Doherty Has It Ass-Backwards: Jesus was Created to Be the Presence of the Logos on Earth Because it was the Creative Word Who Never Left Heaven

I've been working this out for some time and thanks to Doherty's recent work on Hebrews 8:4 I think I have finally managed to square Marcionitism and Valentinianism.  You see I have always found it difficult to reconcile the idea that Marcion's god was 'strange' with the very compelling evidence from the gospel and the other New Testament writings that Jesus was the god who gave Moses the Ten Commandments.  When Paul for instance says 'the glory Lord' it is hard to believe he didn't mean the divine 'glory' mentioned in the Pentateuch.  But at the same time, as we have noted, the Marcionites are described as being 'hostile' to the 'god of the Jews.'  How can these ideas be reconciled?  Well the starting point surely is to answer Doherty's challenge - does Hebrews 8:4 say that Jesus never set foot on the earth?

Without boring my readership I begin by noting the most glaring weakness in Doherty's hypothesis - his complete lack of support from ancient witnesses.  No one interprets the Pauline material in the manner that he does.  Indeed he seems utterly oblivious to the heretical exegesis of the very material he seeks to explain as - essentially - supporting their understanding about God.  Indeed it is akin to arguing that the Pentateuch reflects the sacredness of Mount Gerizim without being aware of the Samaritan arguments developed in favor of this very proposition.

Why develop an argument for Jesus being supernatural without making an appeal to the ancients who held this very point of view?  Indeed Doherty's assumptions about the relationship of Paul to the gospels are so banal you'd think he bought them out of a Sears catalog.  As noted here before, the Marcionites assumed that Paul wrote the original gospel.  To this end, basic underpinning of Doherty's arguments regarding the Pauline writings being 'unaware of the gospel' could well be the result of his dependence on a Catholic recension of scripture which did its best to deny the core Marcionite proposition regarding their apostle.

Some may argue that I spend too much time focused on the Marcionites.  To this end it might be useful to provide an example from the Valentinian Gospel of Truth to demonstrate how Jesus was consistently as something other than the Logos - i.e. the 'power of the Logos.'  From the opening words of the text:

The gospel of truth is joy to those who have received from the Father of truth the gift of knowing him by the power of the Logos, who has come from the Pleroma and who is in the thought and the mind of the Father; he it is who is called "the Savior," since that is the name of the work which he must do for the redemption of those who have not known the Father. For the name of the gospel is the manifestation of hope, since that is the discovery of those who seek him, because the All sought him from whom it had come forth. You see, the All had been inside of him, that illimitable, inconceivable one, who is better than every thought.

We could go through the entire document and demonstrate that again Jesus is not the Logos but the power of the word, the fruit of the true - however you want to describe it.  All of which underscores the idea that it is the Logos which stays in heaven while this 'new power' Jesus becomes his presence on earth.

Doherty is Only Half-Right About Jesus and the Heavenly Tabernacle

I believe I have come one step closer to understanding the Marcionite paradigm and it was accomplished by gleaning information from the tradition associated with Valentinus.  Few people mention the textual variant referenced by Irenaeus in his account of the sect when he writes that according to the Catholic understanding the evangelist:

styles Him (= Jesus) Son, and Aletheia, and Zoe, and the "Word made flesh, whose glory," he says, "we beheld; and His glory was as that of the Only-begotten given to Him by the Father, full of grace and truth." But what John really does say is this: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." [Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.8.5] 

It is rarely recognized that these are two different versions of the equivalent of John 1:14 - first the heretical text used by the Valentinians and then Irenaeus's own Catholic gospel.

Indeed if we put the two versions of the gospel side by side we see that the word 'tabernacling' (= eskenosen) is not present in the heretical text.  Instead we see the idea of the Father 'giving' the glory of the Only-begotten:

Heretical text John 1:14 -  καὶ λόγον σάρκα γενόμενον· οὗ τὴν δόξαν ἐθεασάμεθά καὶ ἦν ἡ δόξα αὐτοῦ, οἵα ἦν ἡ τοῦ μονογενοῦς, ἡ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς δοθεῖσα αὐτῷ, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.

Catholic text of John 1:14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ Πατρὸς, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας

The interesting thing is that - even after citing this textual different - Irenaeus continues to club the heads of the heretics, accusing them of not 'telling the truth' about Jesus when they claim that he was a heavenly being.  Yet there is something even more specific to contemporary controversies about 'the mythical Jesus' and Earl Doherty's theories in particular.  Irenaeus goes on to say that the heretics do not believe that the Logos ever set foot on earth.

Now before the defenders of Doherty jump to their feet, Irenaeus's point ultimately disproves his interpretation of Hebrews 8:4.  The heretics claimed that Jesus did indeed come to earth for a brief time, but interesting he was not the Logos - the figure consistently identified by Philo and those who were influenced by him (= the author of Hebrews) as the heavenly high priest.  Irenaeus writes:

But that the apostle did not speak concerning their conjunctions, but concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he also acknowledges as the Word of God, he himself has made evident. For, summing up his statements respecting the Word previously mentioned by him, he further declares, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." But, according to their hypothesis, the Word did not become flesh at all, inasmuch as He never went outside of the Pleroma, but that Saviour [became flesh] who was formed by a special dispensation [out of all the AEons], and was of later date than the Word. [AH 1.9.2]

Now this is a very important distinction.  It may well have been that the Valentinians did read Hebrews 8:4 in the very way Doherty wants us to interpret the material - i.e. that 'the heavenly high priest' goes about his business in the highest heavens.  Nevertheless all the rest of his conjecture falls to the ground.  For it is quite clear that Jesus is not the Logos for the Valentinians and various other heretical groups - and so too Clement of Alexandria according to Photius of Constantinople.

So it is that Irenaeus continues his - admittedly one-sided - reporting about his heretical opponents.  He continues by condemning them for not acknowledging that Jesus was the Word saying:

Learn then, ye foolish men, that Jesus who suffered for us, and who dwelt among us, is Himself the Word of God. For if any other of the AEons had become flesh for our salvation, it would have been probable that the apostle spoke of another. But if the Word of the Father who descended is the same also that ascended, He, namely, the Only-begotten Son of the only God, who, according to the good pleasure of the Father, became flesh for the sake of men, the apostle certainly does not speak regarding any other, or concerning any Ogdoad, but respecting our Lord Jesus Christ. For, according to them, the Word did not originally become flesh. For they maintain that the Saviour assumed an animal body, formed in accordance with a special dispensation by an unspeakable providence, so as to become visible and palpable. But flesh is that which was of old formed for Adam by God out of the dust, and it is this that John has declared the Word of God became. [ibid 1.9.3]

The specifics of the heretical conception need not concern us here.  The ideas are repeated again in a long section in Book Three where Irenaeus seems to want to overwhelm the reader with too much information about a number of different conceptions - all at the same time. The point here is that Jesus was something other than the Word, he was undoubtedly the 'glory of God' or as it is put elsewhere - the glory-Lord.

It is incredible how many times Irenaeus makes reference to this belief held fast among a great variety of heretics.  Here is only a sampling from some of the books of Against Heresies:

neither was Christ one and Jesus another: but the Word of God--who is the Saviour of all, and the ruler of heaven and earth, who is Jesus, as I have already pointed out, who did also take upon Him flesh, and was anointed by the Spirit from the Father--was made Jesus Christ [AH 3.9.3]

For all things had entered upon a new phase, the Word arranging after a new manner the advent in the flesh, that He might win back(6) to God that human nature (hominem) which had departed from God; and therefore men were taught to worship God after a new fashion, but not another god, because in truth there is but "one God, who justifieth the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith." [ibid 3.10.2]

But salvation, as being flesh: for "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."(16) This knowledge of salvation, therefore, John did impart to those repenting, and believing in the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world. [ibid 3.10.3]

For they say that he, the Lord and Creator of the plan of creation, by whom they hold that this world was made, was produced from the Mother; while the Gospel affirms plainly, that by the Word, which was in the beginning with God, all things were made, which Word, he says, "was made flesh, and dwelt among us." But, according to these men, neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour (Soter), who was produced from [the joint contributions of] all [the Aeons]. For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus [ibid 3.11.3]

for "not by the will of the flesh nor by the will of man, but by the will of God was the Word made flesh;"(1) and that we should not imagine that Jesus was one, and Christ another, but should know them to be one and the same. [ibid 3.14.2]

being ignorant that His only-begotten Word, who is always present with the human race, united to and mingled with His own creation, according to the Father's pleasure, and who became flesh, is Himself Jesus Christ our Lord, who did also suffer for us, and rose again on our behalf, and who will come again in the glory of His Father, to raise up all flesh, and for the manifestation of salvation, and to apply the rule of just judgment to all who were made by Him. There is therefore, as I have pointed out, one God the Father, and one Christ Jesus, who came by means of the whole dispensational arrangements [connected with Him], and gathered together all things in Himself. [ibid 3.14.6]

Their doctrine is homicidal, conjuring up, as it does, a number of gods, and simulating many Fathers, but lowering and dividing the Son of God in many ways. These are they against whom the Lord has cautioned us beforehand; and His disciple, in his Epistle already mentioned, commands us to avoid them, when he says: "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Take heed to them, that ye lose not what ye have wrought." And again does he say in the Epistle: "Many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which separates Jesus Christ is not of God, but is of antichrist." These words agree with what was said in the Gospel, that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." Wherefore he again exclaims in his Epistle, "Every one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ, has been born of God;" knowing Jesus Christ to be one and the same, to whom the gates of heaven were opened, because of His taking upon Him flesh: who shall also come in the same flesh in which He suffered, revealing the glory of the Father. [ibid 3.18.6]

For, in what way could we be partaken of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from Him through the Son that fellowship which refers to Himself, unless His Word, having been made flesh, had entered into communion with us? Wherefore also He passed through every stage of life, restoring to all communion with God. Those, therefore, who assert that He appeared putatively, and was neither born in the flesh nor truly made man, are as yet under the old condemnation, holding out patronage to sin ... Thus, then, was the Word of God made man, as also Moses says: "God, true are His works." But if, not having been made flesh, He did appear as if flesh, His work was not a true one. But what He did appear, that He also was: God recapitulated in Himself the ancient formation of man, that He might kill sin, deprive death of its power, and vivify man; and therefore His works are true. [ibid 3.18.7]

To whom the Word says, mentioning His own gift of grace: "I said, Ye are all the sons of the Highest, and gods; but ye shall die like men." He speaks undoubtedly these words to those who have not received the gift of adoption, but who despise the incarnation of the pure generation of the Word of God, defraud human nature of promotion into God, and prove themselves ungrateful to the Word of God, who became flesh for them. For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that might receive the adoption of sons? [ibid 3.19.1]

The point of course is that what we have uncovered with respect to the heretical understanding of John 1:14 is extremely significant.  Doherty may be understood to be partly correct.  Hebrews is almost certainly referencing the understanding that the Logos - the heavenly high priest - never set foot on the earth.  Nevertheless all the rest of what he writes about with respect to Paul - or the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews - not knowing the gospel narrative, or Jesus remaining in the highest heavens is utter nonsense.

More to follow ...

The Myth About All Those Internet 'Mythicist Debates'

I hate 'debates' about the Bible.  If you're after the truth, you're not going to find it by fighting.  It's one thing to have a discussion or what they used to call a 'friendly debate.'  But the so-called 'mythicist' debates which rage on the internet do nothing to further the truth.  Indeed the longer they have been going on the more unbelievable the respective positions of both sides have become.

I have nothing against Earl Doherty's experimental interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews.  He has a lot of interesting ideas, and it is worthwhile to spend as much time as possible contemplating interesting ideas.  But do I think that there were any Christians anywhere in antiquity who believed that Jesus never appeared on the earth or didn't know a gospel narrative framed around this historical event?  Of course not.  But at the same time I think it is very dangerous to allow those who most vehently oppose 'mythicism' - i.e. American neo-Protestantism - to pretend that they stand anywhere near the truth either.

The fact that it 'makes it easier' to understand Jesus in limited terms of him 'being a man' and only a man, doesn't mean that this is what early Christianity actually preached.  Yes certainly there were always heretics who understood Jesus in these terms.  But that's the point isn't it?  The exclusively human Jesus wasn't taken to be an acceptable position - ever - or at least until American Protestants of the modern age came to dominate the Christian identity.

There used to be a time when Christians were quite happy to split the difference.  Jesus was a god born from a woman.  But we should take the fact that there was an ancient compromise developed in the second and third centuries that the 'human interpretation' was the 'true' one and the 'God interpretation' something which developed from exaggeration.  Indeed the ease by which this intellectual falsification takes place in otherwise intelligent American Protestants is no less miraculous than the claims of the Jesus mythicists.

As we already noted the fact that making Jesus exclusively human makes the gospel narrative 'easier to understand' or 'easier to believe' is not the same thing as being faithful to the original sources.  But this is the essential banality of American neo-Protestantism.  'Faith' can only be for them 'what makes people believe' - or perhaps more intellectually truthfully - 'what makes me believe' rather than simply being faithful to the original sources or to what the truth is.

The truth is that Christianity was originally a very sophisticated mystery religion.  Indeed as much as we would like to speculate that there was this 'primitive Christianity' from which the religion of Justin, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria developed, these ideas have no more reality than Earl Doherty's experiments.  And the biggest red herring in the debate is the inevitable appeal to 'what the Jews must have believed.'   Haven't these people ever read the common theme to many of the Qumran texts - the expectation of a divine visitation and the raising of an elect community centered around a messiah?  Why is this 'Judaism' inevitably ignored when these neo-Protestant American play their 'Jew card' in the debates with mythicists?

As I said, I don't think that these feigned 'debates' are all that useful for settling the truth about 'mythicism.'  I actually hate the term 'mythicism.'  But it is my unshakable opinion that all these controversies only distract us from the truth because neither side is really that interested in uncovering the actual ground of early Christianity.  They suffer from that all too modern vanity disguised as virtue that is - 'being right' all the time.  The truth is still buried out there somewhere.  It just isn't going to be uncovered in debates carried on blogs in the full view of the general public.  There's a good chance that the answer will be found in the place we used to look for it - our surviving literary sources from antiquity.  Let's put them to good use.

Score One for Egyptian Paganism

http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/dn23110-dung-beetles-navigate-using-the-milky-way.html

Therapeutae = Simeonites [Part Three]

It is surprisingly easy to connect the Simeonites (= those of Simeon, the son of Jacob) to the Therapeutae.  It begins with the first words of On the Contemplative Life, the only known reference to the sect:

Having mentioned the Essenes (εσσαιων), who in all respects selected for their admiration and for their especial adoption the practical course of life, and who excel in all, or what perhaps may be a less unpopular and invidious thing to say, in most of its parts, I will now proceed, in the regular order of my subject, to speak of those who have embraced the speculative life, and I will say what appears to me to be desirable to be said on the subject, not drawing any fictitious statements from my own head for the sake of improving the appearance of that side of the question which nearly all poets and essayists are much accustomed to do in the scarcity of good actions to extol, but with the greatest simplicity adhering strictly to the truth itself, to which I know well that even the most eloquent men do not keep close in their speeches.

The basic idea here is that 'the Essenes' = the practical course of life, 'the Therapeutae' = the contemplative life.  But few people have really thought about the implications of the material.

One person who has is Joan Taylor, Professor of Christian Origins and Second Temple Judaism at King's College London.  In a recent paper on the subject, Taylor notes that while Philo identifies the first group as the ᾿Εσσαῖοι he doesn't seem to know why they have this name.  She points to the embarrassment that Philo has in Quod Omnis Probus liber sit owing to the fact that in terms of the name 'Essaioi' the Stoics in Philo’s audience who might well have chortled at the understatement regarding the“imprecise” Greek etymology of the terminology.  As Taylor notes "to get from ὁσιότηϛ, “holiness” or “piety,” to ᾿Εσσαῖοι, with only a sigma and an iota shared by both words, would have indicated some barbaric deformity, regardless of asimilarity in pronunciation: the true form would have been ὅσιοι, 'holy ones.'"

Indeed as she notes, Philo uses precisely this word later on, when he writes of “τὸν . . . τῶν Ἐσσαίων ἢ ὁσίων ὅ µιλον,” “the throng of the Essaioi or “holy ones” (Prob. 91). Philo seems to subvert negative reaction by stating his true opinion couched in ironic understatement. At first sight it is a very poor card to play rhetorically to introduce a perfect example of goodness with a note that Jews got their Greek wrong. But Philo cleverly uses precisely this point again towards the close of his description of the Essenes. He writes: “In such a way philosophy without over-exactness of Greek names turns out athletes of virtue” (Prob. 88).

Taylor rightly points to Philo subsequently "making a virtue out of his concession to the Jews” laxity of Greek language.  In other words, he turns an apparent negative into a positive, accepting a lack of Greek exactness in the name of the group only to emphasise that substance is more important than mere superficiality of language. In the Hypothetica Philo does not even begin to go down this route. There he writes that the Essaioi are called (καλοῦνται) by this name “in my opinion” (παρὰ . . . µοι δοκῶ) because of their exceeding holiness (8.11.1). The point about inexact Greek is avoided, though it may be implied. His rhetorical strategy here is simply to pass over the problem in silence.

Taylor notes that Philo could have done the same in Probus but he chose to make the issue explicit, and address it defiantly in the face of potential critics. Philo clearly thought the name was garbled Greek, but here he was probably wrong. But Taylor makes a case for it being an appropriation from contemporary Aramaic as we see Syriac has borrowed the Greek word when it calls a holy person a hasya (emphatic).  This is certainly one solution to the problem, but it must be noted that if Philo knew any Aramaic he would have presented the etymology as a definitive explanation as he does with respect to 'Simeon' deriving from 'hearing.'  The fact that he hesitates and offers up his own etymology makes clear he is either ignorant of the origin of the name or creating a smokescreen in order to avoid the original meaning.

It is noteworthy that in De Vita Contemplativa Philo doesn't know why the Therapeutai (= Latin Therapeutae) are so-called either.  He offers one of two possible explanations for the name - which is odd for a man who offers so many definitive but ultimately incorrect etymologies for appellations.  So we go back again to the open words of the treatise:

Having mentioned the Essenes, who in all respects selected for their admiration and for their especial adoption the practical course of life, and who excel in all, or what perhaps may be a less unpopular and invidious thing to say, in most of its parts, I will now proceed, in the regular order of my subject, to speak of those who have embraced the speculative life, and I will say what appears to me to be desirable to be said on the subject, not drawing any fictitious statements from my own head for the sake of improving the appearance of that side of the question which nearly all poets and essayists are much accustomed to do in the scarcity of good actions to extol, but with the greatest simplicity adhering strictly to the truth itself, to which I know well that even the most eloquent men do not keep close in their speeches. Nevertheless we must make the endeavour and labour to attain to this virtue; for it is not right that the greatness of the virtue of the men should be a cause of silence to those who do not think it right that anything which is creditable should be suppressed in silence; but the deliberate intention of the philosopher is at once displayed from the appellation given to them; for with strict regard to etymology, they are called therapeutae and therapeutrides, either because they process an art of medicine (= to heal) more excellent than that in general use in cities (for that only heals bodies, but the other heals souls which are under the mastery of terrible and almost incurable diseases, which pleasures and appetites, fears and griefs, and covetousness, and follies, and injustice, and all the rest of the innumerable multitude of other passions and vices, have inflicted upon them), or else because they have been instructed by nature and the sacred laws to serve the living God (= to attend), who is superior to the good, and more simple than the one, and more ancient than the unit; with whom, however, who is there of those who profess piety that we can possibly compare?

One of the oldest and best established etymologies for the name Essaioi is that of 'the silent ones' (= Heb hashaim). In an old Armenian version of Philo's dictionary of Hebrew names "Essene" is explained as "in silence" (Philo, "De Vita Contemplativa," ed. Conybeare, p. 247). The contrast is clearly found in the description of the silence of their morning prayers and the Therapeutae who are emphasized as having lively choral prayers where the purpose was to penetrate the inner soul by means of 'hearing.'

With respect to these same Essaioi , we hear Josephus describes their austere meals in the following terms:

When they have taken their seats in silence, the baker serves out the loaves to them in order, and the cook sets before each one plate with a single course…they speak in turn, each making way for his neighbor. To persons outside the silence of those within appears like some awful mystery; it is in fact due to their invariable sobriety and to the limitation of their allotted portions of meat and drink to the demands of nature [War 2:130, 133]

The Therapeutae by contrast are said to be all about establishing a forum where divine truths can be heard.  So it is that we hear Philo describe a unique 'after dinner entertainment'

and then some one looks out some passage in the sacred scriptures, or explains some difficulty which is proposed by some one else, without any thoughts of display on his own part, for he is not aiming at reputation for cleverness and eloquence, but is only desirous to see some points more accurately, and is content when he has thus seen them himself not to bear ill will to others, who, even if they did not perceive the truth with equal acuteness, have at all events an equal desire of learning.  And he, indeed, follows a slower method of instruction, dwelling on and lingering over his explanations with repetitions, in order to imprint his conceptions deep in the minds of his hearers, for as the understanding of his hearers is not able to keep up with the interpretation of one who goes on fluently, without stopping to take breath, it gets behind-hand, and fails to comprehend what is said; but the hearers, fixing their eyes and attention upon the speaker, remain in one and the same position listening attentively, indicating their attention and comprehension by their nods and looks, and the praise which they are inclined to bestow on the speaker by the cheerfulness and gentle manner in which they follow him with their eyes and with the fore-finger of the right hand. And the young men who are standing around attend to this explanation no less than the guests themselves who are sitting at meat.  And these explanations of the sacred scriptures are delivered by mystic expressions in allegories, for the whole of the law appears to these men to resemble a living animal, and its express commandments seem to be the body, and the invisible meaning concealed under and lying beneath the plain words resembles the soul, in which the rational soul begins most excellently to contemplate what belongs to itself, as in a mirror, beholding in these very words the exceeding beauty of the sentiments, and unfolding and explaining the symbols, and bringing the secret meaning naked to the light to all who are able by the light of a slight intimation to perceive what is unseen by what is visible. When, therefore, the president appears to have spoken at sufficient length, and to have carried out his intentions adequately, so that his explanation has gone on felicitously and fluently through his own acuteness, and the hearing of the others has been profitable, applause arises from them all as of men rejoicing together at what they have seen and heard; and then some one rising up sings a hymn which has been made in honour of God, either such as he has composed himself, or some ancient one of some old poet, for they have left behind them many poems and songs in trimetre iambics, and in psalms of thanksgiving and in hymns, and songs at the time of libation, and at the altar, and in regular order, and in choruses, admirably measured out in various and well diversified strophes. And after him then others also arise in their ranks, in becoming order, while every one else listens in decent silence, except when it is proper for them to take up the burden of the song, and to join in at the end; for then they all, both men and women, join in the hymn. [Vita Cont. 76 - 81]

It is this feature of the 'Therapeutai' which distinguishes them from the Essaioi - and the fact that Philo does not openly identify this juxtaposition between 'silent ones' and one's principally engaged in established 'divine hearing' is of not terribly significant.  For we can arrive at the proper understanding by other means entirely.

We should go back to Taylor's recent study and note how consistent the term 'therapeutai' is in the writings of Philo and how it perfectly suits the juxtaposition just cited.  For Philo - instead of identifying the Essaioi as being related to 'silence' gives the term ᾿Εσσαῖοι a Greek etymology. We see in Probus, the Essenes are worthy of a designation related to holiness “because with them they have become above all attendants of God  (θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ) not by sacrificing animals, but by being worthy to render their minds holy (Prob. 75).

The term θεραπευταὶ θεοῦ is absolutely key in understanding the meaning of Philo here. In Philo’s writings this term repeatedly refers to cultic attendants of a deity, generally to priests and Levites in the Jerusalem Temple (Det . 160, Leg .3.135, Sacr. 13, 118–19, 127, cf. 120, Ebr. 126, Contempl. 11; Fug. 42, Mos . 2.135,149,274, cf. Mos. 2.67). Philo also uses the word ironically. When Gaius Caligula decks himself in theregalia of the Roman god Mars, Philo scoffs at how his minions had to be “the θεραπευταί of this new and unknown Mars” (Legat. 97). This language is by no means unique to Philo, though, interestingly, it is not paralleled in the LXX. In epigraphy, literature and papyri this terminology is attested as far back as Plato.

On the basis of this meaning of “[cultic] attendant”or “minister”—with a specific reference at times to priests and Levites—Philo can use the word θεραπευτήϛ symbolically to refer to someone who “attends” God by means of a good, ascetic, wise and devoted life, one which (using the double-entendre) “heals souls” (cf. Plant. 60; Ebr.69; Mut. 106; Congr. 105; Fug.91, Migr. 124, Sacr. 127, Contempl. 1; Spec. 1.309; Virt. 185–6; Praem. 43–4).   This is the perfect explanation for why the 'Therapeutai' are distinguished from the Essaioi on the basis of 'hearing.'  Their songs and proclamations further more brings divine attention to the souls of their hearers.  They are not 'attendants' of God in the 'practical' manner of the Essaioi but instead work on the souls of their hearers through 'contemplation - hence the title of the present work  De Vita Contemplativa.  

Indeed there is one more step for us to take in terms of understanding the distinction between the 'practical life' of the Essaioi, and the contemplative life of the Therapeutai - viz. coming to terms with Philo's repeated explanation of that schema by means of the brotherly pairing of Levi and Simeon.  As we shall demonstrate in our next post, the Levites were the epitome of the practical life and moreover the Simeonites, the virtue embodied by the Therapeutai.  Moreover it will be plain to see that at the time of Philo's writing the Levites were an idealized typology. Already at the time of Ezra the Nethinim, the descendants of King David's slaves were working in the Temple (Ezra 8. 20) and shared with the Levites the subordinate work of the sanctuary (Ezra 7.24).  One wonders now if already at the beginning of the Second Commonwealth there was no clear manner of identifying 'those of the tribe of Levi.'

Nethinim were given genealogies along with the Levites (Ezra 2. 40 et seq.) but the large majority of the names of the parents mentioned seem to be feminine in form or meaning.  This suggest that the Nethinim could not trace back to any definite paternity; and this is confirmed by the fact that the lists are followed by the enumeration of those who could not "show their father's house."  To this end we must imagine that rather than having 'Levites' per se there was a few powerful familial clans who dominated the priesthood and claimed to be descendants of Levi.  Under them stood these Nethinim who are undoubtedly one and same with the Samaritan mention of the 'Dositheans' (= the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew term).

To this end it is safe to say that when Philo speaks about 'Levites' and 'Simeonites' (or 'Levi' and 'Simeon') he is in fact dealing again with idealized typologies which roughly conform to the sectarian divide between Essaioi and Therapeutai.  But to understand this we must confront the Alexandrian writers allegorical interpretation of the two brothers.

Therapeutae = Simeonites [Part Two]

I really think this is a big development in the understanding of the gnostic tradition. I believe I can connect the Therapeutae to the Simeonites, the tribe that did not receive a portion of the land of Israel - but unlike the Levites, did not have a role in the cult of Yahweh. I have to approach things piecemeal, in part because I am very busy with my day job. But let's start with the obvious core of the thesis here - Simeonite = Simoniani (i.e. 'those of Simon').

It is interesting that Ephrem the Syrian in his Hymns Against the Heresies 23 and 24 makes the oft repeated argument that the early Christians were not called 'Simoniani.' The context of this statement however is clearly that there was a sect associated with Simon 'the magician' that argued the opposite - i.e. that their leader was the true head of the Church.  Yet notice something else from the Hymns when Ephrem writes:

If the apostle were [here] today in a body.
He would wipe out the memories of the false [apostles], as in the case of Amalek,
For if he did not allow the name of Simon to be named over the flock,
How much more would he wipe out the names of the thieves who cut off [and] took it [the flock] with them,
And called it by their names! [Hymn 24:10]

Few people have noticed that the tribe who 'wiped out the memory ... of Amalek' were the Simeonites as we read "And five hundred of these Simeonites, led by Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi, invaded the hill country of Seir. They destroyed the few Amalekites who had survived, and they have lived there ever since." [1 Chronicles 4:42, 43]

The added layer to Ephrem's analysis was that the Simoniani themselves identified themselves in some way with the ancient Simeonites.  It would be interesting to see how deep this goes in Patristic literature, but it is important to take note of the intimation that the Simoniani were Simeonites.  This will be very important when we try to finally solve the origins of the gnostic tradition.  The important thing to keep in mind now is that for Philo, the rabbinic tradition and Clement of Alexandria, Amalek represents 'the passions' and the slayer of these passions was the tribe of Simeon.  Very important part of the allegory which certainly wasn't lost on the Simoniani.

Elaine Pagels 'the Gnostic Paul' in PDF Format

I happened to do a search for this text and - le voila - I found something I didn't even know existed.  'The Gnostic Paul' as a PDF.  Here is the link.  I don't know if I agree with everyone of her interpretations but this was the work which launched my interest in the New Testament (it's all her fault!).

Therapeutae = Simeonites (Part One)

In his On the Contemplative Life, the first century Alexandria Jew Philo makes reference to a Jewish sect which lived in an isolated community near Lake Mareotis - "having left their homes and emigrated to a certain spot most suitable, which is situate above the Mareotic Lake, on a low hill" (Vita Cont 22).  All subsequent Christian writers who make reference to the sect assume that they are the first Christian monastic community in Egypt.  Philo says they are spread throughout the world.

The familiar term 'Therapeutae' is Latin.  The Greek in Philo's original text reads Θεραπευταί and simply means 'those who attend' but can also mean 'those who heal' (= those who attend to the sick).  Philo claims he isn't sure why the sect is so called but the term is commonly used in association with the various gods.  There are therapeutai of Serapis and Asclepius.  Christian writers use the term of their god too.  The second century Church Fathers Melito of Sardis use the term to describe 'attendants of God' (Chronicon Paschale 483, Stromata 7.7.42).

Nevertheless when we look closely at Philo's report we can be reasonably certain the term goes back to the name 'Simeonite.'  First of all, the Hebrew word means not only 'those of (the Patriarch) Simeon' the son of Jacob and head of one of the twelve tribes of Israel but specifically 'hear' or 'attend':

Gen 23:12 And he spake unto Ephron in the audience of the people of the land saying But if thou wilt give it I pray thee listen to me (שְׁמָעֵ֑נִי) I will give thee money for the field take it of me and I will bury my dead there

Numbers 25:14 Now the name of the Israelite that was slain even that was slain with the Midianitish woman was Zimri the son of Salu a prince of a chief house among the Simeonites (לַשִּׁמְעֹנִֽי)

The Hebrew word shema of course simply means to 'hear.'  But the term is frequently used to mean  'to hearken,' 'to attend' or 'to obey.'

If I say 'hear my words' I am at once saying 'attend to them.'  Yet beyond this Philo specifically identifies the sect as being exclusively devoted to contemplation and in particular contemplation through hearing.  For instance he says:

But on the seventh day they all come together as if to meet in a sacred assembly, and they sit down in order according to their ages with all becoming gravity, keeping their hands inside their garments, having their right hand between their chest and their dress, and the left hand down by their side, close to their flank; and then the eldest of them who has the most profound learning in their doctrines, comes forward and speaks with steadfast look and with steadfast voice, with great powers of reasoning, and great prudence, not making an exhibition of his oratorical powers like the rhetoricians of old, or the sophists of the present day, but investigating with great pains, and explaining with minute accuracy the precise meaning of the laws, which sits, not indeed at the tips of their ears, but penetrates through their hearing into the soul, and remains there lastingly; and all the rest listen in silence to the praises which he bestows upon the law, showing their assent only by nods of the head, or the eager look of the eyes. (ibid 32)

and again in the description of this same sacred meal:

And he, indeed, follows a slower method of instruction, dwelling on and lingering over his explanations with repetitions, in order to imprint his conceptions deep in the minds of his hearers, for as the understanding of his hearers is not able to keep up with the interpretation of one who goes on fluently, without stopping to take breath, it gets behind-hand, and fails to comprehend what is said; but the hearers, fixing their eyes and attention upon the speaker, remain in one and the same position listening attentively, indicating their attention and comprehension by their nods and looks, and the praise which they are inclined to bestow on the speaker by the cheerfulness and gentle manner in which they follow him with their eyes and with the fore-finger of the right hand. And the young men who are standing around attend to this explanation no less than the guests themselves who are sitting at meat. And these explanations of the sacred scriptures are delivered by mystic expressions in allegories, for the whole of the law appears to these men to resemble a living animal, and its express commandments seem to be the body, and the invisible meaning concealed under and lying beneath the plain words resembles the soul, in which the rational soul begins most excellently to contemplate what belongs to itself, as in a mirror, beholding in these very words the exceeding beauty of the sentiments, and unfolding and explaining the symbols, and bringing the secret meaning naked to the light to all who are able by the light of a slight intimation to perceive what is unseen by what is visible. When, therefore, the president appears to have spoken at sufficient length, and to have carried out his intentions adequately, so that his explanation has gone on felicitously and fluently through his own acuteness, and the hearing of the others has been profitable, applause arises from them all as of men rejoicing together at what they have seen and heard;  and then some one rising up sings a hymn which has been made in honour of God, either such as he has composed himself, or some ancient one of some old poet, for they have left behind them many poems and songs in trimetre iambics, and in psalms of thanksgiving and in hymns, and songs at the time of libation, and at the altar, and in regular order, and in choruses, admirably measured out in various and well diversified strophes. And after him then others also arise in their ranks, in becoming order, while every one else listens in decent silence, except when it is proper for them to take up the burden of the song, and to join in at the end; for then they all, both men and women, join in the hymn. (ibid 76 - 81)

The idea here is that the sect 'attends' by 'hearing' in order to attain the contemplative life which is the subject of Philo's treatise.  There is so much more to this.  I will explain this over the next few days.  Yet it is enough to say that I think we have at last stumbled across the origins of the figure of 'Simon Magus' and the Simonians.  There are more myths and allegories in the gospel narrative than has been previously recognized.

I Saw This Woman on Bill Maher Tonight

Palestinian Journalist Rula Jebreal.  She speaks five languages (Italian, Arabic, Hebrew, English and German).  She's very articulate for a bombshell.  It's really funny.  I bet if she was average looking people wouldn't be paying attention to her intelligence.  But I have to admit, I've never seen a woman this attractive and this smart in my entire life.  When people ask me what celebrity I find attractive, I truly haven't been able to come up with anyone for the last five years.  This woman is awesome and she's forty years old.  That's scary.

The Simonians and Simeon

I have been very busy all week so my postings have gone down dramatically.  Nevertheless one can make the case that focusing too much on a problem can lead to stagnation.  Sometimes you just need to take a break.  To this end, my friends, I think we can make our way through the problem of Christian origins by taking note of the Acts of Peter and its relationship with a lost gnostic text that is also behind the Acts of Paul (see our last post).

It would appear that 'Simon' manifested himself in both the figures of Peter and Paul.  We know from the Pseudo-Clementine tradition that Paul was often cast as 'Simon.'  Nevertheless Peter's real name is one and the same with the heretic and - in the Acts of Peter tradition - he stands in the place of Jesus on the Cross (something one would expect to be associated with Simon Magus).

The artificial conflict which is suggested by the Catholic epistles (i.e. 'Paul' opposing 'Peter' at Antioch) is of far less value than it seems as it comes from the first two chapters of Galatians which are almost never cited in relation to the Marcionites.  Moreover as we have noted many times here Tertullian and other writers associate the 'secret gospel' with Paul and the normative text with Peter.  Yet the discovery of the Letter to Theodore demonstrates to us that there was still one underlying tradition.

There is also a notion in the letter of Clement that the initiation 'mystery' was associated with the establishment of a priesthood.  But what sort of a priesthood was this?  These weren't Levites (even though St Mark is consistently cited as being a member of this tribe).  I strongly suspect they were 'Simonians' (i.e. 'of the tribe of Simeon').  I wonder if this is the key to understand the figure of 'Simon.'  Was he a latter day Simeon?

There were two tribes which failed to receive a portion of land - the Levites and the Simeonites.  Those of Simeon disappear from the blessings in Deuteronomy.  Simeon is above all a 'secret' or 'hidden' figure in the Bible, his descendants then fitting 'attendants' of the secret god.

Simon Peter Was Simon Magus

We have discussed here that Pilate's surprise at hearing Jesus had died suddenly on the Cross was taken to have 'supernatural significance' by early writers. Origen for one says that crucifixions rarely ended so quickly and that it was a sign of a 'wonder' - specifically that God intervened. But it is equally likely that Marcionites and heretics saw this as a sign that Jesus was not material. I was reading my son the Acts of Peter as a bedtime story (he wants to be like Daddy I guess) when I noticed that Peter dies even faster than his master (or at least - faster than the accounts we have preserved in the canonical gospels).

Peter is put on the cross upside down (at his request) and then a terribly long and ridiculous (but ultimately gnostic) speech follows - my son actually broke out laughing when I reminded him in the middle of reading the speech that Peter was saying all of this upside down to the crowd.

But the part I hadn't noticed before is that as soon as the speech ends, Peter dies. There is no mention of punishment, whips, chains or the like. He's just strapped on the cross, gives his speech and then gives up the ghost (another term I had to explain to my son). It is also worth noting that Jesus tells Peter as he is running away from his date with death that the crucifixion represents a second death for Jesus - 'I am about to be crucified afresh.' All of which seems to imply to me at least that the docetic details of Peter's death were shared by the gospel used by the community which produced it.

I strongly suspect the idea derives from 'Simon Magus' (Peter's real name is Simon) who claimed to be Jesus reincarnate. Peter is usually presented as Simon's opponent but it is worth noting that the Quo Vadis ('where are you going') is also found in the Acts of Paul. It has been argued that the story in the Acts of Paul is secondary to its use in the Actus Vercellenses (= Act of Peter), it is not the case of citation or allusion, but rather the adaptation of a narrative unit in a different context.

Carl Schmidt presented the Greek papyrus of the Hamburg Staats- und Universitdtsbibliothek (PH) in his 1936 edition of the Acts of Paul. Its publication solved a scholarly riddle; Origen (Commentary on John, 20:12) attributed the quo vadis scene to the Acts of Paul, but until PH, the quo vadis scene was known only as a component of the Acts of Peter preserved in the Actus Vercellenses. In the Hamburg papyrus, however, the scene appears in the context of Paul's journey from Corinth to Italy. the scene appears in the context of Paul's journey from Corinth to Italy. Jesus walks upon the water toward Paul, who is still on board. He wakes Paul, for it is night. Paul asks him why he is downcast; the Lord responds, "I am about to be crucified afresh.' "God forbid!" responds Paul. Jesus then commands Paul to go to Rome and admonish the Christians and walks before the ship to show the way. Schmidt recognized that Jesus' statement, "I am about to be crucified afresh," was singularly inappropriate as a foreshadowing of the martyrdom of Paul who was beheaded.

There is a complex relationship between the Acts of Peter (in its various forms) and the Acts of Paul. It is generally acknowledged that there is some lost source that is being adapted by both. I strong suspect that this Roman text portrayed another Simon entirely - Simon Magus - or perhaps better yet, that the orthodox caricature of Simon developed from a heretical Peter.

A Modern Gnostic Martyr

I had heard about Aaron Swartz's suicide but never connected him with the 'liberation' of JSTOR articles last year - that is, until I read the just released New York Times piece on his passing.  It is there we are reminded of his untimely - even prophetic - demands for full public access to academic articles held for ransom behind steep pay-per-view walls.  As the author notes Swartz:

became an Internet folk hero, pushing to make many Web files free and open to the public. But in July 2011, he was indicted on federal charges of gaining illegal access to JSTOR, a subscription-only service for distributing scientific and literary journals, and downloading 4.8 million articles and documents, nearly the entire library.

Interestingly I have been noticing that JSTOR has recently changed some of its policies to allow for greater access to its articles and books.  Nevertheless this was undoubtedly only a public relations effort in light of the charges that Swartz was facing for his 'liberation' efforts:

including wire fraud and computer fraud, [which] were pending at the time of Mr. Swartz’s death, carrying potential penalties of up to 35 years in prison and $1 million in fines.

It is too easy to dismiss Swartz as an opportunist or someone who was 'mentally unstable.'  The same could undoubtedly have been said about revolutionaries of any age.  We live in a period which will only be remembered for two things - the universal 'dumbing down' of our popular culture and at the very same time the greater accessibility of 'higher culture' such as books, music and images - thanks to the very same source, the internet.

Swartz will be remembered in future generations as a gnostic martyr - one who fought for allowing billions to be brought into acquaintance with knowledge.  It is shameful that the pressures of his liberation efforts should have been met with such draconian measures.  The original authors of those articles were never paid a cent for their labors while the publishing houses were raking in huge royalties for generations.  It is ridiculous.  The world has changed but the academic publishing paradigm has not - or should I say had not until the untimely efforts of Swartz.  His sacrifices should not be forgotten.

Interestingly Irenaeus Doesn't Think that Either Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:45 is Jesus

Wherefore also the first Adam was made by the Lord a living soul, the second Adam a quickening spirit. [1 Corinthians 15:45] As, then, he who was made a living soul forfeited life when he turned aside to what was evil, so, on the other hand, the same individual, when he reverts to what is good, and receives the quickening Spirit, shall find life. [Irenaeus Against Heresies 5.12.2]

And then Irenaeus immediately goes on to speak in terms of a scenario very much like what we have pieced together regarding Secret Mark and Zacchaeus:

For it is not one thing which dies and another which is quickened, as neither is it one thing which is lost and another which is found, but the Lord came seeking for that same sheep which had been lost. What was it, then, which was dead? Undoubtedly it was the substance of the flesh; the same, too, which had lost the breath of life, and had become breathless and dead. This same, therefore, was what the Lord came to quicken, that as in Adam we do all die, as being of an animal nature, in Christ we may all live, as being spiritual, not laying aside God's handiwork, but the lusts of the flesh, and receiving the Holy Spirit; as the apostle says in the Epistle to the Colossians: Mortify, therefore, your members which are upon the earth. And what these are he himself explains: Fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence; and covetousness, which is idolatry. [Colossians 3:5] 

Does the reader see what I am getting at?  What if this section or this letter of the Apostikon - perhaps all letters of the apostle - were commentaries or explanations of the central narrative of the gospel where Jesus resurrects his beloved disciple?  Irenaeus continues:

The laying aside of these (= lusts) is what the apostle preaches; and he declares that those who do such things, as being merely flesh and blood, cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. For their soul, tending towards what is worse, and descending to earthly lusts, has become a partaker in the same designation which belongs to these (lusts, viz., earthly), which, when the apostle commands us to lay aside, he says in the same Epistle, Cast off the old man with his deeds. [Colossians 3:9] But when he said this, he does not remove away the ancient formation [of man]; for in that case it would be incumbent on us to rid ourselves of its company by committing suicide.

What Text of Genesis Was Paul Using?

Thirdly, Paul adds “Adam,” so that his version now reads, “the first man Adam became a living being,” where the LXX reads simply, “the man became a living being.” While none of the LXX MSS have the word “Adam,” both Theodotion and and Symmachus have “the Adam man” (the reverse word order to Paul) at this point in their texts.  The Marcionite text of Marcus in the Dialogues of Adamantius read, "the first man Adam became a living being (ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν) the last, the Lord, a life-producing spirit. The first man was of the earth, earthly; the second, the Lord was from." The LXX text of Genesis 2:7 reads "καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν."  The Samaritikon?

Why Richard Carrier is Almost Certainly Wrong About Philo Holding the Logos Was Named 'Jesus'

I have nothing against Richard Carrier.  We are actually Facebook friends - a status I share with a number of other people who write and think about the Bible.  I don't consider agreeing all the time with someone as a prerequisite for being friendly with someone.  In fact, thanks to my 'indoctrination' in the writings of Nietzsche I would probably hold the opposite - I have learned a lot more in life through my disagreements than through my agreements with people.

In the end however Carrier said something during a radio debate that seems to have captured the interest of 'people that think and write about the Bible.'  Since I probably know about obscure ancient traditions than most, I thought I would shed some likelihood on the question of whether Philo really believed the Logos was named Jesus based on Zechariah 6:12.  The Hebrew text as we now have it is corrupt but there are of course some obvious arguments against this proposition.  Jews do not generally associate the figure of the anatole with the high priest Joshua, but rather Zerubbabel.  Christians working from the Greek text - when they do comment on the passage - tend to identify the anatole with Jesus the high priest.

Philo 'the Jew' was certainly not a Christian (despite Eusebius's best efforts to draft him).  There is no explicit statement to the effect that Philo thought that Jesus the high priest was the anatole in his surviving writings.  Carrier seems to have looked at the passage (whether in Hebrew or Greek he doesn't say) and thought that it might have been possible.  The problem of course is that Carrier ignored the explicit statement from the Hodêgos of Anastasius the Sinaite which explicitly shoots down that idea.

I refer to that passage in chap. 14 in which Anastasius reproduces part of a dialogue between Mnason the disciple of the apostles and Philo "the philosopher and unbelieving Jew" which reads as follows:

I am going to adopt and appropriate the role of Paul of Samosata for you, or, better, that of the unbelieving Jew Philo, the philosopher; for he argued against the divinity of Christ with Mnason, the disciple of the apostles, and called Mnason dichrota:

"What argument, what sort of argument, and from what source (comes) any argument to the effect that the Christ is God? Should you adduce his birth from a virgin, without seed as they say, the begetting of Adam (appears) more noble and more striking, a formation by the very hands of God and a vivifieation through God's own breath, and it was purer than the nine-month fetation of Jesus in his mother (terminating in) filth and wails and mess. Should you adduce the signs he performed after his baptism, I would say to you that no one on earth ever performed such signs and wonders as did Moses for a period of forty years. Should you then point out that Jesus raised the dead, well, the prophet Ezekiel raised up from the dry bones of the army of dead men a numberless people. Moreover, Jesus himself said that some men would perform greater works than he. Now if you tell us that Jesus was taken up into the heavens as God, surely the prophet Elias was taken up more gloriously in a blazing chariot and with horses of fire. Calling Jesus the God of heaven must be reckoned as the most outrageous of your blasphemies, for God Himself said to Moses that "No man shall see my face and live." Further, our Scripture witnesses that "No one has ever seen God. No man has seen or is able to see God." How is it that Christian preachers are not ashamed to proclaim Jesus as God? For it is said that God is a consuming fire. Tell me, then, does a God of fire hunger? Does a God of fire thirst? Does a God of fire spit? Is a God of fire circumcised and does he bleed? And does he cast on the ground bits of flesh and blood and the refuse of the stomach? All such things were cast to the ground by Jesus and were eaten up and consumed by dogs, sometimes by wild beasts and birds, and trampled on by cattle. Every bit of his flesh that was cast off and discarded, whether it was sputum or nail-cuttings or blood or sweat or tears, was a part and portion naturally associated with the body and sloughed off or discarded in due process of growth. Indeed you say that he was like men in all things according to the flesh apart from sin. Yet you preach that he who was dead for three days was God. And what sort of a God who is a consuming fire can die? Why his very servants, the angels, cannot die, neither can the evil spirits of the demons, nor, for that matter, the souls of men. To press the matter, I ask: What sort of God, having the power of life and death, would take to flight—as Jesus fled from Herod lest he be put to death as an infant? What sort of God is tempted by the devil for forty days? What sort of God becomes a curse, which is what Paul says of Jesus? What sort of sinless God commits sin? For, according to you, Jesus became sin for our sake. And if he is God, how is it that he prayed to escape the cup of death? And his prayer was not heard. If he is God, how can he speak as one abandoned by God: "O God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Is God abandoned by God? Does God need God (as would appear) when he says "Do not abandon my soul to the nether world"? Is God (such as to be) tied up, and abused and despised and put to death? If he was indeed God, he should have crushed those intending to take him prisoner, just as the angel crushed the Sodomites (who threatened) Lot. But you call the helplessness of Jesus "long-suffering."

Of course this anti-Christian text has not survived outside of Anastasius's reference to the text.  Nevertheless the fact that he is associated with St Catherine's monastery, makes it quite reasonable that he had a text claiming to be from Philo to this effect.  This would also seem to have been a text of a similar nature known apparently to Photius who - reconciling claims of Eusebius with this negative evidence - assumes that the Jew who became a Christian must have later reverted to being an enemy of the movement.

Moreover, it isn't enough to simply write off the tradition preserved by Anastasius as 'pseudepigraphal.'  It is hard to believe that a Jew - or Philo in particular - could have imagined that his god had a 'name' - let alone a human appellation.  There is ample evidence to suggest that Philo was utterly consistent with Jewish notions of God not have a proper name and so, when you couple this with the fact that Philo was a leading Jew and thus 'normative' in some respect and the actual evidence from one of the greatest libraries in the world that Philo thought the idea that God was named Jesus blasphemous - it would seem that it is more unlikely than it is likely that Philo ever held that the name of the firstborn Logos was Jesus.

As I said, the fact that I don't think that Carrier is right about this in no way changes my thinking about him.  I bet almost anyone of average intelligence or better could prove someone else wrong from something they had said over the last year.  As such this is not something that I delight in or use to 'reject' a prominent member of the 'thinking and reading about the Bible' community.  It just happened to be a question I might be in a unique position to help clarify.

More (Cursory) Observations About the Acts of Peter

Another short observation. Reading more of the Acts of Peter to my son as a bad time story (as he half-listens and plays with his Ninjago characters). There certainly is a layer of anti-gnosticism in the work - i.e. Peter confronting 'Simon' (his namesake) and the hold that he has over the Roman Church. Yet the ending of the text is strangely consistent with what we know about the gnostics.  For instance, Irenaeus and the rest of the 'hersiologists' consistently accuse the gnostics of drawing female followers away from the husbands to 'unite' with them.  Peter is engaged in the very same activities in the Acts of Peter.  Both the concubines of the prefect Agrippa and the rich man Albinus have gone to join Peter.  The same scenario of course manifests itself in all the apocryphal Acts.  Yet it is strange in the Acts of Peter given (a) the manner in which Peter is associated with misogyny in the gnostic literature and (b) the anti-heretical layer added to the text with the combat with Simon the magician.

Indeed the ending of the Acts of Peter is surprisingly 'gnostic.'  He runs away from the soldiers trying to arrest him and Jesus tells him in a vision that he (Jesus) needs to be crucified a second time.  The long discussion of the mystery of the Cross also fits this mold.  There is a strong ascetic tone to the ending with the women abandoning 'lust' to join with Peter.  But perhaps most interesting of all, there is the mystical notion of Peter being crucified upside down embodying Adam's fall from heaven.

It would not surprise me if - at the core of the Acts of Peter - was a gnostic text where Simon Peter was in fact Simon Magus.

Was Jesus Adam? Is the One Who Came After Him 'the Son of Man'?

Bultmann has already cleared much of the ground on this topic.  Indeed much has been written about this and the beliefs of the heretics - but I have something new to add.  It is an unrecognized fact about Galatians 4:4.  The same term that is used to describe God's son being 'sent forth' from heaven is used to describe the man God made with the help of (his wife) Wisdom being banished from Paradise:

So the Lord God banished (ἐξαπέστειλεν) him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken LXX Genesis 3:23

But when the fulness of the time was come God sent forth (ἐξαπέστειλεν) his Son

Coincidence? I am not so sure. Could be the key for understanding the heresies. Remember 1 Corinthians chapter 15 and its talk about the 'first Adam' and the 'second' etc.  We have to explain why God needed to be crucified - i.e. his personal motivation.  'To redeem us from sin' is only part of the answer.  Surely God was capable of waving his hand and doing this.  He was not limited by established paradigms or convention. Indeed arguing that God had to conform to existing 'rules' implies he was constrained and thus imperfect.

Was the crucifixion at once also his repentance according to the Marcionites and other heretical groups?  Was the symbol of Adam on the Cross somehow symbolic of the crucifying of 'enmity in the flesh' (Ephesians 2:15)?  The flesh he was given by God in the beginning.  There is a confusion in heretical authors about whether Jesus is the Son of the Father or the Son of the Creator.  This might have something to do with it.

It is worth noting that it is only the presence of 'the time' (ὁ χρόνος) which makes the reference seem apocalyptic. If 'the fullness' was left on its own it would be an obvious reference to Adam eating (and being satiated) in the Garden - and then expelled. Curiously, if we assume that the tree of knowledge, good and evil was a fig tree, Jesus's withering of the tree is significant. But then if we also look to Zacchaeus being in the tree of life (a sycamore) and that tree is allegorical symbolized by the Cross (the wood) - the idea of some else being crucified on that 'tree' - even Zacchaeus 'the pure one,' this is an interesting concept to consider.

Varia

Sorry my mind is just not going to be able to do any deep analysis of Clement, Ephrem and Marcion this week.  But I have a couple of random observations that I've been saving up:

1. the flying Simon Magus in the Acts of Peter tradition is a parody of the flying Jesus tradition from the Diatessaron.  For some reason my son wanted a bed time story so I didn't feel like reading yet another banal Star Wars book for kids.  So I read him a chapter from the Acts of Peter where Simon is flying over Rome until Peter brings him down by prayer.  The flying Simon tradition probably goes back to the second century - in other words, around the time 'heretical' influence was waning.  The Jesus of the Marcionites, Valentinians and various other sects certainly flew.  Simon however becomes the new conduit for the 'flying' tradition.  It is strange the way the pseudo-Clementine literature identifies him as Paul but the earliest tradition makes him the embodiment of the heretical Jesus.  
2. castrated priests from Christian antiquity certainly must have claimed to embody an 'alien race.'  There certainly were castrated priests in Christianity in the second century.  Julius Cassian was certainly one such figure.  Clement and Origen were others.  I happened to have been attending a baptism when I thought about the Catholic priest standing up on the altar.  Even in their modern state, they act as a separate race of being.  They don't get married, have cut themselves off from normal familial bonds.  Imagine for a moment if this was taken one step further.  Then you have man-made angels living among us.  
3. the early Acts of Peter tradition obsessed about the fact that he had a daughter who paralyzed to prevent her being raped by rich man.  The references are found in the Epistle of Pseudo-Titus, a Coptic fragment, allusions in Augustine.  The story goes something like this - "an exceeding rich man, by name Ptolemaeus, when he had seen the maiden with her mother bathing, sent unto her to take her to wife; but her mother consented not. And he sent oft-times to her, and could not wait."  Here a leaf is lost in the Coptic but we can put together the rest from Augustine's reference to the Acts where he says the daughter of Peter was struck with palsy at the prayer of her father as she was being pulled away by Ptolemaeus.  "unable to win the maiden by fair means, Ptolemaeus comes and carries her off. Peter hears of it and prays God to protect her. His prayer is heard. She is struck with palsy on one side of her body."  When he finds her paralyzed he gives up trying to rape her.  But she is paralyzed for the rest of her life.  Strange story!  You'd think Peter could have prayed to paralyze the man.  Curious.  

Why Are Tertullian's Citations of Paul Different in Against Marcion Than

An example from Gal. 4:4. Tertullian Against Marcion Book 5:

But when it came about that the time was fulfilled, God sent his Son—evidently that God who is the God even of those times of which the ages consist, who also has ordained the signs of the times, suns and moons and constellations and stars, and in short has both foreordained and foretold the revelation of his own Son at the far end of the times [5.4]

If he has done nothing, it was foolish enough that he waited for the Creator's times, and thus did service to the Creator. But to what purpose did he send his Son? To redeem them that were under the law, that is, to make crooked places into a straight way, and rough places into smooth ways, as Isaiah says, so that old things might pass away and new things might arise, a new law out of Sion and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem,and that we might receive the adoption of sons, we the gentiles, who once were not sons [5.4]

Christ has appeared as dispenser of spiritual things—for the apostle says, But when the time was fulfilled God sent his Son, and again, Because the time is now short—it is clear also from that foretelling of the last times that this grace of the Spirit appertains to the Christ of him who foretold it. Set side by side the apostle's details and those of Isaiah [5.8]

Compare that with his citation from his On the Flesh of Christ:

when he says, "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman." 

Does this difference come down to Tertullian citing directly from Marcion's Apostolikon or Irenaeus's anti-Marcionite treatise? I suspect the latter but it is still a tough argument.

New Testament Scholars Are (For the Most Part) Unsophisticated Thinkers

Work starts again for me so that means that - theoretically at least - I won't have as much time to place posts here.  I really believe we have made some profound advancements towards understanding the original context for Christianity.  All of which brings us to our next point - why is most of the analysis of the Bible so utterly unsophisticated?  There is this sense that 'everything is really quite simple with respect to the transmission and interpretation of the New Testament when this is really not the case.  I bet even a crack police squad couldn't solve this mystery.

I know we happen to live in an age of decline.  Yet this isn't necessarily a bad thing.  One could make a case for the argument that it is only because of our decline that we are allowed the freedom to think and say whatever we want.  The Christian Church Father Origen lived through the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire.  Many have already made the argument that the rise of Christianity during the decline of that civilization isn't coincidence.  Perhaps we can argue that members of that culture were looking to religion to establish a new social order.

In any event, as we fast forward to our own times, I find it terribly distressing some times to see the manner in which prominent 'thinkers' in this field - I mean the study of early Christianity - have a complete lack of intellectual dexterity.  They can only think in one or two dimensions.  What do I mean by that?  Let's start with the unacknowledged reality in the study of early Christianity, something which should be pointed out to so-called 'historicists' and 'mythicists' alike.

It isn't just the 'gospel' which we have to wrestle with and its portrait of Jesus.  There are the writings of 'the apostle' called 'Paul' in the Catholic tradition - and then there are all the things that the Church Fathers and early Christian texts say about the gospel and the Pauline writings.  There are prominent mythicists like Earl Doherty who rightly experiment with the idea that Jesus might have been portrayed as wholly divine being.  But his theory falls apart when you start to incorporate the Pauline writings and early second and third century commentaries written about the gospel and the Pauline writings.

On the other hand there are the so-called 'historicists' - atheists and believers alike - who attack his experiments.  They rightly point to strained interpretation of historical references to Jesus the man in the Catholic recension of his letters.  Yet they too fall victim to the same one or two dimensional thinking with respect to the integration of (a) the gospel (b) the Pauline writings and (c) the Patristic commentaries on (a) and (b).  How so?  Well let's contrast the shortcomings of mythicists like Earl Doherty with - let's say - James McGrath.

Earl Doherty can be accused of unsophisticated reasoning because he doesn't recognize that the earliest Christian witnesses to the gospel (= c) inevitably assume that Paul (= b) had a written gospel (= a) and the Pauline writings were themselves commentaries on the gospel.  Who can be classified in this list of witnesses?  Marcion certainly, but more significantly perhaps Clement of Alexandria and to an extent any early witness to the Diatessaron at least theoretically.  We have already discussed Marcion and Clement ad nauseum at this site.  But the example of Ephrem is more intriguing and should receive a series of posts in the near future.

The point here of course is that Doherty simply takes the existing canon of Pauline writings and says they reinforce Paul receiving an ahistorical revelation about Jesus.  But even beyond the forced interpretation of many sections of the Pauline letters there is a difficulty when we consider the early witnesses all assumed that Paul wrote the original gospel (or at least had one in his possession).  We have already seen that Clement writes in Book Three of the Stromata that:

when [Jesus] says, "If you want to be perfect, sell your property and give the proceeds to the poor," he is showing up the man who boasts of "having kept all the commandments from his youth." (Mark 10:20) He had not fulfilled "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 18:21, 22) At that moment the Lord wanted to bring him to perfection and was teaching him to share out of love.

This is a reference to the Diatessaronic gospel shared by various heretical groups which fused together the equivalents of the questions about 'life' and 'eternal life' in the synoptic gospels.

In other words, Clement and the Marcionites had a gospel but it wasn't one of our 'four' but a single 'super text' that combined readings from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and was the original text behind these four 'cut' texts of the Catholic tradition.  Yet there is a deeper layer of truth where many of Paul's statements in Romans are consistently understood by Clement (and others) to be commentaries on the lost gospel including Romans 13:9:

For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

There are many other examples of the early tradition assuming Paul had a copy of the gospel including the Marcionite (and the Acts of Archelaus's) claim that Paul was the Paraclete (= a claim which Paul would have needed John 14:16 to make).  We can't get into them right now.  But it is important to note that Doherty's theory falls apart when we get beyond the Catholic paradigm's one dimensional division of (a) gospel, (b) Pauline writings and (c) Patristic commentary all existing together but (b) coming before (a) and (c) assuming that (a) and (b) were separate revelations.

Now on to those who smugly contend that because Doherty's interpretation is flawed that we can fall back on the inherited notion of a historical Jesus.  Let's consider how someone like James McGrath would interpret the original paradigm of early Christianity.  He would undoubtedly agree I expect with Doherty that Paul received his 'revelation' without having a written gospel in his hand.  He would reject the Marcionite understanding that 2 Corinthians chapter 12's 'revelation' was not about his reception of the gospel.  Rather, he would undoubtedly argue in rather conventional terms of a 'special insight' - perhaps by the Holy Spirit - into the already established notion of a historical man named Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

The difficulty with that theory however is that (c) doesn't allow for that hypothesis very comfortably.  There certainly were early Christians who thought that Jesus was a man born through an ordinary birth to Mary.  Yet it is only when you line up (a) (b) and (c) that difficulties for this theory emerge.  Certainly Irenaeus is the earliest supporter to the idea that (b) or 'Paul' understood (a) 'the gospel' in a manner which was in keeping with him being a human being born to a woman.  Yet Irenaeus is out of step with his contemporaries and the support we get from Tertullian and Hippolytus only reinforce the influence of Irenaeus, not the compatibility of his ideas with Christian witnesses from earlier periods of history.

Justin Martyr did not use Paul, so the fact that he might have understood Jesus to have been a man does nothing for the argument that (a) (b) and (c) cannot be squared before Irenaeus.  The facts remain that the heretics including Clement of Alexandria all understood Paul not only to have possessed a gospel but that their understanding of his exegesis of that text assumed a supernatural Jesus.  In other words then, Doherty and McGrath suffer from the same shortcoming - they haven't sufficiently comprehended (c) - i.e. the early second and third century witnesses to (a) and (b).  If they did they would neither argue over Paul's witness to (i) a wholly ahistorical Jesus or (ii) a wholly historical individual named Jesus.  The apostle clearly believed that Jesus appeared as a supernatural being in 'real historical' time.

Indeed for the unsophisticated reader - i.e. someone who doesn't want to spend the years required to master (a) (b) and (c) - they can just read his caricature as 'Simon Magus' in the Clementine writings for yet another confirmation of this understanding.  But that is what it comes down to isn't it?  The only people who should be allowed to say anything about the development of early Christianity are those who have mastered all three fields of study - not just (a) or (b).  After all, this only reinforces our traditional notion that (a) and (b) are wholly separate from one another ...

Who's the Jackass Who Claimed the Surviving Writings of Clement of Alexandria Haven't Been Falsified?

How is possible that the writings of Clement cite Romans 13:9 in two different ways neither of which agree with the received text.  First the received text of Romans 13:9:

For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

We have already mentioned that Paul is citing the wrong order of commandments.  It should be 'do not murder, do not commit adultery.'  Clement cites Romans 13:9 in Book Four someone has corrected Paul's text to read as it does in the Pentateuch:

τὸ γὰρ οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, καὶ εἴ τις ἑτέρα ἐντολή, ἐν τούτῳ μόνῳ ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται τῷ λόγῳ, τῷ. ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν [4.3.10.3]

In Book Seven he cites Romans 13:9 correctly - i.e. with 'do not adulterate' first - but 'do not murder' has been dropped from the reading:

τὸ οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις καὶ εἴ τις ἑτέρα ἐντολή, ἐν τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται, ἐν τῷ· ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν [7.16.105.4, 5]

How can these errors be explained?  I am certain it has something to do with obscuring Jesus's response - 'thou shalt not be angry.'  More on that later ...

Something Great From Stephen Carlson

I have been reading - and really enjoying - the abstract of his dissertation on the history of the text of Galatians.  Who knows maybe if he had decided to tackle the problem of the Letter to Theodore after he had completed his studies he might have come to some different conclusions. Of course he'd never admit it.  But human nature is like that.  Really worth reading this though.

Of Marcionites and Alexandrians [Part One]

I spend so much time think about this religion - you'd think I was Christian.  But then again most Christians don't spend that much time having any productive thoughts about their religion.  The same thing holds true for Jews and Muslims and members of virtually every other religion.  I mean, when you think about it - how many men think about 'what it's like being a man' or women 'being a woman'?  People tend to think about what they don't have rather than what they have.  I think Heidegger got it right when he said (and I am paraphrasing someone who is impossible to paraphrase) you only think about the hammer when it's broken.

But in this case we (or 'I') happen to be engaged in trying to consolidate several different - and seemingly antithetical - constructs.  On the one hand we have a Church Father named Clement of Alexandria.  Clement would have only passing interest for most people if it weren't for the fact that an American professor discovered a lost letter of his in the Mar Saba library.  For some reason, this discovery is controversial.  Apparently Clement couldn't have used a longer 'secret gospel' of Mark which mentioned a disciple dying, being resurrected and waking up in 'love' with Jesus.  Let's leave that standing where it is.

So on the one hand we have this 'controversial' discovery associated with Clement and then on the other we have a sect called 'the Marcionites' who are identified as having a longer gospel of Mark by at least two early Church Fathers.  Of course I think that the name 'Marcion' has something to do with Mark.  But let's not get too deeply involved with that.  The point of all my efforts is to reinforce a 'hunch' that I have that the writings of Clement and the hostile reports about the Marcionites point to some underlying common tradition.

Why do I think this?  There is no way that I can summarize in a single sentence why I suspect this 'underlying relationship.'  A lot of the evidence is circumstantial.  We are told that Origen was Clement's student, but not even Eusebius can produce anything resembling an acknowledgement from either that they knew the other.  How can that be explained?  It's not like Eusebius doesn't have the evidence in front of him.  He has a whole library full of books.  No correspondence between the two men, and yet he is more than willing to identify Ammonius Saccas as Origen's teacher, thanks to some handy testimony from the pagan philosophy Plotinus who knew Origen and his rich patron Ambrose in Tyre.

And it isn't just Plontinus.  Other traditions survive where Origen is acknowledged to have been a devoted student of an Egyptian bishop named Ammonius.  The funny thing is that Ammonius was famous in antiquity for having 'made' a Diatessaron - a gospel which seemed to harmonize various passages from the four gospels into one long narrative.  This 'Diatessaron' is related to but ultimately different from Tatian's more famous 'gospel harmony' associated with Rome and the Syrian Church.

Let's leave aside the question of how two competing 'gospel harmonies' existed side by side one another in antiquity and none of the contemporary Church Fathers - not even Irenaeus - mentions them.  Here's something more unusual.  I might have mentioned this before but if you look at Origen's Commentary on Matthew you'll see whole sections where he cites Mark, Luke and John alongside Matthew.  When I was on an airplane to California once I happened to follow Origen's citations of the four gospels in this Commentary and found that they almost always followed the order of parts of the existing Arabic Diatessaron.

What do I mean by this?  I think the 'Commentary on Matthew' was modified from an original Commentary on the Diatessaron.  Interestingly enough in Book Fifteen - a treatise that only survives in Latin and has never been fully translated into English - Origen makes one of the fullest references to the 'harmonization' which exists in the section of text that spans the 'Cursing of the Fig Tree' down to 'Zacchaeus in the Sycamore.'  In other words, he clearly acknowledges that the rich man of Mark 10:17 - 31 'dies' and goes down into Hades as the 'rich man' of the Rich Man and Dives in our Gospel of Luke (but part of the continuous harmonized narrative of the Diatessaron).

So we can't pin down Origen's relationship with Clement but we can trace his use of Diatessaron and we have multiple 'witnesses' to his being student of a man famously associated with an Alexandrian 'Diatessaron.'  While we can't pin Origen to Clement, we can identify Clement recommending people read a work called De Principiis in Quis Dives Salvatur which was probably Origen's famous treatise.  Isn't that good enough?  Maybe.  But why don't we know more about Clement.  All we really know about him is that he wrote a number of works, he was supposedly Origen's teacher (but that relationship is shrouded in secrecy) and that he ran away from persecution in Alexandria.  Epiphanius doesn't even know whether he was from Athens of Alexandria.

The only other thing that we can say with any certainty about Clement is that he too must have used this Alexandrian Diatessaron associated with Ammonius.  We know this from the pattern of references in his writings.  Interestingly also Clement never mentions Ammonius but alludes to Tatian - his Diatessaronic rival -  more than once.  Is that enough to prove anything about the relationship between any of these men?  Of course not.  But there is more information that we can layer on top of this.

When Origen left Alexandria he ultimately settled for a long period of time in Tyre (one of the reasons why the pagan Plotinus knew so much about him).  Yet in Tyre he was 'worked for' a rich 'repentant' Marcionite who basically commissioned him to write books on various subjects which seemed to be important to him and the local Church (for which he was a married deacon apparently).  What makes this relationship so odd is that it fits into a pattern of all of these men being associated with 'denying their original faith.'  Ammonius denied being a Christian of the Marcionite 'brand,' Clement speaks about having to 'deny' Mark's authorship of the 'secret gospel,' Ammonius Saccas is said by Plotinus to have 'denied' his original Christian faith and Origen, if he was a student of Clement clearly did not maintain the same beliefs, practices and canon of his original Alexandrian faith.

Indeed Origen is a strange character precisely because he seems to have been hired by Ambrose to spin bullshit.  He was making stuff up as he went along - taking Catholic texts that were basically unknown to the writings of Clement as we know have them and applying the most ridiculous allegorical interpretations of them to arrive at something of a 'compatible' interpretation of Christian mysticism as his (alleged) former master.  Why were all these Christians associated with 'denying' their original faith and Origen was made so famous basically inventive the most ridiculously implausible interpretations of a newly fixed canon of scripture?  Can't Origen then be described as yet another 'apostate' from Alexandria?

Oh there is one more thing that links all these men - they were all associated with heresy.  In Origen's case his originality and inventiveness prevented him from being identified with an existing form of 'heresy' and in Ammonius's case it is only theoretical (i.e. we know so little about him but we must assume he was a Platonizing Christian).  Clement is never charged with being a heretic of course but Photius strangely accuses his writing of heresy but assumes that treatise was written by someone else.  Nevertheless we have already mentioned Jerome's charge that Eusebius 'corrected' Clement and Origen's of any overtly heretical statements.

What about the Marcionites?  They are repeatedly described as a virulently Platonized form of Christianity.  Does that describe Clement?  Yes certainly.  What about Ammonius?  Undoubtedly.  What about Origen?  Him too but he was deliberately cultivating a disguise and Ambrose - well - he is acknowledged already as a repentant Marcionite.