YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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: Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:27 am 1) sorry but ἐναντίον is used to make the point that an opposition is in action, not a mere presence before someone. The context requires only the metaphorical meaning of ἐναντίον. There is no reason at all to describe a god as "in presence of" another god. At least: not in that context.
I'm going to ask Ben his opinion on this since his Greek is better than both of ours combined twice over.

But to say that Celsus is inferring the metaphoric meaning is ignoring Celsus's argument, that the two gods are different only in relation to each other, not that they are fighting/adversarial to each other.
2) it is called co-optation. For the same reason Simon Magus posed as Jesus. They used the texts of the enemies they wanted co-opt. For the same reason they made John a mere precursor.
Why? Why not just ignore Judaism altogether? What was so special about Judaism that Marcion felt the need to impose his theology onto it? Why is it not intuitive to see Marcion as an outgrowth of Judaism, when there is no evidence he took umbrage with other cults?

The Marcion Gospel calls John the greatest prophet who lived. Wouldn't this imply that John came first and the Marcionites were actively incorporating him into their canon?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:38 amI see that you are totally unaware of Greek language, too.

"In opposition" translates the Greek ἐναντίον. This is its precise meaning:

Definition
over against, opposite
of place, opposite, contrary (of the wind)
metaph.
opposed as an adversary, hostile, antagonistic in feeling or act
an opponent

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... ntion.html
Joseph D. L. wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:07 am
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:27 am 1) sorry but ἐναντίον is used to make the point that an opposition is in action, not a mere presence before someone. The context requires only the metaphorical meaning of ἐναντίον. There is no reason at all to describe a god as "in presence of" another god. At least: not in that context.
I'm going to ask Ben his opinion on this since his Greek is better than both of ours combined twice over.
My opinion: Giuseppe's interpretation is possible, but he most certainly skipped over the (literal) definitions which would not much help his case in order to arrive at the (metaphorical) definition which he needed. It was wrong, point blank, to claim that this latter definition was the only one which would fit. Obviously, the sense of the two deities being opposite each other in some way or ways is perfectly plausible, as well. I doubt ἐναντίον means merely "in the presence of" someone in this particular context, though that is its overwhelming usage in the LXX/OG and in the NT.
But to say that Celsus is inferring the metaphoric meaning is ignoring Celsus's argument, that the two gods are different only in relation to each other, not that they are fighting/adversarial to each other.
That is my sense of things, as well, but it is an interpretation, not a grammatical or semantic necessity. Giuseppe's take, too, is an interpretation, even if he often treats his own interpretations as established facts.

In short, I subjectively tend to agree with your assessment, though there is no absolute grammatical or semantic proof that Giuseppe's is wrong. He was objectively wrong, however, to claim his own preferred interpretation as the only option.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben, I fear that even you ignore the context too much easily. It is evident that Celsus claims independent knowledge not because of show of mere notionism, but to insist on a point he realizes as very much embarrassing for the Christians, and particularly for "universalist" Catholics à la Origen: the division among Christians, a division that is extended even on among their presumed supreme gods. There is some divine irony, here, in the fact that not only the Christians are divided, but also that their gods are opposed between them in an antagonistic sense.

The polemical attack of Celsus requires that the two gods are rival between them just as their fool adorers.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2020 8:34 am Ben, I fear that even you ignore the context too much easily.
Really? Amazing.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2020 8:50 am
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2020 8:34 am Ben, I fear that even you ignore the context too much easily.
Really? Amazing.
no need of cloying answers, here.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: YHWH, not Judas, was the original betrayer

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2020 8:53 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2020 8:50 am
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2020 8:34 am Ben, I fear that even you ignore the context too much easily.
Really? Amazing.
no need of cloying answers, here.
Okey dokey, pokey! :thumbup:
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
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. »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:38 am
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:38 amI see that you are totally unaware of Greek language, too.

"In opposition" translates the Greek ἐναντίον. This is its precise meaning:

Definition
over against, opposite
of place, opposite, contrary (of the wind)
metaph.
opposed as an adversary, hostile, antagonistic in feeling or act
an opponent

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... ntion.html
Joseph D. L. wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:07 am
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:27 am 1) sorry but ἐναντίον is used to make the point that an opposition is in action, not a mere presence before someone. The context requires only the metaphorical meaning of ἐναντίον. There is no reason at all to describe a god as "in presence of" another god. At least: not in that context.
I'm going to ask Ben his opinion on this since his Greek is better than both of ours combined twice over.
My opinion: Giuseppe's interpretation is possible, but he most certainly skipped over the (literal) definitions which would not much help his case in order to arrive at the (metaphorical) definition which he needed. It was wrong, point blank, to claim that this latter definition was the only one which would fit. Obviously, the sense of the two deities being opposite each other in some way or ways is perfectly plausible, as well. I doubt ἐναντίον means merely "in the presence of" someone in this particular context, though that is its overwhelming usage in the LXX/OG and in the NT.
But to say that Celsus is inferring the metaphoric meaning is ignoring Celsus's argument, that the two gods are different only in relation to each other, not that they are fighting/adversarial to each other.
That is my sense of things, as well, but it is an interpretation, not a grammatical or semantic necessity. Giuseppe's take, too, is an interpretation, even if he often treats his own interpretations as established facts.

In short, I subjectively tend to agree with your assessment, though there is no absolute grammatical or semantic proof that Giuseppe's is wrong. He was objectively wrong, however, to claim his own preferred interpretation as the only option.
Thanks as always Ben.

I'm not saying that Giuseppe's interpretation is grammatically incorrect, but just based on the context of Celsus's argument, both (all?) gods are opposed to one another, simply because their practitioners are opposed to one another. Celsus isn't saying that the two gods are actually fighting against each other, because that would give them too much legitimacy, and as far as Celsus is concerned none of them exist anyway and their all wasting their time.

The problem is not having Celsus's book in full, which is what I meant when I said it's filtered through Origen. A lot of the context is missing so it's difficult to get an accurate reading.

Again, thank you Ben.
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: Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:17 amboth (all?) gods are opposed to one another, simply because their practitioners are opposed to one another.
apart Zorohastrism, never heard about a god enemy of another god in the same theology. Were the adorers of Attis enemies of Osiris's adorers?
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 »

Another occurrence of ἐναντίος is found in 6:51:

If, indeed, there did exist an accursed god opposed to the great God, who did this contrary to his approval, why did he lend him the light?

But the god is not only "opposed" (ἐναντίος) , he is "accursed" (κατηραμένος) by these Christians:
perfect passive participle κατηραμένος in a passive sense, accursed (Wis. 12:11; (2 Kings 9:34); Plutarch, Luc. 18;

https://biblehub.com/greek/2672.htm

Again, it is impossible to imagine that the Good God works in secret alliance with the Accursed God, and not rather in explicit hostility/antagonism against him.

I note also that the creator was accursed by the adorers of the Good God, not even by Celsus, who limits himself merely to observe (just as Giuseppe, with a bit of caustic irony), the presence of this Christian dualism so embarrassing for the Great Church.
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. »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2020 10:06 pm
Joseph D. L. wrote: Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:17 amboth (all?) gods are opposed to one another, simply because their practitioners are opposed to one another.
apart Zorohastrism, never heard about a god enemy of another god in the same theology. Were the adorers of Attis enemies of Osiris's adorers?
I don't get the first part. Pantheons have gods fighting each other. The one that comes to mind immediately is Ba'al and Mot. But there's examples in Judaism and Christianity too. YHWH subduing the Leviathan, or the Logos fighting the Beast. Or even generally speaking, God and Satan are fighting for the souls of mankind.

What still baffles me is you're not understanding that Marcionism was a Jewish offshoot, because they specifically singled out the Torah, Laws of Moses, as products of an inferior god, YHWH. They acknowledged that YHWH existed, that he was the creator, therefore the Marcionites exist in the same theological space as Judaism, more so than the do the gentile religions. They wanted to convert gentiles to their religion, but that doesn't make them exclusively gentile in origin. Noahides converted gentiles; Jews converted gentiles. There wasn't an Antithesis for Homer, Hesiod, Virgil, Ovid, Hyginus, Apollonius of Rhodes or Apollodorus. Marcion clearly saw his religion as the fulfillment of Judaism, read and studied Jewish books, and probably--theoretically--had his own translation of the Old Testament.

As for your second point, syncretism was a natural phenomenon back then and gods that were similar enough just blended together unconsciously. Were there people who decried such a practice? Probably, though I can't point to a specific instance. I know some Egyptian texts that said blasphemy against Osiris and saying he didn't exist was punishable by death and said there were no other gods accept for the Heliopolian pantheon (Akhenaten also punished priests of Atum with death). But Attis and Osiris? I don't think so.
Post Reply