@Peter
Help us all out and quote the specific references you/Rylands are using to make these suggestions.
(I'm sure they're "there" - this is for the purpose of being explicit.)
I would try.
The thesis of Rylands about the evolution of the belief:
1) the original pre-christian belief is that the True Prophet, the Christ, the Son was a mythological Spirit possessing
all and
only the ''men'' (i.e. the true Gnostic apostles).
2) this mythological Spirit was limited to be a spirit possessor only of the ''pious''.
3) this mythological Spirit was particularly identified with Adamas.
4) this mythological Spirit was limited to be a celestial distinct visitor (not more a spirit possessor) only of the ancient Patriarchs
5) this mythological Spirit was limited to be a phisical distinct being, the historical Jesus, even when visiting previously the Patriarchs.
In the Rylands's words:
We find in this literature a progressive limitation of the indwelling Christ first to the pious in general and later to a few exceptional persons.
(p. 139)
EVIDENCE OF THE POINT 1:
the
more ancient pre-christian view in absolute was the following one:
“When God had made man after His own image and likeness, He grafted into His work a certain breathing and odour of His divinity, that so men, being made partakers of His Only-begotten, might through Him be also friends of God and sons of adoption. Whence also He Himself [i.e. the Man], as the true Prophet, knowing with what actions the Father is pleased, instructed them in what way they might obtain that privilege. At that time, therefore, there was among men only one worship of God — a pure mind and an uncorrupted spirit. And for this reason every creature kept an inviolable covenant with the human race. For by reason of their reverence of the Creator, no sickness, or bodily disorder, or corruption of food, had power over them; 137 whence it came to pass, that a life of a thousand years did not fall into the frailty of old age.
(4, 9)
So Rylands:
In the opinion of Bousset
the most original and characteristic view of the
Clementines is that the divine Prophet who manifested
himself in Adam afterwards manifested himself personally
in a series of other men. This is a view, and very likely an
early view, of the Clementines; but the passage quoted
from Recog. IV, 9, proves that the original view was that the
Christ has his dwelling in the minds of all men.
(p. 142, my bold)
EVIDENCE OF THE POINT 2:
“And therefore I advise that His righteousness be first inquired into, that, pursuing our journey through it, and placed in the way of truth, we may be able to find the true Prophet, running not with swiftness of foot, but with goodness of works, and that, enjoying His guidance, we may be trader no danger of mistaking the way. For if under His guidance we shall merit to enter that city to which we desire to come, all things concerning which we now inquire we shall see with our eyes, being made, as it were, heirs of all things. Understand, therefore, that the way is this course of our life; the travellers are those who do good works; the gate is the true Prophet, of whom we speak; the city is the kingdom in which dwells the Almighty Father, whom only those can see who are of pure heart. (Mat_5:8) Let us not then think the labour of this journey hard, because at the end of it there shall be rest. For the true Prophet Himself also from the beginning of the world, through the course of time, hastens to rest. For He is present with us at all times; and if at any thee it is necessary, He appears and corrects us, that He may bring to eternal life those who obey Him. Therefore this is my judgment, as also it is the pleasure of the true Prophet, that inquiry should first be made concerning righteousness, by those especially who profess that they know God. If therefore any one has anything to propose which he thinks better, let him speak; and when he has spoken, let him hear, but with patience and quietness: for in order to this at the first, by way of salutation, I prayed for peace to you all.”
(2, 22)
(4, 9)
When he had thus spoken, I answered: “If those shall enjoy the kingdom of Christ, whom His coming shall final righteous, shall then those be wholly deprived of the kingdom who have died before His coming?” Then Peter says: “You compel me, O Clement, to touch upon things that are unspeakable. But so far as it is allowed to declare them, I shall not shrink from doing so. Know then that Christ, who was from the beginning, and always, was ever present with the pious, though secretly, through all their generations: especially with those who waited for Him, to whom He frequently appeared. But the thee was not yet that there should be a resurrection of the bodies that were dissolved; but this seemed rather to be their reward from God, that whoever should be found righteous, should remain longer in the body; or, at least, as is clearly related in the writings of the law concerning a certain righteous man, that God translated him. (Gen_5:24) In like manner others were dealt with, who pleased His will, that, being translated to Paradise, they should be kept for the kingdom. But as to those who have not been able completely to fulfil the rule of righteousness, but have had some remnants of evil in their flesh, their bodies are indeed dissolved, but their souls are kept in good and blessed abodes, that at the resurrection of the dead, when they shall recover their own bodies, purified even by the dissolution, they may obtain an eternal inheritance in proportion to their good deeds. And therefore blessed are all those who shall attain to the kingdom of Christ; for not only shall they escape the pains of hell, but shall also remain incorruptible, and shall be the first to see God the Father, and shall obtain the rank of honour among the first in the presence of God.
(1, 52)
EVIDENCE OF THE POINT 3:
The True Prophet is identified with Adamas, since he is ointed (''Christ'') just in that time:
“But now also I shall, by a very short representation, recall you to the recollection of all these things. In the present life, Aaron, the first high priest, (Exo_29:1-46; Lev_8:1-36) was anointed with a composition of chrism, which was made after the pattern of that spiritual ointment of which we have spoken before. He was prince of the people, and as a king received first-fruits and tribute from the people, man by man; and having undertaken the office 90 of judging the people, he judged of things clean and things unclean. But if any one else was anointed with the same ointment, as deriving virtue from it, he became either king, or prophet, or priest. If, then, this temporal grace, compounded by men, had such efficacy, consider now how potent was that ointment extracted by God from a branch of the tree of life, when that which was made by men could confer so excellent dignities among men. For what in the present age is more glorious than a prophet, more illustrious than a priest, more exalted than a king?”
Curiously, Adamas is said to be in possession of the GNOSIS:
''Be not deceived. Our father [i.e.: Adamas] was ignorant of nothing; since, indeed, even the law publicly current, though charging him with the crime of ignorance for the sake of the unworthy, sends to him those desirous of knowledge, saying, 'Ask your father, and he will tell you; your elders, and they will declare to you.' This father, these elders ought to be inquired of. But you have not inquired whose is the time of the kingdom, and whose is the seat of prophecy, though He Himself points out Himself, saying, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; all things whatsoever they say to you, hear them.' Hear them, He said, as entrusted with the key of the kingdom, which is knowledge, which alone can open the gate of life, through which alone is the entrance to eternal life. But truly, He says, they possess the key, but those wishing to enter they do not suffer to do so.''
(
Homilies 3, 18)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/080803.htm
Curiously, even if Adamas is called
''true prophet'', the English translator doesn't give ''
True
Prophet'':
He himself [i.e. Adamas] being the only true prophet, fittingly gave names to each animal, according to the merits of its nature, as having made it. For if he gave a name to any one, that was also the name of that which was made, being given by him who made it. How, then, had he still need to partake of a tree, that he might know what is good and what is evil, if he was commanded not to eat of it? But this senseless men believe, who think that a reasonless beast was more powerful than the God who made these things.
(
Homilies, 3, 21)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/080803.htm
EVIDENCE OF THE POINT 4:
In the
Homilies there is a similar view of the True Prophet:
Now the Prophet of the truth is he who always knows all
things —things past as they were, things present as they
are, things future as they shall be; sinless, merciful, alone
entrusted with the declaration of the truth. Read, and
you will find that those [were deceived] who thought that
they had found the truth of themselves. For this is peculiar
to the Prophet, to declare the truth, even as it is peculiar to
the sun to bring the day. Wherefore, as many as have
ever desired to know the truth, but have not had the good
fortune to learn it from him, have not found it, but have died
seeking it.
(
Homilies 2, 6)
So Rylands, p. 141:
Anyone writing of a particular person no longer alive would have said : " The Prophet of the truth is [or was] he who knew all things." And the persons who have died seeking the truth are all people, everywhere, and at all times, who have failed to learn it from the Prophet. The implication is that in all ages the Prophet could have been consulted. We are not restricted to inference in this matter, because there is another passage (XVIII, 13) in which it is quite definitely stated that the revelation of truth must—in the past—have been given to all who were worthy ; and of course it could have been given only by the Prophet of the truth :—
So Rylands:
In Recog. I, 33, there is found a view of the nature of the Prophet inconsistent with the primitive one. Here the Prophet has become a divine being standing apart from men and making only occasional appearances. For it is said that he appeared to Abraham and gave information which the Patriarch had desired concerning the causes of things. [note 1 says: In Philo also we find the statement that the Logos had appeared to the Patriarchs.]
(p. 140, my bold)
“Therefore Abraham, when he was desirous to learn the causes of things, and was intently pondering upon what had been told him, the true Prophet appeared to him, who alone knows the hearts and purpose of men, and disclosed to him all things which he desired. He taught him the knowledge of the Divinity; intimated the origin of the world, and likewise its end; showed him the immortality of the soul, and the manner of life which was pleasing to God; declared also the resurrection of the dead, the future judgment, the reward of the good, the punishment of the evil, - all to be regulated by righteous judgment: and having given him all this information plainly and sufficiently, He departed again to the invisible abodes. But while Abraham was still in ignorance, as we said to you before, two sons were born to him, of whom the one was called Ismael, and the other Heliesdros. From the one are descended the barbarous nations, from the other the people of the Persians, some of whom have adopted the manner of living and the institutions of their neighbours, the Brachmans. Others settled in Arabia, of whose posterity some also have spread into Egypt. From them some of the Indians and of the Egyptians have learned to be circumcised, and to be of purer observance than others, although in process of time most of them have turned to impiety what was the proof and sign of purity.
(1, 33)
The Catholics were embarrassed from the fact that, in the source preserved by them,
the true God could be known only by direct revelation of the Son: the risk was for them that the true God was not known by
all the ancient Jews, and therefore that the true God was not the same god of the Jews.
| The more ancient view (only the Son as channel to God) as interpreted by the catholic redactor (with the intention of identifying the Son with the historical Jesus) | The same ancient view (only the Son as channel to God) as interpreted by the gnostic Simon Magus (slightly more close to the original view than the other view) |
" No one knows the Father but the Son and he to whom
the Son may wish to reveal him." The statement is correct ;
for he, being the Son from the beginning, was alone
appointed to give the revelation to those to whom he wishes
to give it. And thus the first man Adam must have heard
of him, and Enoch, who pleased [God], must have known
him ; and Noah, the righteous one, must have become
acquainted with him, and Abram his friend must have
understood, and Isaac must have perceived him ; and Jacob,
who wrestled with him, must have believed in him ; and the
revelation must have been given to all among the people
who were worthy.
(Homilies, 18, 13) |
To this Simon replied: “From the words of your master I shall refute you, because even he introduces to all men a certain God who was known. For although both Adam knew the God who was his creator, and the maker of the world; and Enoch knew him, inasmuch as he was translated by him; and Noah, since he was ordered by him to construct the ark; and although Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and Moses, and all, even every people and all nations, know the maker of the world, and confess him to be a God, yet your Jesus, who appeared long after the patriarchs, says: ‘No one knows the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any one the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son has been pleased to reveal Him.’ Thus, therefore, even your Jesus confesses that there is another God, incomprehensible and unknown to all.
(2, 47) |
So Rylands concludes:
We have been able to infer from the Recognitions that in
one, if not more, of the underlying documents quite excep
tional honour was paid to Adam. The same document
must have been one of the sources of the Homilies, for in III, 18,
the writer says that Adam had all knowledge —i.e.,
perfect Gnosis —and in 21 that he was the only true Prophet.
The redactor works this into his own Christological doctrine
by saying that Adam had the Holy Spirit of Christ, who
had reappeared again and again in the world, introducing an
ambiguity. He seems to mean that it was the Holy Spirit
that was in Christ which had reappeared, since he says that
Adam had this Holy Spirit. The original writer cannot
have used such an expression, his opinion having been that
Christ himself was the Spirit who had " appeared," not
'visibly, but in the men in whom he became incarnate. The
redactor was undoubtedly dependent upon an earlier Gnostic
document, since it is extremely unlikely that a Christian
writer, for whom Jesus was uniquely the Prophet of the
truth, would of his own motion have described Adam as
"the only true Prophet."
The doctrine of the repeated appearances of the Christ,
above all in so superlative a degree as is here assigned to Adam,
is surely not orthodox Catholic doctrine. The indications are
that the doctrine is pre-Christian, Gnostic in its origin,
and that it had been reached without any reference to
the person or teaching of Jesus.
(p. 142, my bold)
EVIDENCE OF THE POINT 5:
The historicist belief of the final redactor of the both
Recognitions and
Clementine Homilies.
The corollary about the our famous passage Recognitions 8:62 that follows this conclusion of above is that the skepticism is about the existence, inside all the men, of the mythological spirit, the Christ, the True Prophet (maybe not even identified with the Jesus Christ of Paul or even less so with the historical Jesus).
According to one —presumably the earliest opinion —the true
Prophet is the Christ in men. As in the Odes, it is through
the Christ that men obtain Gnosis. Men cannot, says Peter,
discover the nature of God by their intellect ; all that can
or need be known of God can be learnt from the true Prophet
—sc. the Christ within them—in other words, by intuition.
The doctrine is pre-Christian in the sense that it is not
founded upon the person or the teaching of Jesus. It is
quite clear from the terms of the passage previously quoted
from Bk. VIII that Peter is not thinking of the teaching of
any particular person, since he says that even though the
true Prophet be not rightly questioned he is yet everywhere
and within the minds of all men.
