On the Marcionite Identification of 'Bethsaida' as the Locale for Jesus Passing Through a Crowd of Angry Opponents (

My friend Rey Jacobs has reminded me that Ephrem reports that Bethsaida rather than Nazareth is the locale for Luke 4.16 - 30. The Diatessaron version of the story known to Aphrahat strangely emphasis the docetic character of the Marcionite narrative (he passes through the crowd clearly because he has no physical reality). His allusion in Demonstration II reads:

And he showed the power of his majesty when he was cast down from the height into the depth and was not hurt.

The editors of Aphrahat rightly saw an allusion to 4:29f. The Arabic Diatessaron however follows the canonical narrative much closer:

and they rose up and brought him to the brow of the hill upon which their city was built that they might cast him from its summit but He passed through among them and went away.

The point of course is that the docetic character of Jesus is still present but the story has been greatly modified from Aphrahat and the Marcionite original.

Now here is what I hate about New Testament scholarship. The Marcionite tradition doesn't matter. Aphrahat doesn't matter. The Diatessaron doesn't matter. The version in Luke is the one that matters.

Why so? I haven't a clue but that's the way it is. If people are going to tackle the Marcionite 'problem' it is like having sex with a lesbian as I noted before. They go through the motions but their passion just isn't into it.

So let me tell you where my passions are. I am fascinated with the Marcionites and 'alternative traditions' generally. I love trying to work out 'what they must have thought' based on a series of deductive inquiries.

The question here is why did the Marcionites emphasize 'Bethsaida' as the locale. I'll only go so far as to debunk the nonsense that gets constantly recycled by New Testament scholars. Let's start with the name 'Bethsaida' which is repeatedly declared to mean 'house of fish' WHICH IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT. Jerome knew this and wrote in his Interpretation of Hebrew Names "Bethsaida [means] house of fruits or house of hunters."

The 'house of fish' argument develops from the latter name owing to a common motif in the rabbinic literature - viz. the underlying idea of 'ensnaring' or 'catching' prey. Still it is impossible to get 'house of fish' from Bethsaida.

Now the typical scholar has no interest in figuring out what the Marcionites believed or what their gospel looked like. I don't understand this disinterest but I liken it to the person who owes a lot of money and so doesn't open his mail.

I guess for these guys, the disciples were 'fisherman' so why not make them come from a village called 'fish house'?

They should read my article on the Marcionite (and the Jewish) negative interpretation of the title 'fishers of men.'

Jastrow in his Jewish Aramaic Dictionary cites a number of examples of how the root behind the 'saida' part of Bethsaida means someone or something which lies in wait to trap people or things.

So in his discussion of tsadi-vav-dalet he cites Gen.XXV.27 "he (Esau/Rome) catches men with his mouth (by means of insidious cross-examination in court) ... catches people by their own mouth.

Clearly the term can denote the 'catching' of fish in a net but is there anyone in the world who would put forward that there was a village called 'house of fishermen'? No of course not.

Indeed the Marcionite story doesn't make any sense at all if it is set in a fisherman's village. Such a village would necessarily be set at sea level (or lake level) and there is no possibility of the destructive fall portrayed in the gospel in such a hamlet. Again, does this sound like a fishing village - "[and they] brought him to the brow of the hill upon which their city was built that they might cast him from its summit."

No this is not a fisherman's village.

Clearly the fact that Peter and his horde are identified as 'ensnarers of men' and those who try to kill Jesus have just left a synagogue called 'house of ensnarers' should lead the reader to see that there is something allegorical going on here. Jastrow notes that in Gen R. s 63 the same term has a related meaning of 'hypocrite, flatterer' - i.e. one who ensnares people with mental stratagems.

My guess is that the consistent identification of those who opposed the Markan/Marcion tradition with this word has something to do with them being connected with Satan - i.e. the one who again ensnares the unsuspecting.

This ultimately gets lost in translation but then again most scholars don't even want to hear about an Aramaic origin for the gospel. As such Peter 'really is' a fisher of men and - as we just saw - a lot of the gospel is spent coming and going to a place called 'house of fishermen' or 'house of hunters' ...