How did "Paul" manage to develop the original theology of Christianity without having access to its original gospel, the one written by Mark (c 70 CE)?
Answer Monday. For the moment just think about the problem and the Apostle's frequent reference to "my gospel." Let's stop trying to "rescue" the familiar explanations and just contemplate the possibilities. We as a field of study spend far too little time searching for what else might be out there.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Aphorisms for Marcion
Traditional scholarship needs us to provide REASONS or JUSTIFICATIONS to reject the inherited model of Christianity. They inevitably couch all references to Marcion in language and terminology wholly derived from the hostile propaganda of the Church Fathers. Indeed when we call them out for their uncritical citations of Patristic texts they challenge us to justify our suspicions of the biased reports about Marcion in their Church Fathers.
By the time we finishing all these seemingly endless cycles of reasoning and justifying we discover the original audience for our debate has gone away.
"A victory for Christ Jesus," our opponents mutter to themselves.
The moral of the story is our adversaries always go into the game looking for a draw. A tie means that their agenda wins. Their story of a man who was both mortal and immortal, who assumed flesh to take on sin but was without sin, who was the messiah of the Jews but never ruled as king of the Jews defeats any reasoned argument to the contrary simply because we couldn't knock them off the top of the hill.
That's why each of you must remember in all you do and say - make sure you knock them off the hill.
Losers don't get a second chance in this game.
By the time we finishing all these seemingly endless cycles of reasoning and justifying we discover the original audience for our debate has gone away.
"A victory for Christ Jesus," our opponents mutter to themselves.
The moral of the story is our adversaries always go into the game looking for a draw. A tie means that their agenda wins. Their story of a man who was both mortal and immortal, who assumed flesh to take on sin but was without sin, who was the messiah of the Jews but never ruled as king of the Jews defeats any reasoned argument to the contrary simply because we couldn't knock them off the top of the hill.
That's why each of you must remember in all you do and say - make sure you knock them off the hill.
Losers don't get a second chance in this game.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Do They Understand What Christianity Is? (part II)
I know I have made great advances in my knowledge of early Christianity when I see how some people look at the tradition. Yes, to be certain there is something of a 'comic book' aspect to the religion. Here is Jesus healing the sick. Here is Jesus turning the water into wine. Here is Jesus at the Passion, now on the Cross, now coming resurrected out of the tomb.
The difficulty is that the religion was always smart enough to speak to two audiences at the same time. Pagels totally misapplies this twofold division to just 'the heretical gnostic community' yet it is actually the way all the ancient monastic communities function including the Catholic Church.
There are simple people who only know the picture book version of the religion and then there are the people who understand the psychic architecture, the structure which holds it all together. Indeed I love Bill Maher but when it was only when I saw his Religilous movie that I realized what a simplistic notion of religion he really has.
You can't allow yourself to just see Christianity as a jumbled picture book story. The stain glass windows are actually held together by a complex structure of scriptural references and theological understandings that only a handful of Christians in the world at this present time really understand.
Christianity isn't paganism. It is a Jewish messianic religion EXPRESSED to some through pictures but nevertheless held together with a deep logic even if you encounter millions of idiots along the way unable to articulate what it is ...
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
The difficulty is that the religion was always smart enough to speak to two audiences at the same time. Pagels totally misapplies this twofold division to just 'the heretical gnostic community' yet it is actually the way all the ancient monastic communities function including the Catholic Church.
There are simple people who only know the picture book version of the religion and then there are the people who understand the psychic architecture, the structure which holds it all together. Indeed I love Bill Maher but when it was only when I saw his Religilous movie that I realized what a simplistic notion of religion he really has.
You can't allow yourself to just see Christianity as a jumbled picture book story. The stain glass windows are actually held together by a complex structure of scriptural references and theological understandings that only a handful of Christians in the world at this present time really understand.
Christianity isn't paganism. It is a Jewish messianic religion EXPRESSED to some through pictures but nevertheless held together with a deep logic even if you encounter millions of idiots along the way unable to articulate what it is ...
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
Marcion and the Gospel
Of course we're back to the original question - what did God on the Cross mean to the Marcionites?
Remember this wasn't a human being. He didn't suffer. None of them were stupid enough to believe that the Passion derived from the word pathe (see Origen for this prevalent notion). So what did they think was going on at the Passion?
I have already given you the answer. 'The Passion' of Christ was a Greek translation of an Aramaic term which could also be translated as 'the Formation' or 'Transformation of Christ.' The rendering yetser as 'passion' was deliberate. It opened the door to the Catholic notion of 'Jesus the man.' No Marcion would have been interest in Jesus' 'humanity' in our inherited sense of the word only his 'super-humanity' i.e. that he represented the supernatural being who gave humanity derived its 'form' (Ethiopian Christian still preserves this original understanding).
Of course the corollary of the Marcionite position was that Christ hadn't yet emerged until the Resurrection (hence the garbled references in the Church Fathers to their 'denial' that Jesus was the messiah of the Law and prophets). Jesus wasn't the messiah PERIOD. He was ho chrestos rather than ho christos (I explain this term elsewhere; use the search engine).
Yet when we really think about it the idea that Christ ONLY manifest himself on Easter Sunday is quite in keeping with the spirit of earliest Christianity. This is the day of the revelation of Christ as anatole (see my Real Messiah for the Philonic interpretation of the word anatole; it denotes the messiah 'rising up' that day cf Zech 9:6f BUT NOT BEFORE THAT DAY).
The anatole wasn't Jesus. Jesus was God who descended at the beginning of the gospel and went into (or perhaps 'became one' cf Eph 2:15 'His purpose [i.e. God's] was to create in himself one new man out of the two) his beloved disciple 'little Mark' (see the Acts of Peter of Alexandria Latin text where Mark is said to have witnessed the Passion). There is also a Syriac tradition that Mark preserved the original bread of the Eucharist to pass it on to the Church.
Little Mark was the anatole. That is why he was venerated with the little throne of Alexandria I discovered in Venice. It is also why Origen tells us the Marcionites claimed 'little Mark' sat to the left of Jesus ...
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
Remember this wasn't a human being. He didn't suffer. None of them were stupid enough to believe that the Passion derived from the word pathe (see Origen for this prevalent notion). So what did they think was going on at the Passion?
I have already given you the answer. 'The Passion' of Christ was a Greek translation of an Aramaic term which could also be translated as 'the Formation' or 'Transformation of Christ.' The rendering yetser as 'passion' was deliberate. It opened the door to the Catholic notion of 'Jesus the man.' No Marcion would have been interest in Jesus' 'humanity' in our inherited sense of the word only his 'super-humanity' i.e. that he represented the supernatural being who gave humanity derived its 'form' (Ethiopian Christian still preserves this original understanding).
Of course the corollary of the Marcionite position was that Christ hadn't yet emerged until the Resurrection (hence the garbled references in the Church Fathers to their 'denial' that Jesus was the messiah of the Law and prophets). Jesus wasn't the messiah PERIOD. He was ho chrestos rather than ho christos (I explain this term elsewhere; use the search engine).
Yet when we really think about it the idea that Christ ONLY manifest himself on Easter Sunday is quite in keeping with the spirit of earliest Christianity. This is the day of the revelation of Christ as anatole (see my Real Messiah for the Philonic interpretation of the word anatole; it denotes the messiah 'rising up' that day cf Zech 9:6f BUT NOT BEFORE THAT DAY).
The anatole wasn't Jesus. Jesus was God who descended at the beginning of the gospel and went into (or perhaps 'became one' cf Eph 2:15 'His purpose [i.e. God's] was to create in himself one new man out of the two) his beloved disciple 'little Mark' (see the Acts of Peter of Alexandria Latin text where Mark is said to have witnessed the Passion). There is also a Syriac tradition that Mark preserved the original bread of the Eucharist to pass it on to the Church.
Little Mark was the anatole. That is why he was venerated with the little throne of Alexandria I discovered in Venice. It is also why Origen tells us the Marcionites claimed 'little Mark' sat to the left of Jesus ...
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
Markion und Markus
Ich schreibe etwas auf Deutsch, meine erste Sprache. Eines der interessantesten Dinge über Markion war die Beschreibung Origenes gibt von ihm sitzt auf dem Thron neben Gott. Ich frage mich, ob ich eine englische oder deutsche Übersetzung seiner Predigten über Lukas? Ich vermute, es hat etwas damit zu tun mit der alexandrinischen Thron.
On Tradition
If NT scholarship actually wanted to make sense of the early history of Christianity it would have done so by now. Instead what it has attempted to do (especially in the last hundred years) is 'rescue' the beliefs of our ancestors FROM science by means of adopting scientific terminology to recast old propaganda as 'historical testimony.'
Indeed how could we go from the observations of German scholarship in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that Marcion developed the first canon to our present disinterest in Marcion? Yes to be sure there have been a handful of papers written on Marcion which have managed to 'discover' a few interesting things about his 'tradition.' But the real question is why hasn't EVERYONE in the field of NT studies developed an OBSESSION for Marcion?
Let's be honest with ourselves and ask the most fundamental question which German scholarship recognized over a century ago - which tradition is older than the Marcionite tradition?
Of course I like and even love many Lutheran scholars. Indeed all my closest associates are Lutheran. Yet there is a problem with the mind set of these people that is worth noting.
While I can't say enough about the Lutheran interest in 'following the truth wherever it leads' in a strange way this comes back to haunt these investigators. For all ancient Biblical traditions are above all else SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT. The ancient rabbis and Church Fathers did not operate like the Lutheran scholar. They did not sit around speculating about what 'the truth' was. The truth was the tradition they represented.
I can't emphasize enough that Origen the Alexandrian and Clement the Alexandrian were Alexandrians first and 'thinkers' second. Their ideas were not developed out of their own imaginations (i.e. in the manner that the Lutheran scholar approaches history). They did not 'make sense' of the Bible. The Bible already 'made sense' through the tradition of Mark which they became a part of when they accepted the sacraments of the Church.
Where Clement and Origen differed from one another was in responding to contemporary pressures from the emerging Catholic Church. That is the reason that Clement could call himself a gnostic and Origen could not. The term had already become associated with heresy owing to the influence of Irenaeus (even though for all intents and purposes Irenaeus did not ban the use of the term; for he speaks of 'false gnostics' and as such there must have been 'true gnostics' and 'true gnosis' which he claimed his tradition represented).
Indeed is it any wonder that the successors of Irenaeus end up blasting all those who came after Origen as 'Origenists' in order to bypass the argument that Origen was merely passing on a pre-existent Alexandrian tradition (i.e. that Heraclas, Dionysus, Theognostus, Pierius and the rest were simply Alexandrians or followers of the apostolic tradition of St. Mark).
The tradition certainly existed, just read the Acts of Peter of Alexandria for God's sake! It is made explicit but no one hears what it says. There is 'little Mark' i.e. 'Marcion' from Mark 14:52 appearing naked in his linen cloth reminding Peter and the reader about the ancient tradition he created and which Peter I was only the latest representative.
Indeed if we go back and look at the very approach of Irenaeus to attack the legitimacy of the heresies we see the same methodology at work.
The heretics are interestingly accused of employing the methodology of the modern Lutherans. They 'invented' interpretations of the Bible which stand at odds to the 'true tradition' that was witnessed by Polycarp (through a chain of transmission from Jesus to John and John to Polycarp and Polycarp to Irenaeus) and the Roman bishop (from Jesus to Peter and Peter through Linus etc).
Irenaeus certainly does not mention the Alexandrian tradition of Jesus passing on knowledge to Mark and Mark to the various Popes of Alexandria. Scholars conclude from this omission that the Alexandrian tradition didn't exist at this time! Yeah, these guys are real geniuses. Apparently America went to Iraq to promote democracy, just look at what President Bush said in 2002 ...
I guess we are supposed to think it is coincidence that 'Cerdo' is identified as a teacher of Marcionite doctrines AND an Alexandrian Pope at the time 'St. John' was active ...
In any event by establishing the heretics as 'imaginative thinkers' or even philosophers (notice that they are called 'heresies' for a very good reason) Irenaeus is attempting to further diminish the Alexandrian tradition. Yes, I am suggesting that Marcion was from Alexandria. The epithets 'of Sinope' or 'of Pontus' only reflect widespread contemporary reports that Alexandrian Christianity seemed to pagans to have been influenced by the cult of Sarapis (who according to Plutarch was of Sinope in the Pontus).
The fact that the Marcionite canon had a letter to the Alexandrians and the Catholics don't and posit instead an Acts of the Apostles which emphasizes an Antiochean line of transmission (Irenaeus inherited this text from Polycarp's correspondance with Theophilus of Antioch) says everything. Alexandria is INTENTIONALLY absent from Acts and the Catholic canon (Apollos not withstanding).
Alexandria was the place from where the term Papa and the Papacy derived its origin. Need I say more? ...
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
Indeed how could we go from the observations of German scholarship in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that Marcion developed the first canon to our present disinterest in Marcion? Yes to be sure there have been a handful of papers written on Marcion which have managed to 'discover' a few interesting things about his 'tradition.' But the real question is why hasn't EVERYONE in the field of NT studies developed an OBSESSION for Marcion?
Let's be honest with ourselves and ask the most fundamental question which German scholarship recognized over a century ago - which tradition is older than the Marcionite tradition?
Of course I like and even love many Lutheran scholars. Indeed all my closest associates are Lutheran. Yet there is a problem with the mind set of these people that is worth noting.
While I can't say enough about the Lutheran interest in 'following the truth wherever it leads' in a strange way this comes back to haunt these investigators. For all ancient Biblical traditions are above all else SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT. The ancient rabbis and Church Fathers did not operate like the Lutheran scholar. They did not sit around speculating about what 'the truth' was. The truth was the tradition they represented.
I can't emphasize enough that Origen the Alexandrian and Clement the Alexandrian were Alexandrians first and 'thinkers' second. Their ideas were not developed out of their own imaginations (i.e. in the manner that the Lutheran scholar approaches history). They did not 'make sense' of the Bible. The Bible already 'made sense' through the tradition of Mark which they became a part of when they accepted the sacraments of the Church.
Where Clement and Origen differed from one another was in responding to contemporary pressures from the emerging Catholic Church. That is the reason that Clement could call himself a gnostic and Origen could not. The term had already become associated with heresy owing to the influence of Irenaeus (even though for all intents and purposes Irenaeus did not ban the use of the term; for he speaks of 'false gnostics' and as such there must have been 'true gnostics' and 'true gnosis' which he claimed his tradition represented).
Indeed is it any wonder that the successors of Irenaeus end up blasting all those who came after Origen as 'Origenists' in order to bypass the argument that Origen was merely passing on a pre-existent Alexandrian tradition (i.e. that Heraclas, Dionysus, Theognostus, Pierius and the rest were simply Alexandrians or followers of the apostolic tradition of St. Mark).
The tradition certainly existed, just read the Acts of Peter of Alexandria for God's sake! It is made explicit but no one hears what it says. There is 'little Mark' i.e. 'Marcion' from Mark 14:52 appearing naked in his linen cloth reminding Peter and the reader about the ancient tradition he created and which Peter I was only the latest representative.
Indeed if we go back and look at the very approach of Irenaeus to attack the legitimacy of the heresies we see the same methodology at work.
The heretics are interestingly accused of employing the methodology of the modern Lutherans. They 'invented' interpretations of the Bible which stand at odds to the 'true tradition' that was witnessed by Polycarp (through a chain of transmission from Jesus to John and John to Polycarp and Polycarp to Irenaeus) and the Roman bishop (from Jesus to Peter and Peter through Linus etc).
Irenaeus certainly does not mention the Alexandrian tradition of Jesus passing on knowledge to Mark and Mark to the various Popes of Alexandria. Scholars conclude from this omission that the Alexandrian tradition didn't exist at this time! Yeah, these guys are real geniuses. Apparently America went to Iraq to promote democracy, just look at what President Bush said in 2002 ...
I guess we are supposed to think it is coincidence that 'Cerdo' is identified as a teacher of Marcionite doctrines AND an Alexandrian Pope at the time 'St. John' was active ...
In any event by establishing the heretics as 'imaginative thinkers' or even philosophers (notice that they are called 'heresies' for a very good reason) Irenaeus is attempting to further diminish the Alexandrian tradition. Yes, I am suggesting that Marcion was from Alexandria. The epithets 'of Sinope' or 'of Pontus' only reflect widespread contemporary reports that Alexandrian Christianity seemed to pagans to have been influenced by the cult of Sarapis (who according to Plutarch was of Sinope in the Pontus).
The fact that the Marcionite canon had a letter to the Alexandrians and the Catholics don't and posit instead an Acts of the Apostles which emphasizes an Antiochean line of transmission (Irenaeus inherited this text from Polycarp's correspondance with Theophilus of Antioch) says everything. Alexandria is INTENTIONALLY absent from Acts and the Catholic canon (Apollos not withstanding).
Alexandria was the place from where the term Papa and the Papacy derived its origin. Need I say more? ...
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
File This Under 'F' Meaning 'For Whatever It's Worth ...'
Traces of Aramaic on Shroud of Turin
Published: July 29, 2009
As Pope Benedict confirmed his intention to visit the Shroud of Turin
next year, French scientist Thierry Castex has revealed that he has
found traces of Aramaic on the Shroud.
Pope Benedict confirmed his intention to visit the Shroud of Turin
when it goes on public display in Turin's cathedral April 10-May 23,
2010, Catholic News Service reports.
Cardinal Severino Poletto of Turin, papal custodian of the Shroud of
Turin, visited the pope on July 26 in Les Combes, Italy, where the
pope was spending part of his vacation. The Alpine village is about
137 kilometres from Turin.
The cardinal gave the pope the latest news concerning preparations for
next year's public exposition of the shroud and the pope "confirmed
his intention to go to Turin for the occasion," said the Vatican
spokesman, Fr Federico Lombardi, in a written statement on July 27.
A recent study by French scientist Thierry Castex has revealed that on
the shroud are traces of words in Aramaic spelled with Hebrew letters.
A Vatican researcher, Barbara Frale, told Vatican Radio on July 26
that her own studies suggest the letters on the shroud were written
more than 1,800 years ago.
She said that in 1978 a Latin professor in Milan noticed Aramaic
writing on the shroud and in 1989 scholars discovered Hebrew
characters that probably were portions of the phrase "The king of the
Jews."
Castex's recent discovery of the word "found" with another word next
to it, which still has to be deciphered, "together may mean 'because
found' or 'we found'," she said.
What is interesting, she said, is that it recalls a passage in the
Gospel of St Luke, "We found this man misleading our people," which
was what several Jewish leaders told Pontius Pilate when they asked
him to condemn Jesus.
She said it would not be unusual for something to be written on a
burial cloth in order to indicate the identity of the deceased
Published: July 29, 2009
As Pope Benedict confirmed his intention to visit the Shroud of Turin
next year, French scientist Thierry Castex has revealed that he has
found traces of Aramaic on the Shroud.
Pope Benedict confirmed his intention to visit the Shroud of Turin
when it goes on public display in Turin's cathedral April 10-May 23,
2010, Catholic News Service reports.
Cardinal Severino Poletto of Turin, papal custodian of the Shroud of
Turin, visited the pope on July 26 in Les Combes, Italy, where the
pope was spending part of his vacation. The Alpine village is about
137 kilometres from Turin.
The cardinal gave the pope the latest news concerning preparations for
next year's public exposition of the shroud and the pope "confirmed
his intention to go to Turin for the occasion," said the Vatican
spokesman, Fr Federico Lombardi, in a written statement on July 27.
A recent study by French scientist Thierry Castex has revealed that on
the shroud are traces of words in Aramaic spelled with Hebrew letters.
A Vatican researcher, Barbara Frale, told Vatican Radio on July 26
that her own studies suggest the letters on the shroud were written
more than 1,800 years ago.
She said that in 1978 a Latin professor in Milan noticed Aramaic
writing on the shroud and in 1989 scholars discovered Hebrew
characters that probably were portions of the phrase "The king of the
Jews."
Castex's recent discovery of the word "found" with another word next
to it, which still has to be deciphered, "together may mean 'because
found' or 'we found'," she said.
What is interesting, she said, is that it recalls a passage in the
Gospel of St Luke, "We found this man misleading our people," which
was what several Jewish leaders told Pontius Pilate when they asked
him to condemn Jesus.
She said it would not be unusual for something to be written on a
burial cloth in order to indicate the identity of the deceased
Speaking with David Trobisch
I spoke with David Trobisch at length today. Always great to speak to a real genius. It is amazing how similar our observations are. We agree on almost EVERYTHING save for our conclusions and I think that will erode over time (maybe I will end up going over to his way of thinking, who knows, he is smarter than me ...)
What I Hate About Current NT Scholarship
I hope the reader sees what I am trying to do with my research and why I am different than other scholars. I want to move beyond the Catholic PARADIGM about Jesus. I don't see the point of constantly forcing all evidence from the earliest period of Christianity into a 'box' which accepts:
(a) a physical human being named Jesus
(b) a Church founded under the principles set forth in the book of Acts
(c) identifying the author of the canonical letters in the Marcionite canon as 'Paul'
(d) identifying the gospel of the Marcionite canon as 'corrupt version' of Luke
The problem with positing any of these ideas is that it adversely affects the results of any future research that develops out of these presuppositions.
As Nietzsche once noted, the real problem in all of our lives is our inability to confront our presuppositions. In other words, few of us have the courage to admit that most of the ideas that are swimming around in our head have been 'planted' in their by individuals and institutions which want to control our way of thinking.
I know this sounds like the overstatement of the year but it is very similar to what happens when an individual suffers sexual or physical abuse by a parent or a relative. The individual CANNOT develop normally once the 'seed' of corruption has been planted in his soul.
To this end, if any of us really want to make sense of earliest Christianity rather than merely perpetuating the agendas of our ancestors (and I recognize that some of those inherited agendas can be a general HOSTILITY to things Christian) we have to challenge the certainty that we have in our inherited presuppostions about the canon and the role and identity of Jesus within those texts.
I personally think that the Marcionite tradition provides a great 'control group' to limit the influence of the Catholic tradition. Everything we see from the testimony of the earliest Fathers indicates that Marcion was older than the Catholic tradition (when Polycarp allegedly met Marcion Marcion was certainly the 'elder' Polycarp the innovator). The Marcionites had a fixed canon which could not have allowed for much innovation.
To this end, when we start to see that the Marcionites held that the figure who appeared crucified during the Passion was God and not man, Chrestos rather than Christos it is imperative that we investigate. There is a whole new interpretation of Christianity available for us to broaden our understanding of the tradition.
Why do so many scholars want to limit themselves to understanding an implausible scenario where someone HAD TO BE both God and man, divine Lord and Christ merely because someone penetrated their minds and implanted this nonsense into their soul when they were young and vulnerable? The search for truth demands that we purify ourselves from these impulses. We should learn to think for ourselves so that we come up with our own answers and our own truths.
For far too long scholarship has suffered from a kind of 'Stockholm syndrome' when it comes to its dependence on our inherited assumptions. As I remember it, the gospel says that the truth will set us free rather than enslave us ...
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
(a) a physical human being named Jesus
(b) a Church founded under the principles set forth in the book of Acts
(c) identifying the author of the canonical letters in the Marcionite canon as 'Paul'
(d) identifying the gospel of the Marcionite canon as 'corrupt version' of Luke
The problem with positing any of these ideas is that it adversely affects the results of any future research that develops out of these presuppositions.
As Nietzsche once noted, the real problem in all of our lives is our inability to confront our presuppositions. In other words, few of us have the courage to admit that most of the ideas that are swimming around in our head have been 'planted' in their by individuals and institutions which want to control our way of thinking.
I know this sounds like the overstatement of the year but it is very similar to what happens when an individual suffers sexual or physical abuse by a parent or a relative. The individual CANNOT develop normally once the 'seed' of corruption has been planted in his soul.
To this end, if any of us really want to make sense of earliest Christianity rather than merely perpetuating the agendas of our ancestors (and I recognize that some of those inherited agendas can be a general HOSTILITY to things Christian) we have to challenge the certainty that we have in our inherited presuppostions about the canon and the role and identity of Jesus within those texts.
I personally think that the Marcionite tradition provides a great 'control group' to limit the influence of the Catholic tradition. Everything we see from the testimony of the earliest Fathers indicates that Marcion was older than the Catholic tradition (when Polycarp allegedly met Marcion Marcion was certainly the 'elder' Polycarp the innovator). The Marcionites had a fixed canon which could not have allowed for much innovation.
To this end, when we start to see that the Marcionites held that the figure who appeared crucified during the Passion was God and not man, Chrestos rather than Christos it is imperative that we investigate. There is a whole new interpretation of Christianity available for us to broaden our understanding of the tradition.
Why do so many scholars want to limit themselves to understanding an implausible scenario where someone HAD TO BE both God and man, divine Lord and Christ merely because someone penetrated their minds and implanted this nonsense into their soul when they were young and vulnerable? The search for truth demands that we purify ourselves from these impulses. We should learn to think for ourselves so that we come up with our own answers and our own truths.
For far too long scholarship has suffered from a kind of 'Stockholm syndrome' when it comes to its dependence on our inherited assumptions. As I remember it, the gospel says that the truth will set us free rather than enslave us ...
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The Marcionite Passion
I have long argued that scholarship as whole has been too quick on the one hand to define Catholic orthodoxy - the one which developed under Irenaeus in the late second century - as 'Christianity' without trying to make sense of the older Marcionite position. We have just shown that common ground likely existed between the Marcionite notion of Jesus 'coming down to Capernaum' as God from heaven in the appearance of man and the idea of God visiting humanity at the end of times in the Community Rule document of Qumran.
Of course it seems counter intuitive at first to equate the Marcionites as a Jewish sect but as I show time and time again the problem is our inherited presuppositions about what constitutes a Jewish sect.
The Marcionites did not 'hate' the OT God. Neither did they 'hate' Moses or the Law and the prophets. All that likely happened was that they saw 'Marcion' - i.e. little Mark - as the one prophesied by Moses or the prophet like Moses (their names are numerological equivalents) who introduced the perfect Torah i.e. the gospel.
Under this scenario it would only be natural for the Law and the prophets of the 'old testament' to be effectively rendered useless. Their 'rejection' of the old revelation would of course be viewed as a sign of contempt by those who denied their assumptions - i.e. those who still believed that the authority Law and prophets was still 'in force.' Typical exaggerations about the 'blasphemy' of the heretics would follow (the ancient equivalent of Sean Hannity's 'why do liberals hate America?').
In any event, I have went over this many times already the new wrinkle of course is that we have in the Marcionite concept God 'descending' or 'visiting' humanity in the appearance of flesh (an peculiar emphasis on the word 'appear' which can be seen in the Pauline writings). Why so? Why would the Marcionites be so zealous to deny the later concept of a virgin birth? Why - and notice the typically loaded Catholic phraseology - did they want to deny Jesus' humanity?
It can't because the Marcionites knew the Catholic position was the true one and they were inspired by the Devil (Irenaeus' explanation). We have already shown how the Marcionite position developed out of Jewish ideas from before the destruction of the temple.
While I won't speculate again why God had to appear crucified I can explain why the name of this story of God coming down from heaven and imparting the Christ soul in his beloved eyewitness 'little Mark' was called a Passion from the very beginning.
Traditional scholarship has no explanation other to imply that it was a 'passion' because Jesus 'suffered.' Even Origen recognizes that this is a non-starter. So what are we left with? Let's attempt to find a Semitic solution to the problem.
The term notzrim is a well established Aramaic term denoting Christians from the rabbinic literature. It is undoubtedly the original term behind the title 'Nazarene' and - as I am about to demonstrate - it actually stands behind the seemingly familiar concept of the Passion of Christ.
It is my suggestion to read the term נוצרים as notsarim (root YOD-tsade-resh, nif‘al participle). I believe this deserves serious consideration. Of course there could have been a pair of terms, an exoteric term notsrim from nun-tsade-resh meaning “guardians” and an esoteric term notsarim from yod-tsade-resh meaning “re-formed”.
Just look at the verse in Isaiah that says God will set notsrim on the walls of Jerusalem. Look in BDB under NUN-tsade-resh, qal, participle. You should also go through the shades of meaning of yetser listed in Jastrow, if the meaning of notsarim is “those with a new yetser”.
Indeed as Schiffman notes the concept of the two spirits in the Community Rule bears some relationship to the rabbinic concept of two yetsers or 'natures' in man.
What I am suggesting is that Marcionite must have understood God as wanting to come down to earth in the Passion as a means of 'reforming' or 'transforming' humanity from a material being to a spiritual being. Think about what is introduced just before - ritual washing and the consumption of his spiritual flesh and blood.
Anyone who has any familiarity with the attacks against the Marcionites throughout the ages (and not just limited to what appears in Tertullian) is the sect claimed to have attained a bodily form or yetser owing to their initiation into the mysteries of Christ. Maybe now we can begin to see where that concept came from - the transference of the Christ-soul from God on the cross to his beloved disciple 'little Mark.'
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
Of course it seems counter intuitive at first to equate the Marcionites as a Jewish sect but as I show time and time again the problem is our inherited presuppositions about what constitutes a Jewish sect.
The Marcionites did not 'hate' the OT God. Neither did they 'hate' Moses or the Law and the prophets. All that likely happened was that they saw 'Marcion' - i.e. little Mark - as the one prophesied by Moses or the prophet like Moses (their names are numerological equivalents) who introduced the perfect Torah i.e. the gospel.
Under this scenario it would only be natural for the Law and the prophets of the 'old testament' to be effectively rendered useless. Their 'rejection' of the old revelation would of course be viewed as a sign of contempt by those who denied their assumptions - i.e. those who still believed that the authority Law and prophets was still 'in force.' Typical exaggerations about the 'blasphemy' of the heretics would follow (the ancient equivalent of Sean Hannity's 'why do liberals hate America?').
In any event, I have went over this many times already the new wrinkle of course is that we have in the Marcionite concept God 'descending' or 'visiting' humanity in the appearance of flesh (an peculiar emphasis on the word 'appear' which can be seen in the Pauline writings). Why so? Why would the Marcionites be so zealous to deny the later concept of a virgin birth? Why - and notice the typically loaded Catholic phraseology - did they want to deny Jesus' humanity?
It can't because the Marcionites knew the Catholic position was the true one and they were inspired by the Devil (Irenaeus' explanation). We have already shown how the Marcionite position developed out of Jewish ideas from before the destruction of the temple.
While I won't speculate again why God had to appear crucified I can explain why the name of this story of God coming down from heaven and imparting the Christ soul in his beloved eyewitness 'little Mark' was called a Passion from the very beginning.
Traditional scholarship has no explanation other to imply that it was a 'passion' because Jesus 'suffered.' Even Origen recognizes that this is a non-starter. So what are we left with? Let's attempt to find a Semitic solution to the problem.
The term notzrim is a well established Aramaic term denoting Christians from the rabbinic literature. It is undoubtedly the original term behind the title 'Nazarene' and - as I am about to demonstrate - it actually stands behind the seemingly familiar concept of the Passion of Christ.
It is my suggestion to read the term נוצרים as notsarim (root YOD-tsade-resh, nif‘al participle). I believe this deserves serious consideration. Of course there could have been a pair of terms, an exoteric term notsrim from nun-tsade-resh meaning “guardians” and an esoteric term notsarim from yod-tsade-resh meaning “re-formed”.
Just look at the verse in Isaiah that says God will set notsrim on the walls of Jerusalem. Look in BDB under NUN-tsade-resh, qal, participle. You should also go through the shades of meaning of yetser listed in Jastrow, if the meaning of notsarim is “those with a new yetser”.
Indeed as Schiffman notes the concept of the two spirits in the Community Rule bears some relationship to the rabbinic concept of two yetsers or 'natures' in man.
What I am suggesting is that Marcionite must have understood God as wanting to come down to earth in the Passion as a means of 'reforming' or 'transforming' humanity from a material being to a spiritual being. Think about what is introduced just before - ritual washing and the consumption of his spiritual flesh and blood.
Anyone who has any familiarity with the attacks against the Marcionites throughout the ages (and not just limited to what appears in Tertullian) is the sect claimed to have attained a bodily form or yetser owing to their initiation into the mysteries of Christ. Maybe now we can begin to see where that concept came from - the transference of the Christ-soul from God on the cross to his beloved disciple 'little Mark.'
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
Qumran and Early Christianity
I have to admit I have always avoided integrating the Qumran texts with theory about Agrippa for very specific reasons. I simply don't feel comfortable enough to make any assessment about what the Qumran community's relationship was with ol' Marcus Julius Agrippa. In the immortal words of Wittgenstein "
Of course I had a revelation today about the relationship of the DSS and Marcion of all things.
So there I was in the basement of my house with my son. We have a large screen TV and he was shouting 'Max and Ruby! Max and Ruby!' as an indication he wanted to watch his favorite show. As I flipped through the channels I saw Lawrence Schiffman of all people giving a lecture on the Qumran concept of predestination. He was citing 1QS III.15, a text I had read a hundred times but never fully realized its importance to my understanding of the beliefs of the Marcionites. The words appeared on the screen as I listened to him in his thick Brooklyn accent explain the concept of free will in 'rabbinic Judaism and Pauline Christianity.'
The words which stood out like a sore thumb in the passage were:
He [God] created man to rule the world, and he assigned two spirits to him that he might walk by them until the appointed time of His visitation
I know these words are hardly new to any of us but they are surprisingly significant when you study early Christianity and Marcionitism in particular.
For normative Christianity presents a scenario where Jesus is God because the womb of Mary became inseminated somehow with the divine seed. Yet the original sectarian interpretation certainly did not involve a virgin birth. It was uncannily familiar with what the Marcionites must have held.
As I have been reconstructing the whole idea of 'God on the Cross' I have struggle to make sense of how any contemporary Jewish community could have ended up venerating a torture instrument. I have to admit I always found the other side of the equation equally problematic as a Jew. How could God come down to earth and make a prolonged 'visit' to humanity? It just didn't seem very 'Jewish' forgetting of course that the kind of Judaism I was familiar with undoubtedly underwent continual refinement in the years since the introduction of Christianity and Islam in order to allow for itself to be presented as a form of 'pure monotheism.'
Whatever the case, the seemingly ridiculous idea of God coming down to visit humanity is explicit in this seminal text in the first century sectarian community.
I leave aside the whole issue of how God could be thought to be crucified for the moment. The fact is that it was refreshing to be reminded how my presuppositions needed fine tuning.
The point again is that this concept in the Community Rule has nothing to do with the Virgin Birth. It must have been identical with the seemingly absurd Marcionite contention that Jesus was God who came down to earth at the beginning of the gospel only appearing to have human form.
While Irenaeus and later Church Fathers make it seem as if these ideas just sprang into the imaginations of 'heretics' like Marcion, the Community Rule makes clear this was not so. It must have been a very 'Jewish' concept - albeit one which became buried after the rise of Christianity - that God would visit humanity at the end of times.
Of course some out there could split hairs and say that the DSS doesn't make explicit that God did not have material form or only came in the appearance of man. Nevertheless it seems hardly likely that Jews would have argued that God could have assumed 'real material' form.
I can't offer proof for my hunch. I have after been proven wrong before, as you have just seen. Yet it seems the most likely scenario that the Marcionites and the Qumran sect shared a parallel notion that God descended from the heavens in order to visit mankind still retaining his spiritual perfection. This appearance on earth has nothing do with a gnostic 'fall from grace.' God is just announcing himself at the end of times all. If you were a Marcionite Christian you just thought that this God appeared in the form of man named Jesus.
Indeed you probably also thought this was the re-appearance of the heavenly column of glory which accompanied Israel at the Exodus. It was for this reason that the Marcionites called him Jesus Chrestos.
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
Of course I had a revelation today about the relationship of the DSS and Marcion of all things.
So there I was in the basement of my house with my son. We have a large screen TV and he was shouting 'Max and Ruby! Max and Ruby!' as an indication he wanted to watch his favorite show. As I flipped through the channels I saw Lawrence Schiffman of all people giving a lecture on the Qumran concept of predestination. He was citing 1QS III.15, a text I had read a hundred times but never fully realized its importance to my understanding of the beliefs of the Marcionites. The words appeared on the screen as I listened to him in his thick Brooklyn accent explain the concept of free will in 'rabbinic Judaism and Pauline Christianity.'
The words which stood out like a sore thumb in the passage were:
He [God] created man to rule the world, and he assigned two spirits to him that he might walk by them until the appointed time of His visitation
I know these words are hardly new to any of us but they are surprisingly significant when you study early Christianity and Marcionitism in particular.
For normative Christianity presents a scenario where Jesus is God because the womb of Mary became inseminated somehow with the divine seed. Yet the original sectarian interpretation certainly did not involve a virgin birth. It was uncannily familiar with what the Marcionites must have held.
As I have been reconstructing the whole idea of 'God on the Cross' I have struggle to make sense of how any contemporary Jewish community could have ended up venerating a torture instrument. I have to admit I always found the other side of the equation equally problematic as a Jew. How could God come down to earth and make a prolonged 'visit' to humanity? It just didn't seem very 'Jewish' forgetting of course that the kind of Judaism I was familiar with undoubtedly underwent continual refinement in the years since the introduction of Christianity and Islam in order to allow for itself to be presented as a form of 'pure monotheism.'
Whatever the case, the seemingly ridiculous idea of God coming down to visit humanity is explicit in this seminal text in the first century sectarian community.
I leave aside the whole issue of how God could be thought to be crucified for the moment. The fact is that it was refreshing to be reminded how my presuppositions needed fine tuning.
The point again is that this concept in the Community Rule has nothing to do with the Virgin Birth. It must have been identical with the seemingly absurd Marcionite contention that Jesus was God who came down to earth at the beginning of the gospel only appearing to have human form.
While Irenaeus and later Church Fathers make it seem as if these ideas just sprang into the imaginations of 'heretics' like Marcion, the Community Rule makes clear this was not so. It must have been a very 'Jewish' concept - albeit one which became buried after the rise of Christianity - that God would visit humanity at the end of times.
Of course some out there could split hairs and say that the DSS doesn't make explicit that God did not have material form or only came in the appearance of man. Nevertheless it seems hardly likely that Jews would have argued that God could have assumed 'real material' form.
I can't offer proof for my hunch. I have after been proven wrong before, as you have just seen. Yet it seems the most likely scenario that the Marcionites and the Qumran sect shared a parallel notion that God descended from the heavens in order to visit mankind still retaining his spiritual perfection. This appearance on earth has nothing do with a gnostic 'fall from grace.' God is just announcing himself at the end of times all. If you were a Marcionite Christian you just thought that this God appeared in the form of man named Jesus.
Indeed you probably also thought this was the re-appearance of the heavenly column of glory which accompanied Israel at the Exodus. It was for this reason that the Marcionites called him Jesus Chrestos.
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
Monday, July 27, 2009
The Cross [part 3]
So when we come full circle to the central question in all of Christianity - how the community learned to love the instrument of God's execution - it is difficult to imagine that such a thing could have occurred naturally. Yes, the (Ethiopian) Copts venerate Pilate as a saint. Yet this doesn't approach the unlikeliness of it ending up worshiping the ancient equivalent of the electric chair. Even amor fati has its limits.
The only explanation that I can come up with is that the Christian Mark developed the veneration of the Cross along arguments we see emerge in the first hymn of Marqe in the Samaritan canon. The martyr embodies both a blessing (of resurrection) and a curse (of suffering the same fate) upon all who witness it.
I find it impossible to get over the underlying symbolism of a 'crucified one' as embodiment of the primitive symbolism employed by all conquerers. We read of armies killing a number of males and raising them up as 'warnings' against any in the general populace who might think of joining sides with the rebels.
I know that this isn't what we have come to think of when we view the Cross. This certainly wasn't what our European ancestors told us was its sacred mystery. However when we return the Cross back to its native setting in first century Palestine the real question is - how could it escape this significance given the contemporary political culture?
Indeed it is easy to imagine the doctrines of our existing Church orthodoxy flourishing in a historical void or in Europe (the same thing I think for all intents and purposes). Yet can anyone really imagine that the disciples of Jesus promoted a Cross in ancient Palestine in the lead up to the War? Can anyone imagine anything more ridiculous? It would be like white people encouraging the 'worship of the hanging noose' in the Deep South in the last century and claiming 'we don't understand what everyone is so upset about ...'
Jews are still revolted by the Cross and it isn't because they are related to vampires. They recognize its original symbolism even if contemporary European experts do not.
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
The only explanation that I can come up with is that the Christian Mark developed the veneration of the Cross along arguments we see emerge in the first hymn of Marqe in the Samaritan canon. The martyr embodies both a blessing (of resurrection) and a curse (of suffering the same fate) upon all who witness it.
I find it impossible to get over the underlying symbolism of a 'crucified one' as embodiment of the primitive symbolism employed by all conquerers. We read of armies killing a number of males and raising them up as 'warnings' against any in the general populace who might think of joining sides with the rebels.
I know that this isn't what we have come to think of when we view the Cross. This certainly wasn't what our European ancestors told us was its sacred mystery. However when we return the Cross back to its native setting in first century Palestine the real question is - how could it escape this significance given the contemporary political culture?
Indeed it is easy to imagine the doctrines of our existing Church orthodoxy flourishing in a historical void or in Europe (the same thing I think for all intents and purposes). Yet can anyone really imagine that the disciples of Jesus promoted a Cross in ancient Palestine in the lead up to the War? Can anyone imagine anything more ridiculous? It would be like white people encouraging the 'worship of the hanging noose' in the Deep South in the last century and claiming 'we don't understand what everyone is so upset about ...'
Jews are still revolted by the Cross and it isn't because they are related to vampires. They recognize its original symbolism even if contemporary European experts do not.
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
The Real Messiah
So let me make one thing absolutely clear. The Real Messiah does not go into what motivation Marcus Agrippa to write the gospel. It doesn't 'connect the dots' between contemporary research into the idea that St. Mark's composed the gospel at Paneas (Ted Weeden for instance) and Marcus Agrippa's prolonged exile there in 66 CE as the Jewish War was just beginning. It doesn't argue that Agrippa developed the veneration of the Cross as the new testimony of Israel as part of a military strategy. It doesn't make the case that Agrippa and his sister Berenice convinced their intimate associate Titus the future Emperor and leader of the Imperial effort against the rebels to recreate the prophesied events in Daniel chapter 9 - the prophesy at the heart of the little apocalypse of Mark's and which Jews and Christians agree pointed to Agrippa as the awaited messiah of Israel.
I happen to think that all of these ideas has some merit. I have discussed them here on my blog but they did not form a part of my published book.
There just wasn't enough room in the book for this kind of speculation. All that I could do was build the case that a nine year old Marcus Julius Agrippa went to Alexandria in a Jubilee year (38 CE) and was enthroned as the messiah by the Jewish and Samaritan populace there.
I did allow myself to take some time arguing that the Samaritan remembrance of a shadowy figure named 'Mark the son of Titus' was a recollection of Agrippa. I also added that the Coptic traditions remembrance of the Alexandrian 'St. Mark' seemed to reflect many aspects of Agrippa's person as did the cult of St. Berenice (Veronica) in Paneas.
I also showed how deeply ingrained the Jewish belief that Agrippa was the messiah of Israel was. The rabbinic literature is filled with references to this idea. The understanding continued to trickle down to the late Medieval period. Indeed notice what Christiani's attack against Nachmanides against was. The rabbinic literature testifies to the fact that the messiah already appeared in the period leading up to the destruction of the Temple. Yes, Christians like to manipulate this original argument to mean that the Jewish writings testified to Jesus but the evidence simply does not support this argument.
A case can be made that both Christiani and Nachmanides are dancing around the traditional Jewish identification of Agrippa as the messiah of Israel.
Again I can't claim that I proved that Marcus Agrippa was St. Mark or that Marcus Agrippa wrote the gospel just yet. There is a long way to go in that regard and I need companions to help me along the way.
What I can say is that I have established something which should have been recognized long ago - namely that Marcus Julius Agrippa was recognized as the awaited messiah by the ancient Sanhedrin in a Jubilee year (some would argue sabbatical year but the point is the same). Agrippa had a messianic tradition associated with him which seemed to connect early Jews and Christians. This tradition might well be identified as the 'Marcionite' tradition mentioned in the Church Fathers especially as the very name means 'those of Marcus' in Hebrew.
Beyond that there is a wide horizon for us to explore together ...
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
I happen to think that all of these ideas has some merit. I have discussed them here on my blog but they did not form a part of my published book.
There just wasn't enough room in the book for this kind of speculation. All that I could do was build the case that a nine year old Marcus Julius Agrippa went to Alexandria in a Jubilee year (38 CE) and was enthroned as the messiah by the Jewish and Samaritan populace there.
I did allow myself to take some time arguing that the Samaritan remembrance of a shadowy figure named 'Mark the son of Titus' was a recollection of Agrippa. I also added that the Coptic traditions remembrance of the Alexandrian 'St. Mark' seemed to reflect many aspects of Agrippa's person as did the cult of St. Berenice (Veronica) in Paneas.
I also showed how deeply ingrained the Jewish belief that Agrippa was the messiah of Israel was. The rabbinic literature is filled with references to this idea. The understanding continued to trickle down to the late Medieval period. Indeed notice what Christiani's attack against Nachmanides against was. The rabbinic literature testifies to the fact that the messiah already appeared in the period leading up to the destruction of the Temple. Yes, Christians like to manipulate this original argument to mean that the Jewish writings testified to Jesus but the evidence simply does not support this argument.
A case can be made that both Christiani and Nachmanides are dancing around the traditional Jewish identification of Agrippa as the messiah of Israel.
Again I can't claim that I proved that Marcus Agrippa was St. Mark or that Marcus Agrippa wrote the gospel just yet. There is a long way to go in that regard and I need companions to help me along the way.
What I can say is that I have established something which should have been recognized long ago - namely that Marcus Julius Agrippa was recognized as the awaited messiah by the ancient Sanhedrin in a Jubilee year (some would argue sabbatical year but the point is the same). Agrippa had a messianic tradition associated with him which seemed to connect early Jews and Christians. This tradition might well be identified as the 'Marcionite' tradition mentioned in the Church Fathers especially as the very name means 'those of Marcus' in Hebrew.
Beyond that there is a wide horizon for us to explore together ...
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
What I Did
I don't know if my the Real Messiah will ever be recognized as an important book. Yet I would be guilty of dishonesty if I was to claim that I didn't write the book with that purpose in mind. Why else would I bother to attempt something like this? I know that the haters want to believe that there is a Devil or Satan running around 'directing' heretics to attack the Church but it's really not like that (of course if you buy into that conspiracy your probably thinking I am winking at my Satanic majesty right now so there is no way to fight this kind of false paranoia).
If the truth be told I went out of my way to write a POSITIVE book. I could have attacked Christianity and developed all these lines of argument which prove that it is corrupt, dishonest, counterfeit and all the other claims that others do. I just found this approach counter-productive to the ends I was pursuing so I went out of my way to avoid doing it.
Indeed I didn't even mention the one topic which has fascinated me for most of my adult life - Marcionitism. I felt that the average reader wouldn't have a clue who Marcion was and if he did there would be no way to integrate a critical examination of the manner in which the Church Fathers treat 'Marcion' and the 'Marcionites' with the framework of my Agrippa theory without losing all my readers.
Instead I stuck to one idea and developed it as best I could over 288 pages. It is worth noting that even though Marcion isn't mention the whole premise does come down to Marcion.
The underlying argument which is never explicitly referenced in the book(again because I thought I would completely lose my readership) is -
was Mark called 'little Mark' by the Church Fathers because they were referencing a cult in Alexandria which venerated a child disciple of Jesus by that name?
Consider the throne of St. Mark as a constant reminder of the apostle as 'little' Mark. Again the specific name Marcion is never mentioned but the discerning reader should take note of this.
Indeed the whole business of 'Marcion of Sinope' is easy enough to explain in an Alexandrian setting. Think of the whole manner in which St. Mark keeps running into devotees of Sarapis and note the popular understanding of the idol Serapis coming from Sinope of Pontus.
The connection between the Alexandrian Christians and the Alexandrian devotees of Sarapis is as old as Hadrian's statement connecting the two cults. I even think that Hadrian developed his Antinous religion in conscious imitation of the religion of that other ruler Marcus Agrippa. Why else does Celsus of Rome constantly make the comparison while writing immediately after the reign of Hadrian (see Origen).
Celsus must have known the logic which drove Hadrian to make his cult of Antinous. The Emperor must have thought - if Caligula could deify his boy lover why can't I? At least its another angle to explore ...
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
If the truth be told I went out of my way to write a POSITIVE book. I could have attacked Christianity and developed all these lines of argument which prove that it is corrupt, dishonest, counterfeit and all the other claims that others do. I just found this approach counter-productive to the ends I was pursuing so I went out of my way to avoid doing it.
Indeed I didn't even mention the one topic which has fascinated me for most of my adult life - Marcionitism. I felt that the average reader wouldn't have a clue who Marcion was and if he did there would be no way to integrate a critical examination of the manner in which the Church Fathers treat 'Marcion' and the 'Marcionites' with the framework of my Agrippa theory without losing all my readers.
Instead I stuck to one idea and developed it as best I could over 288 pages. It is worth noting that even though Marcion isn't mention the whole premise does come down to Marcion.
The underlying argument which is never explicitly referenced in the book(again because I thought I would completely lose my readership) is -
was Mark called 'little Mark' by the Church Fathers because they were referencing a cult in Alexandria which venerated a child disciple of Jesus by that name?
Consider the throne of St. Mark as a constant reminder of the apostle as 'little' Mark. Again the specific name Marcion is never mentioned but the discerning reader should take note of this.
Indeed the whole business of 'Marcion of Sinope' is easy enough to explain in an Alexandrian setting. Think of the whole manner in which St. Mark keeps running into devotees of Sarapis and note the popular understanding of the idol Serapis coming from Sinope of Pontus.
The connection between the Alexandrian Christians and the Alexandrian devotees of Sarapis is as old as Hadrian's statement connecting the two cults. I even think that Hadrian developed his Antinous religion in conscious imitation of the religion of that other ruler Marcus Agrippa. Why else does Celsus of Rome constantly make the comparison while writing immediately after the reign of Hadrian (see Origen).
Celsus must have known the logic which drove Hadrian to make his cult of Antinous. The Emperor must have thought - if Caligula could deify his boy lover why can't I? At least its another angle to explore ...
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
What I Do
David Trobisch once jokingly said to me that I essentially argue in favor of positions and then dare people to prove me wrong. I don't exactly agree with this assessment. I'd rather say that I ask questions and then after a long period of searching come up with an answer and say to all concerned 'what else can it be?'
Some might argue that this just represents two different ways of characterizing the same metholodology. I leave it up to the reader to figure out whether it really is or not.
The point is that when we develop the answers to basic questions we come up with solutions. For instance if anyone dared ask how the heck did Christianity learn to love the MEANS OF EXECUTION of its God Jesus? we might be able to develop an answer to the question of the origins of 'Cross worship' in Christianity.
As it is scholars simply take for granted that it developed 'naturally' - i.e. innocently - and go on to investigate 'deeper questions.'
Nevertheless I have always been stuck on the simple things. I can't get my mind around how the first Christians learned to venerate the ancient version of the electric chair. It doesn't seem at all natural to me or even plausible.
I don't doubt that Jesus might have been crucified but I can't argue that it had to have happened just because Mark says that he was. The only thing that should raise eyebrows is the fact that the religion of the Cross was raised in an age where massive numbers crucifixions were being established in Palestine.
One can't prove that there was a causality here. Nevertheless the contemporary context is worth considering.
One doesn't need to accept that it was necessarily part of the war effort. Mark could have just 'noticed' the crosses being established by Titus and 'connected' them with the Jesus crucifixion that he witnessed years earlier.
Yet there is more to the story. The gospel that Mark wrote is fascinated with Daniel 9:24 - 27 and its connection to the modern age. Almost all early Christian Church Fathers make the connection with the Jewish War. It is difficult to argue against some sort of 'monkey see, monkey do' here.
Mark - whoever he was - was influenced by the contemporary crucifixions in Palestine if one accepts the 70 CE date for the establishment of his gospel. The question comes down to establishing what that relationship between author and contemporary historical environment was.
You don't have to accept Marcus Agrippa as Mark. You don't have to accept my tentative attempts to identify parallel theologies of the cross developed by contemporary Palestinian Mark figures. The Agrippa theory in my mind represents a theory which hammers a great number of nails into place and actually develops an explanation of the foundation of Christian in real historical time which actually beats the Catholic model.
I am always welcomed to other theories. I just can't come up with anything better to explain the underlying historical phenomena as I see it on my own.
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
Some might argue that this just represents two different ways of characterizing the same metholodology. I leave it up to the reader to figure out whether it really is or not.
The point is that when we develop the answers to basic questions we come up with solutions. For instance if anyone dared ask how the heck did Christianity learn to love the MEANS OF EXECUTION of its God Jesus? we might be able to develop an answer to the question of the origins of 'Cross worship' in Christianity.
As it is scholars simply take for granted that it developed 'naturally' - i.e. innocently - and go on to investigate 'deeper questions.'
Nevertheless I have always been stuck on the simple things. I can't get my mind around how the first Christians learned to venerate the ancient version of the electric chair. It doesn't seem at all natural to me or even plausible.
I don't doubt that Jesus might have been crucified but I can't argue that it had to have happened just because Mark says that he was. The only thing that should raise eyebrows is the fact that the religion of the Cross was raised in an age where massive numbers crucifixions were being established in Palestine.
One can't prove that there was a causality here. Nevertheless the contemporary context is worth considering.
One doesn't need to accept that it was necessarily part of the war effort. Mark could have just 'noticed' the crosses being established by Titus and 'connected' them with the Jesus crucifixion that he witnessed years earlier.
Yet there is more to the story. The gospel that Mark wrote is fascinated with Daniel 9:24 - 27 and its connection to the modern age. Almost all early Christian Church Fathers make the connection with the Jewish War. It is difficult to argue against some sort of 'monkey see, monkey do' here.
Mark - whoever he was - was influenced by the contemporary crucifixions in Palestine if one accepts the 70 CE date for the establishment of his gospel. The question comes down to establishing what that relationship between author and contemporary historical environment was.
You don't have to accept Marcus Agrippa as Mark. You don't have to accept my tentative attempts to identify parallel theologies of the cross developed by contemporary Palestinian Mark figures. The Agrippa theory in my mind represents a theory which hammers a great number of nails into place and actually develops an explanation of the foundation of Christian in real historical time which actually beats the Catholic model.
I am always welcomed to other theories. I just can't come up with anything better to explain the underlying historical phenomena as I see it on my own.
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
On the Authority of 'Paul'
I got an interesting comment from a reader asking me essentially why I am not content simply to advance Hippolytus' reference to the Marcion = Mark formulation. The answer of course is that I find it no more helpful than simply leaving Mark as Mark. The real question is of course how Mark, Marcion or Paul were perceived to have the AUTHORITY to write a gospel or advance the notion that the Cross was the new testimony of God.
I don't think this gets discussed enough ANYWHERE.
The issue of someone needing to have AUTHORITY to proclaim the new Law of the Gospel is present in the Gospel. The Pharisees repeated say to Jesus 'who the ---- are you to say these things.' Jesus answers with vague responses. At one point he speaks of the 'sign of John' or the 'sign of the dove' (the Aramaic would be identical). So we should take seriously the whole question of authority.
Now let me confess that when I started studying the whole issue of Christian theology I couldn't help be amazed at the problem of authority of Paul. Even if we don't subscribe to the Marcionite position, the Catholic tradition depends on 'Paul' to develop the central understanding of the Cross as new testimony of God.
Yet who the ---- was 'Paul'?
Even if you believe in the story in Acts about him being a Jewish bounty hunter the way he subordinates himself in the rest of the story causes problems for his authority. Only someone like Moses [Deut 18:18] - in short the messiah - could have the authority to completely revamp Judaism in favor of a religion of the Cross.
So that's why I have difficulties in seeing the value of merely saying that Mark was Marcion or that Paul was Marcion (I happen to accept both positions). In order for this Mark/Marcion/Paul figure to have made the radical claims he did he had to have been a messianic figure. Indeed the Marcionite community in Harran (Acts of Archelaus) makes this exact formulation as do the Marcionite Origen runs into.
The point then is that we are not just looking for a shell game substituting one meaningless name used by the Church Fathers for another. We have to search for a historical figure named Mark who was known to be held by his contemporaries to have put forward Marcionite ideas. Enter the rabbinic portrait of Marcus Agrippa.
Moreover the Catholics suggest a completely supernatural explanation for the whole theological system introduced by the Apostle. It succeeded because God wanted it to succeed.
With Marcus Agrippa we have another SCIENTIFIC explanation - it succeeded because the inventor of the theology of the Cross was the ruler of Palestine who happened to be recognized by the Jews as the awaited messiah.
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
I don't think this gets discussed enough ANYWHERE.
The issue of someone needing to have AUTHORITY to proclaim the new Law of the Gospel is present in the Gospel. The Pharisees repeated say to Jesus 'who the ---- are you to say these things.' Jesus answers with vague responses. At one point he speaks of the 'sign of John' or the 'sign of the dove' (the Aramaic would be identical). So we should take seriously the whole question of authority.
Now let me confess that when I started studying the whole issue of Christian theology I couldn't help be amazed at the problem of authority of Paul. Even if we don't subscribe to the Marcionite position, the Catholic tradition depends on 'Paul' to develop the central understanding of the Cross as new testimony of God.
Yet who the ---- was 'Paul'?
Even if you believe in the story in Acts about him being a Jewish bounty hunter the way he subordinates himself in the rest of the story causes problems for his authority. Only someone like Moses [Deut 18:18] - in short the messiah - could have the authority to completely revamp Judaism in favor of a religion of the Cross.
So that's why I have difficulties in seeing the value of merely saying that Mark was Marcion or that Paul was Marcion (I happen to accept both positions). In order for this Mark/Marcion/Paul figure to have made the radical claims he did he had to have been a messianic figure. Indeed the Marcionite community in Harran (Acts of Archelaus) makes this exact formulation as do the Marcionite Origen runs into.
The point then is that we are not just looking for a shell game substituting one meaningless name used by the Church Fathers for another. We have to search for a historical figure named Mark who was known to be held by his contemporaries to have put forward Marcionite ideas. Enter the rabbinic portrait of Marcus Agrippa.
Moreover the Catholics suggest a completely supernatural explanation for the whole theological system introduced by the Apostle. It succeeded because God wanted it to succeed.
With Marcus Agrippa we have another SCIENTIFIC explanation - it succeeded because the inventor of the theology of the Cross was the ruler of Palestine who happened to be recognized by the Jews as the awaited messiah.
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The Cross [part 2]
So let's get back to the Cross. Let's try to make sense of its mystery. The gospel which Mark wrote around the time of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem tells us that thirty some years ago Jesus appeared crucified. This event was central to the 'mystery' unfolding at the time of Mark's composition of the gospel. What was this mystery? Well, at its most basic the temple of Jerusalem either WAS ABOUT to be destroyed or HAD JUST BEEN destroyed depending on which theory you accept about the date of the composition of the gospel.
What date do I accept? Let's break it down bit by bit.
I suspect that Mark was Marcus Agrippa.
When Weeden assembles evidence to support an original composition at Paneas I believe him only that I add that the composition coincided with Agrippa's banishment there in 66 CE (Paneas was also the headquarters of the Imperial war effort in the earliest days of the war).
When Weeden argues that it was written against Simon and the false Church centered at Jerusalem - I believe him with the additional caveat that 'Mark' was Agrippa and 'Simon' was Simon bar Giora.
All that I add is that Christianity was developed by Mark as part of the 'what do we do with the conquered Jews and proselytes' after we overcome them with military force.
Just think of it this way. Jesus crucified is central to the mystery of Christianity. At its most basic the Jews end up getting Jesus crucified in the year of the Passion. Now thirty something years later the descendants (and indeed many of the original witnesses who were there at the Passion) are seeing themselves or their sons, brothers or friends ending up crucified facing Jerusalem as a 'curse' against the war effort.
All that I ask is that the reader takes close notice of what Josephus says about this strange 'mystical' aspect of the war effort spearheaded by Titus. We read:
War 5: Chapter 6
Josephus reports that the Romans crucified many before the walls of Jerusalem during the siege of 70 C.E. The idea was to terrorize the population and force a surrender. The number reached 500 a day at one point until there was no wood left in the area for this purpose!
5. Now it happened at this fight that a certain Jew was taken alive, who, by Titus's order, was crucified before the wall, to see whether the rest of them would be aftrighted, and abate of their obstinacy. But after the Jews were retired, John, who was commander of the Idumeans, and was talking to a certain soldier of his acquaintance before the wall, was wounded by a dart shot at him by an Arabian, and died immediately, leaving the greatest lamentation to the Jews, and sorrow to the seditious. For he was a man of great eminence, both for his actions and his conduct also.
Chapter 11
1. So now Titus's banks were advanced a great way, notwithstanding his soldiers had been very much distressed from the wall. He then sent a party of horsemen, and ordered they should lay ambushes for those that went out into the valleys to gather food. Some of these were indeed fighting men, who were not contented with what they got by rapine; but the greater part of them were poor people, who were deterred from deserting by the concern they were under for their own relations; for they could not hope to escape away, together with their wives and children, without the knowledge of the seditious; nor could they think of leaving these relations to be slain by the robbers on their account; nay, the severity of the famine made them bold in thus going out; so nothing remained but that, when they were concealed from the robbers, they should be taken by the enemy; and when they were going to be taken, they were forced to defend themselves for fear of being punished; as after they had fought, they thought it too late to make any supplications for mercy; so they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures, before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city. This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews; nay, some days they caught more: yet it did not appear to be safe for him to let those that were taken by force go their way, and to set a guard over so many he saw would be to make such as great deal them useless to him. The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment. So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies.
I hope by now at least some of my readers can put together some of the lines of reasoning I have been developing over the last couple of days ...
What date do I accept? Let's break it down bit by bit.
I suspect that Mark was Marcus Agrippa.
When Weeden assembles evidence to support an original composition at Paneas I believe him only that I add that the composition coincided with Agrippa's banishment there in 66 CE (Paneas was also the headquarters of the Imperial war effort in the earliest days of the war).
When Weeden argues that it was written against Simon and the false Church centered at Jerusalem - I believe him with the additional caveat that 'Mark' was Agrippa and 'Simon' was Simon bar Giora.
All that I add is that Christianity was developed by Mark as part of the 'what do we do with the conquered Jews and proselytes' after we overcome them with military force.
Just think of it this way. Jesus crucified is central to the mystery of Christianity. At its most basic the Jews end up getting Jesus crucified in the year of the Passion. Now thirty something years later the descendants (and indeed many of the original witnesses who were there at the Passion) are seeing themselves or their sons, brothers or friends ending up crucified facing Jerusalem as a 'curse' against the war effort.
All that I ask is that the reader takes close notice of what Josephus says about this strange 'mystical' aspect of the war effort spearheaded by Titus. We read:
War 5: Chapter 6
Josephus reports that the Romans crucified many before the walls of Jerusalem during the siege of 70 C.E. The idea was to terrorize the population and force a surrender. The number reached 500 a day at one point until there was no wood left in the area for this purpose!
5. Now it happened at this fight that a certain Jew was taken alive, who, by Titus's order, was crucified before the wall, to see whether the rest of them would be aftrighted, and abate of their obstinacy. But after the Jews were retired, John, who was commander of the Idumeans, and was talking to a certain soldier of his acquaintance before the wall, was wounded by a dart shot at him by an Arabian, and died immediately, leaving the greatest lamentation to the Jews, and sorrow to the seditious. For he was a man of great eminence, both for his actions and his conduct also.
Chapter 11
1. So now Titus's banks were advanced a great way, notwithstanding his soldiers had been very much distressed from the wall. He then sent a party of horsemen, and ordered they should lay ambushes for those that went out into the valleys to gather food. Some of these were indeed fighting men, who were not contented with what they got by rapine; but the greater part of them were poor people, who were deterred from deserting by the concern they were under for their own relations; for they could not hope to escape away, together with their wives and children, without the knowledge of the seditious; nor could they think of leaving these relations to be slain by the robbers on their account; nay, the severity of the famine made them bold in thus going out; so nothing remained but that, when they were concealed from the robbers, they should be taken by the enemy; and when they were going to be taken, they were forced to defend themselves for fear of being punished; as after they had fought, they thought it too late to make any supplications for mercy; so they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures, before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city. This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews; nay, some days they caught more: yet it did not appear to be safe for him to let those that were taken by force go their way, and to set a guard over so many he saw would be to make such as great deal them useless to him. The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment. So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies.
I hope by now at least some of my readers can put together some of the lines of reasoning I have been developing over the last couple of days ...
Friday, July 24, 2009
Bearing the Cross in Mind
I know I have been writing a lot about the Cross. But let's face it - no one THINKS about these matters very much! All that Christians do is have FAITH in the Cross, whatever that means (and for whatever that's worth). They don't understand the Cross of course because ... we all know the answer to this one don't we ... IT'S A MYSTERY and in Catholic terminology especially this means NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND IT (trust me I know I married a Catholic).
What I have attempted to do is to say, what would it take for a religion of the Electric Chair to emerge today? Seriously. Imagine if the most revered figure in the world was roasted alive in one of these contraptions. Let's say Gandhi or Mother Theresa for arguments sake. Take your pick.
Can anyone imagine that ANYONE would end up worshiping THE MEANS OF EXECUTION?
Of course not.
So why does it now seem so natural - natural to the point that no one bothers to even question its genesis - to have the ancient equivalent of the Electric Chair i.e. the Cross as the focus of Christian worship?
There is absolutely nothing messianic about a Cross or an Electric Chair. Jesus could not have been imagined to 'prove' that he was the messiah or God by being executed as a criminal on or in one of these things.
In other words, its worship had to have been imposed from without on the Jewish people. It is far too implausible to imagine that the followers of a martyr - even the Son of God - just started worshiping the means of his execution.
As such I tentatively propose that the original genesis of this strange worship was established by Mark himself after he wrote the gospel which is the story of Jesus on the Cross essentially.
Again, I suspect that the 'lesson' or the 'instruction' that the symbolism of a crucified man had in contemporary first century Palestine was identical to what we demonstrated from the first hymn of the Samaritan Mark. Indeed I go one step further. I think that both figures are reminiscences of one and the same historical 'Mark' in two different communities - viz. Marcus Julius Agrippa, the last king of Israel.
I don't want to get into the arguments as to why I think these Marks were one and the same person. I want to establish that their teaching about the Cross - that it was a blessing and a curse for humanity was shared by the Marks of both communities. Here again is Boid's translation of the first Samaritan hymn of Mark 'the unsheather of the Cross' on the subject of crucifixion (with notes):
Punishments don’t disconcert the sinner, nor do wounds frighten him. He doesn’t take any notice. The rebel sees himself delivered up to punishments, and finds himself crucified. He turns to his possessions (?), and knows that there is no enjoyment from it.
Death can be compared to a Priest making someone drink the Bitter Water of Testing.
Boid's note - I have translated according to the traditional Samaritan etymology and understanding, which is not far from the traditional Jewish understanding. Disregard the mangling by most modern translations. This is water that is drunk to establish innocence. It has a tiny little bit of the dirt of the ground round the Sanctuary in it, as well as something to make it bitter, from memory I think wormwood. A guilty person is afflicted by it. (It was a wonderful device for clearing people of slander). The innocent person unjustly accused is given better bodily and mental and spiritual health by it. (This is one of the hints of resurrection in the Torah, and Marqe seems to have it in mind along with the other meanings). The false accuser who has sworn a false oath or committed perjury or conspiracy is struck by afflictions or even in some cases death. The passage in the Torah is in Numbers. I will look up the reference later. There is a lot of traditional theory not stated in the words of the Torah but agreed on by Samaritans and Jews
The innocent person unjustly accused is given better bodily and mental and spiritual health by it. The false accuser who has sworn a false oath or committed perjury or conspiracy is struck by afflictions or even in some cases death. Woe on whoever is found to have committed sin. Woe on all sinners, since they will be in great distress. The punishments they suffer are the result of all their offences.
The soul (or individual) stands dumbfounded. Those living are in great affliction, because the Good has turned his face away from them. If the Merciful does not save, and remember those that love him, all the sinners will bewail themselves, because they are in great distress.
The signs tell us that in this generation of ours there is not a single person not in partnership with sinners. The mothers and children, all of whom took part and rebelled (maradu), they too are punished with (or suffer) suffocation (tashnîqayya).
The fact is that by our sins we are the ones that are the murderers, murderers of the silent and those that can speak Innocent animals or children that have never sinned, or young adults of good descent, suffer for sins they never committed.
It is the Fanuta (era of disfavor) that has brought all this suffering about. The fruit of the womb is stopped, and the fruit of the earth destroyed. Every place is becoming accursed for us. The mouth of punishment is open before, ready to swallow up the baby with the old man.
Merciful and Good, treat us justly and well as is your nature. We can’t withstand this judgment. A leaf on a tree startles a sinner, so how can we withstand judgment that startles the world? Treat us justly and well, so that we aren’t …… [verb is shin-nun-qof] by punishments
I will argue to the end of time that this is the original Palestinian understanding of the Cross common to Christians, Jews and Samaritans in the first century period.
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
What I have attempted to do is to say, what would it take for a religion of the Electric Chair to emerge today? Seriously. Imagine if the most revered figure in the world was roasted alive in one of these contraptions. Let's say Gandhi or Mother Theresa for arguments sake. Take your pick.
Can anyone imagine that ANYONE would end up worshiping THE MEANS OF EXECUTION?
Of course not.
So why does it now seem so natural - natural to the point that no one bothers to even question its genesis - to have the ancient equivalent of the Electric Chair i.e. the Cross as the focus of Christian worship?
There is absolutely nothing messianic about a Cross or an Electric Chair. Jesus could not have been imagined to 'prove' that he was the messiah or God by being executed as a criminal on or in one of these things.
In other words, its worship had to have been imposed from without on the Jewish people. It is far too implausible to imagine that the followers of a martyr - even the Son of God - just started worshiping the means of his execution.
As such I tentatively propose that the original genesis of this strange worship was established by Mark himself after he wrote the gospel which is the story of Jesus on the Cross essentially.
Again, I suspect that the 'lesson' or the 'instruction' that the symbolism of a crucified man had in contemporary first century Palestine was identical to what we demonstrated from the first hymn of the Samaritan Mark. Indeed I go one step further. I think that both figures are reminiscences of one and the same historical 'Mark' in two different communities - viz. Marcus Julius Agrippa, the last king of Israel.
I don't want to get into the arguments as to why I think these Marks were one and the same person. I want to establish that their teaching about the Cross - that it was a blessing and a curse for humanity was shared by the Marks of both communities. Here again is Boid's translation of the first Samaritan hymn of Mark 'the unsheather of the Cross' on the subject of crucifixion (with notes):
Punishments don’t disconcert the sinner, nor do wounds frighten him. He doesn’t take any notice. The rebel sees himself delivered up to punishments, and finds himself crucified. He turns to his possessions (?), and knows that there is no enjoyment from it.
Death can be compared to a Priest making someone drink the Bitter Water of Testing.
Boid's note - I have translated according to the traditional Samaritan etymology and understanding, which is not far from the traditional Jewish understanding. Disregard the mangling by most modern translations. This is water that is drunk to establish innocence. It has a tiny little bit of the dirt of the ground round the Sanctuary in it, as well as something to make it bitter, from memory I think wormwood. A guilty person is afflicted by it. (It was a wonderful device for clearing people of slander). The innocent person unjustly accused is given better bodily and mental and spiritual health by it. (This is one of the hints of resurrection in the Torah, and Marqe seems to have it in mind along with the other meanings). The false accuser who has sworn a false oath or committed perjury or conspiracy is struck by afflictions or even in some cases death. The passage in the Torah is in Numbers. I will look up the reference later. There is a lot of traditional theory not stated in the words of the Torah but agreed on by Samaritans and Jews
The innocent person unjustly accused is given better bodily and mental and spiritual health by it. The false accuser who has sworn a false oath or committed perjury or conspiracy is struck by afflictions or even in some cases death. Woe on whoever is found to have committed sin. Woe on all sinners, since they will be in great distress. The punishments they suffer are the result of all their offences.
The soul (or individual) stands dumbfounded. Those living are in great affliction, because the Good has turned his face away from them. If the Merciful does not save, and remember those that love him, all the sinners will bewail themselves, because they are in great distress.
The signs tell us that in this generation of ours there is not a single person not in partnership with sinners. The mothers and children, all of whom took part and rebelled (maradu), they too are punished with (or suffer) suffocation (tashnîqayya).
The fact is that by our sins we are the ones that are the murderers, murderers of the silent and those that can speak Innocent animals or children that have never sinned, or young adults of good descent, suffer for sins they never committed.
It is the Fanuta (era of disfavor) that has brought all this suffering about. The fruit of the womb is stopped, and the fruit of the earth destroyed. Every place is becoming accursed for us. The mouth of punishment is open before, ready to swallow up the baby with the old man.
Merciful and Good, treat us justly and well as is your nature. We can’t withstand this judgment. A leaf on a tree startles a sinner, so how can we withstand judgment that startles the world? Treat us justly and well, so that we aren’t …… [verb is shin-nun-qof] by punishments
I will argue to the end of time that this is the original Palestinian understanding of the Cross common to Christians, Jews and Samaritans in the first century period.
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The Cross
If you're a modern Christian, Jew, Muslim or even an atheist the Cross is so prevalent in contemporary culture that it is difficult to imagine looking at it a new set of eyes.
Yet that's the problem.
Christians have been baptized into 'loving' the object that they can't see it for what it is - an instrument of torturous death. Jews have such an ingrained hatred of the Cross (I sometimes wonder if the characteristic trait of vampires was developed out of anti-Semitic traditions) that they can't even consider what it must have meant to their ancestors in the first century period.
But it is precisely these things which are essential for us to finally put the pieces together regarding Christian origins.
The central question is - why venerate the ancient equivalent of the electric chair? Yes of course the unthinking answer from believers is that 'Jesus appeared crucified' on one of these things. Yet this still doesn't answer the original question.
As Celsus of Rome noted a century after the original crucifixion - if Jesus had been thrown in a pit would Christians venerate a 'pit of resurrection'? In other words, did it just come down to the kind of death that Jesus endured or was there something more to the tradition?
Mystics will certainly point to the cross appearing in the shape resembling the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Yet this again cannot be it. There is something so downright bizarre about the early Christian veneration of the 'ancient equivalent of the electric chair' that we have to imagine that it had also had something to do with the contemporary age in which the gospel was written by Mark rather than merely being determined by the circumstances of Jesus death.
What I mean of course is that the Cross was venerated as the new testimony of God because (a) the temple had already been or was about to be destroyed (as per Daniel 9:24 - 27) and (b) God was about to manifest his presence on the earth again in the form he had taken during the Passion (i.e. the time when the Jews had chosen to condemn Jesus on one of these things and to liberate 'little Mark' as their Christ (see Pilate's question).
I know this is a hard concept for many believers and non-believers to get their head around but let's begin to look at the Cross as what it was - i.e. an ancient equivalent of the electric chair - and then take into account how Jews traditionally viewed Moses' original testimony (i.e. that it was a blessing and a curse) and then reinterpret the first hymn of the Samaritan Mark the son of Titus in light of the Palestinian environment that the gospel of Mark was written.
The first step is to remember (how can we forget) that ancient Christians worship the Cross. Second that Jews now loathe the Cross because it was a symbol that they were forced to embrace in order to become readmitted into society at large (and for how long? This is the central question - i.e. did it go back to the time of Agrippa's rule over Palestine). The third step is to remind ourselves of the contemporary Palestinian environment in which Mark wrote his gospel and - we must think - Jews were being encouraged or forced to view the Cross as having mystical significance during the Jewish War (read the attached references of crosses in the writings of Josephus assembled over at James Tabor's site). And then finally incorporate the Samaritan understanding of a parallel warning/blessing associated with crucified victims at the time of Mark where countless numbers of crucified victims were being openly displayed in Palestinian AND this same Mark was trying to use their presence as a symbol of resurrection (see Boid's notes here).
Again I want to emphasize that this rediscovery of the Samaritan hymn of Mark (it was never translated into English). This was THE MOST IMPORTANT HYMN in the Samaritan liturgy. It appeared first in the section of hymns attributed to Mark and was one which was ALWAYS sung on Sabbaths and Festivals as a way of reminding the people of Mark's lesson (i.e. a non-visual parallel of the display of crosses in the churches associated with Mark's gospel among the proselytes).
Is there a connection between the 'St. Mark' of the Christians, Marcus Agrippa of the Jews and Mark the son of Titus among the Samaritans. I certainly think so but this cannot be proved as of yet (Boid's arguments for considering the Samaritan Mark as living in this period can be found by entering the name 'Marqe' in the search engine for the blog above). For the moment we just have to contemplate HOW this might have all fit together by understanding separate parts of the formula I propose. The rest will fall into place, I believe over time.
Yet that's the problem.
Christians have been baptized into 'loving' the object that they can't see it for what it is - an instrument of torturous death. Jews have such an ingrained hatred of the Cross (I sometimes wonder if the characteristic trait of vampires was developed out of anti-Semitic traditions) that they can't even consider what it must have meant to their ancestors in the first century period.
But it is precisely these things which are essential for us to finally put the pieces together regarding Christian origins.
The central question is - why venerate the ancient equivalent of the electric chair? Yes of course the unthinking answer from believers is that 'Jesus appeared crucified' on one of these things. Yet this still doesn't answer the original question.
As Celsus of Rome noted a century after the original crucifixion - if Jesus had been thrown in a pit would Christians venerate a 'pit of resurrection'? In other words, did it just come down to the kind of death that Jesus endured or was there something more to the tradition?
Mystics will certainly point to the cross appearing in the shape resembling the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Yet this again cannot be it. There is something so downright bizarre about the early Christian veneration of the 'ancient equivalent of the electric chair' that we have to imagine that it had also had something to do with the contemporary age in which the gospel was written by Mark rather than merely being determined by the circumstances of Jesus death.
What I mean of course is that the Cross was venerated as the new testimony of God because (a) the temple had already been or was about to be destroyed (as per Daniel 9:24 - 27) and (b) God was about to manifest his presence on the earth again in the form he had taken during the Passion (i.e. the time when the Jews had chosen to condemn Jesus on one of these things and to liberate 'little Mark' as their Christ (see Pilate's question).
I know this is a hard concept for many believers and non-believers to get their head around but let's begin to look at the Cross as what it was - i.e. an ancient equivalent of the electric chair - and then take into account how Jews traditionally viewed Moses' original testimony (i.e. that it was a blessing and a curse) and then reinterpret the first hymn of the Samaritan Mark the son of Titus in light of the Palestinian environment that the gospel of Mark was written.
The first step is to remember (how can we forget) that ancient Christians worship the Cross. Second that Jews now loathe the Cross because it was a symbol that they were forced to embrace in order to become readmitted into society at large (and for how long? This is the central question - i.e. did it go back to the time of Agrippa's rule over Palestine). The third step is to remind ourselves of the contemporary Palestinian environment in which Mark wrote his gospel and - we must think - Jews were being encouraged or forced to view the Cross as having mystical significance during the Jewish War (read the attached references of crosses in the writings of Josephus assembled over at James Tabor's site). And then finally incorporate the Samaritan understanding of a parallel warning/blessing associated with crucified victims at the time of Mark where countless numbers of crucified victims were being openly displayed in Palestinian AND this same Mark was trying to use their presence as a symbol of resurrection (see Boid's notes here).
Again I want to emphasize that this rediscovery of the Samaritan hymn of Mark (it was never translated into English). This was THE MOST IMPORTANT HYMN in the Samaritan liturgy. It appeared first in the section of hymns attributed to Mark and was one which was ALWAYS sung on Sabbaths and Festivals as a way of reminding the people of Mark's lesson (i.e. a non-visual parallel of the display of crosses in the churches associated with Mark's gospel among the proselytes).
Is there a connection between the 'St. Mark' of the Christians, Marcus Agrippa of the Jews and Mark the son of Titus among the Samaritans. I certainly think so but this cannot be proved as of yet (Boid's arguments for considering the Samaritan Mark as living in this period can be found by entering the name 'Marqe' in the search engine for the blog above). For the moment we just have to contemplate HOW this might have all fit together by understanding separate parts of the formula I propose. The rest will fall into place, I believe over time.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Toward An Understanding of Mark's Gospel in A First Century Context
So I have established that at its very earliest period, Christianity was a mystery religion. This is not something that was 'added' owing to 'foreign influences' as the Evangelicals would like to imagine. There gospel itself was developed as a 'mystery.' The religion developed around this text was a mystery religion.
The mystery religion is so pronounced because there was a truth hidden behind the facade of a story about Jesus. Enter the 'gospel secret.'
Anyone reading this post knows what I think was the original gospel secret. Jesus was announcing someone else - the little boy that appears throughout the gospel as the expected messiah. At the end of the narrative Jesus runs a 'screen play.' He takes one for the team. Jesus dies so the little boy can live and go on to be the messiah.
Indeed we shouldn't think of this formulation as something radical or new. It was always present in Alexandria. Look at the traditional emphasis of Jesus as God. It is problematic to Protestants (who want to make the whole mystery absurdly 'rational' by emphasizing Jesus' 'humanity'). Yet what if this goes against the original intentions of the author? What if Jesus was meant to be God and nothing more (what really can be more than God?) or less?
Indeed what is called 'doceticism' by the Church Fathers may well not be a heresy at all but the original intentions of the author. Notice the early appearance of this interpretation. It is practically wedded to the Diatessaron. Notice the Pauline emphasis of 'Jesus appearing crucified.' The Marcionites certainly noticed it.
So if we allow ourselves to imagine the logic of the heresies (something that is rarely ever carried out; we think we have advanced past the Church Fathers merely by not wishing them harm).
As we stand in line with the initiated preparing to receive Jesus' flesh and blood. We have to ask ourselves 'why? Why was this needed?'
If you guess it had something to do with the destruction of the Jewish temple, you are probably right.
Let's assume a date of around the destruction for Mark's authorship of the document (Crossley can go jump in a lake). The mystery religion surrounding the 'gospel secret' must also have been developed around this time.
Because I believe that Mark was Marcus Julius Agrippa I think there was a conscious decision to fill the void among proselytes. Notice the interrogative approach to the baptismal creed in the earliest texts - i.e. 'dost thou believe ...' each time the initiates head is dunked in the water.
I happen to believe that everything about Christianity is reflective of the environment around the time of the destruction of the temple. It's not just the reference to Dan 9:24 - 27 in the little apocalypse. It is the cross itself.
Josephus tells us that crosses were being erected all around the surrounded city of Jerusalem as a kind of supernatural omen against the Jews. Read Josephus again and you will see the whole history can be read as if the author was arguing that the events of 70 CE were the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24 - 27.
Agrippa the messiah 'disappears and is no more' (Daniel 9:26) and then the appearance of tens of thousands of crucified Jews surrounding the city is the abomination of desolation (see the traditional Jewish interpretation of some rabbis).
Did Mark project the crucifixion of Jesus in the past into a supernatural military strategy at the time of the destruction? Consider the first prayer of the Samaritan prayer book by Mark the son of Titus (the 'unsheather of the cross' according to his traditional title).
My friend Rory Boid has graciously translated much of the material (verses lamed - pe) from Aramaic into English.
Punishments don’t disconcert the sinner, nor do wounds frighten him. He doesn’t take any notice. The rebel sees himself delivered up to punishments, and finds himself crucified. He turns to his ……. [meaning uncertain, perhaps property], and knows that there is no enjoyment from it.
Death can be compared to a Priest making someone drink the Bitter Water of Testing. The innocent person unjustly accused is given better bodily and mental and spiritual health by it. The false accuser who has sworn a false oath or committed perjury or conspiracy is struck by afflictions or even in some cases death. Woe on whoever is found to have committed sin. Woe on all sinners, since they will be in great distress. The punishments they suffer are the result of all their offences.
The soul (or individual) stands dumbfounded. Those living are in great affliction, because the Good has turned his face away from them. If the Merciful does not save, and remember those that love him, all the sinners will bewail themselves, because they are in great distress.
The signs tell us that in this generation of ours there is not a single person not in partnership with sinners. The mothers and children, all of whom took part and rebelled (maradu), they too are punished with (or suffer) suffocation (tashnîqayya).
The fact is that by our sins we are the ones that are the murderers, murderers of the silent and those that can speak Innocent animals or children that have never sinned, or young adults of good descent, suffer for sins they never committed.
It is the Fanuta (era of disfavor) that has brought all this suffering about. The fruit of the womb is stopped, and the fruit of the earth destroyed. Every place is becoming accursed for us. The mouth of punishment is open before, ready to swallow up the baby with the old man.
As Boid notes this hymn is recited in part on every Sabbath and every Festival. Notice this. At some time it must have been laid down that it had to be recited constantly. It has 22 verses, each with seven lines. 22 x 7 = 154.
This hymn speaks of death and destruction in the present, wrought by estrangement from the will of God, and urges a reversal of behaviour. One verse could be taken as referring to executions, depending on how you understand one word. This is the fifth verse. Other verses might refer to this, but not directly.
I will demonstrate that the first hymn of the Samaritan Mark is connected with the gospel of Mark. It fits the context of the introduction of the text during the Jewish War. No small task ...
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
The mystery religion is so pronounced because there was a truth hidden behind the facade of a story about Jesus. Enter the 'gospel secret.'
Anyone reading this post knows what I think was the original gospel secret. Jesus was announcing someone else - the little boy that appears throughout the gospel as the expected messiah. At the end of the narrative Jesus runs a 'screen play.' He takes one for the team. Jesus dies so the little boy can live and go on to be the messiah.
Indeed we shouldn't think of this formulation as something radical or new. It was always present in Alexandria. Look at the traditional emphasis of Jesus as God. It is problematic to Protestants (who want to make the whole mystery absurdly 'rational' by emphasizing Jesus' 'humanity'). Yet what if this goes against the original intentions of the author? What if Jesus was meant to be God and nothing more (what really can be more than God?) or less?
Indeed what is called 'doceticism' by the Church Fathers may well not be a heresy at all but the original intentions of the author. Notice the early appearance of this interpretation. It is practically wedded to the Diatessaron. Notice the Pauline emphasis of 'Jesus appearing crucified.' The Marcionites certainly noticed it.
So if we allow ourselves to imagine the logic of the heresies (something that is rarely ever carried out; we think we have advanced past the Church Fathers merely by not wishing them harm).
As we stand in line with the initiated preparing to receive Jesus' flesh and blood. We have to ask ourselves 'why? Why was this needed?'
If you guess it had something to do with the destruction of the Jewish temple, you are probably right.
Let's assume a date of around the destruction for Mark's authorship of the document (Crossley can go jump in a lake). The mystery religion surrounding the 'gospel secret' must also have been developed around this time.
Because I believe that Mark was Marcus Julius Agrippa I think there was a conscious decision to fill the void among proselytes. Notice the interrogative approach to the baptismal creed in the earliest texts - i.e. 'dost thou believe ...' each time the initiates head is dunked in the water.
I happen to believe that everything about Christianity is reflective of the environment around the time of the destruction of the temple. It's not just the reference to Dan 9:24 - 27 in the little apocalypse. It is the cross itself.
Josephus tells us that crosses were being erected all around the surrounded city of Jerusalem as a kind of supernatural omen against the Jews. Read Josephus again and you will see the whole history can be read as if the author was arguing that the events of 70 CE were the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24 - 27.
Agrippa the messiah 'disappears and is no more' (Daniel 9:26) and then the appearance of tens of thousands of crucified Jews surrounding the city is the abomination of desolation (see the traditional Jewish interpretation of some rabbis).
Did Mark project the crucifixion of Jesus in the past into a supernatural military strategy at the time of the destruction? Consider the first prayer of the Samaritan prayer book by Mark the son of Titus (the 'unsheather of the cross' according to his traditional title).
My friend Rory Boid has graciously translated much of the material (verses lamed - pe) from Aramaic into English.
Punishments don’t disconcert the sinner, nor do wounds frighten him. He doesn’t take any notice. The rebel sees himself delivered up to punishments, and finds himself crucified. He turns to his ……. [meaning uncertain, perhaps property], and knows that there is no enjoyment from it.
Death can be compared to a Priest making someone drink the Bitter Water of Testing. The innocent person unjustly accused is given better bodily and mental and spiritual health by it. The false accuser who has sworn a false oath or committed perjury or conspiracy is struck by afflictions or even in some cases death. Woe on whoever is found to have committed sin. Woe on all sinners, since they will be in great distress. The punishments they suffer are the result of all their offences.
The soul (or individual) stands dumbfounded. Those living are in great affliction, because the Good has turned his face away from them. If the Merciful does not save, and remember those that love him, all the sinners will bewail themselves, because they are in great distress.
The signs tell us that in this generation of ours there is not a single person not in partnership with sinners. The mothers and children, all of whom took part and rebelled (maradu), they too are punished with (or suffer) suffocation (tashnîqayya).
The fact is that by our sins we are the ones that are the murderers, murderers of the silent and those that can speak Innocent animals or children that have never sinned, or young adults of good descent, suffer for sins they never committed.
It is the Fanuta (era of disfavor) that has brought all this suffering about. The fruit of the womb is stopped, and the fruit of the earth destroyed. Every place is becoming accursed for us. The mouth of punishment is open before, ready to swallow up the baby with the old man.
As Boid notes this hymn is recited in part on every Sabbath and every Festival. Notice this. At some time it must have been laid down that it had to be recited constantly. It has 22 verses, each with seven lines. 22 x 7 = 154.
This hymn speaks of death and destruction in the present, wrought by estrangement from the will of God, and urges a reversal of behaviour. One verse could be taken as referring to executions, depending on how you understand one word. This is the fifth verse. Other verses might refer to this, but not directly.
I will demonstrate that the first hymn of the Samaritan Mark is connected with the gospel of Mark. It fits the context of the introduction of the text during the Jewish War. No small task ...
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Do They Understand What Christianity Is?
I started life knowing absolutely nothing about Christianity. I know I must have come a long way in my studies when I now read the greatest of American scholars on the subject of ancient Christianity and I find myself scratching my head and asking - what the hell does this guy think ancient Christian was all about?
Indeed I single out American writers because anyone living in the New World is necessarily removed from anything ancient. We have inherent biases built into our psyche - stupid things like the idea of 'continual progress' - which are totally at odds with the original spirit of ancient Christianity.
Let me give the reader an example.
Whatever appeared in the first century it necessarily manifested a revelation - indeed a revelation from heaven which perfected all that was merely good or very good in the revelation which was afforded to Moses.
There has always been a fundamental disconnect in my mind between Americans and this basic understanding owing to the fact that the first Christians were not Americans and thus 'Americanisms' as such - i.e. the 'practical' reinterpretation of all things Christian within the framework of quintessentially American ideas like progress - necessarily represent heresy or a falling away from whatever was revealed through Jesus and his representatives in the first century.
You see the Roman Catholic Church and the various other 'Christian orthodoxy' all inherently claim to embody that 'revelation' which came through Jesus in the first century. People may scoff at this claim but the point is that the logic is important to recognize - that is, whatever was manifest in the first century is living perfection.
The problem for American evangelicals of all shapes and forms is that it is utterly implausible to believe that any of the stupid and utterly ridiculous things that they preach were ever held by the original circle of Christian believers.
Indeed I know that these foolish people try so desperately hard to imitate what they reconstruct as the 'simple' original beliefs of the apostles. Yet most of what they end up doing is assuming that because the original disciples were fisherman they must have sanctioned stupidity and ignorance.
I hate to break it to these people but by just being stupid and simple doesn't make you a disciple of Jesus. The most fundamental question that you have to ask yourself is what was it that was being introduced by the early Church and the answer - at its most basic level - has to be that it was a 'mystery religion.'
I am not going to spend page after page itemizing what I believe where the central features of this mystery religion other than to say that it must have been similar in shape and constitution to other mystery religions of the first century. Of course on some level it was heralded as 'the perfect' mystery religion - even the perfect mystery religion which completed Judaism.
Yet it is worth noting that the very 'pagan' characteristics which evangelicals typically loathe must have been present in the first days of the religion. The fact that Protestant evangelicals have difficulties with the presence of this interest in 'superstitions' of the Catholic tradition only demonstrates how utterly alienated they are from the REAL first century characteristics of the religion they claim to carry forward into the twenty first century.
Indeed while these intellectually dishonest individuals will never admit it, their revaluation of traditional Christian values and traditions necessarily implies that the original 'perfect revelation' which came to the Apostle in their eyes wasn't that perfect after all.
Indeed I single out American writers because anyone living in the New World is necessarily removed from anything ancient. We have inherent biases built into our psyche - stupid things like the idea of 'continual progress' - which are totally at odds with the original spirit of ancient Christianity.
Let me give the reader an example.
Whatever appeared in the first century it necessarily manifested a revelation - indeed a revelation from heaven which perfected all that was merely good or very good in the revelation which was afforded to Moses.
There has always been a fundamental disconnect in my mind between Americans and this basic understanding owing to the fact that the first Christians were not Americans and thus 'Americanisms' as such - i.e. the 'practical' reinterpretation of all things Christian within the framework of quintessentially American ideas like progress - necessarily represent heresy or a falling away from whatever was revealed through Jesus and his representatives in the first century.
You see the Roman Catholic Church and the various other 'Christian orthodoxy' all inherently claim to embody that 'revelation' which came through Jesus in the first century. People may scoff at this claim but the point is that the logic is important to recognize - that is, whatever was manifest in the first century is living perfection.
The problem for American evangelicals of all shapes and forms is that it is utterly implausible to believe that any of the stupid and utterly ridiculous things that they preach were ever held by the original circle of Christian believers.
Indeed I know that these foolish people try so desperately hard to imitate what they reconstruct as the 'simple' original beliefs of the apostles. Yet most of what they end up doing is assuming that because the original disciples were fisherman they must have sanctioned stupidity and ignorance.
I hate to break it to these people but by just being stupid and simple doesn't make you a disciple of Jesus. The most fundamental question that you have to ask yourself is what was it that was being introduced by the early Church and the answer - at its most basic level - has to be that it was a 'mystery religion.'
I am not going to spend page after page itemizing what I believe where the central features of this mystery religion other than to say that it must have been similar in shape and constitution to other mystery religions of the first century. Of course on some level it was heralded as 'the perfect' mystery religion - even the perfect mystery religion which completed Judaism.
Yet it is worth noting that the very 'pagan' characteristics which evangelicals typically loathe must have been present in the first days of the religion. The fact that Protestant evangelicals have difficulties with the presence of this interest in 'superstitions' of the Catholic tradition only demonstrates how utterly alienated they are from the REAL first century characteristics of the religion they claim to carry forward into the twenty first century.
Indeed while these intellectually dishonest individuals will never admit it, their revaluation of traditional Christian values and traditions necessarily implies that the original 'perfect revelation' which came to the Apostle in their eyes wasn't that perfect after all.
Monday, July 20, 2009
On Supernatural Conspiracy Theories
Whenever I put forward the idea that the real truth of Christianity was suppressed during the Antonine period, I inevitably get this 'oh, your into conspiracy theories' response from NT scholars.
It's like they think that they are above that sort of thing.
Yet when you actually look at the foundation of their Catholic tradition we see what amounts to being the most implausible SUPERNATURAL CONSPIRACY THEORY EVER.
Yes, you've heard me right. The Catholic Church is built on a supernatural conspiracy theory.
So if you look down on 'popular conspiracy theories' regarding Roswell New Mexico, JFK, Princess Diana and you believe in Jesus Christ don't you DARE claim for a moment that you are above postulating 'hidden hands' controlling world events. Your entire religious world view was actually founded by the worst kind of conspiracy theorists.
For you see when Irenaeus set about to reshape the canon, the doctrine and the faith of contemporary Christianity in the Commodian age (c. 180 CE) he - like all contemporary conspiracy buffs - was at a loss to explain why everyone knew a different version of the truth than he was proclaiming.
So it was that when the rest of the world used single, long gospels (rather than his fourfold canon) and DID NOT believe that Jesus was proclaiming himself as the Christ (or indeed worst still cited the Jewish understanding of what a messiah was in order to prove that Jesus couldn't possibly have claimed to be such a figure) Irenaeus cited 'the Devil' as organizing a contemporary conspiracy with individual 'heretics' like Marcion, Valentinus and others to account for why there was no evidence to support his own claims.
The examples from Irenaeus' 'supernatural conspiracy' start to pile up in Against the Heresies after the author develops his lengthy list of 'heresies' - i.e. those traditions which came before Irenaeus which contradicted his claim that indeed 'Jesus was the Christ.' The most important witness against this belief were the Marcionites. They held that Jesus announced the Apostle (the one we call Paul) as the one Jesus announced (see Acts of Archelaus for the most explicit example of this formulation).
Now as we have noted in other posts Irenaeus couldn't just say that HE BELIEVED that the Marcionites were controlled by Satan. He had to invent a scenario where his supposed master Polycarp met 'Marcion' and testified to his alleged part in the 'supernatual conspiracy.' So we read in Book Three of Irenaeus account the famous story that:
Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." [AH iii.4.3]
I have to admit for years I fell for Irenaeus' manipulation of Polycarp's position. It was only when I read a number of articles identifying Marcionite traits in Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians that I started to have my doubts.
In any event Irenaeus goes on throughout his book to augment this 'supernatural conspiracy' to involve ALL the heresies identified in his first book as we see in a number of examples cited here:
Since, therefore, they [the heretics] have been deserted by the paternal love, and puffed up by Satan, being brought over to the doctrine of Simon Magus, they have apostatized in their opinions from Him who is God, and imagined that they have themselves discovered more than the apostles, by finding out another god; and [maintained] that the apostles preached the Gospel still somewhat under the influence of Jewish opinions, but that they themselves are purer [in doctrine], and more intelligent, than the apostles. [ibid 12.3]
These men, even as the Gentiles, have been sent forth by Satan to bring dishonour upon the Church, so that, in one way or another, men hearing the things which they speak, and imagining that we all are such as they, may turn away their ears from the preaching of the truth [AH i.25.3]
we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith [ibid i.21.1]
such spirits as are commanded by these men, and speak when they desire it, are earthly and weak, audacious and impudent, sent forth by Satan for the seduction and perdition of those who do not hold fast that well- compacted faith which they received at first through the Church. [AH i:13:4]
Marcus, thou former of idols, inspector of portents, Skill'd in consulting the stars, and deep in the black arts of magic, Ever by tricks such as these confirming the doctrines of error, Furnishing signs unto those involved by thee in deception, Wonders of power that is utterly severed from God and apostate, Which Satan, thy true father [ibid i.13.6]
Let those persons, therefore, who blaspheme the Creator, either by openly expressed words, such as the disciples of Marcion, or by a perversion of the sense [of Scripture], as those of Valentinus and all the Gnostics falsely so called, be recognised as agents of Satan by all those who worship God; through whose agency Satan now, and not before, has been seen to speak against God, even Him who has prepared eternal fire for every kind of apostasy. For he did not venture to blaspheme his Lord openly of himself; as also in the beginning he led man astray through the instrumentality of the serpent, concealing himself as it were from God. Truly has Justin remarked: That before the Lord's appearance Satan never dared to blaspheme God, inasmuch as he did not yet know his own sentence, because it was contained in parables and allegories; but that after the Lord's appearance, when he had clearly ascertained from the words of Christ and His apostles that eternal fire has been prepared for him as he apostatized from God of his own free-will, and likewise for all who unrepentant continue in the apostasy, he now blasphemes, by means of such men, the Lord who brings judgment [upon him] as being already condemned, and imputes the guilt of his apostasy to his Maker, not to his own voluntary disposition. Just as it is with those who break the laws, when punishment overtakes them: they throw the blame upon those who frame the laws, but not upon themselves. In like manner do those men, filled with a satanic spirit, bring innumerable accusations against our Creator, who has both given to us the spirit of life, and established a law adapted for all; and they will not admit that the judgment of God is just. Wherefore also they set about imagining some other Father who neither cares about nor exercises a providence over our affairs, nay, one who even approves of all sins. [v.26.2]
The point of this exercise of course is to make clear that ANYONE WHO ACCEPTS THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH FATHERS NECESSARILY BUYS INTO A CONSPIRACY THEORY. I hated when these idiots point their finger at me saying that I promoted conspiracy theories when their whole world view is built on the most fantastic type of conspiracy - one involving supernatural agents.
All that the Real Messiah argues is that the Roman government took an active role in the development of Christianity from the very beginning. Is this really that crazy of an idea? We know that the authorities in Rome actively repressed a number of barbaric religious forms when they were first introduced to Roman society. Whether it be the religion associated with the Great Mother, Isis and host of other traditions the ancient rulers of Rome - like any government ancient or modern - wanted to ensure that the values of these new faiths were in line with what was acceptable in Roman society.
Does anyone doubt that the religion of the Great Mother became 'Romanized'? That it became somewhat modified in order to gain acceptance in Roman society? Why then is it so ridiculous to assume the same thing about Christianity or even Judaism for that matter?
Oh, I hate being the one to make these idiots think. They really should be doing it on their own.
It's like they think that they are above that sort of thing.
Yet when you actually look at the foundation of their Catholic tradition we see what amounts to being the most implausible SUPERNATURAL CONSPIRACY THEORY EVER.
Yes, you've heard me right. The Catholic Church is built on a supernatural conspiracy theory.
So if you look down on 'popular conspiracy theories' regarding Roswell New Mexico, JFK, Princess Diana and you believe in Jesus Christ don't you DARE claim for a moment that you are above postulating 'hidden hands' controlling world events. Your entire religious world view was actually founded by the worst kind of conspiracy theorists.
For you see when Irenaeus set about to reshape the canon, the doctrine and the faith of contemporary Christianity in the Commodian age (c. 180 CE) he - like all contemporary conspiracy buffs - was at a loss to explain why everyone knew a different version of the truth than he was proclaiming.
So it was that when the rest of the world used single, long gospels (rather than his fourfold canon) and DID NOT believe that Jesus was proclaiming himself as the Christ (or indeed worst still cited the Jewish understanding of what a messiah was in order to prove that Jesus couldn't possibly have claimed to be such a figure) Irenaeus cited 'the Devil' as organizing a contemporary conspiracy with individual 'heretics' like Marcion, Valentinus and others to account for why there was no evidence to support his own claims.
The examples from Irenaeus' 'supernatural conspiracy' start to pile up in Against the Heresies after the author develops his lengthy list of 'heresies' - i.e. those traditions which came before Irenaeus which contradicted his claim that indeed 'Jesus was the Christ.' The most important witness against this belief were the Marcionites. They held that Jesus announced the Apostle (the one we call Paul) as the one Jesus announced (see Acts of Archelaus for the most explicit example of this formulation).
Now as we have noted in other posts Irenaeus couldn't just say that HE BELIEVED that the Marcionites were controlled by Satan. He had to invent a scenario where his supposed master Polycarp met 'Marcion' and testified to his alleged part in the 'supernatual conspiracy.' So we read in Book Three of Irenaeus account the famous story that:
Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." [AH iii.4.3]
I have to admit for years I fell for Irenaeus' manipulation of Polycarp's position. It was only when I read a number of articles identifying Marcionite traits in Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians that I started to have my doubts.
In any event Irenaeus goes on throughout his book to augment this 'supernatural conspiracy' to involve ALL the heresies identified in his first book as we see in a number of examples cited here:
Since, therefore, they [the heretics] have been deserted by the paternal love, and puffed up by Satan, being brought over to the doctrine of Simon Magus, they have apostatized in their opinions from Him who is God, and imagined that they have themselves discovered more than the apostles, by finding out another god; and [maintained] that the apostles preached the Gospel still somewhat under the influence of Jewish opinions, but that they themselves are purer [in doctrine], and more intelligent, than the apostles. [ibid 12.3]
These men, even as the Gentiles, have been sent forth by Satan to bring dishonour upon the Church, so that, in one way or another, men hearing the things which they speak, and imagining that we all are such as they, may turn away their ears from the preaching of the truth [AH i.25.3]
we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith [ibid i.21.1]
such spirits as are commanded by these men, and speak when they desire it, are earthly and weak, audacious and impudent, sent forth by Satan for the seduction and perdition of those who do not hold fast that well- compacted faith which they received at first through the Church. [AH i:13:4]
Marcus, thou former of idols, inspector of portents, Skill'd in consulting the stars, and deep in the black arts of magic, Ever by tricks such as these confirming the doctrines of error, Furnishing signs unto those involved by thee in deception, Wonders of power that is utterly severed from God and apostate, Which Satan, thy true father [ibid i.13.6]
Let those persons, therefore, who blaspheme the Creator, either by openly expressed words, such as the disciples of Marcion, or by a perversion of the sense [of Scripture], as those of Valentinus and all the Gnostics falsely so called, be recognised as agents of Satan by all those who worship God; through whose agency Satan now, and not before, has been seen to speak against God, even Him who has prepared eternal fire for every kind of apostasy. For he did not venture to blaspheme his Lord openly of himself; as also in the beginning he led man astray through the instrumentality of the serpent, concealing himself as it were from God. Truly has Justin remarked: That before the Lord's appearance Satan never dared to blaspheme God, inasmuch as he did not yet know his own sentence, because it was contained in parables and allegories; but that after the Lord's appearance, when he had clearly ascertained from the words of Christ and His apostles that eternal fire has been prepared for him as he apostatized from God of his own free-will, and likewise for all who unrepentant continue in the apostasy, he now blasphemes, by means of such men, the Lord who brings judgment [upon him] as being already condemned, and imputes the guilt of his apostasy to his Maker, not to his own voluntary disposition. Just as it is with those who break the laws, when punishment overtakes them: they throw the blame upon those who frame the laws, but not upon themselves. In like manner do those men, filled with a satanic spirit, bring innumerable accusations against our Creator, who has both given to us the spirit of life, and established a law adapted for all; and they will not admit that the judgment of God is just. Wherefore also they set about imagining some other Father who neither cares about nor exercises a providence over our affairs, nay, one who even approves of all sins. [v.26.2]
The point of this exercise of course is to make clear that ANYONE WHO ACCEPTS THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH FATHERS NECESSARILY BUYS INTO A CONSPIRACY THEORY. I hated when these idiots point their finger at me saying that I promoted conspiracy theories when their whole world view is built on the most fantastic type of conspiracy - one involving supernatural agents.
All that the Real Messiah argues is that the Roman government took an active role in the development of Christianity from the very beginning. Is this really that crazy of an idea? We know that the authorities in Rome actively repressed a number of barbaric religious forms when they were first introduced to Roman society. Whether it be the religion associated with the Great Mother, Isis and host of other traditions the ancient rulers of Rome - like any government ancient or modern - wanted to ensure that the values of these new faiths were in line with what was acceptable in Roman society.
Does anyone doubt that the religion of the Great Mother became 'Romanized'? That it became somewhat modified in order to gain acceptance in Roman society? Why then is it so ridiculous to assume the same thing about Christianity or even Judaism for that matter?
Oh, I hate being the one to make these idiots think. They really should be doing it on their own.
Against the Mythicists
I have started to explain to my readership why New Testament scholarship is so pathetically unscientific. The bottom line is that it begins with a set of assumptions which these pseudo-scholars inherited from their religious ancestors (in short 'Mommy and Daddy') and these assumptions should be viewed as being untrue or at the very least highly improbable.
Indeed I have to take atheists and skeptics of this and previous ages to task for not recognizing the Achilles Heel of the existing tradition. Why bother fight about the historical existence of Jesus? This is not a winnable argument. The facts are that when the scales of probability are measured most people (even detractors of the surviving orthodoxy like myself) would have to acknowledge that even if the story of the Passion isn't EXACTLY like the one which our ancestors passed down to us it seems highly improbable that the whole thing was just made up (as the silly mythicists contend).
Indeed as I have shown elsewhere the fact that the pagan witness Celsus or his Jewish source (see books 1 and 2 of Origen's Against Celsus) DO NOT USE the 'Jesus never existed' argument when they tried to demolish Christianity AND ORIGEN (from whom all our information about these two sources comes from) IDENTIFIES CELSUS AS HAVING WRITTEN HIS TEXT AROUND 140 CE (and thus his Jewish source to within 80 years or so of the historical Passion) the idea that the 'whole thing never happened' is quite simply a non-starter.
Something must have happened. At the very least (and I don't think we have to 'deconstruct' the story to the level described here) someone must have been 'mistaken' or at least identified as being named 'Jesus' and that person was indeed crucified at the end of Pilate's administration (see the Real Messiah for that argument).
Mythicists attack my 'naivete' but I in turn feel very suspicious of their whole approach to antiquity. Their position that there was some kind of 'organized plot' to invent a religion out of thin air seems utterly implausible to me. Indeed their whole position depends on us viewing the first believers in Christianity as being so stupid that a handful of 'conspirators' could convince them of the existence of an event that never occurred merely by dressing up the fraud in pagan images.
This is so utterly stupid on a number of levels that I don't know where to begin. I for one do not feel that Clement or Origen were stupid. I don't think that the believers in Alexandria who preceded them were stupid. In fact when I read the fathers of the Alexandrian Church tradition I am utterly in awe of their knowledge.
One of the reason I hated Joseph Atwill's book for instance (there were thousands but let me 'bottom line' it for my readership) was that its underlying assumption was that the author - Atwill - was smarter than everyone in antiquity. Only he was 'smart enough' to see the truth while everyone else in the history of the religion wallowed about in ignorance (save of course for the original conspirators).
My theory in the Real Messiah is very different. I assume that the Alexandrian Church KNEW the truth about the hidden messiah in the gospel. Indeed I find that there are 'bits and pieces' of this understanding that 'someone else' was being announced by Jesus throughout the surviving literature - i.e. from the 'two advent' theology of early Church Fathers, the rabbinic interest in Agrippa, the high standing of Mark among the Samaritans and Copts, as well as the basic formula for reading the gospel in early Islam just to name a few.
The only credit I give myself was that I happen to have appeared at the end of an age of relative peace and tranquility which allowed for me to put all the pieces together TO AT LEAST START THE PROCESS OF A GRAND 'REVALUATION OF VALUES.' I never claim that I proved the case that Marcus Agrippa was the 'real messiah' of Christianity. Instead I think that I have presented a good case for why we should do more research.
To get back to the last point - while I think that the pagan elements in Christianity may well be there but the influences are I believe secondary. The core of the story is a contemporary belief (Alexandria?) that God (or the 'glory Lord') came to earth to empty his soul into humanity in order to perfect what was good but not perfect in humanity at creation.
In order to have this story developed there must have been a crucifixion or at least a death (which in turn allowed for the 'emptying' to have taken place). My construction of the historical events behind the gospel assume a Marcionite starting point - i.e. that there was an Apostle whose experience at a 'heavenly revelation' became the foundation of the religion. I believe this was suppressed in the second century in favor of a religion by committee. This is not a 'conspiracy theory' any more than Knox's work is a 'conspiracy theory' or many others who have sincerely attempted to make sense of Marcionitism.
In any event to get back to my original point, the Achilles Heel of the Catholic tradition is the claim that Irenaeus faithfully preserved the teachings of a Church Father known as 'Polycarp.' I know this doesn't seem as sexy as 'Jesus never existed' but it has one thing that the mythicist argument doesn't have - an inescapable logic which those with both intellectual honesty and deep knowledge of Patristic literature (very few individuals I am afraid) have to acknowledge challenges the very foundation of everything we hold sacred.
In short if Irenaeus was lying about his relationship with Polycarp an inescapable cloud of suspicion has to raised about his claims about the four gospels, the canon, the Acts of the Apostles and the foundations of the beliefs of the Catholic Church.
The problem is for us - how do you make this utterly devastating argument sexy enough that our mothers, fathers and grandparents could sit through a book on this subject and not put down the book after a couple of pages to watch American Idol instead ...
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
Indeed I have to take atheists and skeptics of this and previous ages to task for not recognizing the Achilles Heel of the existing tradition. Why bother fight about the historical existence of Jesus? This is not a winnable argument. The facts are that when the scales of probability are measured most people (even detractors of the surviving orthodoxy like myself) would have to acknowledge that even if the story of the Passion isn't EXACTLY like the one which our ancestors passed down to us it seems highly improbable that the whole thing was just made up (as the silly mythicists contend).
Indeed as I have shown elsewhere the fact that the pagan witness Celsus or his Jewish source (see books 1 and 2 of Origen's Against Celsus) DO NOT USE the 'Jesus never existed' argument when they tried to demolish Christianity AND ORIGEN (from whom all our information about these two sources comes from) IDENTIFIES CELSUS AS HAVING WRITTEN HIS TEXT AROUND 140 CE (and thus his Jewish source to within 80 years or so of the historical Passion) the idea that the 'whole thing never happened' is quite simply a non-starter.
Something must have happened. At the very least (and I don't think we have to 'deconstruct' the story to the level described here) someone must have been 'mistaken' or at least identified as being named 'Jesus' and that person was indeed crucified at the end of Pilate's administration (see the Real Messiah for that argument).
Mythicists attack my 'naivete' but I in turn feel very suspicious of their whole approach to antiquity. Their position that there was some kind of 'organized plot' to invent a religion out of thin air seems utterly implausible to me. Indeed their whole position depends on us viewing the first believers in Christianity as being so stupid that a handful of 'conspirators' could convince them of the existence of an event that never occurred merely by dressing up the fraud in pagan images.
This is so utterly stupid on a number of levels that I don't know where to begin. I for one do not feel that Clement or Origen were stupid. I don't think that the believers in Alexandria who preceded them were stupid. In fact when I read the fathers of the Alexandrian Church tradition I am utterly in awe of their knowledge.
One of the reason I hated Joseph Atwill's book for instance (there were thousands but let me 'bottom line' it for my readership) was that its underlying assumption was that the author - Atwill - was smarter than everyone in antiquity. Only he was 'smart enough' to see the truth while everyone else in the history of the religion wallowed about in ignorance (save of course for the original conspirators).
My theory in the Real Messiah is very different. I assume that the Alexandrian Church KNEW the truth about the hidden messiah in the gospel. Indeed I find that there are 'bits and pieces' of this understanding that 'someone else' was being announced by Jesus throughout the surviving literature - i.e. from the 'two advent' theology of early Church Fathers, the rabbinic interest in Agrippa, the high standing of Mark among the Samaritans and Copts, as well as the basic formula for reading the gospel in early Islam just to name a few.
The only credit I give myself was that I happen to have appeared at the end of an age of relative peace and tranquility which allowed for me to put all the pieces together TO AT LEAST START THE PROCESS OF A GRAND 'REVALUATION OF VALUES.' I never claim that I proved the case that Marcus Agrippa was the 'real messiah' of Christianity. Instead I think that I have presented a good case for why we should do more research.
To get back to the last point - while I think that the pagan elements in Christianity may well be there but the influences are I believe secondary. The core of the story is a contemporary belief (Alexandria?) that God (or the 'glory Lord') came to earth to empty his soul into humanity in order to perfect what was good but not perfect in humanity at creation.
In order to have this story developed there must have been a crucifixion or at least a death (which in turn allowed for the 'emptying' to have taken place). My construction of the historical events behind the gospel assume a Marcionite starting point - i.e. that there was an Apostle whose experience at a 'heavenly revelation' became the foundation of the religion. I believe this was suppressed in the second century in favor of a religion by committee. This is not a 'conspiracy theory' any more than Knox's work is a 'conspiracy theory' or many others who have sincerely attempted to make sense of Marcionitism.
In any event to get back to my original point, the Achilles Heel of the Catholic tradition is the claim that Irenaeus faithfully preserved the teachings of a Church Father known as 'Polycarp.' I know this doesn't seem as sexy as 'Jesus never existed' but it has one thing that the mythicist argument doesn't have - an inescapable logic which those with both intellectual honesty and deep knowledge of Patristic literature (very few individuals I am afraid) have to acknowledge challenges the very foundation of everything we hold sacred.
In short if Irenaeus was lying about his relationship with Polycarp an inescapable cloud of suspicion has to raised about his claims about the four gospels, the canon, the Acts of the Apostles and the foundations of the beliefs of the Catholic Church.
The problem is for us - how do you make this utterly devastating argument sexy enough that our mothers, fathers and grandparents could sit through a book on this subject and not put down the book after a couple of pages to watch American Idol instead ...
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
Saturday, July 18, 2009
P52 and Why Anglo-British Scholarship Should be Utterly Expunged
New Testament scholars can be utterly moronic. They like to pretend that their academic pursuits have the right to stand alongside the other sciences in the university system. Physics, Chemistry, Calculus and ... Patristics. Is there ANY field anywhere in the world which is more corrupt and subjective than the study of early Christianity? My God, these men begin with a set of assumptions - all inherited from bitterly partisan ancient Church Fathers - which is so all encompassing that the emasculated research which follows can only 'dot the i's and cross the t's.' And don't they feel proud about their microscopic accomplishments!!!!
Let me give you an example. These pseudo-scholars begin with the inherited assumption of Irenaeus that there are supposed to be four gospels (though they drop his supporting argument that there should be four because there are four winds and four seasons because that would show how unscientific the foundations of their assumptions really are).
So in effect there are the 'synoptics' on the one side of the column and they had some relationship with each other (that apparently is 'left up to debate' although the existence of some 'Q' is generally postulated) and there is this 'other gospel' John which existed alongside but was separate from these other three.
This is the 'starting point' of all research into the gospel owing to the fact that the canon that our ancestors handed to us sets us on this unfortunate journey.
So it is that when these jackasses stumble upon the fragment labelled P52 which can be carbon-dated to the early second century they 'identify' it as being the earliest manuscript of 'the Gospel of John' (for those of you keep score that is that 'other gospel' found in our canon that is not one of the synoptic texts).
Follow me so far? Now the stupid history that Irenaeus spins for us is that Polycarp met John sometime before he died in Ephesus c. 100 CE. The carbon dating gives the text a date of around 130 CE so scholars have to figure out some way how this 'early version of John' made its way from Ephesus to Egypt (where the manuscript was ultimately discovered).
I hope that the objective observers can see how every assumption we have about how the New Testament developed follows from things that filtered their way down to us through Irenaeus of Rome (I never identify him as 'of Lyons' for a number of reasons). These arguments seem so convincing only because of the number of zeros that stand behind them.
Yet there is another explanation for the P52 fragment that never gets any attention whatsoever. While it is certainly possible that P52 testifies to the early existence of the narrative found in our canonical texts nevertheless the very same narratives found on the fragment are found in the so-called Diatessaron.
Of course there are a handful of scholars (Bill Petersen for one albeit a deceased representative) who have thoughtfully pursued the claim of Epiphanius that the 'Diatessaron' was the Gospel of the Hebrews (and thus the ur-text behind the earliest canonical text in the New Testament). While third century Church Fathers explained away the 'Diatessaron' by saying that Tatian composed a harmony out of the four canonical texts first introduced by Irenaeus it is worth noting that Irenaeus himself never claims anywhere in his attack against Tatian.
At the very least we should put an asterix beside the claim that P52 ‘proves’ the early existence of John. Again this is only true if you ignore the Diatessaron (I have an unpublished paper which demonstrates that your name sake – Polycarp of Smyrna – employed a Diatessaron rather than the Catholic quaternion which in turn raises serious difficulties for Irenaeus’ claim to have been completely devoted to Polycarp).
The point is that Tatian certainly identified his ‘Diatessaron’ (the Syrian church undoubtedly called it ‘the Gospel’ or the ‘Gospel of Jesus’) as being the very same gospel as his teacher Justin. This argument is supported by the fact that Justin’s gospel certainly shares what we would call a ‘harmonized’ appearance.
Again because we are brainwashed into Irenaeus introduction (an introduction which interestingly does not mention any authorities before him who thought four was the right number) of the quaternion many of us simply say P52 ‘proves’ an early date for John. The reality is that the parallel Diatessaron tradition casts a deep shadow over these claims for all but the pious.
Here is a comparison of the contents of P52 with the Diatessaron:
ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ ΗΜΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΞΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΠΟΚΤΕΙΝΑΙ OYΔΕΝΑ ΙΝΑ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΠΛΗΡΩΘΗ ΟΝ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΣΕΜΑΙΝΩΝ ΠΟΙΩ ΘΑΝΑΤΩ ΗΜΕΛΛΕΝ ΑΠΟ ΘΝΕΣΚΕΙΝ ΕΙΣΗΛΘΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩΡΙΟΝ Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩN …
… said to him the Jews, “To us it is lawful to kill no one,” so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he said signifying by what sort of death he was about to die. He entered again into the Praetorium Pilate and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you king of the Jews? …
Diatessaron XLIX (translated from a number of languages ultimately to Arabic) The Jews said unto him, We have no authority to put a man to death: that the word might be fulfilled, which Jesus spake, when he made known by what manner of death he was to die. And Pilate entered into the praetorium, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΕΙΜΙ ΕΓΩ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΑΙ ΚΑΙ (ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) ΕΛΗΛΥΘΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΚΟΣΜΟΝ ΙΝΑ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΗΣΩ ΤΗ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΠΑΣ Ο ΩΝ ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΑΛΗΘΕIΑΣ ΑΚΟΥΕΙ ΜΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΦΩΝΗΣ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΩ Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥΤΟ ΕΙΠΩΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΞΗΛΘΕΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ ΕΓΩ ΟΥΔΕΜΙΑΝ ΕΥΡΙΣΚΩ ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΑΙΤΙΑΝ
… a King I am. I for this have been born and (for this) I have come into the world so that I should testify to the truth. Everyone being of the truthhears my voice. Says to him Pilate, “What is truth?” and this saying, again he went out to the Jews and says to them, “I nothing find in him a case.”
Diatessaron ibid:50 – L:1 I am a king. And for this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should bear witness of the truth. And every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate said unto him, And what is the truth? And when he said that, he went out again unto the Jews. And Pilate said unto the chief priests and the multitude, I have not found against this man anything
It is simply impossible to argue that P52 is not a witness to the Diatessaron. We say it witnesses John only because we accept the claim that Tatian ‘invented’ the Diatessaron.
I can do the same with regards to the citations in your namesake’s Letter to the Philippians. There are two citations of gospel material. They both matches the Diatessaron BUT DO NOT WITNESS the order of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
In other words, Irenaeus DID NOT use Polycarp’s gospel. He undoubtedly introduced a new 'standard edition' provided multiple readings of the same narrative over four separated texts. I happen to believe that Polycarp's single long gospel which we can call the Diatessaron was itself identified as 'according to John' (for reasons I go into in greater length in unpublished book Against Polycarp). It was THIS TEXT which Gaius of Rome objected and so when Irenaeus separated the single long gospel into four the discernibly 'Polycarpian' material went into the new, short 'Gospel of John.'
There can be no doubt that later Church Fathers claimed that Tatian WROTE the Diatessaron. Yet it is again particularly interesting that Irenaeus never mentions this. His statement about Tatian’s ‘heresy’ is limited to the following:
“A certain man named Tatian first introduced the blasphemy (viz. a ‘heretical view of salvation). He was a hearer of Justin’s, and as long as he continued with him he expressed no such views; but after his martyrdom he separated from the Church, and, excited and puffed up by the thought of being a teacher, as if he were superior to others, he composed his own peculiar type of doctrine. He invented a system of certain invisible AEons, like the followers of Valentinus; while, like Marcion and Saturninus, he declared that marriage was nothing else than corruption and fornication. But his denial of Adam’s salvation was an opinion due entirely to himself.”
The question of course is why if Irenaeus introduced four as the right number of gospels (established a NT ‘edition’ to cite Trobisch’s use of the term) why ISN’T his supposed authorship of the Diatessaron mentioned as part of his heresy?
There are only a few possibilities here but given the fact that his master Polycarp can be demonstrated to have used the Diatessaron the idea that Tatian actually wrote the text becomes highly unlikely. The sentence begins with the idea of how Tatian distinguished himself from Justin. If Tatian wrote the Diatessaron then it would only have been appropriate to mention it at least in passing.
The problem of course (one which traditional NT scholars don’t like to acknowledge) is that EVERYONE was using a single long gospel. I don’t even think that Irenaeus knew the term ‘Diatessaron.’ This only came about after his four fold gospel became the official canon. The list of Fathers who used what NT scholars call ‘harmonized’ (harmonized because they aren’t our seperated texts) include Justin, Polycarp, Theophilus, Origen (see the references in his Commentary on Matthew they line up perfectly with the Diatessaron especially when he goes through ‘what happened’ in a particular narrative etc.).
If as I suggest Irenaeus NEEDED to establish himself as part of a particular tradition Polycarp’s was the least organized (he just died a generation before the establishment of his NT edition). I view Polycarp as a kind of renegade railing against the ‘excesses’ of the Marcionite tradition and establishing a tradition in the name of John (this especially shines through the Harris Fragments where because John didn’t die as a martyr Polycarp has to die as a martyr).
The point is that if Polycarp used a Diatessaron (as the Letter to the Philippians suggests) then Irenaeus couldn’t trash the text. He also couldn’t claim that Tatian wrote it as any such an attack would raise questions about his continuing the beliefs which John passed on to Polycarp and Polycarp supposedly passed on to him (it would be like the dog biting its own tail).
Indeed although scholarship accepts Irenaeus' claims to be the true follower of Polycarp there was another contemporary witness - a Valentinian no less - who preserved a very different memory of Polycarp's teaching and undoubtedly his 'gospel.'
Do we HAVE TO believe Irenaeus’ version of Polycarp? No. We can simply CHOOSE TO believe Irenaeus and thereby develop a rather simplified version of history which is USEFUL for the faith but has a number of holes in its logic.
The same is true about P52. We can as a collective body of scholars say that it PROVES the early existence of the Gospel of John. However by doing this we ignore the possibility that it also COULD REPRESENT a preservation of the parallel section of the Diatessaron. Scholars as a collective body turn up their nose at the Diatessaron and praise the quaternion.
Okay that’s fine but really with Polycarp’s use of the Diatessaron and Irenaeus’ citation of the quaternion WITHOUT the witnesses of authorities before him this argument that P52 HAS TO BE the canonical Gospel of John is rather weak.
Of course as most scholars are believers and all believers venerate the fourfold gospel it’s not going to be anytime soon that the walls are going to come crashing down around the faith. Enough soldiers on behalf of the faith are going to conspire to keep this and other dubious arguments wholly based on faith rather than reason standing up for long after you and I are dead and gone.
However the bottom line is that P52 really can’t be proved to be the gospel of John. It can’t be proved to be the Diatessaron either. It’s just a testimony to the early existence of a story common to both textual traditions.
Even though I am sure that we can find one hundred – even a thousand scholars – who will agree that the Diatessaron HAD TO HAVE BEEN made up as a synthesis of the four canonical texts I have just given you a number of reasons to doubt that story. It just doesn’t make sense that Irenaeus wouldn’t have said that Tatian had written something that proved that he innovated from Justin especially as it was the theme of the passage in AH Book 1.
Again in my opinion there is an effective stalemate. You can say ‘I believe that P52 is the Gospel of John’ but it is not proved just as I can say ‘I believe P52 is the Diatessaron.’ To say any more than this is just testimony to the inherent bias built into NT scholarship.
I like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla ice cream but that doesn’t necessarily mean that chocolate ice cream was invented first. The assumptions regarding P52 witnessing an 'early date for the Gospel of John' amount to being little more than a scholarly version of I like chocolate therefore chocolate must come first.
UPDATE Here is what Bart Ehrman says on the subject (The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research p. 77) "[i]n raw chronological terms, the Diatessaron antedates all MSS of the NT, save that tiny fragment of the Gospel of John known as P52." That perfectly demonstrates what we already know i.e. that Ehrman read the fragment AND FURTHERMORE KNEW THAT ALL THE EARLIEST GOSPEL WITNESSES COME FROM THE DIATESSARON (I didn't even mention this earlier) and STILL IN SPITE OF HIS KNOWING THIS Ehrman didn't realize that P52 could well be YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE DIATESSARON PREDATING ALL OTHER MSS. Indeed in light of what he says in the first part of his sentence HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. THE SCALES TIP IN FAVOR OF P52 BEING A DIATESSARON FRAGMENT IN LIGHT OF THE CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE CITED IN HIS TESTIMONY. This man is a genius in other respects but in this one instance he isn't quite on the mark. I will have to bring this to his attention the next time we meet.
BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
And while you've dropped by, why not read my book that answers all questions you never thought about asking about the origins of Judaism, Christianity and Islam?
Buy it here
