YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe »

an ancient inscription to a Marcionite synagogue.
said by the same Joseph D.L. who wrote that he ignores willingly any late witness of Marcionite belief. To my knowledge (I go to memory) the Marcionite synagogue you are talking about:
  • ...dates back to a time AFTER Celsus, hence if you ignore Celsus (who supports my view) as too late then you have to ignore also your "marcionite synagogue" as too late.
  • ...is evidence of the fact that it were the very late Marcionites to become too much judaized, being the "synagogue" a Jewish place of cult. Hence the evolution is from original dualism to late ditheism. See for example the Yazidi, who seems to be Satanists in the eyes of ISIS terrorists but really they are ditheists.
In conclusion, for me your ISHU et similia are bullshit of the same value of Eznik for you, as coming from a very late evolution of Marcionism. Not very useful to understand Marcion of Sinope.
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: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe »

Note that I am not the only to reject abruptly the entire question Isu etc (while I am more open for Chrestos as original). So Roger Parvus:

. The “Marcion Pauline letters” you recently looked at were someone’s conjectural reconstruction of such. I myself am not convinced Marcion used Isu Chrestos instead of Jesus Christ. If he had, I think Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, or Epiphanius would have mentioned it. That some later Marcionites changed “Jesus Christ” to “Isu Chrestos” is certainly possible, but I’ve seen no convincing indication that Marcion himself did.

2. I think Simon/Paul did use the names Jesus and Christ for the Son. I’ll explain why in a later post in the series.

https://vridar.org/2013/11/02/a-simonia ... ment-57288

(my bold)

These only words represent for me the true end of any discussion about a "Marcion the Jew".
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. »

said by the same Joseph D.L. who wrote that he ignores willingly any late witness of Marcionite belief
One should always be sceptical and critical of the sources.

You said that calling Marcion's god Isu Chrestus runs contrary to the consensus view, while it is you yourself running contrary to that view. I have no reason to reject Marcion calling Jesus Isu Chrestus as it doesn't effect me one way or another. What I do reject is your insisting that Marcion was unabashedly anti-Judaism when neither the texts appended to him or the earliest witness to him (Justin) bear that out.
In conclusion, for me your ISHU et similia are bullshit of the same value of Eznik for you, as coming from a very late evolution of Marcionism. Not very useful to understand Marcion of Sinope.
Giuseppe, you're making some really dumb arguments. The reason I dismiss sources like Eznik is because 1) he is late, and 2) he is biased and hostile to Marcionites.

Going back to Lucian, I can accept his timeline for Pergrinus's life because they are not contingent upon his agenda. But Lucian's agenda is to show how Peregrinus was a huckster who conned his way through life. That is the bias and I have to reject that. Same with Irenaeus. I can accept certain facets of his argument, but have to reject others because they are biased. Irenaeus's argument is dependent on his agenda. It's the same with Celsus. If you think he isn't above such falsification then you don't understand the psychology of argumentation.

And your only source for Celsus is Origen, meaning you don't have the full context of Celsus, and it's likely that Origen himself was twisting passages of Celsus to fit his own agenda.

Now if you want to show Marcionite sources that says what you are saying, then show them. But don't filter it through external witnesses like Celsus or Eznik. The inscription of Isu was made by a Marcionite, yet you are rejecting it because it contradicts your Joshua thesis. Who's holding the double standard here?
Last edited by Joseph D. L. on Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 4:34 am Note that I am not the only to reject abruptly the entire question Isu etc (while I am more open for Chrestos as original). So Roger Parvus:

. The “Marcion Pauline letters” you recently looked at were someone’s conjectural reconstruction of such. I myself am not convinced Marcion used Isu Chrestos instead of Jesus Christ. If he had, I think Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, or Epiphanius would have mentioned it. That some later Marcionites changed “Jesus Christ” to “Isu Chrestos” is certainly possible, but I’ve seen no convincing indication that Marcion himself did.

2. I think Simon/Paul did use the names Jesus and Christ for the Son. I’ll explain why in a later post in the series.

https://vridar.org/2013/11/02/a-simonia ... ment-57288

(my bold)

These only words represent for me the true end of any discussion about a "Marcion the Jew".
Despite the fact that Marcion still uses Jewish sources in the texts attached to him, which you still refuse to either acknowledge or explain. I guess they just wondered into his texts by those evil Judaizers.

Irenaeus bares witness that Christians were given to abbreviating Jesus's name. The problem here is that he is working backwards. The abbreviation came first, Jesus came second.

Image

As I said, I think there is something between Helios and Isu. Eos is probably derived from Helios directly, so Ἥλιος becomes Ἠώς. Since Marcion came from northern Phyrgian it was probably a localized variant. Apollo/Apelles is of a similar vain. The omega was attached to signify his role of finisher, destroyer. So Marcion's mediator should be called ἨΣΩ, all uppercase, or ESU. It's similar to the trigrammaton of yahweh, or IAO, which is properly spelled out as IAu, with a lowercase omega, because it is derived from the Hebrew YHW instead of the full tetragrammaton YHWH. Isu is the Syrian deviation of the Marcionites, which they used, according to Ephraim (which I'm using because he is relevant here) chose, deliberately ,meaning they made a conscious effort, to distinguish between the Syrian Christians and Jews, who used ܝܫܘܥ, yeshu or isho.

ISU is the Syrian translation of Marcion's Phrygian ESU. But I'm not a linguaphile, nor can I read or understand Greek, Hebrew, or Syriac.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Joseph D. L. »

I can't remember but I think Diodorus wrote that Helios died in a river and was reborn as Eos. So there was a mythological explanation as to why Eos was so similar to Helios. I'll check through Diodorus when I can and come back.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:53 pm I have no reason to reject Marcion calling Jesus Isu Chrestus as it doesn't effect me one way or another.
I think you should, since it is not expected at all that the Son of the Good God is named "It is the DEMIURGE who saves" for Marcion. It is as if Muhammad said that Jesus Christ is the true savior: totally unexpected. Hence the Parvus's criticism of the your view about Ishu and Marcion (and marcionite synagogue etc) remains all.



Joseph D. L. wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:53 pmWhat I do reject is your insisting that Marcion was unabashedly anti-Judaism when neither the texts appended to him or the earliest witness to him (Justin) bear that out.
Insofar anti-Judaism means anti-cosmism and anti-creator, then yes, Marcion was anti-Judaist and more in line with gnosticism (whatever it means).


Joseph D. L. wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:53 pm Going back to Lucian, I can accept his timeline for Pergrinus's life because they are not contingent upon his agenda. But Lucian's agenda is to show how Peregrinus was a huckster who conned his way through life. That is the bias and I have to reject that.
I agree with dr. Detering about Marcion being Peregrinus.
Joseph D. L. wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:53 pm.
And your only source for Celsus is Origen, meaning you don't have the full context of Celsus, and it's likely that Origen himself was twisting passages of Celsus to fit his own agenda.
I am sorry, but I can't follow you here, really. Celsus's words as reported by Origen are genuine. You can say that Origen omitted a lot of the his words, but not that what we have are not his direct words, thanks Origen. I feel myself much similar to Celsus in my approach to Christian texts. I think and I believe it is the more correct approach a true critic may do. I despise them while I read them just as Celsus did, beyond if the author is Marcion or Paul or Mark or Matthew. I am sympathetic only with Celsus, really. Only he poses as an independent giant in the world left by early Christians.
Joseph D. L. wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:53 pm inscription of Isu was made by a Marcionite, yet you are rejecting it because it contradicts your Joshua thesis.
No , I am rejecting it because the (by me) highly praised Roger Parvus gave good reasons (see above) to reject the possibility that Marcion named Isu his hero. Which means only that the marcionite synagogue is strong evidence that the only survived marcionites, by that time, were going to judaize: they rehabilitated, even only partially, the demiurge. A process already in action with Esnik.

ADDENDA
Note another strong reason to reject entirely the possibility that Marcion named Isu the Son and not Jesus. Isu would mean Anthropos but the Man, in Marcionite theology , is a miserable creature of the demiurge, just as all the evil creation of the demiurge. On this point Marcion was more radical than any other Gnostic: no divine parcel buried in the miserable demiurgical creature. A Valentinus had no right to exalt himself as part of supreme god, for Marcion.

The following pussy riot is not marcionite but valentinian:
Image

The Son didn't become a Man, he only appeared docetically as a Man. He was without body. When you claim that Marcion used Isu, then you are catholicizing him more than the Catholics catholicized Jesus.

The risk is that my intolerance about Catholic apologists becomes intolerance about you. :eh: :eh:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply