Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Laziness

[Bertie]

The plausibility of a given transliteration strikes me as a less speculative, more concrete subject than much of what is dealt with here; there's all sorts of proper names in the Septuagint and elsewhere that you can use as examples of how they went from Hebrew to Greek back then and people have probably written papers on the matter.

[Clive]

Was Marcion Jewish?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope

[Stephan Huller]

Bertie:

I have demonstrated already that the LXX translates the name אּישׁ as ΙΣ (which didn't seem to satisfy spin). I don't see what the problem is other than spin (as an elder here at the forum) doesn't accept that ΙΣ was the original nomen sacrum and his old brain seems obsessed with thinking of the nomina sacra as renderings of Ἰησοῦς and then אּישׁ cant account for the η in Ἰησοῦς. But I as a younger thinker am able to look at the problem differently. The Marcionites denied the association with their god's name and Ἰησοῦς (or at least 'Joshua' as the text that says this is in Latin). I also look at Lactantius's statement about the manner in which the 'vulgar' preferred Χρηστὸς over Χριστὸς. We know the Marcionites and other heretics used the Χρηστὸς form. But more specifically Χρηστὸς and Χριστὸς are pronounced the same way (because of itacism). In the very same manner modern Greek and modern Hebrew pronounce Ἰησοῦς and אּישׁ the same way. This is fucking incredible and if it wasn't for the fact that spin is a hundred years old he'd say that there is this consistent distinction between the way the 'vulgar' preserve things (orally) verses what we might expect from the more educated elite.

My argument would be that in the same way that the Marcionite liturgical elements (Sabbath fasting, unleavened bread, ritual celibacy etc) were preserved in the Latin rites this this possibility that 'the vulgar' helped preserve the idea that the name which appeared in the earliest manuscripts according to Hurtado - i.e. ΙΣ - was pronounced as a word (= see example from the LXX). Again this is analogous to the vulgar thinking Jesus's title was Χρηστὸς rather than Χριστὸς.

Can this be proved beyond any reasonable doubt or objection from dinosaur brains? No. But at the same time we have the Church Fathers telling us that Jesus (= pronounced eesu by any Greek we have testifying about its pronunciation arguably back to Irenaeus) was the being called eeshu (= אִשּׁ֣וֹ) in the Pentateuch and the same angel called אּישׁ (אִשּׁ֣ being the root of אִשּׁ֣וֹ) was Jesus, the 'man' god who wrestled with Jacob, who appeared to Moses and Joshua too.

No this isn't as obvious as going without food for a week and enjoying a meal or holding your cock in your hand but I think its pretty damn close.

Clive:

Markus Vinzent has written a paper on the subject of Marcion's Jewishness (which didn't seem to impress Andrew Criddle here at the forum). Nevertheless I think (a) no one could have done a better job with it and (b) I happen to agree with the general premise. Have you ever seen American X? It's like that.

[outhouse]

But surely there is an 'if' here. I mean as 'obvious' as it may seem to you that Jesus 'must have been' a human being:

1. the oldest Pauline tradition is Marcion
2. Marcion's gospel begins with 'Jesus' coming down from heaven to a Jewish house of worship
3. Marcion's Jesus was a God
4. Marcion's gospel has Jesus repeatedly deny that he was the messiah (of the Jews)

I can't definitively say that Jesus was never originally human. But at the same time, if Marcion is the original Pauline tradition then this extremely old tradition has a say in who or what Jesus really was.

But you know, I hope.

That this was only one of many early traditions.

if Marcion is the original Pauline tradition

Good luck with that.

[Stephan Huller]

So who do you think embodies an earlier Pauline tradition? Irenaeus?

[John T]

Marcion accepted only the Gospel of Luke and some of the writings of Paul and even these he had to altered to fit his Gnostic teachings.

"The serious gaps Marcion had made in this epistle [to the Romans], especially by withdrawing whole passages at his will, can be clear from the unmutilated text of our own copy." Tertullian (c.207, W), 3.467

"With regard to those [i.e., the Marcionites] who allege that Paul alone knew the truth and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, let Paul himself convict them."...Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W). 1.459

"The Marcionites are those whom the apostle John designated as antichrists, for they deny that Christ has come in the flesh...Now, the more firmly the antichrist Marcion had seized this assumption, the more prepared was he, of course, to reject the bodily substance of Christ."...Tertullian (c 207, W), 3.327.

"Marcion met Polycarp on one occasion, and said, "Do you know me?" Polycarp replied, "I do know you, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror that the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth."..Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.416.

What we have in Marcion is a typical example of how arrogant people try to rewrite Jesus into their own image.
True in the 1st century, true in the 21st century.

Sincerely,

John T

[outhouse]

So who do you think embodies an earlier Pauline tradition? Irenaeus?

Pauline tradition can be perverted by anyone equally.

[Stephan Huller]

While that may be true, Marcion is associated with Paul before anyone else. Only theologians dismiss the Marcionite connection to the Pauline tradition nowadays. The only question is what was Marcionitism, this is up for debate.

[Clive]

Marcion accepted only the Gospel of Luke and some of the writings of Paul and even these he had to altered to fit his Gnostic teachings.

"The serious gaps Marcion had made in this epistle [to the Romans], especially by withdrawing whole passages at his will, can be clear from the unmutilated text of our own copy." Tertullian (c.207, W), 3.467

"With regard to those [i.e., the Marcionites] who allege that Paul alone knew the truth and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, let Paul himself convict them."...Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W). 1.459

"The Marcionites are those whom the apostle John designated as antichrists, for they deny that Christ has come in the flesh...Now, the more firmly the antichrist Marcion had seized this assumption, the more prepared was he, of course, to reject the bodily substance of Christ."...Tertullian (c 207, W), 3.327.

"Marcion met Polycarp on one occasion, and said, "Do you know me?" Polycarp replied, "I do know you, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror that the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth."..Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.416.

What we have in Marcion is a typical example of how arrogant people try to rewrite Jesus into their own image.
True in the 1st century, true in the 21st century.

Sincerely,

John T

Why accept the word of people who are using such invective against someone?

[Stephan Huller]

Exactly and no one does any more. I remember at my extremely liberal Canadian university Glendon College had a book sale getting rid of old books. I remember flipping through one of those books and it was about the 'science' of African people's skulls demonstrating their inferiority to Caucasian ones. It takes a conscious effort to cut through the biases and prejudices of our ancestors and not everyone tries as hard to get rid of them.