On Cerinthus and the final of Mark

[Secret Alias]

That section of that wikipedia page cites Irenaeus Against Heresies, 1.26.1-2.

So we know it's bullshit. This is the dangers of following Giuseppe in just citing any modern source as support for a theory about antiquity. You have to go back to the source material and preferably look at it in its original language.

[Giuseppe]

, 1 In turn this Cerinthus, fool and teacher of fools that he is, ventures to maintain that Christ has suffered and been crucified but has not risen yet, but he will rise when the general resurrection of the dead comes

https://archive.org/stream/ThePanarionO ... s_djvu.txt

So do you reject the fact about Cerinthus as the source is Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres, xxviii, written about 390)?

[Giuseppe]

Now we know why Joseph of Arimathea expected the kingdom of god.

Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God

(Mark 15:43)

His tomb served to preserve the body of Jesus (as his body himself) until the end of world.

[Ben C. Smith]

, 1 In turn this Cerinthus, fool and teacher of fools that he is, ventures to maintain that Christ has suffered and been crucified but has not risen yet, but he will rise when the general resurrection of the dead comes

https://archive.org/stream/ThePanarionO ... s_djvu.txt

So do you reject the fact about Cerinthus as the source is Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres, xxviii, written about 390)?

Yes, of course he does, Giuseppe. Any sane person would (or would at least not rush in headlong to accept it). Irenaeus was one of Epiphanius' sources, and we can catch Epiphanius misunderstanding Irenaeus elsewhere, too. Here are the passages:

Epiphanius: Christ suffered and was crucified, but has not yet risen again, but he will rise, when the general resurrection of the dead takes place.

Irenaeus: But at last Christ flew again from Jesus; Jesus suffered and rose again while Christ remained impassible, being a spiritual being.

These two statements are incompatible. Even if Epiphanius is saying "Christ" where he ought to say "Jesus," the statement about the resurrection remains in conflict with what Irenaeus wrote.

But there may be little reason to accept either Irenaeus or Epiphanius. I remember mentioning to you before the perils of trying to decide what Cerinthus really thought: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3505&p=75940#p75940.

[Giuseppe]

A reason only would be there to accept Epiphanius. If I remember well, you Ben had written somewhere that a natural implication of the separationism in Mark, joined with the suspicion of an interpolated final, may lead to speculate that Jesus didn't rise in the original final. Since otherwise there would be no need for Christ to abandon him on the cross in order to remark an absolute distinction.

Really, the final union between Christ and Jesus but only at the end of days would make a lot of sense even in comparison to the idea of a Jesus who never rises.

[Giuseppe]

The same emphasis on the high morality of Joseph of Arimathea (if really he is a clone of the carnal Jesus in terms of the his perfect Torah's observance, since his tomb is ALSO for Jesus: a tomb destined to exist for a long time) may lead later evangelists to make Joseph the name of the father of Jesus, too.

[Ben C. Smith]

A reason only would be there to accept Epiphanius. If I remember well, you Ben had written somewhere that a natural implication of the separationism in Mark, joined with the suspicion of an interpolated final, may lead to speculate that Jesus didn't rise in the original final. Since otherwise there would be no need for Christ to abandon him on the cross in order to remark an absolute distinction.

That may well be the case. But to usher in Epiphanius' statement about Cerinthus to support it without analysis is irresponsible. I do not like to support ideas with bad data: not even my own ideas or ideas with which I sympathize.

I highly doubt that we can know much about what Cerinthus himself actually believed and taught. The evidence is too contradictory. But it is possible that there were people who thought much as Epiphanius says, and Epiphanius simply ascribed those beliefs to Cerinthus for convenience or out of confusion. It looks like Ebionite ideas were ascribed to Cerinthus, as well, so the possibility is there.