The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 12:51 am
Stuart wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 10:32 am This is wrong.
I highly doubt it. There's no reason to trust the Falsifying Fathers, and the shorter ending of Mark is very telling.
The women, the women, the women: from 15:40 till 16:8 they are in every possible place where they can be mentioned, and it is in the typical Markan way.
Mark is creating an excuse and he starts doing so at 15:40

"But there is no reason not to think that the Marcionite author would not have extended the base text, perhaps more closely adhered to in Mark"

The thing is, if you strip the women and the dumb burial, then you get to *Ev; the end at 15:39 is a beautiful open ending.
Needless to say, the Falsifying Fathers can't be trusted.
But let's suppose, for arguments sake, that *Ev indeed ended at
Mark 15:39 - would they have commented on that, and why?
Would they have made a great show out of Marcion not having the burial and the resurrection?
If so, why - and if not, then why not?
It's an interesting question by me, if I say so myself.
Let's suppose there's only Mark 16:8 and nothing further, to keep matters simple

1) Would the FF whine that Marcion falsified the resurrection?

A - no, because then they would have had to say where his text ended, and it would be pretty blatantly obvious that Mark 15:40-16:8 is a very longwinded attempt to blame the poor innocent women for a lie that is in the making while we're at it

B - yes, because it would prove Marcion to have removed something from the gospels, which is the only accusation against him and also one that they continuously fail hard to demonstrate. So this is a once in a lifetime chance really!
Of course they still would have to say where *Ev ended but that would be not problematic because... it doesn't really matter that Jesus is resurrected and doesn't put that to any other use but eating and drinking and boasting about his bones?

C - the end of Jesus, no matter in which version or stage you consider it, in all reality and actuality is in fact just really shit. A death without heroism, ruined by the need to throw scripture at it and it really couldn't deviate an awful lot from the boring story that Mark has, even though Matthew had his own drama, far-fetched and preposterously pathetic as it is, not to mention what he adds to Luke. But we digress.
Then the resurrection - I mean really, what to do with the women? They'll have to remain the ones the angel speaks to, and all we can do is to make the return of Jesus exciting. But then Matthew so thoroughly ruins it all!!!

D - there's nothing to do about it really, it is evident that *Ev wants to lay the blame on the Judaics by not having Jesus resurrected (let's just go with that flow shall we) and he's even willing to sacrifice the, errrrr, thingy for that?
What on earth could they have done about it? Isn't it just completely unfeasible that Marcion would have dropped the resurrection? Or do I just lack the necessary imaginative brain cells at the moment?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

So the short and simple question is:

If Marcion really ended at Mark 15:39, how would the Falsifying Fathers have reacted?

Anything goes really, just be creative please - thanks
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:26 pm viewtopic.php?p=39331#p39331

Ben's report of Roth's reconstruction will suffice

What is striking in these last chapters is that none of the Falsifying Fathers accuses Marcion of any falsification except for Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.6 - who is either lying or, as Roth states, reading a variant reading

Here's what I think to be more likely though, and this is - for a change - just a broad outline:

Marcion ends at Mark 15:39, the centurion proclaiming Jesus to be the son of God.
Mark has to mitigate the "fact" that Romans killed Jesus at the instigation of Judaics but can't undo it, so he adds up till 16:8 in order to suggest that Jesus lived; the women are put on the scene immediately in 15:40 with the sole goal of their sole role: to take the brunt for no one knowing that "in fact" Jesus did arise from the grave. A pathetically feeble story but at least he tries to make it plausible by conjuring an impartial aid to the scene: Joseph "the disciplest", an allegedly trustworthy source who isn't one of the Twelve nor one of the Judaics.
Then naturally the story develops that the disciples faked his resurrection by hiding his body: Matthew 28:11-15, and by incorporating it into his own gospel Matthew successfully p0wns that.
Matthew then adds an incredibly lengthy narrative to his *Ev copy, Luke, but can't resist letting Peter take credit for being the first to discover the risen Christ by letting him find the bindings - while the women were still unbelieving, Peter isn't! Matthew sticks to the Markan story in his own gospel though, he often uses Luke to go an extra mile while keeping his own narrative pristine

The Falsifying Fathers do comment on Jesus challenging the disciples to check his wounds and such, but they hardly could have let that occasion pass.
Yet the true and ferocious force of *Ev is that it is the Romans and Judaics who kill the god or at least hero of Chrestianity - it would be a silly story with the resurrection without bragging about it.
"Those damn Judaics thought they could kill me huh?!" is an opportunity that really, truly, honestly can't be resisted - and I really fail to see the point in coming up with a first story that narrates about a killed and resurrected protagonist; that just really, really wild

Chrestianity was a source of civil unrest across the Roman Empire but largely went unnoticed because it only targeted Judaics - who received the brunt and got expelled left and right in order to take away the fuel to the fire.
We have fine sources to all of that:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish% ... Roman_wars

The Judaics found themselves caught between a hammer and an anvil: the Chrestians persecuted them and the Romans did nothing to prevent it. After almost a century of war, which was preceded by the first bans of Judaics in Rome around 50 CE, Romans began to rewrite the Chrestian history and Justin is the first attempt there, and so is Paul - but nothing is put into gospel and letter writings until 175-ish CE

Why do we find a Tertullian still writing about Marcion around 210? Because it was a burning, contemporary problem
And it's just really utterly coincidental that I posted this on April Fools', scout's honour. I've already finished the paper, this will be my last I suppose

It's crystal clear really, how can this be any less obvious?
The women come out of nowhere guys, this even is Salome's sole cameo in all of the NT!
Hello-oh, anyone home?
And I never knew of course, because I'm thick as fook, but Mary Magdalene only appears after the crucifixion and at the tomb, save for Luke 8.
These women got invented right here, in Mark, and it is mighty coincidental that Thomas also has a Salome and now we only need to look for a Magdalene (and there's one in Philip)

A few MSS even have a Mariham. Ah, this is the final strike.
Never mind me, do carry on
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:49 pm Well even if whoever formed Matthew wasn't who crafted Luke as well, then they probably believed pretty much the same thing. I take your point they might as well have been the same person

But all those references to Paul and the resurrection are vague about it being physical. Very often they can be taken in a spiritual sense because he is not too clear what he means. If you knew nothing of Jesus you wouldn't assume it was physical and maybe Christ was raised from the dead into heaven with a new spiritual body? If the physical resurrection was key to Paul why doesn't he speak about it, talking about how he was seen and so on?

He says things like "Since then you have been raised with Christ set your hearts on things above"
How are people raised with Christ when they are alive? But if to Paul Christ's resurrection was into heaven then the old dies (his body) and the new life (as a spirit) begins. There's still a resurrection after death but I think you could interpret that he is comparing the pre-conversion life to Jesus's body and after being saved to his spiritual resurrection/ascension

What i'm getting at is, if Marcion wanted to adopt Paul and also if he wanted to not preach a physical resurrection he could easily do it. I'm not saying he did and only pointing out the vagueness in Paul, I don't know enough about Marcion, only that he could have done if he wanted which would fit your Mark ending idea
Paul never existed, "he" never had any followers, nor did any Jesus: all these texts were written solely to rewrite history, to read from.
I see a historical basis that seeded these texts however obscured that might be and no-one had much more idea about it than we do when some of the NT texts were being written, 100 years later. If the original movement survived and didn't change it probably would have been called heretical. I find that so ironic i wouldn't want to miss out on that feeling of existential irony by thinking it was all fiction
You'll like Tabor - forgive me if you sent me the link LOL.
I'm high on adrenaline, I get those every now and then

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... ifference/
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by Charles Wilson »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:38 amA few MSS even have a Mariham. Ah, this is the final strike.
Never mind me, do carry on
OH!!!

You mean something like, "City of the Lamb"?
(That would be "Immar" => "Immer" which would be "Jabnit", a small town down the road from "Meiron", Home of the Mishmarot Group "Jehoiarib".)

Yeah, that makes sense...

CW
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

The story of the stolen body is created by the gospel writers in response to Marcion ending with Judaics and Romans killing Jesus

Mark adds his 15:40-16:8 to *Ev, in order to tell that the followers of Jesus were even told that Jesus had risen - hence why he invents Joseph of Arimathea as the one burying Jesus: an outsider, who likely never contacted the disciples again after he would or could have found out that the tomb was empty.
Hence why Mary Magdalene and Salome are invented by Mark as well: they make their first appearance in 15:40 - only in order to create a business case for them visiting the tomb, the only business case to which is the alleged angel allegedly departing after he has allegedly told them that the alleged Jesus has allegedly risen without anyone ever hearing that as a result, because the stoopid women who received the gawdly message ran for their sorry lives instead!!!

And then Matthew adds 28:11-15 - not in order to refute the story of the stolen body, but to create it!

And then Luke has his 24:9-11 in order to cut the women some slack: they in fact really did tell others, cross my heart and swear to die, but those merely didn't believe these poor females - yes, really, honestly

And the real extent of editorial brutality manifests itself in the absolute reluctance to add anything to Mark! Perhaps the reason there is helped by the astonishingly low number of MSS going around, but what is easier then to add to the end of a text?!
The lack of adding to Mark seems to attest to a lack of organised falsification - even after canonisation no one took the trouble to do so.
Why?

Anyway, just tell me please: what is Mark trying to say with his ending of 15:40-16:8?
What's the message there?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

I know I'm doing an SA here and mostly merely talking to myself, but I'm having the time of my life.
I'm refining my paper on the side and writing things left and right, and this will be my last paper for a good while to come

I've always thought that the next paper would change the world and while I have written many of those (Absolute Thomasine Priority, Chrestian in NHL, impalement paper, the Commentary, the stirogram paper, etc) this biblical world moves hardly at all, and the real world just doesn't give a damn.
And it doesn't seem to stop really, not anywhere: everything in this, around this, surrounding this - all of it is rotten to the core. I have been on this for almost 3 years now, written over 2,000 pages, and over a thousand posts here (and I do write elsewhere too). But everything that I touch just falls apart, into a thousand pieces. Am I the only critical mind here? I reckon not - yet I don't want any of this, I don't care about any of it. If anything, I want to untaint Thomas, to undo the Christian bias and falsifications so that we learn the truth about it, the beauty in it. And yes, of course I'm rather miffed that Christianity hid Thomas for the rest of the world and replaced it with the most hateful movement that this planet ever witnessed; hundreds of millions of people died and suffered from this disease, this labour of hate

But the last thing that I have always looked for - or rather, never decided to look for because there weren't any leads - is WHY Christianity got created. I am intrigued by puzzles and that really is the real puzzle, and the last piece to solve after finding its source(s).
Why this giant effort of falsifications and fabrications, so obviously false in all regards? I am quite sure that Josephus, most if not all of it, is part and parcel of the Falsification Factory. I am convinced beyond the shred of a doubt that all of the Septuagint is, and that really no one gave a damn about the Hebrew bible, especially because Gmirkin has so convincingly demonstrated that that too is a falsification, and not created prior to 290 BCE

But now I have found it: a perfectly legitimate reason for the nation-wide creation of Christianity on top of Chrestianity. A solid business case, a very legitimate reason for all the lies, falsifications and fabrications. Because one can detest or hate anything or anyone, but it is impossible that this came about at this scale "just for fun". People can be false, fake and dishonest, but not this false, fake and dishonest and not at this scale simultaneously

So here I find myself, being the first one ever again (to the best of my knowledge) and again realising that just nobody gives a damn - so this will be it, and where I feared for my life when writing ATP, I now doubt that anyone cares: those who don't, don't - and those who do, just will disagree. The latter will simply be caught forever in their preprogrammed straitjacket, unable to transcend it - I have witnessed that hundreds of times with Thomas now, and only one or two will protest but have not even one single argument, all they can do is say "no it ain't red, it's green!!!!" and not progress beyond that futile fruitlessness

And now I forgot what I came here for LOL, although I think it was a reverse-engineering of Mark's ending. So here goes:


8 And having gone out, they fled from the tomb, for trembling and amazement had seized them. And they spoke nothing to anyone; for they were afraid.

This actually is the only thing that Mark wants to tell, and whatever precedes this is just filling, build up, justifying the path to this rather bold and excruciatingly grand statement: Jesus Lives!
Nobody knows, that's true, for they were afraid. And because they were afraid, they spoke nothing to anyone. In actuality, they fled from the tomb, for trembling and amazement had seized them

5 And having entered into the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a white robe, sitting on the right; and they were greatly amazed.
6 And he says to them, “Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus, the Nazarene, the One having been crucified. He is risen! He is not here! Behold the place where they laid Him.
7 But go, say to His disciples and to Peter that He goes before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”

And they had very good reasons for that, because when they entered into the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a white robe. And he told them that Jesus, the Nazarene, the One having been crucified. He is risen!. And he further told them to say to His disciples and to Peter that He goes before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you

And that quite understandable was not merely shocking them, it was a devastating "surprise" - because none of them had anything the like in mind:

47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph were watching where He was laid.
Mark 16
1 And the Sabbath having passed, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that having come, they might anoint Him.
2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb, the sun having arisen.
3 And they were saying among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?”
4 And having looked up, they see that the stone has been rolled away; for it was extremely large.

They merely witnessed the burial and were watching where He was laid - and they bought spices, that they might anoint Him.
So very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb and they see that the stone has been rolled away.

40 And there were also women looking on from afar off, among whom also were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the least and of Joseph, and Salome,
41 who had been following Him and had been ministering to Him when He was in Galilee, and many other ones having come up with Him to Jerusalem.
42 And evening having arrived already, since it was the Preparation, that is, the day before Sabbath,
43 having come, Joseph from Arimathea, a prominent Council member, who was also himself waiting for the kingdom of God, having boldness, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.
44 And Pilate wondered if already He were dead. And having summoned the centurion, he questioned him whether He had died already.
45 And having known it from the centurion, He granted the body to Joseph.
46 And having bought a linen cloth, having taken Him down, he wrapped Him in the linen cloth and laid Him in a tomb which was cut out of a rock. And he rolled a stone to the door of the tomb
.

So you see, these were just women looking on from afar off, who had been following Him and had been ministering to Him, like many other ones having come up with Him to Jerusalem, and they watched the burial afterwards

39 And the centurion standing opposite of Him, having seen that He breathed His last, thus said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”

And that, my friends, is how you never heard of anything else that happened after the death of Jesus
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10905
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:26 pm Marcion ends at Mark 15:39, the centurion proclaiming Jesus to be the son of God.
Mark has to mitigate the "fact" that Romans killed Jesus at the instigation of Judaics but can't undo it, so he adds up till 16:8
this view is not new. Already Georges Ory thought that Joseph of Arimathea was introduced as "secret disciple" to mask the pure and simple fact that none knew about him, or about a burial of Jesus.

So in Marcion Jesus disappeared on the cross itself. The centurion witnessed the empty cross.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:16 am
mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:26 pm Marcion ends at Mark 15:39, the centurion proclaiming Jesus to be the son of God.
Mark has to mitigate the "fact" that Romans killed Jesus at the instigation of Judaics but can't undo it, so he adds up till 16:8
this view is not new. Already Georges Ory thought that Joseph of Arimathea was introduced as "secret disciple" to mask the pure and simple fact that none knew about him, or about a burial of Jesus.

So in Marcion Jesus disappeared on the cross itself. The centurion witnessed the empty cross.
Hah! You have read everything Giuseppe, thank you very much for that!

The Falsifying fathers do gloat in the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus, yes. And they do rub it in, pretending that *Ev also contains those parts.
The centurion may be a Markan invention as well, Luke 23:47(-49) are unattested - and what better ending is there, to *Ev, then this? (I fixed the translation)

Καὶ (And) φωνήσας (having sounded) φωνῇ (in a voice) μεγάλῃ (great), ὁ (-) Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) εἶπεν (said), “Πάτερ (Father), εἰς (into) χεῖράς (the hands) σου (of You) παρατίθεμαι (I transfer) τὸ (the) πνεῦμά (Spirit) μου (of Me).” f τοῦτο (This) δὲ (now) εἰπὼν (having said), ἐξέπνευσεν (He ex-Spirited).

To place before, serve up, "lay at feet":

παρατίθημι Dor. and poet. παρτίθημι (late forms from παρατίθω PMagPar. 1.333, Tab.Defix.Aud. 26.27) ; 3 sg. παρτιθεῖ, παρατιθεῖ, Od. 1.192, Hdt. 4.73 ; impf. -ετίθει Ar. Ach. 85, Eq. 1223 ; aor. Act. παρέθηκα, Med. παρεθέμην ; pf. παρατέθεικα ; in Att. παράκειμαι generally serves as the Pass. : — place beside, πὰρ δὲ τίθει δίφρον Od. 21.177, cf. 182 (tm.), Berl.Sitzb. 1927.167 (Cyrene), etc. ; [εἰκόσι] κόσμον OGI 90.40 (Rosetta, ii BC).
freq. of meals, set before, serve up, σφιν δαῖτ' ἀγαθὴν παραθήσομεν Il. 23.810, cf. 9.90 (tm.) ; ἥ οἱ βρῶσίν τε πόσιν τε παρτιθεῖ Od. 1.192 ; πὰρ δ' ἐτίθει σπλάγχνων μοίρας 20.260 ; [νῶτα βοὸς] γέρα πάρθεσαν αὐτῷ 4.66 ; νῦν οἱ παράθες ξεινήϊα καλά Il. 18.408 ; ξείνιά τ' εὖ παρέθηκεν 11.779, cf. Od. 9.517 (tm.) ; θεὰ παρέθηκε τράπεζαν 5.92 ; c. gen., τῷ νεκρῷ πάντων παρατιθεῖ Hdt. 4.73, cf. 1.119 (Pass.) ; παρετίθεσαν ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν κρέα X. An. 4.5.31 ; οἱ παρατιθέντες the serving-men, Id. Cyr. 8.8.20 ; τὰ παρατιθέμενα meats set before one (with or without βρώματα), ib. 2.1.30, 5.2.16 ; in Com., Ar. Ach. 85, Eq. 52, 57, Aristomen. 12, etc. ; of a sacrificial meal, σκέλος τοῦ πράτου βοὸς παρθέντω τῷ θιῷ IG4²(1).41.11 (Epid., v/iv BC).
of a mother, put to the breast, Sor. 1.105.
generally, provide, furnish, αἲ γὰρ ἐμοὶ… θεοὶ δύναμιν παραθεῖεν (v.l. περιθεῖεν) oh that they would place power at my disposal !, Od. 3.205 ; π. ἑκάστων τῶν σοφῶν ἀπογεύσασθαι, i.e. π. ἕκαστα τὰ σοφὰ ὥστε ἀπογεύσασθαι αὐτῶν, Pl. Tht. 157c ; π. αὐτοῖς… ἀναγιγνώσκειν… ποιήματα Id. Prt. 325e ; — Med., expose for sale, Arist. HA 622b34.
place upon, στεφάνους παρέθηκε καρήατι Hes. Th. 577 (nisi leg. περίθηκε).
lay before one, explain, X. Cyr. 1.6.14 ; π. ἔν τισι ὡς οὐ χρή… POxy. 2110.6 (iv AD) ; allege, produce, Is. 9.32 ; ὑποδείγματα Phld. Mus. p. 79 K. ; παραβολὴν π. αὐ τοῖς Ev. Matt. 13.24 ; — Med., v. infr. B. 5.
put or provide side by side, ὁμοῦ λύπας ἡδοναῖς π. Pl. Phlb. 47a ; παρατεθείσης τῆς ἀπολογίας (sc. τῇ κατηγορίᾳ) Demad. 6 ; set side by side, compare, τινά τινι Plu. Demetr. 12.
Gramm., place side by side, juxtapose (opp. συντίθημι form a compound), ADysc. Pron. 42.5, al. (Pass.).
deposit, = παρακατατίθημι, Charito 8.4 (s.v.l.), v. infr. B. 2.
Med., set before oneself, have set before one, ἐπὴν δαΐδας παραθεῖτο Od. 2.105 codd., cf. 19.150, 24.140 ; σκύφος παραθέσθαι E. Cyc. 390 ; τράπεζαν Περσικήν Th. 1.130 ; σῖτον X. Cyr. 8.6.12 ; οἱ τὰ εὐτελέστερα παρατιθέμενοι those who fare less sumptuously, Id. Hier. 1.20 ; have meat set before others, ἠῶθεν δέ κεν ὔμμιν ὁδοιπόριον παραθείμην Od. 15.506 ; provide for oneself, supply oneself with, παρετίθεντο τῶν ἀναγκαίων πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον, ὅσα… Plu. Per. 26.
deposit what belongs to one in another΄s hands, give in charge, τοῦ παραθεμένου τὰ χρήματα Hdt. 686. β' ; τὴν οὐσίαν ταῖς νήσοις π. X. Ath. 2.16 ; τῶν ἀβακείων ἃ παρεθέμεθα παρ' αὐτῷ PCair. Zen. 71 (iii BC), cf. Plb. 3.17.10, PGrenf. 1.14.1 (ii BC), etc. ; deposit deeds or documents, POxy. 237 iv 38 (ii AD), etc. ; give a person in charge to, τινὶ ὀρφανόν Arr. Epict. 2.8.22 ; commend or commit into another΄s hands, εἰς χεῖράς σου τὸ πνεῦμα Ev. Luc. 23.46 ; τινὰς τῷ Κυρίῳ Act. Ap. 14.23, cf. 20.32, 1 Ep. Pet. 4.19 ; commend by a letter of introduction, PGiss. 88.5 (ii AD).
store up in one΄s mind, ἅ τις ὁρᾷ π. παρ' αὑτῷ Plot. 4.4.8.
venture, stake, hazard, σφὰς γὰρ παρθέμενοι κεφαλάς Od. 2.237 ; τοίτ' ἀλόωνται ψυχὰς παρθέμενοι 3.74, cf. Tyrt. 12.18.
apply something of one΄s own to a purpose, employ it, ὄψιν ἐν τῷ διανοεῖσθαι Pl. Phd. 65e.
cite in one΄s own favour, cite as evidence or authority, π. μῦθον, παράδειγμα, Id. Plt. 275b, 279a ; ἀντίγραφον [ἐπιστολῆς] BGU 1004.12 (iii BC) ; ἀποδείξεις Wilcken Chr. 77.5 (ii AD) ; ψήφισμα Plu. 2.833e, cf. D.Chr. 17.10, Ath. 11.479c, Porph. Abst. 1.3, etc. ; mention, ἔννοιάν τινος ADysc. Synt. 65.9 ; ἐκδόσεις π. quote editions, Id. Pron. 89.22 ; abs., quote instances, ib. 52.7, al. ; — rarely in Act., λέξεις π. DH. Dem. 37, v.l. in Id. Comp. 23.
affix, apply a name, τῷ χωρίῳ ὄνομα Paus. 2.14.4.
explain, allege, Wilcken Chr. 20 iii 12 (ii AD), etc.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Georges Ory: correct analysis, right/wrong conclusions?

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:16 am
mlinssen wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:26 pm Marcion ends at Mark 15:39, the centurion proclaiming Jesus to be the son of God.
Mark has to mitigate the "fact" that Romans killed Jesus at the instigation of Judaics but can't undo it, so he adds up till 16:8
this view is not new. Already Georges Ory thought that Joseph of Arimathea was introduced as "secret disciple" to mask the pure and simple fact that none knew about him, or about a burial of Jesus.

So in Marcion Jesus disappeared on the cross itself. The centurion witnessed the empty cross.
I'm reading Ory now, fun!
  1. The so-called Christians who were watched, banished, and sometimes condemned by Rome during the first century AD and part of the second, were not Christians, but were Jewish fanatics who proclaimed the end of the world, and therefore of Rome, and who purported to hasten this end, whether by rebelling through the Messiahs they produced, or by waging a campaign of dire predictions, slander, and even attacks against the Roman empire
    1. No, they were Chrestians
  2. The first Church spoke Greek
    1. Absolutely - the entire Hebrew / Aramaic charade is wishful thinking and based on nothing: there's not a single shred of papyrus found to support any of it
  3. The fall of Jerusalem is ignored by the New Testament
    1. Of course, because it didn't happen - any description would have been easily debunked
  4. much simpler if the mother Church was not in Jerusalem, if Christianity was therefore born in
    Gentile territory, and if it was progressively Judaized late
    1. Yes!
  5. The first Christians did not know about the “Twelve Apostles”
    1. Thomas talks of disciples, Philip of both; the gospels talk of disciples only and Paul ff of apostles: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7719&p=119258
  6. Geographical difficulties
    1. I never knew the extent of falsifications was so ginormous!
  7. The impossibility of a Jewish Christianity in Jerusalem
    1. Yes, that really is hilarious - and there's no mention of any Christianity in or around the Temple of Bar Kokhba LOL
  8. The birthplace of Christianity was not in Judaea
    1. Tell me about it! Chrestianity was birthed in and around Egypt I suppose, yet Christianity at Roman desks
  9. Jewish sources are unaware of Jesus Christ
    1. And all other sources likewise
  10. Some would like, without valid reason, to connect a message sent by the Emperor Claudius to the prefect of Egypt in 41 with the Christians: “I explicitly order the Jews not to bring in or admit Jews who come down the river from Egypt or from Syria, a proceeding which will compel me to conceive serious suspicions. Otherwise, I will by all means take vengeance on them as fomenters of a common plague that is infecting the whole world.”
    1. Holy crap...
  11. The cross of Christ was not a gibbet
    1. Conclusion is correct, analysis is wrong; it appears that Ory never even bothered to read the Greek. His comment is:
      It was still a symbol at the turn of our era, as the evangelists have Jesus say: If any would follow after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross each day, and follow me (Luke 9.23, Mark 8.34, Matt. 16.24). By no means were all these cross-bearers crucified. Jesus the god was speaking of his sign, the cross of light, a symbol of victory and not of death
  12. The oldest manuscripts of Mark are unaware of the Resurrection
    1. That's the sentence and there's nothing to it - which makes it an opinion, and a very bold and unsubstantiated one at that
Well, enough for now. That's a good read Giuseppe.
It really seems like we're all reinventing wheels here, while biblical academic sticks to its circular reasoning in order to uphold their status quo of lies and falsifications so that Christianity doesn't become threatened.
I will endeavour to change that once and for all
Post Reply