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
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 »

Note that Georges Ory also talked about Chrestiani preceding Christians, the former being adorers of the unknown Good God, the latter being banal judaizers of the first. Obviously, Ory was proponent of the Marcionite priority.

He played with the idea of the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate as the historical Jesus, but only for a while: he realized the futility of a historicist research in such sense.

Against the common objection that Chrestiani and Christiani meant the same group via iotacism, Ory so wrote:

Iotacism comes from "iota" letter of the Greek alphabet corresponding to the French i; this term indicates the evolution towards the sound i of vowels such as e and u or of diphthongs such as ei, oi which occurred in post-classical Greek. Even today the Greeks pronounce Tiliphon and Acadimia while some French say: volé for volet, violé for violet, lindi, auquin instead of lundi and aucun. This is why Christus is misspelled and comes from the Greek. Chrestos cannot come from Christus; this would be of iotacism in reverse and contrary to the evolution of language. Iotacism appeared at the time of the Greek decadence; a sign of ignorance. However, the classical pronunciation was still known in the Middle Ages.

(Le Christ et Jésus, my bold)
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 5:34 am Note that Georges Ory also talked about Chrestiani preceding Christians, the former being adorers of the unknown Good God, the latter being banal judaizers of the first. Obviously, Ory was proponent of the Marcionite priority.

He played with the idea of the Samaritan false prophet slain by Pilate as the historical Jesus, but only for a while: he realized the futility of a historicist research in such sense.

Against the common objection that Chrestiani and Christiani meant the same group via iotacism, Ory so wrote:

Iotacism comes from "iota" letter of the Greek alphabet corresponding to the French i; this term indicates the evolution towards the sound i of vowels such as e and u or of diphthongs such as ei, oi which occurred in post-classical Greek. Even today the Greeks pronounce Tiliphon and Acadimia while some French say: volé for volet, violé for violet, lindi, auquin instead of lundi and aucun. This is why Christus is misspelled and comes from the Greek. Chrestos cannot come from Christus; this would be of iotacism in reverse and contrary to the evolution of language. Iotacism appeared at the time of the Greek decadence; a sign of ignorance. However, the classical pronunciation was still known in the Middle Ages.

(Le Christ et Jésus, my bold)
An Analysis of Christian Origins, page 63:

The divine person of Chrestos — from which we get our word “chrétien” — is another
vestige. His confusion with Christus prepared the way for his assimilation with the Anointed,
i.e. the Messiah. This evolution must have taken some time, since, at the time of Lactantius
around 280, the pagans were still calling Christ “Chrestos”.

This is why Christus is misspelled and comes from the Greek. Chrestos cannot come from Christus
- Ory is being utterly unclear here, but the last sentence does make sense. The thing is, they always were 2 different words, and they still are - and iotacism simply doesn't, can't, apply - nor has it ever applied.
Everyone with at least a dozen brain cells knows that, and if you don't - well then you just have less than a dozen brain cells, right?
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 »

The impossibility of iotacism to explain Chrestus/Christos is one of the few things very too much evident for anyone approaches the sources.

But then again, what is in game is so important that we would like to ignore this anomaly.

From the other hand, I don't think that a such anomaly is sufficient to reverse an entire paradigm. More arguments are necessary.
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 8:03 am The impossibility of iotacism to explain Chrestus/Christos is one of the few things very too much evident for anyone approaches the sources.

But then again, what is in game is so important that we would like to ignore this anomaly.

From the other hand, I don't think that a such anomaly is sufficient to reverse an entire paradigm. More arguments are necessary.
Yes. And I'll publish that next week - I'm just wondering whether I should include a bibliography for a 10-page paper that merely sketches a broad outline of Christian origins over the course of one or two centuries.
Do you think I'll get away with it if I don't? I have every source hyperlinked
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.
Do you have a book to go with that, Giuseppe? Thanks
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 Apr 07, 2022 10:44 pm
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.
Do you have a book to go with that, Giuseppe? Thanks
Ory's Le Christ et Jésus is one of the old books I should upload on archive.org next summer. A Italian translation is found online here.

As to Ory's commentary of *Ev, it is freely available here:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... FPsHCaYkkd
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: Fri Apr 08, 2022 2:46 am As to Ory's commentary of *Ev, it is freely available here:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... FPsHCaYkkd

LA RESURRECTION (Luc 24/1-11)

Cette résurrection n’est pas marcionite et le récit primitif a été gravement altéré.
Le verset 7 concernant le Fils de l’Homme est absent de Marc et Matthieu; il interrompt le récit. Nous rencontrons ici pour la dernière fois ce Fils de l’Homme qui a déjà figuré en Luc dans plusieurs versets absents de l’Evangelion (7/34, 11/30, 18/31, 21/36).
Marcion parle de deux anges lumineux (4), Luc de deux hommes en costume éclatant, Matthieu de l’ange du Seigneur, Marc d’un jeune homme en robe blanche.
La Résurrection concerne "Le Vivant " pour Marcion et Luc, " Jésus " pour Matthieu, " Jésus le Nazarénien " pour Marc. Selon ce dernier, les femmes ont peur et ne disent rien à personne; selon Matthieu et Marcion, elles annoncent la nouvelle aux disciples; selon Luc, aux Onze et à tous les autres.
Les marcionites ne croyaient pas à la résurrection des corps. Irénée (2/31/2) rapporte qu’ " ils prétendent que la résurrection des morts consiste dans leur vérité à eux ". Et Tertullien (De Resurr. Carnis., 19) nous précise quelle était leur conception à ce sujet. " Ils prennent dans un sens figuré la résurrection... en disant que la mort doit être entendue dans un sens spirituel. Ce qui constitue vraiment la mort - disent-ils - ce n’est pas la séparation de l’âme et du corps, c’est l’ignorance de Dieu. Par elle, en effet, l’homme mort à Dieu est dans l’erreur comme dans un sépulcre. C’est pourquoi la Résurrection a lieu quand on a repris la vie en Dieu par l’acquisition de la vérité et que l’on sort, pour ainsi dire, du sépulcre du vieil homme après avoir triomphé de la mort de l’ignorance ".
Tertullien ne se souvient pas que les disciples eux-mêmes ne croyaient pas à la Résurrection.


THE RESURRECTION (Luke 24:1-11)

This resurrection is not Marcionite and the original account has been seriously altered.
Verse 7 concerning the Son of Man is missing from Mark and Matthew; it interrupts the narrative. Here we meet for the last time the Son of Man, who had already appeared in Luke in several verses absent from the Evangelion (7:34, 11:30, 18:31, 21:36).
Marcion speaks of two luminous angels (4), Luke of two men in bright suits, Matthew of the angel of the Lord, Mark of a young man in white robes.
The Resurrection is about "The Living One" for Marcion and Luke, "Jesus" for Matthew, "Jesus the Nazarene" for Mark. According to Mark, the women are afraid and do not tell anyone; according to Matthew and Marcion, they tell the disciples; according to Luke, the Eleven and all the others.
The Marcionites did not believe in the resurrection of the bodies. Irenaeus (2/31/2) reports that "they claim that the resurrection of the dead consists in their own truth". And Tertullian (De Resurr. Carnis., 19) tells us what their conception was on this subject. "They take the resurrection in a figurative sense... saying that death must be understood in a spiritual sense. What really constitutes death - they say - is not the separation of the soul from the body, but the ignorance of God. By it, indeed, man dead to God is in error as in a sepulchre. That is why the Resurrection takes place when one has regained life in God through the acquisition of the truth and comes out, as it were, of the sepulchre of the old man after having triumphed over the death of ignorance.
Tertullian does not remember that the disciples themselves did not believe in the Resurrection

That's all fine and dandy but all this is mere conjecture and opinionating and not worth a dime to be frank; with 50 pages full of opinions Ory is bound to be correct on at least a few dozen of those - the utter lack of arguments notwithstanding
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 12:52 am One obvservation in theory Paul's gospel doesn't require a physical resurrection at all, ignoring some cruft that was added later it seems Paul is all about a spiritual Christ and seeing visions. He never followed him physically and he never saw him resurrected either. His Christ could have resurrected spiritually and the physical body was of no importance apart from the death on the cross. If so then Marcion could have ended it where you say maybe
Mark and Paul in essence develop the same strategy to counter *Ev:

1) Heal the wound between Chrestianity and Judaism by turning the opponents not against each other but towards each other
2) Bridge the divide between Chrestianity and Judaism by forging an unbreakable bond between the two - make one dependent on the other and vice versa


We can see 1 in Mark starting straight away at the beginning as he has turned John the Baptist from a distrusting Judaic prophet who doesn't recognise or acknowledge Jesus, into his very BFF, his forerunner, who even initiates him - which will come to haunt Christianity until today LOL.
We can see 1 in Paul with Paul the turncoat being a Judaic convert to Christianity.
Yet where the two differ is in 2: Mark makes that really very small and puts all the spotlights on Jesus as fulfilling all possible prophecies for the Messiah role - whereas Paul goes for gold and argues that all of Chrestianity coming into being actually is prophecy fulfilment because it is God punishing the Judaics for their disbelief and hardened hearts

So Paul doesn't even need Jesus for his scheme, whereas Mark is fully dependent on him. And I think "Paul didn't even happen" in the sense that it's more like a letter of recognition, a testimony of how Chrestianity and Judaism are interlinked, destined to one another.
The entire point of course is to make Chrestianity dependent on Judaism (it's MAJOR prophecy fulfilment from the Tanakh!!!) and vice versa (THE MAJOR prophecy fulfilment from the Tanakh is manifested in Chrestianity / Jesus!!!)

And it could indeed very well be that the resurrection story hadn't developed during Paul, but nonetheless it is hardly relevant to Paul because he just doesn't care about Jesus at all - his focus is entirely on Chrestianity as the fulfilled promise / threat by Jahweh to take away the promised land from the Judaics and give it to the Gentiles. And that, says Paul, is what has happened right in front of your nose: look at the Gentile religion of Chrestianity - now that is precisely what God told you he would do!
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

The centurion invented by Mark

Post by mlinssen »

mlinssen wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:58 pm
JoeWallack wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:11 am JW:
What exactly does "Mark" (author) report that could support his presentation of Jesus crucified having a source of historical witness that was before Paul? From The Skeptical Critical Commentary:

15:39
And when the centurion, who stood by over against him, saw that he so gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God. (ASV)

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
3708 [e] Idōn [1]Ἰδὼν [1]having seen V-APA-NMS
1161 [e] de δὲ moreover, Conj
3588 [e] ho the Art-NMS
2760 [e] kentyriōn [2]κεντυρίων [2]centurion N-NMS
3588 [e] ho - Art-NMS
3936 [e] parestēkōs παρεστηκὼς standing V-RPA-NMS
1537 [e] ex ἐξfrom Prep
1727 [e] enantias [3]ἐναντίας [3]opposite of Adj-GFS
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ him, PPro-GM3S
3754 [e] hoti ὅτι that Conj
3779 [e] houtōs οὕτως thus Adv
1606 [e] exepneusen ἐξέπνευσεν, he breathed his last, V-AIA-3S
3004 [e] eipen εἶπενsaid, V-AIA-3S
230 [e] Alēthōs Ἀληθῶς Truly Adv
3778 [e] houtos οὗτος this DPro-NMS
3588 [e] ho - Art-NMS
444 [e] anthrōpos ἄνθρωπος man N-NMS
5207 [e] Huios Υἱὸς Son N-NMS
2316 [e] Theou Θεοῦ of God N-GMS
1510 [e] ēn [4]ἦν. [4]was! V-IIA-3S

Commentary:

[1]The offending word is "see" often with a figurative meaning = perceived/understood.

http://biblehub.com/greek/3708.htm

Note the same word is used in the Parable of the Sower which provides the key to the entire Gospel (I know this is sow because "Mark" (author) says sow):

4:12
that seeing they may see, and not perceive
"Mark's" point is that people see literally but they do not see figuratively (understand). "Mark's" primary theme is illustrating this with the supposed disciples. They see literally but do not understand and the related failure is directly proportional to the quantity of literal seeing. The closer they are literally/physically to Jesus, the less they understand (Peter/Simon). This point is contrasted with the opposite relationship. Those not literally/physically close to Jesus do "see" (understand). They may be far away or opposite as opposed to with.

[2]"Mark" uses a Latin word for the centurion. Strange/bizarre/macabre that a Greek work about an Aramaic setting would throw in a Latin word. The other Gospellers thought so as no one else used it. Further support that the equally strange identification of one of the sons of replacement Simon having a Latin name within the Passion (try to find a Latin name before the Passion) is a Literary touch.

[3]Another word, often with a figurative meaning ("Mark" uses a lot of those) = Opposed.
Here the only properly placed witness to Jesus' crucifixion is someone who had never literally seen Jesus before or at least before he took his vow of silence back when Jesus was a Talker (I don't think The Hound would have liked Jesus very much).

[4]Hmm, so Jesus spends his entire career (so to speak) trying to convince those that literally are with him and physically see everything, to understand, and fails. In contrast, the opposition, Latin, never saw any Teaching & Healing Ministry but is placed to understand the significance of the supposed crucifixion. Unlike the Disciples who literally/physically heard (repeatedly, so to speak) Jesus' instruction to proclaim him after the crucifixion, the Latin from SonofManHatin, without ever literally/physically hearing Jesus' instructions, proclaims Jesus as Son of God after the crucifixion.

Sadly a portion of CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) postures that the Centurion is being sarcastic and the Christian translations mistranslate the offending word as "see" instead of "perceive"/"understand". Obviously they want the Disciples to be the supposed first historical witness here and not an unidentified Latin crucifier. But the specific word used and "Mark's" theme support that the Centurion is truly serious.

Finally (so to speak), the last word is in imperfect form and I wonder if it should be translated as "is", "this man is son of God"? Truly that would fit Paul's theology.

Bonus material for Solo. "Mark" is careful to only use "ἐναντίας" one other time in a very critical passage (so to speak). Start with the conclusion that it supports this post and than tell us how.

Reaction of ancient witness:

Matthew 27:54
Now the centurion, and they that were with him watching Jesus, when they saw the earthquake, and the things that were done, feared exceedingly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. (ASV)
Matthew 27:54

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
3588 [e] HO [1]Ὁ - Art-NMS
1161 [e] de δὲ moreover Conj
1543 [e] hekatontarchos [2]ἑκατόνταρχος [2][the] centurion N-NMS
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
3588 [e] hoi [3]οἱ [3]those Art-NMP
3326 [e] met’ μετ’ with Prep
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ him PPro-GM3S
5083 [e] tērountes [4]τηροῦντες [4]keeping guard over V-PPA-NMP
3588 [e] ton τὸν - Art-AMS
2424 [e] Iēsoun Ἰησοῦν [6]Jesus, N-AMS
3708 [e] idontes [7]ἰδόντες [7]having seen V-APA-NMP
3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
4578 [e] seismon σεισμὸν earthquake N-AMS
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
3588 [e] ta τὰ the things Art-ANP
1096 [e] genomena γενόμενα* taking place, V-APM/P-ANP
5399 [e] ephobēthēsan [8]ἐφοβήθησαν [8]feared V-AIP-3P
4970 [e]sphodra σφόδρα, greatly, Adv
3004 [e]legontes λέγοντες saying, V-PPA-NMP
230 [e] Alēthōs Ἀληθῶς Truly Adv
2316 [e] Theou Θεοῦ God's N-GMS
5207 [e] Huios Υἱὸς Son N-NMS
1510 [e] ēn ἦν was V-IIA-3S
3778 [e] houtos οὗτος. this. DPro-NMS

Commentary:
[1]"Matthew" starts the offending verse with the definite article and noun. "Mark" starts the verse with a verb and ends with a verb = "Understood, is! (son of God)". Bad grammar or style?

[2]"Matthew" uses the Greek word for "centurion". "Mark's" word sounds more like "Kyrēnaion" and "Kurious".

[3]"Matthew" has incarnated multiple guards (witnesses).

[4]Witnesses is not the only thing expanding here. The word has a primary meaning of "guard" and in the context of a centurion and crucifixion, must mean "guard". Some Christian translations try to expand the meaning to non-guards also "watching" (up close).

[5]"Matthew" exorcises the figurative "opposite".

[6]"Mark" does not want "Jesus" in his Passion (he wants "that man"). "Matthew" wants Jesus in his Passion.

[7]"Matthew" uses the offending source word but changes the meaning via context from "Mark's" figurative usage (understood) to a literal one (saw).

[8]"Matthew" goes Old Testament School here by adding "feared" which in The Jewish Bible is a sign of respect for God. A major part of "Mark's" irony though is that he uses it as the sign of a lack of faith. Hence, for the Centurion's confession of faith, "Mark" exorcised "fear".

We can see above "Matthew's" attempt to edit his source into a more historical sounding affair with better potential supposed historical witness.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Just ran into this while looking for something different

We have the typical example of Luke disagreeing with Mark and Matthew which could point to him being original and the latter two mere redactions, as is the case in the parable of the lamp where they prefer the loanword modius over Luke's vague skeue.
But in this case, where Mark uses κεντυρίων whereas Luke and Matthew both use ἑκατόνταρχος we seem to have the exact opposite: Mark is the source here and the other two decide to deviate.
There are great differences of course given the fact that Mark as source in this case betrays his being an obvious redaction / creation himself, with the Roman loanword being a dead giveaway. Likewise for the actual flogging scene where φραγελλώσας is used (flagellum) by Mark and Matthew while John (!) uses the native Greek ἐμαστίγωσεν - and all the predictions of Jesus being flogged also use the native Greek. So while Roman loanwords denote obvious redactions, it may very well be that native Greek comes later and serves to cover up the fact that this obvious redaction was the "original source", exactly because it points to fiction

As would be the case in this case

The scene is unattested to for Marcion so this is a done deal, and there are no variants for either one here - so how on earth can Luke and Matthew agree here? This clearly got copied from Mark, CORRECTED TO PROPER GREEK, and then assimilated into both Luke as well as Matthew - but this is evidence of Markan redaction being the source to both Luke as Matthew
Copied this from the other thread to put it here.
What I meant to say is that this attests to a careful process of redaction: either Luke has both Mark as well as Matthew in front of him or Matthew has Mark and Luke: this is not simply a matter of copying a source, it is a matter of coming up with the best copy - and that is quite something else

But I'll run these by Ken's lovely tip and we'll see
lsayre
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

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

Post by lsayre »

The ESV translation of Mark 5:39 states that a valid alternative reading has the Centurion stating "Truly this man was a son of God" (as opposed to "the Son of God")
Post Reply