Against the Argument for 'Influences' in Early Christianity

[Ben C. Smith]

The Tenth Commandment was the most concrete one of those which could be read as affecting the interior life of a person

I don't think so. Let's look at things another way.

Okay, but I do not see how your "other way" really impacts my point about Paul in Romans 7.7-12. He uses the Tenth Commandment precisely as an interior state of being.

[Ben C. Smith]

Christianity has to be about going beyond mere sexual abstention. There has to be 'go to 11' which is why I can't help but assume the early Alexandrian interest in castration (necessarily still preserved in the Roman Catholic celibacy cult) is that ultimate perfection - i.e. to be like the angels.

This element does exist in Christianity. But I do not think it dominates all discussions. "Love your neighbor" is both universal and powerful, seemingly at all strata of Christian development. "Be chaste" is more niche; it does not appeal to the average person, especially when taken to an extreme which only a hermit could ever hope to achieve.

Adam was androgynous https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/179959. He only becomes male by having the female removed from his side.

This is an ancient reading of that story, yes.

IS also isn't specifically masculine. It is a generic term https://www.google.com/books/edition/Va ... frontcover not quite meaning 'man' (even though it strangely means 'husband').

This feels like sleight of hand to me. Regardless of what the original meaning may have been, in most of our texts it means man/male. If certain users of the term made certain social assumptions about what being a man/male meant, so be it; the word still bears that meaning, which is why it also designating a husband is not odd in any way.

[Secret Alias]

But I do not think it dominates all discussions.

Sure. But this was the whole point of 'orthodoxy.' You take the original position and make that heresy. You outlaw not only the original exegesis but condemn the authorities associated with it - cf. the fate of Apelles/Apollos/Apollonius and his interrogation in Rome over the question of ... drum role please ... two powers in heaven (monoarchia). What is Apelles response when he is made to answer his position on monarchia? 'I can't explain it.' This is taken to mean that he is an idiot. No he wasn't an idiot. It was a prudent course of action. How else can you respond before the authorities if your tradition is outlawed. 'Why can't we all get along.'

The Samaritans preserve a similar interrogation over monarchia under Commodus. This was going on everywhere and the only right answer was 'the Emperor = god.' I think the martyrdom of Apollos/Apollonius = the unspoken fate of Apelles in Eusebius. The same fate of the Samaritan leader fighting Alexander of Aphrodisias.

So as a result just adding up the plethora of discussions WHICH WERE ALLOWED TO SURVIVE is a naive way of looking at history. The closest thing (and you will like this) is homosexuality. You can't weigh the evidence for whether a celebrity is gay or not by saying:

1. said celebrity is pictured with lots of girls, 36 'dates, dates, dates' (36 piece of evidence for heterosexuality)
2. said celebrity is married and has 2 kids (2 ++ pieces of evidence for homosexuality)
but
3. said celebrity is pictured kissing a man AS ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE



No, the one picture of him kissing the man makes him gay. The heterosexual 'evidence' is irrelevant. The same is true with the heresies. The heresies came first. The orthodox created false flags, gaslighting, fake positions, 'could be read as' positions. But they are not to be held on equal footing to what Marcion and the rest originally held. It can't be one to one for the evidence - i.e. the Marcionite exegesis which survives through orthodox sources as '1' vs every Church Father who simply recycles Irenaeus as '1 + 1 + 1 + 1.' Marcion = 100 Irenaeus = 1. And each recycling of Irenaeus does not count as an 'extra citation.'

[Ben C. Smith]

No, the one picture of him kissing the man makes him gay. The heterosexual 'evidence' is irrelevant.

On the one hand, you want to boil most/all of Christianity down to a commandment about lust. On the other hand, I have never met anybody as likely as you are to use examples having to do with sex on a forum about history. Are you projecting, perhaps?

The same is true with the heresies. The heresies came first. The orthodox created false flags, gaslighting, fake positions, 'could be read as' positions. But they are not to be held on equal footing to what Marcion and the rest originally held.

Orthodoxy by necessity comes late; it takes time for the mess to be sorted out. Whatever precedes orthodoxy is by definition heresy.

But this in no way means that all heresy predates all orthodoxy. We cannot just say, "Well, it is heretical; therefore it must be original." The only thing distinguishing one idea as orthodox and another contemporaneous idea as heretical is the eventual victory of one party over the other.

[Secret Alias]

Are you projecting, perhaps?

Well maybe. When I took Benny the Samaritan to Cleo's in Orlando https://youtu.be/nTA18Oo0CqU to see my then girlfriend (for about a month) Fancy there was some delight in having a Middle Eastern man experience the amazing coming together of African American culture (i.e. the rap music, the gangstas, the 'hoes' etc). He was dancing on stage. I consider it one of the great moment in my life. So it may be true that I am either the most sexual or the least pretentious, the most-life affirming I don't know.

But getting back to the point at hand. I am not the first to connect sex and ancient mystery rites. 'Buggery' as you well know derives its origins from an association between the Cathars and the Bulgars. I can't think of more appropriate analogy given that (at least in my day and every day up until the modern era) sex and sexuality was hidden or secret.

There are few things that are more secretive than sexuality. Oddly enough the period I went through having a fascination with dating strippers presents an odd dichotomy. At once, I can remember the first stripper I ever dated was named Sophie. In Toronto in the late nineties most dancers came from Montreal (run apparently by biker gangs who shuttled them across provincial lines for the 6 hour drive). I was eighteen and spoke French well enough to visit her in Montreal but not well enough to keep the relationship going. Her name Sophie always reminded me of Sophia and the ancient Wisdom cult. These establishments always seemed like temples to me. Modern mystery cults until I got bored of them or at least they became much sleazier. I really liked the challenge that I perhaps imagined as a naive teenager existed 'scoring' strippers. Whatever the case I have been for almost 20 years.

The point is that the orthodox Church fathers made the connection between sex and prostitution and the Christian mysteries. The first to do so were the pagans cited or referenced by Tertullian (or Irenaeus) in the Apology. Celsus doesn't recycle the charge. But it is certain in Hegesippus and the development of his account of the Carpocratians in Irenaeus and later Epiphanius. The reason why the mystery cults are like ancient Christianity is that they were both secret and kept their sacredness intact by keeping up the secrecy. As a parallel, I think when I saw the dancers as tawdry whores I lost interest. The enchantment only worked as long I thought they were semi-mysterious emissaries of a better life. Either that or the time my wife then girlfriend broke up and I was dating Ethan Hawkes side-girl (the one who caused his divorce with Uma Thurman) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/th ... le1045216/ Just for clarity I didn't date the actress mentioned here. Ethan was actually going out with a half-Portuguese stripper from the Brass Rail who I was also 'dating' and it was so depressing. She had a kid and was trying to get Ethan to be like a dad-figure and then I felt she was doing the same thing with me I just thought the whole thing was disgusting. I had the realization at a night club she wanted to dance with me and I was like I can't do this anymore. And that was the end I just left. Anyway I digress.

Getting back to the issue at hand. The orthodox condemned the heretical exegesis and then worked to establish 'alternative' interpretations just to fill the void. I don't think the orthodox positions had any validity in their own right. The A to B was established by the heresies through arguments which became effectively outlawed and Irenaeus and company wanted to get from A to B through new means. It didn't matter whether the new arguments made any sense. The Christian sacraments saved (originally because of the heretical A to B). Once you took away the connecting argument you were left with superstition (= Latin standing over as witness or survivor). The substitute explanations were mouthed. But they were meaningless.

So getting back full circle. You can't count each Church Fathers as one vote and the plethora of arguments are many 'points of view' alongside the one heretical understanding. Irenaeus wanted to create this situation to allow his neutering of earliest Christianity. The original exegesis of Paul was developed by Marcion. Just as Samaritanism is developed from the exegesis of the Pentateuch by Marqe. Samaritanism is Markism. Just as Paulism was Marcionism. Christianity as such SHOULD BE Markism because the original gospel was written by Mark but it isn't. Why? Because of what I have described took place with Irenaeus and the Church Fathers. They wanted to make this 'many points of light' understanding rather than what existed in Marcionism and Samaritanism - i.e. the exegesis of Mark is the correct way of interpreting the gospel of Mark. The Markan exegesis of his gospel was destroyed, outlawed, abandon SO THAT CHAOS COULD reign. Irenaeus condemns the sects but at the same time the existence of sects (1 Cor 11:19) served the orthodox agenda. By having chaos order had to be restored and that order was Irenaeus's weak explanation of virtually every Biblical passage.

It's strangely also Trump's strategy at the debate and during his term. Fan the flames of chaos so that his weak case for leadership becomes strengthened. You've distracted me from work. That was fun but I got to get back. Thanks for letting me relive my (fun) past.

[Secret Alias]

FWIW the most interesting thing the half-Portuguese dancer told me was that Ethan Hawke derided Justin Timberlake for being incapable of sexual intercourse with women. He preferred oral sex apparently. She was telling me the story in the nightclub and I just remember the thing which made me break up with her. I said 'Oh just like Elvis' because Elvis had a similar preference for oral sex https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ja ... frontcover. Anyway she says "who's Elvis." And that was it. I was like, I am too old for this shit. I think Ethan's actually younger than me. Anyway it came to me (perhaps unconsciously because I don't want to work). Bye.

[Ben C. Smith]

Are you projecting, perhaps?

Well maybe. ...it may be true that I am either the most sexual or the least pretentious.... ...the period I went through having a fascination with dating strippers.... ...I can remember the first stripper I ever dated was named Sophie.... I really liked the challenge that I perhaps imagined as a naive teenager existed 'scoring' strippers. .... As a parallel, I think when I saw the dancers as tawdry whores I lost interest. .... She had a kid and was trying to get Ethan to be like a dad-figure and then I felt she was doing the same thing with me I just thought the whole thing was disgusting. I had the realization at a night club she wanted to dance with me and I was like I can't do this anymore. .... Anyway I digress.

My fault entirely. I opened the door. I knew what was lurking behind it, and I opened it anyway. Mea culpa.

[Secret Alias]

But as my apology or explanation - how can we discuss Christian mysteries without addressing the parallels in sexuality? For instance, the first pagan commentaries reference orgies - i.e. that Christian gatherings were like a caricature of pagan mysteries. Even when Clement in the Exhortation says Christianity = the true mysteries he references the pagan sexualized mysteries. True he distinguishes the Christian mysteries as non-sexual in nature. That might be true. But the reality is that the parallel exists. Sexuality is secretive by nature. His Alexandrian mysteries were similarly secretive.

When Irenaeus references Hegesippus the sexualized element is there (especially in Tertullian's Against the Valentinians which is developed from an alternative 'cut' of Against Heresies. The sexualized element is in Irenaeus's account of Mark the gnostic. 'Let me inseminate you' is what Mark says to the gathered women. Yes to be sure Irenaeus chose to focus on women being present. He mentions also men. But the women being present was scandalous because as he notes some of these women were 'ladies' (i.e. upper class women).

I stand by comparison with celebrity homosexuality because it is IMHO the closest thing to the ancient mysteries, even the Christian mysteries. Again not because these mysteries were sexualized or homosexual but involved secrecy and guardedness. Your argument is that when Tertullian mentions the Marcionite exegesis for a passage in Paul that's one interpretation and on the other side of the ledger we have 2 or 23 other 'orthodox' interpretations alongside of it. I don't think this is accurate or a fair representation. It's just like getting a photo of John Travolta kissing a man if you are trying to determine his sexuality. The one is more important than all the other 'fake' interpretations. What the Marcionites believed is more important than what the orthodox later made up. Just as the Samaritans and Sadducees and Philo are more important that the rabbanites. Because they are older, more secret, more removed.

Like the debate last night, if you just make it about who can scream the loudest then the orthodox win. They not only controlled the volume but the microphone and the library or recordings. They limited the amount of information that reached us for precisely that purpose. In the present case the Marcionites, Clement and even the pre-Clementine Alexandrian hierarchy (Julius Cassian) all put emphasis on the tenth commandment. Marcion was a eunuch who like Origen castrated himself to overcome his lust. The Alexandrian convert in Justin the same thing (almost). In a climate where Christianity was likened to pagan orgies how is it possible that our oldest sources are all emphasizing encratite principles? Well at the very least we can reconcile the likening to pagan mystery orgies easily. If someone is talking about sex and sexuality negatively all the time the door is opened to the idea 'hey these people are sexualized.' There was a relationship in antiquity between the anti-sexual position of the earliest Christians and the accusation that Christians were themselves highly sexualized.

[Secret Alias]

And getting back to the OP we can't just be satisfied seeing 'connections' between this or that ancient text and ancient traditions. We have to strive to get to the ultimate truth - i.e. the ur-gospel and its influences as being of a higher value than all the minor texts and minor agreements. In Judaism and Samaritanism there was a hierarcy:

1. ten commandments
2. the Pentateuch
3. the rest of the writings
4. halakhah, exegesis

Later rabbanites flipped the script and said that 4 was more important than 2 and actually made 1 disappear through this process (i.e. all is Torah). No Torah was the ten commandments. That's how the Hebrew of Deuteronomy reads. It's the original understanding. It's the Samaritan understanding. It was the Sadducaic understanding (hence older than the Pharisaic). It was Philo's understanding. It was the gospel's understanding. Just clouding up the discussion with this or that 'tradition' or interpretation is handicapping our understanding not advancing it.

[Ben C. Smith]

And getting back to the OP we can't just be satisfied seeing 'connections' between this or that ancient text and ancient traditions. We have to strive to get to the ultimate truth - i.e. the ur-gospel and its influences as being of a higher value than all the minor texts and minor agreements. In Judaism and Samaritanism there was a hierarcy:

1. ten commandments
2. the Pentateuch
3. the rest of the writings
4. halakhah, exegesis

Later rabbanites flipped the script and said that 4 was more important than 2 and actually made 1 disappear through this process (i.e. all is Torah).

And Christians had their own take on this. They elevated "love your God" and "love your neighbor" above all four of these.