About the name ''Jesus'' in a pre-Christian Naassen Hymn

[Giuseppe]

If I read well, it seems that the following is the argument of William Benjamin Smith about the existence of a pre-Christian Jesus-cult:


hyppolitus would say that the Naasseni were the evil radix of gnosticism:

The following are the contents of the fifth book of the Refutation of all Heresies: - What the assertions are of the Naasseni, who style themselves Gnostics, and that they advance those opinions which the Philosophers of the Greeks previously propounded, as well as those who have handed down mystical (rites), from (both of) whom the Naasseni taking occasion, have constructed their heresies.
...
The priests, then, and champions of the system, have been first those who have been called Naasseni, being so denominated from the Hebrew language, for the serpent is called naas (in Hebrew). Subsequently, however, they have styled themselves Gnostics, alleging that they alone have sounded the depths of knowledge. Now, from the system of these (speculators), many, detaching parts, have constructed a heresy which, though with several subdivisions, is essentially one, and they explain precisely the same (tenets); though conveyed under the guise of different opinions, as the following discussion, according as it progresses, will prove.

http://gnosis.org/library/hyp_refut5.htm

William B. Smith seems to argue that the particular sentence :

These are the heads of very numerous discourses which (the Naassene) asserts James the brother of the Lord handed down to Mariamne

...as James has to be meant as ''mere Christian brother'' (just à la Carrier!), then he represented simply the first Christians of the time of Paul. Therefore the Naasseni would be asserting that they derive from the early Christians.

And since the heretic ''ophite'' Justinus is considered, alone among the heretics, a contemporary of Simon Magus (precisely which is evidence of this claim I don't know), and since Justinus was ''after the Naasseni'' according to Hyppolitus, then the Naasseni should come before the Simon Magus, Peter, Paul, etc, and therefore they should be pre-Christian.


Once proved that the Nasseni were pre-Christian, the second step of the proof is to prove that they were really ''Christian'', i.e., adoring ''Jesus'' before the Jesus.

Of course, these notions were not original with
Basilides, great organiser of thought though he was. In
the Naassene Hymn, which such as Harnack and Preuschen
recognise as "very old," which there is no reason whatever
for regarding as post-Christian, we read of this same Jesus,
in the bosom of the Father, viewing sympathetically the woe
of the world (polytheism), and declaring he will descend
through all the asons to the rescue of humanity (from
idolatry) :
—
Therefore send me, Father ;
Bearing seals I shall descend,
Aeons all I shall fare through,'
Mysteries all I shall open up,
Forms of gods I shall show ;
And the secrets of the holy way.
Having called it Gnosis, I shall deliver up.
Here the case is presented in elemental form, with all
desirable clearness ; the Jesus is to issue from the bosom
of the Father, is to fare through all the aeons on his mission
of mercy, and descend to men on earth below to save them
through the holy way of the Gnosis, or, as we should now say,
of the Gospel (compare "Gnosis of salvation," Luke i, 77).2
22. Inasmuch as it seems morally certain that these oldest
of the Gnostics were pre-Christian, 3 it would appear established
that this idea of traversing (or faring through) benefiting
is a pre-Christian idea, and refers primarily, not to going
about the country of Galilee doing little deeds of kindness (a
relatively modern conception of which there is no sign in the
Gospel), but to the infinitely sublimer outward transit of the
divine Jesus earthward, through the seons that envelop like so
many concentric spherical shells the central Godhead Supreme.
Here is a thought really worthy of those ancient profound
theosophists who said " Beginning of perfection is knowledge
of man, but knowledge of God is perfection consummated";
whereas the ordinary notion, which degrades the Jesus into
something like a benevolent dervish, seems to be a positive
profanation.

(Ecce Deus, p. 86-88)


The important note 2 says:

In Theol. Rundschau (Oct., 191 1, p. 384) the editor. Professor Bousset, in
an article notable for its concessions to " D. v. J.", suspects the text of this
Hymn, and suggests "Spake then Nus'' (δέ(ό)νοϋς) in lieu of "Spake then
Jesus" (διησους). A counsel of despair, but, as Bousset himself " lays no weight "
thereon, enough to remark that, if he were right, Nus, like Logos, would be
only another name for Jesus, and the situation would hardly be altered. B.
thinks the Naassenes certainly " Christian"; and if he means proto-Chrlstian,
who would deny? They were the first Gnostics, "and as, indeed, is self-evident,
progenitors of Gnosticism" (Badham, Theol. Tijdsch,, igii, p. 420) ;
and the Gnosis was an early name for the Christian movement.

(my bold)


In short, the name ''Jesus'' - and not ''Nous'' (Mind) -- would appear in this old Naassen Hymn, therefore confirming that a pre-Christian Jesus existed before the Christian Jesus.


I am curious to know what you think about this view held by William Benjamin Smith.

[Giuseppe]

This would be the Naassene hymn more precisely:

Then Jesus said, "Behold, Father, she wanders the earth pursued by evil. Far from thy Breath she is going astray. She is trying to flee bitter Chaos, and does not know how she is to escape. Send me forth, O Father, therefore, and I, bearing the seal shall descend and wander all Aeons through, all mysteries reveal. I shall manifest the forms of the gods and teach them the secrets of the holy way which I call Gnosis [.....]"

http://gnosis.org/library/naas.htm

It seems that the name ''Jesus'' occurs de facto in this hymn, therefore it is a fact that the naasseni were Christian. Therefore William B. Smith needs to prove only that they were pre-Christian to make his entire case.

[Giuseppe]

This is the simple case made by William Benjamin Smith about the pre-Christian nature of the Naasseni (and therefore of their hymn with the name ''Jesus'' in it):

We need not accept all that Dr. Salmond here says. Some of his constructions may be faulty; the important fact is that he states unequivocally that Justinus was contemporary with St. Peter and St. Paul, and that Hippolytus and Irenaeus assign him a "position prior to the system of Simon," himself prior to the preaching of Peter (Acts viii. 9). Here then Dr. Salmond ranges himself squarely against Professor L. in the matter under debate. What Dr. Salmond [418] neglects to state is that H. writing of Justinus declares that "all these style themselves Gnostics in the peculiar sense that they alone have drunk down the marvelous Gnosis of the Perfect and the Good." Here then was a Gnostic prior (according to H.) to Simon Magus (who was at the latest contemporary with Sts. Peter and Paul), hence in the first half of the first century; moreover he was an Ophite, a Gnostic, full-fledged. Moreover he is placed by this same H. after the Sethians, and these after the Peratae, and all these after the Naassenes, the Ophites proper, the first who surnamed themselves Gnostics. These latter facts are no less important, indeed far more important, than the ones that Dr. Salmond emphasizes, which by themselves are enough to upset Professor Love joy's contention completely.

If then I am at all capable of comprehending chronological combinations, I must hold unshaken the positions of Der vorchristliche Jesus with regard to H. It should be added that the chronological order given by H. is fully confirmed by analysis of the various doctrines, that of the Naasseni showing itself to be obviously the most primitive. No one, however, would insist upon the particular order of the middle terms, Peratae, Sethians, Justinians, who may well have been nearly contemporary.

(William Benjamin Smith, "Professor Lovejoy on 'Der Vorchristliche Jesus'." The Monist, Vol 19-3, Jul 1909, 409-420, my bold, original cursive)

I find curious that this ''Justinus'' means ''Little Just''. But James the brother of Lord was named ''Just''. And the Naaseni assert that their founder was James the brother of the Lord. Mere coincidence?

To be Mythicist, I am satisfied with only the ''Little one'' par excellence, Paul.

[Giuseppe]

Which is the evidence that makes Dr. Salmond ''state unequivocally that Justinus [the Gnostic Justinus, not the proto-Catholic Justin] was contemporary with St. Peter and St. Paul'' ?

[DCHindley]

Which is the evidence that makes Dr. Salmond ''state unequivocally that Justinus [the Gnostic Justinus, not the proto-Catholic Justin] was contemporary with St. Peter and St. Paul'' ?

Find and download the edited digitized copy of Henry Wace's Christian Biography and Literature to the end of the Sixth Century AD: With an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies. Make sure this is the single edited volume edition of 1911, available for free if I remember correctly at the CCEL website, as all the Greek etc. is correctly rendered into Unicode.

[pg. 1027] Justinus (3), a Gnostic writer, author of several books, only known to us by the abstract which Hippolytus (Ref. Haer. v. 23, p. 148) has given of one of them, called the book of Baruch. The account which that book gives of the origin and history of the universe makes it to have sprung from three underived principles, two male, one female. The first of these is the Good Being, and has no other name; He is perfect in knowledge, and is remote from all contact with the created world, of which, however, He is afterwards described as the Ultimate Cause. It is the knowledge of this Good Being which alone deserves the name, and it is from the possession of it that these heretics claimed the title of Gnostics. The second principle is called Elohim, the Father of the creation, deficient in knowledge, but not represented as subject to evil passion. The third, or female [pg. 1028] principle, identified with the earth, is called Eden and Israel, destitute of knowledge and subject to anger, of a double form, a woman above the middle, a snake below. Of her, Elohim becomes enamoured, and from their intercourse spring 24 angels—12 paternal, who co-operate with their father and do his will, and 12 maternal, who do the mother's will. The principal part is played by the third paternal angel, Baruch, the chief minister of good, and the third maternal, Naas, or the serpent, the chief author of evil.

Lipsius regards this work of Justinus as probably written later than the middle of 2nd cent., representing in its fundamental ideas one of the oldest, perhaps the very oldest, form of Gnosticism, and as exhibiting the passage of Jewish Christianity into Gnosis. We cannot share this view. On comparing the system of Justinus with that of the Ophite sect described by Irenaeus (i. 30), the points of contact are found to be too numerous to be all accidental. In the system of these Ophites the commencement is made with two male principles, and one female. On the whole, we feel bound to refer the system of Justinus to the latest stage of Gnosticism, when a philosophy, in which any unproved assumption was regarded as sufficiently justified by any remote analogy, had reached its exhaustion, and when its teachers were forced to seek for novelty by wilder and more audacious combinations; and we are not disposed to quarrel with the verdict of Hippolytus that he had met with many heretics, but never a worse one than Justinus. [G.S.]*

This 1911 one volume edition is also available as a regular OCR scanned PDF of the original volume as well at archive.org, but of course any Greek or Hebrew will come out as gibberish if you copy & paste.

*"G.S." is "The late REV. G. SALMON, D.D. Formerly Regius Professor of Divinity and Provost of Trinity College, Dublin." per page 9.

FWIW, this article was first published in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects & Doctrines, vol. 3 of 4, Hermogenes-Myensis, edited by William [not B] Smith & Henry Wace, published on 1882. Again, all this stuff is available online for free download, but some of the files will be ridiculously large (vol 1, 1877 - 81.2 Mb, vol 2 1880 - 73.8 Mb, vol 3, 1882 - 54.9 Mb, & vol 4, 1887 - 94.3 Mb!).

DCH

[Giuseppe]

About the Justinus's book, Baruch, it seems familiar with the Luke or Matthew.

An analysis of the allusions to Gospel traditions in the section about Jesus shows that Justin most probably knew the Gospels of Luke and John and borrowed from them what was suitable to his own myth.

http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com ... 3772064568

Therefore Justinus cannot be prior to Simon Magus, and therefore the evidence of the pre-christian Naassen Jesus disappears.

[Giuseppe]

I have made download of the earlier book of William Benjamin Smith, Der Vorchristliche Jesus (all in German, unfortunately!) but by using google translate (applied to only the pages where the word ''Naassenismus'' - and like - appears), I read the following words:

Hippolyt has ordered his "heretics" chronologically. He treats them according to the time sequence. Now he gives but to them the following places: ,The Naasseni, the Perathians, the Sethians, Justin, Simon Magus. It follows that the first preceded Simon by a considerable advance must be true. But Simon was an older contemporary of the Peter. When Philip, according to Act. 811 in the first time of the Gospel came to Samaria, Simon had already since a long time (...) the Samaritans in astonishment (...). Justin also testified that Simon under Claudius came to Rome before AD 54, ... It can then be used later than 4 to be born. Since after all the signs and the expressed and emphatic testimony of the Hippolyte the Naasseni were considerably older, it follows that they belong to pre-Christian times.

(my bold)

The unique problem with this argument, in my view, is that the gnostic Justin, according to Hyppolit, wrote a book, ''Baruch'', where he does the name of ''Herod'' (I go to memory: ''in the time of Herod...'') and talks about Jesus in earthly terms (not even as a god: probably in separationist terms).

But it is as true that Hyppolit is ordering chronologically the sects, from the Sethians (the more old) until to Simon Magus (the more recent), even when he is called ''the father of all the heresies''.

[Giuseppe]

CHAP. XXIII.--SUBSEQUENT HERESIES DEDUCIBLE FROM THE SYSTEM OF JUSTINUS.

Since, then, we have explained the attempts (at a system) of the pseudo-gnostic Justinus, it appears likewise expedient in the following books to elucidate the opinions put forward in heresies following (in the way of consequence upon the doctrines of Justinus), and to leave not a single one of these (speculators) unrefuted. Our refutation will be accomplished by adducing the assertions made by them; such (at least of their statements) as are sufficient for making a public example (of these heretics). (And we shall attain our purpose), even though there should only be condemned the secret and ineffable (mysteries) practised amongst them, into which, silly mortals that they are, scarcely (even) with considerable labour are they initiated. Let us then see what also Simon affirms.

http://gnosis.org/library/hyp_refut5.htm

[Giuseppe]

Acts 10:38

38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

The idea of "going around doing good" seems to be very similar to the principal idea of the Naassen Hymn, only in a different (clearly more earthly) context.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,
We already discussed this topic at length here, with my many rebuttals (some of them you did not answer): viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2886&hilit=naasseni#p64170

Cordially, Bernard