Zealots aka Galileans

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8021
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Zealots aka Galileans

Post by Peter Kirby »

Following up on our earlier discussion of Epictetus, I have found another text (a quote from Eusebius attributed to Hegesippus) that would lead us to believe that the Zealots were sometimes called Galileans.

http://peterkirby.com/zealots-aka-galileans.html

Cheers.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Zealots aka Galileans

Post by stephan happy huller »

And the zealots were also probably called cainites in Aramaic
Everyone loves the happy times
Diogenes the Cynic
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: Zealots aka Galileans

Post by Diogenes the Cynic »

stephan happy huller wrote:And the zealots were also probably called cainites in Aramaic
Simon the Zealot/Simon the Canaanite = Simon the Cainite? I'd never thought of that possibility before.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8021
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Zealots aka Galileans

Post by Peter Kirby »

stephan happy huller wrote:And the zealots were also probably called cainites in Aramaic
I've got no problem with the idea, but I'd like to know the basis so that it might be fruitful information.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Zealots aka Galileans

Post by stephan happy huller »

Qana = jealous, zealous
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8021
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Zealots aka Galileans

Post by Peter Kirby »

Do you think there is any connection to the Cainites described by Irenaeus who have a special place for Judas?

Further any connection with the name Judas Iscariot (=corruption of Sicarii)?

Further any connection with the last-named bishop of the circumcision, the fifteenth starting from James the Just, named Judas (in the list of Eusebius and Epiphanius), where the line goes out in a blaze of glory during the revolt of Bar Kokhba?

Was Judas the betrayer someone from the movement in Judea in the early second century who endorsed Bar Kokhba and thus led many astray? Does he get posthumously villainized in the gospel stories as a betrayer of Jesus for his zealot or sicarii connections? Does he continue to have a school loyal to him called the Cainites (Aramaic for "Zealots")?

Were James and Simon "pillars" of Jerusalem who established the "Twelve" but whose movement is overtaken by "Judas" in the messianic fervor regarding Bar Kokhba? Is that in fact how we get all the spurious names of the first fifteen bishops: two pillars, some Twelve, and a betrayer. Both Peter and James are sometimes mentioned as if they stand outside the Twelve, and the lists of the bishops of the circumcision actually has quite a bit of overlap with the lists of the Twelve (although this fact could be coincidence).

And just to add one last query, why is the first gentile bishop of Jerusalem after the war (according to Eusebius and Selpicius Severus) called Mark? Is the connection to Mark in 1 Peter, Mark in the letters of Paul, Mark in Acts, Mark the alleged gospel author, Marcion, or none of the above? (Mark was a common name, naturally.)

Sorry for posing these as questions to you, but the evidence is scant and suggestive, as I will freely acknowledge.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Zealots aka Galileans

Post by spin »

Peter Kirby wrote:Do you think there is any connection to the Cainites described by Irenaeus who have a special place for Judas?

Further any connection with the name Judas Iscariot (=corruption of Sicarii)?
The list of disciples can be broken into groups:

orthodox focus - Peter, Andrew, James and John,

gnostic focus - Philip, Bartholemew, Matthew and Thomas,

Miscellaneous:
unknown focus - James of Alphaeus and Thaddeus, and

militant focus - Simon and Judas.

The last is speculative but reasonable in the context that there is a relationship between the figures.

It is of interest that the name Iscariot in Syriac is SKRYWTA (סכריותא), which should have a schewa in the first syllable and a short a in the second. The Syriac writers didn't just transliterate what they found in Greek: they certainly had their own ideas about how names should be rendered. If this indicates the source as sicarius, then how the metathesis happened into Greek is hard to understand linguistically. A vowel can be inserted at the beginning if there is a complex consonant cluster at the start of the word borrowed into a Semitic language. For instance, στρατηγος in Acts 16 gets an alef at the front when transliterated into Syriac. But sicarius doesn't have the problem, except perhaps if a reader were confronted with a rendering such as the Syriac and didn't know how to pronounce it.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Zealots aka Galileans

Post by stephan happy huller »

Peter

As your question was about Irenaeus's text let me answer it this way. I don't know if you can visualize an entire text in your head like a three dimensional image. Having done LSD helps - I am quite serious. So if you can imagine all 31 chapters floating in your brain as a unit just envision it in floating around with 31 divisions. It starts out with a discussion of the Valentinians for 12 chapters then there is a closely related discussion of the Marcosians for 9 chapters (chapter 21 is the end of the Marcosian discussion) then there is a seemingly separate section incorporated presumably from Justin's Syntagma - that goes up to 30 and then there is the last chapter which seems to introduce the Cainites and then abruptly concludes.

With me so far?

What most two dimensional thinking scholars can't see is that when you remove the Justin Syntagma section it transforms our understanding of the remaining Valentinian/Marcosian text. Let's look at it this way. Epiphanius - who is our source for the Greek manuscript of Book One reads the text differently than we do. Either he or some source (I prefer the latter) thinks that the various redemption sects in chapter 20 refer to Valentinian not Marcosian sects. In other words, when Irenaeus originally said 'here are the various schemes of redemption' or whatever he says there he has stopped talking about the Marcosians and moved back to talking about the Valentinians as he was for the first 12 chapters.

Why is this significant?

There are two reasons. But let me just mention the first right now. The author of the Philosophumena answers the charges brought forward by followers of this Mark (who can be demonstrated to be members of Clement's Alexandrian tradition of St Mark FWIW) that Irenaeus's section on redemption is inaccurate and the author of the Philosophumena despite extolling Irenaeus as 'the blessed presbyter' has to agree with them. Irenaeus only provides a cursory summary of their practices but it isn't quite accurate. He also says interestingly that after studying the phenomena of redemption baptism that the Valentinians are pardoned from any association with the practice but the Marcosians cannot be let off the hook. In other words, despite his admission of inaccuracies in Irenaeus's reporting the followers of Mark are properly thought to be engaged in this second baptism practice.

So while it is difficult to figure out what exactly is going on at the beginning of the third century it would seem to mean:

1. Irenaeus originally accused the Valentinians of engaging in the Markan second baptism
2. After investigating the matter the author of the Philosophumena says 'no, this isn't true.'

Fast forward to Epiphanius's Panarion where the Heracleonites are identified as the Valentinian sect which engaged in redemption baptism. Interestingly Epiphanius did not assume this on his own but must have had a source for this identification. He understands that the testimony of Irenaeus on the Marcosians 'ends' at 21.4 i.e.:
This, however, is not of a corporeal nature, for the body is corruptible; nor is it animal, since the animal soul is the fruit of a defect, and is, as it were, the abode of the spirit. The redemption must therefore be of a spiritual nature; for they affirm that the inner and spiritual man is redeemed by means of knowledge, and that they, having acquired the knowledge of all things, stand thenceforth in need of nothing else. This, then, is the true redemption.
But that the final paragraph 21.5:
Others still there are who continue to redeem persons even up to the moment of death, by placing on their heads oil and water, or the pre-mentioned ointment with water, using at the same time the above-named invocations, that the persons referred to may become incapable of being seized or seen by the principalities and powers, and that their inner man may ascend on high in an invisible manner, as if their body were left among created things in this world, while their soul is sent forward to the Demiurge. And they instruct them, on their reaching the principalities and powers, to make use of these words: "I am a son from the Father--the Father who had a pre-existence, and a son in Him who is pre-existent. I have come to behold all things, both those which belong to myself and others, although, strictly speaking, they do not belong to others, but to Achamoth, who is female in nature, and made these things for herself. For I derive being from Him who is pre-existent, and I come again to my own place whence I went forth." And they affirm that, by saying these things, he escapes from the powers. He then advances to the companions of the Demiurge, and thus addresses them:--"I am a vessel more precious than the female who formed you. If your mother is ignorant of her own descent, I know myself, and am aware whence I am, and I call upon the incorruptible Sophia, who is in the Father, and is the mother of your mother, who has no father, nor any male consort; but a female springing from a female formed you, while ignorant of her own mother, and imagining that she alone existed; but I call upon her mother." And they declare, that when the companions of the Demiurge hear these words, they are greatly agitated, and upbraid their origin and the race of their mother. But he goes into his own place, having thrown [off] his chain, that is, his animal nature. These, then, are the particulars which have reached us respecting "redemption."(1) But since they differ so widely among themselves both as respects doctrine and tradition, and since those of them who are recognised as being most modern make it their effort daily to invent some new opinion, and to bring out what no one ever before thought of, it is a difficult matter to describe all their opinions.
This chapter is understood to be dealing with the Valentinian sect of the Heracleonites. The reason why this is interesting is that when we remove that long section from Justin we end up with the last paragraph of chapter 30 as the break. In other words, the above cited section identified as having to do with the Heracleonites by Epiphanius is immediately followed by:
15. Such are the opinions which prevail among these persons, by whom, like the Lernaean hydra, a many-headed beast has been generated from the school of Valentinus. For some of them assert that Sophia herself became the serpent; on which account she was hostile to the creator of Adam, and implanted knowledge in men, for which reason the serpent was called wiser than all others. Moreover, by the position of our intestines, through which the food is conveyed, and by the fact that they possess such a figure, our internal configuration(1) in the form of a serpent reveals our hidden generatrix.

1. Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.

2. I have also made a collection of their writings in which they advocate the abolition of the doings of Hystera.(2) Moreover, they call this Hystera the creator of heaven and earth. They also hold, like Carpocrates, that men cannot be saved until they have gone through all kinds of experience. An angel, they maintain, attends them in every one of their sinful and abominable actions, and urges them to venture on audacity and incur pollution. Whatever may be the nature(3) of the action, they declare that they do it in the name of the angel, saying, "O thou angel, I use thy work; O thou power, I accomplish thy operation !" And they maintain that this is "perfect knowledge," without shrinking to rush into such actions as it is not lawful even to name.

3. It was necessary clearly to prove, that, as their very opinions and regulations exhibit them, those who are of the school of Valentinus derive their origin from such mothers, fathers, and ancestors, and also to bring forward their doctrines, with the hope that perchance some of them, exercising repentance and returning to the only Creator, and God the Former of the universe, may obtain salvation, and that others may not henceforth be drown away by their wicked, although plausible, persuasions, imagining that they will obtain from them the knowledge of some greater and more sublime mysteries. But let them rather, learning to good effect from us the wicked tenets of these men, look with contempt upon their doctrines, while at the same time they pity those who, still cleaving to these miserable and baseless fables, have reached such a pitch of arrogance as to reckon themselves superior to all others on account of such knowledge, or, as it should rather be called, ignorance. They have now been fully exposed; and simply to exhibit their sentiments, is to obtain a victory over them.
In other words, there doesn't appear to be an actual 'Cainite' sect. The ambiguous section which deals with the concept of 'redemption' where Irenaeus says so many differences and sects exists within 'them' (i.e. Valentinians) continues right down to the end of the original text.
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Zealots aka Galileans

Post by stephan happy huller »

So if I can continue for a moment. The author of the Philosophumena says that (a) Irenaeus's description of the redemption baptism isn't always accurate and (b) among his own revisions of the 'blessed presbyters' ideas is the pardoning of Valentinians from engaging in this practice. But the implication nevertheless is that it is only the followers of Mark who engage in this second baptism rite. However it would stand to reason that the "others again declare that Cain derived his being from the power above" are also Markites.

The doctrine of getting rid of hysteria sounds remarkably similar to the things Clement says about the Gospel according to the Egyptians.

The complicating factor of course is that the mention of this being "like the Carpocratians" means that this reference had to be added after the Justin Syntagma section was added so the surviving material isn't entirely original.

Nevertheless there is one more thing you should see. The concept of 'redemption' is messianic. So is the concept of being a "zealot."

But consider also the echo of the Markan redemption rite in the above mentioned line:
they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself
This is a clear echo of the reference in chapter 13.6 to the Markan redemption rite:
They also maintain that they have attained to a height above all power, and that therefore they are free in every respect to act as they please, having no one to fear in anything. For they affirm, that because of the "Redemption" it has come to pass that they can neither be apprehended, nor even seen by the judge. But even if he should happen to lay hold upon them, then they might simply repeat these words, while standing in his presence along with the "Redemption:" "O thou, who sittest beside God, and the mystical, eternal Sige, thou through whom the angels (mightiness), who continually behold the face of the Father, having thee as their guide and introducer, do derive their forms from above, which she in the greatness of her daring inspiring with mind on account of the goodness of the Propator, produced us as their images, having her mind then intent upon the things above, as in a dream,--behold, the judge is at hand, and the crier orders me to make my defence. But do thou, as being acquainted with the affairs of both, present the cause of both of us to the judge, inasmuch as it is in reality but one cause." Now, as soon as the Mother hears these words, she puts the Homeric helmet of Pluto upon them, so that they may invisibly escape the judge. And then she immediately catches them up, conducts them into the bridal chamber, and hands them over to their consorts.
The 'Cainites' are really Markan heretics and their 'redemption' is clearly linked to 'messianic zealotry.'
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Zealots aka Galileans

Post by stephan happy huller »

I don't think the interruption was accidental. Irenaeus was accusing the heretics of being zealots. Their practice of 'redemption' is connected with 'zealotry.' There was contemporary objections from the Markan tradition in Alexandria and now the Syntagma of Justin breaks up the critical - and controversial - understanding of redemption which I happen to believe is described in Clement's Secret Mark letter - i.e. the Letter to Theodore.

Note that the Philosophumena does not follow any of the ordering of Book One of Irenaeus save for the description of the Carpocratians as far as I can remember. The Valentinian section is different. The Marcosian section is different. The Simonian section is very different. THe Basilidean section is very different. The Marcionite section is completely different. This has to be explained too as the author is very aware of 'Irenaeus's account. of the heresies.
Everyone loves the happy times
Post Reply