Friday, December 17, 2010

How Could the 'New Torah' of Israel Have Been Written in Any Other Language Other than Hebrew?

Here's the real problem that scholars have with 'Secret Mark' - they 'buy into' Irenaeus's claims about the fourfold canon without a critical eye.  Irenaeus admits there is this 'Hebrew gospel' but identifies it with Matthew.  He admits that the Marcionites have two gospels saying Marcion shortened a gospel and 'others' have a Gospel of Mark they 'prefer' over all other texts.  Finally Irenaeus admits there is a 'spiritual' gospel which he at one time identifies with Mark and finally with John. 

But if you look at all of this with a critical eye you can see that he could just be reshuffling a pre-existent paradigm witnessed in the Letter to Theodore where (a) Hebrew and Greek gospels correspond to (b) 'shortened' and 'full' versions of an original narrative (c) directed to mere 'faithful' and 'perfect' members of the same assembly.

This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that at the beginning of the same book he accuses the heretics of adding on things to the original 'faith' of Peter.

But all of this matters very little in comparison with getting over the idea that Jews and Jewish proselytes could have accepted Greek as an appropriate language to have received the heavenly revelation equal - or indeed superior - to the Torah.  It's impossible.  It's only ignorance that fosters the belief in the appropriateness of an Indo-European language for God. 

There is a tendency among the supporters of authenticity to completely run away from all of Morton Smith's interpretations of the text.  He was right about the Semitic character of 'Secret Mark' and it goes back to what must have been the original structure of Alexandrian Judaism - i.e. a 'secret' Hebrew Torah in the Holy of Holies in Alexandria and many 'profane' copies of the LXX floating around.

The LXX was no holier to the Alexandrian Jews than the Greek gospels were to the Alexandrian Church.

Epiphanius reports that Samaritans used to urinate on their hands in order to purify them from contact with Gentiles.  The Gentile and the things associated with him are necessarily unclean for Jews as well (hence the mikveh).  Does anyone really believe that the apostle heard his 'unspeakable revelation' (2 Cor 12.3) in Greek?  Clement, the early Alexandrian and Marcionite traditions all understand this experience and this experience alone, to be the basis to the gospel.  So how can we go on pretending that Irenaeus's schemes are the only Christian paradigm?

The point is that as much as the myths of their ancestors tell them otherwise it is impossible to conceive of a revelation from the 'Jewish God' coming in any other language other than Hebrew.  The 'new Torah' could not have been preserved in Greek.  It's just la niaiserie européenne that keeps perpetuating this impossible paradigm.

There must have been a Hebrew gospel in the Holy of Holies of the Alexandrian temple.  To argue otherwise is to demonstrate an absolute lack of familiarity with basic concepts of Judaism in all Jewish cultures - including Christianity - with regards to the sacredness of the  'mystic language' of Hebrew. 

The 'mystic gospel' can only be a Hebrew gospel.  The Gospel of Mark already betrays knowledge of a Semitic source.  It's just our existing presuppositions associated with the canonical Gospel of Mark that prevents people from seeing the big picture.  Wake up, ladies ...


Email stephan.h.huller@gmail.com with comments or questions.


 
Stephan Huller's Observations by Stephan Huller
is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.