I've been studying the scene from Mark where Jesus heals a blind man on his way to Jerusalem. This scene is quite fascinating and very challenging to fully understand. It has a number of distinctive elements. Reading Tertullian's commentary on it highlights something striking.
Tertullian says that Marcion gave an interpretation of the scene in his Antithesis that is as follows: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm
This is very interesting for a few reasons. Firstly, it shows that Marcion may have understood some of the literary allusions in Mark. Indeed this scene is likely based on 2 Samuel:
It is also interesting, then, that the blind man is called Bar-timaeus, which is then clarified as "son of Timaeus". So here we then have a dialogue between "son of Timaeus" and "son of David". And of course Timaeus is one of Plato's famous dialogues on the generation of the world by the demiurge.
From Plato's Timaeus:
Now, is the use of the name Timaeus in Mark just a mere happenstance? Does it have anything to do with the Timaeus of Plato? I don't know, but it seems to me that "Timaeus" is at least mean to represent "Greeks" or gentiles. It is noteworthy that in Mark the writer explicitly identifies the blind man as "Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus". This is actually the only place in the Gospel of Mark that a person other than Jesus is referred to in this way:
"υἱὸς Τιμαίου Βαρτιμαῖος" - "son [of] Timaeus Bartimaeus"
"υἱὲ Δαυὶδ ΙΣ" - "son [of] David Jesus"
"υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου" - "son [of the] man"
vs
"Λευὶν τὸν τοῦ Ἁλφαίου" - Levi of the Alphaeus
"Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου" - James of the Zebedee
So it appears that the writer is drawing some parallel between the "son of Timaeus" and the "son of David".
Given the likely literary reference being employed to 2 Sam 5 and Marcion's interpretation (note that *Ev apparently did not include the mention of Bartimaeus), it seems that the original writer was using "son of Timaeus" as a general identifier for "gentiles" and "son of David" as a general identifier for "Jews".
Here, the writer is not identifying Jesus as a literally being of the family of David, but is calling Jesus as "son of David" in much the same way that a Jew would be called a "child of Abraham". And the reason the writer di that was to draw the parallel to 2 Sam 5. Thus the writer needed a way to include the name David.
Marcion's interpretation is then correct. Marcion says that the scene was meant to show that, unlike David, who was merciless, entered Jerusalem by force, and killed the blind and lame, Jesus is full of mercy, heals the blind, and enters Jerusalem peacefully.
So the intention of the scene was not to indicate that Jesus was Davidic Messiah, it was, as Marcion said, intended to show that Jesus was different than David. The expressions "son of David" and "son of Timaeus" are being used to contrast "Jews and gentile". Jesus the Jew healing Bartimaeus the blind gentile (whom David would have slaughtered).
Tertullian says that Marcion gave an interpretation of the scene in his Antithesis that is as follows: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm
For (here is one of Marcion's Antitheses): whereas David in old time, in the capture of Sion, was offended by the blind who opposed his admission (into the stronghold) so, on the contrary, Christ succored the blind man, to show by this act that He was not David's son, and how different in disposition He was, kind to the blind, while David ordered them to be slain.
This is very interesting for a few reasons. Firstly, it shows that Marcion may have understood some of the literary allusions in Mark. Indeed this scene is likely based on 2 Samuel:
2 Sam 5:
6 The king and his men marched to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David, ‘You will not come in here, even the blind and the lame will turn you back’—saying, ‘David cannot come in here.’ 7 Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, which is now the city of David. 8 David had said on that day, ‘Whoever wishes to strike down the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack the lame and the blind, those whom David hates.’ Therefore it is said, ‘The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.’ 9 David occupied the stronghold, and named it the city of David. David built the city all around from the Millo inwards. 10 And David became greater and greater, for the Lord, the God of hosts, was with him.
6 The king and his men marched to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David, ‘You will not come in here, even the blind and the lame will turn you back’—saying, ‘David cannot come in here.’ 7 Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, which is now the city of David. 8 David had said on that day, ‘Whoever wishes to strike down the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack the lame and the blind, those whom David hates.’ Therefore it is said, ‘The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.’ 9 David occupied the stronghold, and named it the city of David. David built the city all around from the Millo inwards. 10 And David became greater and greater, for the Lord, the God of hosts, was with him.
46 Then they came to Jericho. And as He was leaving Jericho with His disciples and a large crowd, a blind beggar named Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the road. 47 When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 48 Many were sternly telling him to be quiet, but he kept crying out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 49 And Jesus stopped and said, “Call him here.” So they called the blind man, saying to him, “Take courage, stand up! He is calling for you.” 50 Throwing aside his cloak, he jumped up and came to Jesus. 51 And answering him, Jesus said, “What do you want Me to do for you?” And the blind man said to Him, “Rabboni, I want to regain my sight!” 52 And Jesus said to him, “Go; your faith has made you well.” Immediately he regained his sight and began following Him on the road.
It is also interesting, then, that the blind man is called Bar-timaeus, which is then clarified as "son of Timaeus". So here we then have a dialogue between "son of Timaeus" and "son of David". And of course Timaeus is one of Plato's famous dialogues on the generation of the world by the demiurge.
From Plato's Timaeus:
Crit. Let me proceed to explain to you, Socrates, the order in which we have arranged our entertainment. Our intention is, that Timaeus, who is the most of an astronomer amongst us, and has made the nature of the universe his special study, should speak first, beginning with the generation of the world and going down to the creation of man; next, I am to receive the men whom he has created of whom some will have profited by the excellent education which you have given them; and then, in accordance with the tale of Solon, and equally with his law, we will bring them into court and make them citizens, as if they were those very Athenians whom the sacred Egyptian record has recovered from oblivion, and thenceforward we will speak of them as Athenians and fellow-citizens.
Soc. I see that I shall receive in my turn a perfect and splendid feast of reason. And now, Timaeus, you, I suppose, should speak next, after duly calling upon the Gods.
Tim. All men, Socrates, who have any degree of right feeling, at the beginning of every enterprise, whether small or great, always call upon God. And we, too, who are going to discourse of the nature of the universe, how created or how existing without creation, if we be not altogether out of our wits, must invoke the aid of Gods and Goddesses and pray that our words may be acceptable to them and consistent with themselves. Let this, then, be our invocation of the Gods, to which I add an exhortation of myself to speak in such manner as will be most intelligible to you, and will most accord with my own intent.
First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask, What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created. The work of the creator, whenever he looks to the unchangeable and fashions the form and nature of his work after an unchangeable pattern, must necessarily be made fair and perfect; but when he looks to the created only, and uses a created pattern, it is not fair or perfect. Was the heaven then or the world, whether called by this or by any other more appropriate name-assuming the name, I am asking a question which has to be asked at the beginning of an enquiry about anything-was the world, I say, always in existence and without beginning? or created, and had it a beginning? Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and all sensible things are apprehended by opinion and sense and are in a process of creation and created. Now that which is created must, as we affirm, of necessity be created by a cause. But the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible. And there is still a question to be asked about him: Which of the patterns had the artificer in view when he made the world-the pattern of the unchangeable, or of that which is created? If the world be indeed fair and the artificer good, it is manifest that he must have looked to that which is eternal; but if what cannot be said without blasphemy is true, then to the created pattern. Every one will see that he must have looked to, the eternal; for the world is the fairest of creations and he is the best of causes. And having been created in this way, the world has been framed in the likeness of that which is apprehended by reason and mind and is unchangeable, and must therefore of necessity, if this is admitted, be a copy of something. Now it is all-important that the beginning of everything should be according to nature. And in speaking of the copy and the original we may assume that words are akin to the matter which they describe; when they relate to the lasting and permanent and intelligible, they ought to be lasting and unalterable, and, as far as their nature allows, irrefutable and immovable-nothing less. But when they express only the copy or likeness and not the eternal things themselves, they need only be likely and analogous to the real words. As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief. If then, Socrates, amid the many opinions about the gods and the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised. Enough, if we adduce probabilities as likely as any others; for we must remember that I who am the speaker, and you who are the judges, are only mortal men, and we ought to accept the tale which is probable and enquire no further.
Soc. Excellent, Timaeus; and we will do precisely as you bid us. The prelude is charming, and is already accepted by us-may we beg of you to proceed to the strain?
Tim. Let me tell you then why the creator made this world of generation. He was good, and the good can never have any jealousy of anything. And being free from jealousy, he desired that all things should be as like himself as they could be. This is in the truest sense the origin of creation and of the world, as we shall do well in believing on the testimony of wise men: God desired that all things should be good and nothing bad, so far as this was attainable. Wherefore also finding the whole visible sphere not at rest, but moving in an irregular and disorderly fashion, out of disorder he brought order, considering that this was in every way better than the other. Now the deeds of the best could never be or have been other than the fairest; and the creator, reflecting on the things which are by nature visible, found that no unintelligent creature taken as a whole was fairer than the intelligent taken as a whole; and that intelligence could not be present in anything which was devoid of soul. For which reason, when he was framing the universe, he put intelligence in soul, and soul in body, that he might be the creator of a work which was by nature fairest and best. Wherefore, using the language of probability, we may say that the world became a living creature truly endowed with soul and intelligence by the providence of God.
Soc. I see that I shall receive in my turn a perfect and splendid feast of reason. And now, Timaeus, you, I suppose, should speak next, after duly calling upon the Gods.
Tim. All men, Socrates, who have any degree of right feeling, at the beginning of every enterprise, whether small or great, always call upon God. And we, too, who are going to discourse of the nature of the universe, how created or how existing without creation, if we be not altogether out of our wits, must invoke the aid of Gods and Goddesses and pray that our words may be acceptable to them and consistent with themselves. Let this, then, be our invocation of the Gods, to which I add an exhortation of myself to speak in such manner as will be most intelligible to you, and will most accord with my own intent.
First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask, What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created. The work of the creator, whenever he looks to the unchangeable and fashions the form and nature of his work after an unchangeable pattern, must necessarily be made fair and perfect; but when he looks to the created only, and uses a created pattern, it is not fair or perfect. Was the heaven then or the world, whether called by this or by any other more appropriate name-assuming the name, I am asking a question which has to be asked at the beginning of an enquiry about anything-was the world, I say, always in existence and without beginning? or created, and had it a beginning? Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and all sensible things are apprehended by opinion and sense and are in a process of creation and created. Now that which is created must, as we affirm, of necessity be created by a cause. But the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible. And there is still a question to be asked about him: Which of the patterns had the artificer in view when he made the world-the pattern of the unchangeable, or of that which is created? If the world be indeed fair and the artificer good, it is manifest that he must have looked to that which is eternal; but if what cannot be said without blasphemy is true, then to the created pattern. Every one will see that he must have looked to, the eternal; for the world is the fairest of creations and he is the best of causes. And having been created in this way, the world has been framed in the likeness of that which is apprehended by reason and mind and is unchangeable, and must therefore of necessity, if this is admitted, be a copy of something. Now it is all-important that the beginning of everything should be according to nature. And in speaking of the copy and the original we may assume that words are akin to the matter which they describe; when they relate to the lasting and permanent and intelligible, they ought to be lasting and unalterable, and, as far as their nature allows, irrefutable and immovable-nothing less. But when they express only the copy or likeness and not the eternal things themselves, they need only be likely and analogous to the real words. As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief. If then, Socrates, amid the many opinions about the gods and the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised. Enough, if we adduce probabilities as likely as any others; for we must remember that I who am the speaker, and you who are the judges, are only mortal men, and we ought to accept the tale which is probable and enquire no further.
Soc. Excellent, Timaeus; and we will do precisely as you bid us. The prelude is charming, and is already accepted by us-may we beg of you to proceed to the strain?
Tim. Let me tell you then why the creator made this world of generation. He was good, and the good can never have any jealousy of anything. And being free from jealousy, he desired that all things should be as like himself as they could be. This is in the truest sense the origin of creation and of the world, as we shall do well in believing on the testimony of wise men: God desired that all things should be good and nothing bad, so far as this was attainable. Wherefore also finding the whole visible sphere not at rest, but moving in an irregular and disorderly fashion, out of disorder he brought order, considering that this was in every way better than the other. Now the deeds of the best could never be or have been other than the fairest; and the creator, reflecting on the things which are by nature visible, found that no unintelligent creature taken as a whole was fairer than the intelligent taken as a whole; and that intelligence could not be present in anything which was devoid of soul. For which reason, when he was framing the universe, he put intelligence in soul, and soul in body, that he might be the creator of a work which was by nature fairest and best. Wherefore, using the language of probability, we may say that the world became a living creature truly endowed with soul and intelligence by the providence of God.
Now, is the use of the name Timaeus in Mark just a mere happenstance? Does it have anything to do with the Timaeus of Plato? I don't know, but it seems to me that "Timaeus" is at least mean to represent "Greeks" or gentiles. It is noteworthy that in Mark the writer explicitly identifies the blind man as "Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus". This is actually the only place in the Gospel of Mark that a person other than Jesus is referred to in this way:
"υἱὸς Τιμαίου Βαρτιμαῖος" - "son [of] Timaeus Bartimaeus"
"υἱὲ Δαυὶδ ΙΣ" - "son [of] David Jesus"
"υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου" - "son [of the] man"
vs
"Λευὶν τὸν τοῦ Ἁλφαίου" - Levi of the Alphaeus
"Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου" - James of the Zebedee
So it appears that the writer is drawing some parallel between the "son of Timaeus" and the "son of David".
Given the likely literary reference being employed to 2 Sam 5 and Marcion's interpretation (note that *Ev apparently did not include the mention of Bartimaeus), it seems that the original writer was using "son of Timaeus" as a general identifier for "gentiles" and "son of David" as a general identifier for "Jews".
Here, the writer is not identifying Jesus as a literally being of the family of David, but is calling Jesus as "son of David" in much the same way that a Jew would be called a "child of Abraham". And the reason the writer di that was to draw the parallel to 2 Sam 5. Thus the writer needed a way to include the name David.
Marcion's interpretation is then correct. Marcion says that the scene was meant to show that, unlike David, who was merciless, entered Jerusalem by force, and killed the blind and lame, Jesus is full of mercy, heals the blind, and enters Jerusalem peacefully.
So the intention of the scene was not to indicate that Jesus was Davidic Messiah, it was, as Marcion said, intended to show that Jesus was different than David. The expressions "son of David" and "son of Timaeus" are being used to contrast "Jews and gentile". Jesus the Jew healing Bartimaeus the blind gentile (whom David would have slaughtered).
Statistics: Posted by rgprice — Sun Dec 08, 2024 6:57 am