"him who judges justly" is allegory of the demiurge: Pilate

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5672
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: "him who judges justly" is allegory of the demiurge: Pilate

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Aug 19, 2018 5:24 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:21 am

I'm sorry, my dear friends, but you seem not see the my point. There are two lines of inquiry of the Earliest Gospel:

1) the traditional line (of which even the 'radical' view of Joseph is a mere instance) that assumes that Jesus (I mean: in the Earliest Gospel with narrative form) is the son (adopted or natural) of the Jewish god,

2) the radical line, that assumes that the author of the Earliest Gospel hated the Creator-God.

So please don't dispel your attention. Anything you say is just and true, but only under the line 1.

What do you think about the line 2 [that assumes that the author of the Earliest Gospel hated the Creator-God] ?

About that I am interested, sincerely.
MrMacSon wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:49 am

... Carl B Smith in No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origin, 2004, concluded -

that Egypt following the Jewish Revolt under Trajan (115-117 CE) provides a ripe context for Gnosticism's most unique and definitive innovation: rejection of the cosmos and the Creator God of the Jews. [Smith] argue[d] that individuals closely connected with Judaism....may have responded to the rebellion by rejecting the God and religion that inspired this apocalyptic and messianic ferment. "No longer Jews," they were now free to follow a higher God and way of life. https://www.amazon.com/No-Longer-Jews-G ... 0801047706

Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:38 am, edited 3 times in total.

Joseph D. L.
Posts: 394
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: "him who judges justly" is allegory of the demiurge: Pilate

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:54 pm

the radical line, that assumes that the author of the Earliest Gospel hated the Creator-God.
As I have already given my stipulation for what the earliest Gospel text was, there is no evidence that it or the first Gospel/Acta Christi had any such hatred for the Creator God. Rejection is not the same as hatred. What is more probable is that the author saw in Genesis 1 and 2 a dichotomy of powers, Elohim and YHWH respectively. Christ was an agent of Elohim, the Light/Logos. Whereas the original "Gospel" was an epistle delivered from the messenger/Angel of God, the secondary Gospel would naturally be a new Torah. (We see this in the Talmud, where the Laws of Moses had been supplemented by a new Law), the Gospel).

But does such a rejection of YHWH for Elohim constitute hatred? No. YHWH would be a necessary part of Elohim's scheme for the author(s). This is why Marcion divided them into Platonic ideas as Good/Merciful, and Just. Not evil.

And I doubt very strongly that Marcion rejected YHWH completely. His theology is too connected to Judaism to outright exile YHWH.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4503
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: "him who judges justly" is allegory of the demiurge: Pilate

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:12 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:54 pm
And I doubt very strongly that Marcion rejected YHWH completely. His theology is too connected to Judaism to outright exile YHWH.
Well. So, at the end, your interpretation is not so 'radical' how you promised. Your exegesis of the Gospels will differ not so much from the traditional. For example, you would interpret probably the words of Peter in Caesarea Philippi, 'You are the Christ', as a confession by the best disciple that Jesus is really the Jewish Christ, as Peter confirms.


I would like the traditional exegesis if I have to polemize against a Christian apologist, since RG Price has proved that, even assuming the traditional view, the case for a mythical Jesus is very much probable.

But I have closed with the activity of polemizing assuming the traditional view. It is, frankly, very much boring, to read the Gospel episodes assuming the 'monotheistic' (in opposition to 'dualistic') view of the author. Even if I see still a lot of flaws in my preferred alternative view, I would inquiry under it, i.e. the view that the Earliest Gospel was written by haters of YHWH.

Note that I am not saying that the Origins were pagan or gnostics. Think about Joseph Smith. He has nothing to share with the Catholics, for example. He was the last of the heretics, for a Catholic.

But assume, for analogy, that Joseph Smith had discovered something of IMPOSSIBLE (I am imagining a fantastic story, don't worry :D ), something that would have drawn necessarily the attention of the entire Catholic Church, something that was too much good to be rejected only because it came from... ...a Joseph Smith!

Well, so I think that a Gnostic Christian (from Pontus?) wrote deliberately a fictional story where he used the Christ already adored by some Jewish sects, to promote his Gnostic view (of hatred against the Creator, etc).

All that is necessary to assume about the background of this Gnostic author of the Earliest Gospel is what Carl B Smith in No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origin, 2004, concluded -
that Egypt following the Jewish Revolt under Trajan (115-117 CE) provides a ripe context for Gnosticism's most unique and definitive innovation, the rejection of the cosmos and the Creator God of the Jews. He argue[d] that individuals closely connected with Judaism--whether Jews, Jewish Christians, or gentile God-fearers--may have responded to the rebellion by rejecting the God and religion that inspired this apocalyptic and messianic ferment. "No longer Jews," they were now free to follow a higher God and way of life.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Joseph D. L.
Posts: 394
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: "him who judges justly" is allegory of the demiurge: Pilate

Post by Joseph D. L. » Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:35 am

I never claimed my hypothesis was radical. As for what it contained, it would need to reinforce the message of Paul and incorporate him and his Gospel, while also maintaining a connection to Torah. John is the only text that fully satisfies both conditions, but it is so heavily modified that it is essentially impossible to know what its original shape was. Portions of Mark and Luke may have originated from it; Matthew is at theological odds with it, so I doubt it would contain anything fromit, however its responses would reveal what was in it. Secret Mark is perhaps our closest witness. Our texts are as tossed as a salad. This is just the abstract approximation. Only three things are certain:

1) Christ was the Logos

2) Paul is foreshadowed

3) Christ's death brings an end to the Old Torah ("It is finished")

That's as far as I've got.

Post Reply