Jesus put his hands on the man’s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. 26 Jesus sent him home, saying, “Don’t even go into the village.”

(Mark 8:22-26)
One reason, I believe, is that in the days of Jesus, the Jewish people believed spittle from the first born of every family, had a great healing power. I believe Jesus, in going with that Jewish tradition, used His spittle in these three healings to testify to everybody that He was the first born of God the Father, and the only begotten Son of God.
http://www.georgekonig.org/wc77.htm

If Jesus fails the first time, it is why also the Creator God failed to give the life to the creature the first time, being the latter made only of demiurgical nature.

Just as it was necessary for the Creator to animate the creation by the help of Sophia (i.e., with a second attempt), so Jesus had to correct the eyes of the blind a second time.

All this to argue that Jesus is imperfect (=he proceeds by attempts) just as the Creator. But then the Creator is the his true father, and not the Good God of Marcion.

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5254
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: On the anti-marcionite spittle of Jesus

Post by Peter Kirby » Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:34 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:17 am
Just as it was necessary for the Creator to animate the creation by the help of Sophia (i.e., with a second attempt)
Is this based on some ancient sources (other than Genesis)?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: On the anti-marcionite spittle of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:56 am

Peter Kirby wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:34 pm
Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:17 am
Just as it was necessary for the Creator to animate the creation by the help of Sophia (i.e., with a second attempt)
Is this based on some ancient sources (other than Genesis)?
(more than 'other than Genesis', I would say 'more than the Gnostic anti-nomian exegesis of Genesis')

The LORD by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens.

(Proverbs 3:19)


On the equivalence Man = tree,
The vineyard of the Lord Almighty is the nation of Israel, and the people of Judah are the vines he delighted in.
(Isaiah 5:7)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2543
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: On the anti-marcionite spittle of Jesus

Post by DCHindley » Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:26 pm

:popcorn: So, Jesus' spittle was for Marcion like Kryptonite was for Superman?

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5254
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: On the anti-marcionite spittle of Jesus

Post by Peter Kirby » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:38 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:56 am
Peter Kirby wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:34 pm
Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:17 am
Just as it was necessary for the Creator to animate the creation by the help of Sophia (i.e., with a second attempt)
Is this based on some ancient sources (other than Genesis)?
(more than 'other than Genesis', I would say 'more than the Gnostic anti-nomian exegesis of Genesis')
So what are they? I am not looking for Bible quotes here, unless they are biblical passages written by or about Gnostics regarding their interpretation of a “second attempt” at creation.

(I am also not saying that the sources are hard to find. I am just trying to follow your argument and to know what it’s based on.)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: On the anti-marcionite spittle of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:52 pm

Peter Kirby wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:38 pm
So what are they? I am not looking for Bible quotes here, unless they are biblical passages written by or about Gnostics regarding their interpretation of a “second attempt” at creation.

(I am also not saying that the sources are hard to find. I am just trying to follow your argument and to know what it’s based on.)
As example of 'anti-nomian exegesis of Genesis' surely I have in mind something as the following:
And the great angel Eleleth, understanding, spoke to me: "Within limitless realms dwells incorruptibility. Sophia, who is called Pistis, wanted to create something, alone without her consort; and her product was a celestial thing. A veil exists between the world above and the realms that are below; and shadow came into being beneath the veil; and that shadow became matter; and that shadow was projected apart. And what she had created became a product in the matter, like an aborted fetus. And it assumed a plastic form molded out of shadow, and became an arrogant beast resembling a lion. It was androgynous, as I have already said, because it was from matter that it derived.

Opening his eyes, he saw a vast quantity of matter without limit; and he became arrogant, saying, "It is I who am God, and there is none other apart from me". When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And a voice came forth from above the realm of absolute power, saying, "You are mistaken, Samael" – which is, 'god of the blind'.

And he said, "If any other thing exists before me, let it become visible to me!" And immediately Sophia stretched forth her finger and introduced light into matter; and she pursued it down to the region of chaos. And she returned up to her light; once again darkness [...] matter.

This ruler, by being androgynous, made himself a vast realm, an extent without limit. And he contemplated creating offspring for himself, and created for himself seven offspring, androgynous just like their parent. And he said to his offspring, "It is I who am god of the entirety."
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html

In both the cases we have:

- someone who fails (the demiurge in animating the matter, Jesus in giving the light)

- the salvific action of knowledge (the Sophia in animating the matter, the fact that Jesus has to know from the blind man what he sees).

In other terms, Jesus is described as in need of knowledge just as the demiurge.

Mark did so to rehabilitate the demiurge, and Jesus as the demiurge's son, against a rival Gnostic tradition who:
1) despised the demiurge as a lower god
2) exalted Jesus as the son of a supreme god distinct from the demiurge.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5254
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: On the anti-marcionite spittle of Jesus

Post by Peter Kirby » Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:52 pm

Opening his eyes, he saw a vast quantity of matter without limit; and he became arrogant, saying, "It is I who am God, and there is none other apart from me". When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And a voice came forth from above the realm of absolute power, saying, "You are mistaken, Samael" – which is, 'god of the blind'.

And he said, "If any other thing exists before me, let it become visible to me!" And immediately Sophia stretched forth her finger and introduced light into matter; and she pursued it down to the region of chaos. And she returned up to her light; once again darkness [...] matter.

^^^^

In the words above, neither Samael nor Sophia “animate” matter.

When Samael makes 7 offspring, there’s no mention of a “second” attempt.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: On the anti-marcionite spittle of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:41 pm

Peter Kirby wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:52 pm
Opening his eyes, he saw a vast quantity of matter without limit; and he became arrogant, saying, "It is I who am God, and there is none other apart from me". When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And a voice came forth from above the realm of absolute power, saying, "You are mistaken, Samael" – which is, 'god of the blind'.

And he said, "If any other thing exists before me, let it become visible to me!" And immediately Sophia stretched forth her finger and introduced light into matter; and she pursued it down to the region of chaos. And she returned up to her light; once again darkness [...] matter.

^^^^

In the words above, neither Samael nor Sophia “animate” matter.

When Samael makes 7 offspring, there’s no mention of a “second” attempt.
The words of Samael '' let it become visible to me!'' (a parody of the words ''fiat lux!'' of Genesis) is an implicit appeal to a higher deity to reveal herself in the creature of the demiurge. So I see in the construct:
And immediately Sophia stretched forth her finger and introduced light into matter
precisely the action of Sophia who animates matter. ''Light'' is life, here.

There’s therefore a mention of a “second” attempt. Here there is mention of even three attempts, too, respectively the giving of the matter (by archons), of the soul (by the demiurge) and of the spirit (by the Supreme God):


The rulers laid plans and said, "Come, let us create a man that will be soil from the earth." They modeled their creature as one wholly of the earth. Now the rulers [...] body [...] they have [...] female [...] is [...] with the face of a beast. They had taken some soil from the earth and modeled their man after their body and after the image of God that had appeared to them in the waters. They said, "Come, let us lay hold of it by means of the form that we have modeled, so that it may see its male counterpart [...], and we may seize it with the form that we have modeled" – not understanding the force of God, because of their powerlessness. And he breathed into his face; and the man came to have a soul (and remained) upon the ground many days. But they could not make him arise because of their powerlessness. Like storm winds they persisted (in blowing), that they might try to capture that image, which had appeared to them in the waters. And they did not know the identity of its power.
Now all these things came to pass by the will of the father of the entirety. Afterwards, the spirit saw the soul-endowed man upon the ground. And the spirit came forth from the Adamantine Land; it descended and came to dwell within him, and that man became a living soul. It called his name Adam, since he was found moving upon the ground.


Frankly, Peter, I had imagined that the your question was more interesting. Really are you doubting about the presence of these things in these texts?


You can doubt about the my interpretation of Mark, in any moment. But not about the fact that in the Gnostic texts the demiurge was hated and despised for example.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: On the anti-marcionite spittle of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:28 pm

The fact that usually Jesus knows "what the pharisees thought in their hearts" is the marcionite feature of the Good God, whereas the demiurge didn't know where Adam was ("Adam, where are you?").

There is only another point in all the Gospels, in addition to the Bethsaida episode, where Jesus shows ignorance that would provoke apparently embarrassment for the marcionite Jesus:

Luke 8:43-48


43 And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,

44 Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.

45 And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?

46 And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.

47 And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately.

48 And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.

The Law declares a woman with a flow of blood to be impure and forbids her to touch anyone. So the woman saves herself by denying in the same time the Torah.

But why does Jesus show ignorance? And a ignorance worthy of the worse demiurge?

Jesus seems surprised that just the woman allegorizing Israel ("12 years") shows a faith anti-Torah.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5254
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: On the anti-marcionite spittle of Jesus

Post by Peter Kirby » Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:23 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:41 pm
Frankly, Peter, I had imagined that the your question was more interesting.
Take it as a compliment. I understand that asking about sources is going to come across as being more inquisitorial than inquisitive, in the brief comment I left to ask, but it was just a simple question about sources. It wasn't supposed to be interesting. I never said that I found your idea (that there were Gnostics who thought there was a second attempt at creating life, aided by Sophia) implausible. I just wanted to know what it was based on.
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:41 pm
You can doubt about the my interpretation of Mark, in any moment.
I wasn't even talking about that. But, yes, it is entirely open to doubt.
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:41 pm
Really are you doubting about the presence of these things in these texts?
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:41 pm
But not about the fact that in the Gnostic texts the demiurge was hated and despised for example.
Let's not talk past each other or poke at straw men. My question was specifically about this:
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:41 pm
it was necessary for the Creator to animate the creation by the help of Sophia (i.e., with a second attempt)
We're not changing the subject to "the fact that in the Gnostic texts the demiurge was hated and despised."
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:41 pm
The words of Samael '' let it become visible to me!'' (a parody of the words ''fiat lux!'' of Genesis) is an implicit appeal to a higher deity to reveal herself in the creature of the demiurge. So I see in the construct:
And immediately Sophia stretched forth her finger and introduced light into matter
precisely the action of Sophia who animates matter. ''Light'' is life, here.
These are two distinct ideas: Does "let it become visible to me!'' invoke the creation story's "let there be light"? Sure, why not? And, further, is "light" actually "life" and is illumination, animation? The answer to the second question is "no" until proven otherwise. Light is light, which is distinct from life. Illumination is illumination, which is distinct from animation. These actions are performed on different days during creation and are different actions. Separating day from night with light was its own action, which wasn't the creation of life. Proceeding based on a false equivocation provides a very shaky foundation.

I still think the idea that Sophia helped with a second attempt at creating life after an initial failure by the demiurge ("it was necessary for the Creator to animate the creation by the help of Sophia (i.e., with a second attempt)") is plausible, but I'm also still left wanting ancient sources by or about Gnostics that express it, without equivocation. I'm actually quite optimistic that we could find those sources, which is why I ask again: do you know any?

I am asking out of interest, not as a way to try to undermine your speculation about Mark. That hasn't been my intent in this thread at any point. I just wanted to know the sources for this idea because I find it interesting.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

Post Reply