Origen, Comm. in Matth. 15:3: Marcion's distance from the enigmatic obscurity of Mark (and of Thomas)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12516
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Origen, Comm. in Matth. 15:3: Marcion's distance from the enigmatic obscurity of Mark (and of Thomas)

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:33 pm

no, no, the things are more complex than you say.
You only make things complicated so you can make material bend to your dictates.

1. Origen and Marcion cut off their balls because of Matthew 15:3.
2. Marcion was honest and didn't give a fuck how outsiders would view the command.
3. Origen was a scared sissy who was more dishonest than Marcion and was basically hired by Ambrose to 'make up shit' to protect that third century Alexandrian community from outsiders.

The reality is that literalism can lead to heresy. The heresiarchs make it seem that the heresies got into trouble because they 'made shit up.' But in reality literalism was often the source of heresy not merely interpretation (as Irenaeus characterizes the situation in AH 3.2).

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8142
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen, Comm. in Matth. 15:3: Marcion's distance from the enigmatic obscurity of Mark (and of Thomas)

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:34 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:24 pm
And this sort of literalism associated with the Marcionites is found elsewhere. For instance the Marcionites took the Jewish writings in a straightforward manner = i.e. they understood that the prophesies were directed toward a messiah who would liberate the Jews from foreign rule. That's the Jewish understanding of the scriptures. As such Marcion is accused of 'Jewishness.'
no, the point of Couchoud is that the literalism, the clear talking, is in action also in the New Testament (the Evangelion) and not only in the OT scriptures. Christ talks clear because his clarity frustrates the Demiurge's conspiracy that the people don't hear.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8142
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen, Comm. in Matth. 15:3: Marcion's distance from the enigmatic obscurity of Mark (and of Thomas)

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:39 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:33 pm
no, no, the things are more complex than you say.
You only make things complicated so you can make material bend to your dictates.

1. Origen and Marcion cut off their balls because of Matthew 15:3.
no, it is evident that Marcion rejects the logion about the cutting off the balls.

Please don't disturb my threads with your dogmatic claims about a "Jewish Marcion" of your total invention.

Put bluntly, there is more in common between the god of Marcion and the Persian Aurah Mazda than between the god of Marcion and your "Second Power" in heaven.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8142
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen, Comm. in Matth. 15:3: Marcion's distance from the enigmatic obscurity of Mark (and of Thomas)

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:46 pm

I am sorry Secret Alias but you are too much distant from my interpretation of Marcion.

I like to find the POLEMICAL REASON Mark insists on secrecy when Marcion insists on clarity.

You, at contrary, talk stupidly about generic literalism versus generic allegorism but that is not the true point. The true point is that the Light adored by Marcion was disruptive of any Jewish tradition. A light that the adorers of YHWH couldn't tolerate at all.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen, Comm. in Matth. 15:3: Marcion's distance from the enigmatic obscurity of Mark (and of Thomas)

Post by Peter Kirby » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:20 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:39 pm
Please don't disturb my threads with your dogmatic claims about a "Jewish Marcion" of your total invention.
Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:46 pm
I am sorry Secret Alias but you are too much distant from my interpretation of Marcion.
Guiseppe, you don't have a right to have your threads undisturbed by others who have very different views.

Discussion on the board thrives when people can contribute from different perspectives. Surely, if you didn't want interaction and disagreement with your posts, you could just hide them away and write a book about it. On a forum, the expectation is that a discussion can follow.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12516
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Origen, Comm. in Matth. 15:3: Marcion's distance from the enigmatic obscurity of Mark (and of Thomas)

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:34 pm

The bottom line is:

1. Giuseppe has a unique approach to Biblical exegesis - i.e. a fixed idea about gnosticism etc and a fixed methodology i.e. bending any paragraph, sentence or word to agree with this prejudice
2. Giuseppe obviously feels comfortable with this approach so he apparently sees himself as part of a 'gnostic milieu' that did the same.
3. The reality is however that despite Irenaeus's efforts to the contrary there was no such thing as 'gnosticism' per se. A gnostic was a type. There wasn't a 'gnostic' movement. Plato proscribes what a gnostikos is or how it functions and later writers were influenced by Plato much like Philo of Alexandria etc.
4. Most Christians saw themselves as 'Christians' and assumed that their beliefs were the correct ones.
5. Irenaeus, likely following Marcion, divided the world into right belief about Christianity and wrong belief. Who knows how strictly any of these distinctions were viewed by contemporaries or every day people.
6. In Judaism with respect to kabbalah, the mystical exegesis of the Bible was used by all Jews to varying degrees. There was no 'mystical Jewish' tradition per se. There was Judaism and rabbinic authorities used a variety of exegetical tools including the mystical sort.
7. Similarly there is no reason to believe that in the second century there were any absolutely strict literalists or absolutely strict allegorists. Somethings were attributed to 'tradition' and others to the literal exegesis.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8142
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen, Comm. in Matth. 15:3: Marcion's distance from the enigmatic obscurity of Mark (and of Thomas)

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:01 pm

Peter Kirby wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:20 pm
On a forum, the expectation is that a discussion can follow.
Right as usual, but Secret Alias seems to be reluctant to understand my points.

There are various possibilities with the origin of "Gnosticism" and I agree.


But the point is that Paul-Louis Couchoud and Markus Vinzent are totally identical when they deal with the genesis of the Gospels. They differ only about Paul and the Pillars: for Couchoud, the Pillars placed their Lamb immolated in heaven, and Paul placed his Christ crucified in heaven. While Markus Vinzent is historicist in virtue of the stupid "born by woman, born under the law" of Galatians 4:4. I think that Vinzent is historicist only because that is the price to pay to be accepted in the academic world with his thesis about the Marcionite priority.

Secret Alias thinks wrongly that for me Marcion comes before the Pillars and Paul, while I think at contrary that the Pillars and Paul were adorers of YHWH. Marcion came only later, but even with this delay, he wrote the Earliest Gospel, so euhemerizing Jesus on earth.

Given these premises, of grace how can Secret Alias say, for example, that :
Giuseppe has a unique approach to Biblical exegesis - i.e. a fixed idea about gnosticism etc and a fixed methodology i.e. bending any paragraph, sentence or word to agree with this prejudice
There are various degrees, and diversity of degrees is a richness, but the minimal degree I can't give up about is the idea that Marcion, as a phenomenon of 135-150 CE, considered YHWH as an evil demiurge and Jesus as the anti-YHWH, possibly the same Genesiac Serpent descended on earth.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8142
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen, Comm. in Matth. 15:3: Marcion's distance from the enigmatic obscurity of Mark (and of Thomas)

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:10 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:34 pm
3. The reality is however that despite Irenaeus's efforts to the contrary there was no such thing as 'gnosticism' per se. A gnostic was a type. There wasn't a 'gnostic' movement.
The idea that there was a "gnostic" movement is a hypothesis simply NOT necessary for my (and Couchoud's and Vinzent's) case.

What is necessary for my case is that, for example, Marcion had the Parable of the Lamp and his meaning was: the Light of the lamp, revealed to all (=gentile Christians), destroyes the darkness where YHWH wanted to place the entire human race and particularly the Jews until Marcion.

Mark, against Marcion, invented a Jesus who preaches secrecy and double-meaning and enigmatic obscurity and not clarity, since Mark had realized that the excessive clarity in Marcion worked as an anti-YHWH leit-motif.

Now, I presume that Secret Alias's answer in this case would be: the Parable of the Lamp is not found in Marcion's Gospel, and the marcionite interpretation given by Tertullian to the Parable of the Lamp is not the true Marcionite interpretation.

With these hallucinating premises, how can I discuss with a so dogmatic person ? :| :confusedsmiley: :consternation:

mlinssen
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Origen, Comm. in Matth. 15:3: Marcion's distance from the enigmatic obscurity of Mark (and of Thomas)

Post by mlinssen » Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:01 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:10 pm
Secret Alias wrote:
Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:34 pm
3. The reality is however that despite Irenaeus's efforts to the contrary there was no such thing as 'gnosticism' per se. A gnostic was a type. There wasn't a 'gnostic' movement.
The idea that there was a "gnostic" movement is a hypothesis simply NOT necessary for my (and Couchoud's and Vinzent's) case.

What is necessary for my case is that, for example, Marcion had the Parable of the Lamp and his meaning was: the Light of the lamp, revealed to all (=gentile Christians), destroyes the darkness where YHWH wanted to place the entire human race and particularly the Jews until Marcion.

Mark, against Marcion, invented a Jesus who preaches secrecy and double-meaning and enigmatic obscurity and not clarity, since Mark had realized that the excessive clarity in Marcion worked as an anti-YHWH leit-motif.

Now, I presume that Secret Alias's answer in this case would be: the Parable of the Lamp is not found in Marcion's Gospel, and the marcionite interpretation given by Tertullian to the Parable of the Lamp is not the true Marcionite interpretation.

With these hallucinating premises, how can I discuss with a so dogmatic person ? :| :confusedsmiley: :consternation:
The parable of the lamp is another fine example of how the canonicals took the text of Thomas and copied it, as they made a mistake in interpreting / reading this one as well (just like the parable of the leaven, among others):

33. say(s) IS he-who you will hear as-regards he in your ear in the other ear proclaim within he from-upon your(PL.PL) roof not! any indeed ignite candlestick and/or he place he toward ear nor not! he place he in place he hidden rather continue-to he place he from-upon the(F) lampstand in-order-that every-one who/which go inward and who/which be-on-road-to outward they will behold to his light

The double negative is perfectly alright btw

Yes, indeed, it simply says that you hold a lit candle stick to your eye, not your ear. It is the exact same ⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ that we find all over Thomas.
Yet http://coptot.manuscriptroom.com/crum-c ... pageID=213 lead them to believe that it said the same word which means "a measure of grain" just like Americans still use cups and spoons in their metric system, among others. It most certainly doesn't mean anything like bushel or whatever, and that would be a highly unexpected and illogical inanimate object in this scene anyway. Hence why the canonicals fool around with it and have

Mark 4:21 He said to them, "Is the lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed? Isn't
it put on a stand?

https://biblehub.com/greek/3426.htm

Luke 8:16 "No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a container, or puts it under a bed; but puts it on a stand, that those who enter in may see the light.

https://biblehub.com/str/greek/4632.htm

Matthew 5:15 Neither do you light a lamp and put it under a measuring basket, but on a stand; and it shines to all who are in the house.

Matthew follows Mark, the WEB is so extraordinarily inconsistent...

The Gospel sandbox. The smoking gun of the canonicals

mlinssen
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Origen, Comm. in Matth. 15:3: Marcion's distance from the enigmatic obscurity of Mark (and of Thomas)

Post by mlinssen » Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:30 am

mlinssen wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:01 am

Mark 4:21 He said to them, "Is the lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed? Isn't
it put on a stand?

https://biblehub.com/greek/3426.htm

Luke 8:16 "No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a container, or puts it under a bed; but puts it on a stand, that those who enter in may see the light.

https://biblehub.com/str/greek/4632.htm

Matthew 5:15 Neither do you light a lamp and put it under a measuring basket, but on a stand; and it shines to all who are in the house.

Matthew follows Mark, the WEB is so extraordinarily inconsistent...

The Gospel sandbox. The smoking gun of the canonicals
And, in unrelated news, this is also a quite perfect example of Matthew following Luke, or rather, it is a witness against Luke following Matthew

Matthew removes the bed from Mark, and adds the purpose of the lamp.
Luke copies the bed from Mark, and adds the (slightly different, and verbatim Thomas) purpose of the lamp

Luke follows Matthew? Then he adds the bed from Mark back in, and deviates for unknown reasons from the purpose of the lamp introduced by Matthew - there is no movement at all going on in the entire parable so it is absolutely unlikely to come up with it, unless Luke does a verbatim copy of Thomas, of course

Matthew follows Luke? He drops the stupid bed that is so Markan and which testifies to his "errr I'm thinking, I'm thinking!" and copies the purpose of the lamp from Luke, yet without the literal words leading back to Thomas.
Best of both worlds, fine eloquent verse, a typically Matthean finished endproduct. And another one of the 72 Thomas logia copied" without a trace"

Post Reply