Also the archons were hidden and seen as Gods...

[Giuseppe]

Hyppolitus doesn't an anti-Catholic argument when he points out the antiquity of the Naasseni. For him, the fact that the Naasseni were pre-christian is a negative fact insofar they derived from Greek false views and not from Judaism.

Now, the Naassen Hymn cannot be derived from hellenistic views, because the name ''Jesus'' in it means ''YHWH-saves'' therefore at least the worship of the entity ''Jesus'' is derived from Judaism. How, when and why it was derived we don't know and we don't care: it is sufficient to realize that the Jesus-cult was pre-christian.

[Otherson]

Bernard Muller has raised the point that, if the Nassenni were protochristian and ahistorical, how is it they know some sayings of Jesus from the Gospels? But: isn't it plausible that "sayings of Jesus" were incorporated into the Gospels that originated with the sect?

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

But when a hymn without historicist references to Jesus is attributed to a sect considered earlier than the apostolic age, then the probability becomes more great that that hymn is a pre-christian hymn mentioning a mythical Jesus.

To claim the contrary would require to prove only :
1) that that hymn is Gospel-based.

But this proof is very difficult. Therefore the more simple explanation is that the hymn is really old and effectively pre-christian.

Why do you expect that, in a short hymn, the name "Jesus" would have to come with historicist references?
You are making an argument from silence here, focusing on a short hymn, and ignoring Naasseni "historicist references to Jesus" as reported by Hippolytus.
And I do not see why any Christian hymn should be gospel-based.
BTW, that hymn does not take away a historical Jesus, as I explained already:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2886&start=10#p64223
And your so-called chronological list is just in your imagination:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2886&start=10#p64221

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

Why do you expect that, in a short hymn, the name "Jesus" would have to come with historicist references?

At contrary.
If someone says that the hymn is of a sect that is before Simon Magus - i.e., before Peter and Paul - then I expect with probability 100% that that hymn is without historicist references. That is just the case under the our eyes. In other terms, that silence is expected.

What is not expected is that a book (for example, ''Baruch'' of the gnostic Justinus), said of a heretic described as earlier than Simon Magus, has Gospel references: a fact that alone undermines the possibility that Justinus was pre-christian.

@Bernard

BTW, that hymn does not take away a historical Jesus, as I explained already:

I don't see references at all to gJohn, even if I may accept the idea that proto-John was a Gnostic Gospel more later catholicized. Besides, the fact that the Naasseni, according to Hyppolitus, as you point out, are clearly described as historicists in this passage:

"All these qualities, however--rational, and psychical, and earthly--have, (the Naassene) says, retired and descended into one man simultaneously--Jesus, who was born of Mary."

...doesn't confute my case that at least their Naassen Hymn was pre-christian, being without Gospel references at all. The Naasseni became historicists surely after the writing of the earliest Gospel, but not for this they gave up their older ''Naassen Hymn''.

@Bernard

And your so-called chronological list is just in your imagination:

Hyppolitus is rather clear in this passage:

Subsequently, however, they [the Naasseni] 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.

Among these ''many'', there was Simon Magus, too:

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.

[Bernard Muller]

But according to:

In the remainder (of our work), the opportunity invites us to approach the treatment of our proposed subjects, and to begin from those who have presumed to celebrate a serpent, the originator of the error (in question), through certain expressions devised by the energy of his own (ingenuity). 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).

(Hippolytus, Against All Heresies, V, I)

The Naasseni were first to celebrate the serpent. Nothing to do with Simon Magus.

Cordially, Bernard

"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."

In the remainder (of our work), the opportunity invites us to approach the treatment of our proposed subjects, and to begin from those who have presumed to celebrate a serpent, the originator of the error (in question), through certain expressions devised by the energy of his own (ingenuity). 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).

It would be a trivial tautology, for Hyppolitus, to say that the Naasseni were the first to adore the Serpent, ''because'' the name itself means ''Serpentists''.

Trivial or not, that's what Hippolytus said about Naasseni. The champions of the system were first to be called Naasseni. There is nothing to say these Naasseni existed before the times of Simon Magus.

Indeed, Hyppolitus is more clear shortly after when he gives the precise reason to consider ''first' the Naasseni:

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.

These Naassenes who called themselves Gnostics were the first in championship of the ''dogma'' (Gnosticism).

So for Hippolytus, the Naasseni were the first Gnostics. Again that does not mean they came before Simon Magus. Actually, in Against All Heresies, book VI, Hippolytus never called Simon Magus a Gnostic.

William Benjamin Smith is correct when he writes:

From this passage, in connection with others similar, I have inferred that Hyppolitus would represent the Naassenes, surnamed Gnostics, as the first Gnostics, from whom all other Gnostics sprung, the heresy having parted into many subdivisions. Is not the inference fair?

But if Hippolytus did not consider Simon Magus as a Gnostic, the argument is void and the inference is wrong.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

From when Simon Magus is not a Gnostic for a proto-catholic?

Do you recognize at least that according to Hyppolitus:
1) Justinus was a Ophite, other name for Naassen,
2) Simon is said esplicitly to follow*chronologically* Justinus,
3) therefore Simon comes after the Naasseni.

Simple transitive property.

PS: The "system" is the Greek DOGMA, not precisely the belief in a Serpent, but the entire Gnosis.

[Bernard Muller]

2) Simon is said esplicitly to follow*chronologically* Justinus,

NO, that's not true. It follows in the text of book V, but nothing about chronologically.
About chronology, Valentinus (120-140) follows Simon Magus in book VI. Are you saying there were no "heretics" (from Hippolytus' point of view) between Simon & Valentinus?
There were some (such as Cerinthus, Ebionites, etc) but they do not show up in this book VI. Actually Cerinthus and Ebionites are described later in book VII, but in the text they come after Marcion and not before (as it should chronologically).
Why Simon Magus precedes Valentinus in book VI?
Because of some analogy between Simon and Valentinus as explained in book IV:

And respecting this there is an enlarged discussion, whence both Simon and Valentinus will be found both to have derived from this source starting-points for their opinions, and, though they may not acknowledge it, to be in the first instance liars, then heretics. Since, then, it appears that we have sufficiently explained these tenets likewise, and that all the reputed opinions of this earthly philosophy have been comprised in four books; it seems expedient to proceed to a consideration of the disciples of these men, nay rather, those who have furtively appropriated their doctrines.

That's why Hippolytus placed in the text Simon before the main 2nd century Gnostics, starting by Valentinus (followed in book VII by Basilides and others).

Hippolytus was not following any chronology at times. He certainly did not indicate the Naasseni preceded chronologically Simon Magus.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

What is not expected is that a book (for example, ''Baruch'' of the gnostic Justinus), said of a heretic described as earlier than Simon Magus, has Gospel references: a fact that alone undermines the possibility that Justinus was pre-christian.

The normal understanding is that Justinius was aware of the gospels and therefore post-dated Simon Magus.
And also the Naasseni, because also they are reported to use gospel material, including the gospel of Thomas:

And concerning this (nature) they hand down an explicit passage, occurring in the Gospel inscribed according to Thomas, expressing themselves thus: "He who seeks me, will find, me in children from seven years old; for there concealed, I shall in the fourteenth age be made manifest."

(Hippolytus, Against All Heresies, book V, Ch. II)

Also in the unexpected column is what is reported about the use of gospels among the Perathians & the Sethians (you put these two groups as before the gospels and Simon instead).

So what is expected (after Simon's times because of knowledge of the gospels) in the writings of the Naassani, the Perathians, the Sethians and Justinus is fully evidenced.
What you have (for your mythicist case) is only a short hymn, which does not say Jesus was never an earthly human, but, on the contrary, leave the door wide open for him to be so.

Among these ''many'', there was Simon Magus, too:

"many" does not mean "all", nor "including Simon Magus".

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

2) Simon is said esplicitly to follow*chronologically* Justinus,

NO, that's not true. It follows in the text of book V, but nothing about chronologically.

I insist. Simon follows chronologically Justinus (even if Hyppolitus ''christianizes'' the pre-christian Justinus by attributing Gospel references to him: something made also with the ''Christian'' Socrates by the Father Justin) as it is clearly evident here:

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.

Clearly Simon is counted among the ''heresies following in the way pf consequence upon the doctrines of Justinus''.

You can deny the effective ''christianity'' of Justinus, but not that according to Hyppolitus, he preceded temporally Simon.

Justinus was an Ophite, i.e. a Naassen.

Therefore the Naasseni preceded Simon by transitive property.

[andrewcriddle]

We may have to distinguish between what Hippolytus thought and what actually happened.
IF Hippolytus regarded the Naassenes as earlier than Simon Magus, then this was probably because he regarded the teaching of the Naasenes (as described in book 5 of his work against heresies) as more primitive than the doctrines of Simon Magus as described in book 6 of his work against heresies. If so, then this is a very plausible argument. The problem is that the doctrines attributed to Simon Magus in book 6 of Hippolytus differ substantially from those attributed to him by other writers. These doctrines (the apophasis megale) are probably those of a 2nd century CE follower of Simon Magus. Even if the 2nd century apophasis megale is later than the Naassene teachings this would not make the Naassenes pre-Christian.

Andrew Criddle

I think that ALL the doctrines attributed (by Hyppolitus or by some other proto-catholic) to Simon Magus (or, for that matther, to the gnostic Justinus, the Perathians, the Sethians and the same Naasseni) are always probably those of a 2nd century CE follower of respectively Simon, Justinus, Perathians, Sethians and Naasseni. The same ''Simon Magus'' is probably an invention of Acts. ''Simon Magus'' is useful in this discussion only to realize that, by ''him'', Hyppolitus is meaning implicitly the so-called ''apostolic age'', the same time of Peter and Paul. What proves that the ''Naassen Hymn'' is pre-christian are two realized conditions conceded by Hyppolitus:

1) the fact that it is attributed to the Naasseni AND

2) the fact that the Naasseni are regarded as earlier than Simon Magus.

Both these two conditions are important, to make my case.

If, for example, Hyppolitus attributes to the heretic Justinus (himself described as earlier than Simon Magus) a book with Gospel references, then the fact alone that Justinus is considered earlier than Simon Magus is not useful at all (in order to prove that Justinus is pre-christian, even if a historical Justinus was really pre-christian). But when a hymn without historicist references to Jesus is attributed to a sect considered earlier than the apostolic age, then the probability becomes more great that that hymn is a pre-christian hymn mentioning a mythical Jesus.

To claim the contrary would require to prove only :
1) that that hymn is Gospel-based.

But this proof is very difficult. Therefore the more simple explanation is that the hymn is really old and effectively pre-christian.

I'm not sure if I'm correctly understanding you. I was opposing the claim that the Naassenes, and the teaching attributed to Simon Magus by Hippolytus, go back to the early 1st century CE.

IIUC you agree with me.

Andrew Criddle