The Solution to the Problem of 'Paul'

[Stephan Huller]

Notice also the ambiguity of what Irenaeus actually reports about the Ebionites when he says after noting they use Matthew "et Apostolum Paulum recusant, apostatam eum legis dicentes." This passage has always been taken to mean that the Ebionites rejected Paul because he was an apostate from the Law, but it could be just as easily taken to mean that they reject the Paul of the Catholic Church because they believed he was an apostate from the Law (and this wasn't true).

[Blood]

I've posted all the references for phaulos and chrestos in Philo at my blog:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2014/ ... philo.html

Thanks.

There is apparently only one section in the "Corpus Philonicum" where φαῦλος is juxtaposed with χρηστός:

The Special Laws, Book I:284
... for if he (the sacrificing priest) is giving thanks for benefits conferred upon him, he must take care not to behave like an ungrateful man (φαῦλος), becoming wicked, for the benefits are conferred on a virtuous man (χρηστός); or if his object be to secure the permanence of his present prosperity and happiness, and to be enabled to look forward to such for the future, he must still show himself worthy of his good fortune, and behave virtuously; or if he is asking to escape from evils, let him not commit actions deserving of correction and punishment.

We would need a lot more correspondences than this one before we could declare Philo an influence on Marcion's theology. Recall that Philo uses φαῦλος 200+ times.

The only other passage in which the two appear in close proximity is "On the Virtues." Not having access to the Greek, I can only guess at which words are so translated below (somebody correct me if I'm wrong):

On the Virtues 180 (phaulos), 182 (chrestos)
(180) We have now then described the first and most important of the considerations which belong to repentance. And let a man (φαῦλος) repent, not only of the errors by which he was for a long time deceived, when he honoured the creature in preference to that uncreated being who was himself the Creator of all things, but also in respect of the other necessary and ordinary pursuits and affairs of life, forsaking as it were that very worst of all evil constitutions, the sovereignty of the mob, and adopting that best of all constitutions, a well-ordered democracy; that is to say, crossing over from ignorance to a knowledge of those things to be ignorant of which is shameful; from folly to wisdom, from intemperance to temperance, from injustice to righteousness, from cowardice to confident courage. (181) For it is a very excellent and expedient thing to go over to virtue without every looking back again, forsaking that treacherous mistress, vice. And at the same time it is necessary that, as in the sun shadow follows the body, so also a participation in all other virtues must inevitably follow the giving due honour to the living God; (182) for those who come over to this worship become at once prudent, and temperate, and modest, and gentle, and merciful, and humane, and venerable, and just, and magnanimous, and lovers of truth, (any of these could be χρηστός) and superior to all considerations of money or pleasure; just as, on the contrary, one may see that those who forsake the holy laws of God are intemperate, shameless, unjust, disreputable, weak-minded, quarrelsome, companions of falsehood and perjury, willing to sell their liberty for luxurious eating, for strong wine, for sweetmeats, and for beauty, for pleasures of the belly and of the parts below the belly; the miserable end of all which enjoyment is ruin to both body and soul.

However, I'm hearing strong echoes of this passage and other passages from "On the Virtues" in "Phalos's Epistle to the Romans."

For example, "when he honoured the creature in preference to that uncreated being who was himself the Creator of all things" is of course echoed with:

Romans 1:22-25
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Also this:

(194) In the same manner, just parents are of no advantage to unjust men, nor temperate parents to intemperate children, nor, in short, are ancestors of any kind of excellence of any advantage to wicked descendants; for even the laws themselves are of no advantage to those who transgress them, as they are meant to punish them, and what is it that we ought to look upon as unwritten laws, except the lives of those persons who have imitated virtue? (195) On which account, I imagine, that nobility herself, if God were to invest her with the form and organs of a man, would stand before those obstinate and unworthy descendants and speak thus: "Relationship is not measured by blood alone, where truth is the judge, but by a similarity of actions, and by a careful imitation of the conduct of your ancestors. But you have pursued an opposite line of conduct, thinking hateful such actions as are dear to me, and loving such deeds as are hateful to me; for in my eyes modesty, and truth, and moderation, and a due government of the passions, and simplicity, and innocence, are honourable, but in your opinion they are dishonourable; and to me all shameless behaviour is hateful, and all falsehood, and all immoderate indulgence of the passions, and all pride, and all wickedness. But you look upon these things as near and dear to you. (196) Why, then, do you, when by your actions you show all possible eagerness to alienate yourselves from them, sheltering yourselves under a plausible name, hypocritically pretend in words to a relationship? For I cannot endure seductive insinuations falsely put on, or any deceit; because it is easy for any persons to find out specious arguments, but it is not easy to change an evil disposition into a good one. [note: chrestos is supposed to appear in 196 but I don't see it in this, Yonge's translation] (197) "And I, looking therefore at these facts, both now consider and shall always think those persons who have kindled sparks of enmity my enemies, and I shall look upon them with more suspicion than upon those who have been reproached openly for want of nobility; for they, indeed, have this to allege in their defence, that they have no connection at all with excellence. But you are justly liable to punishment who act thus after having been born of noble houses, and being fond of making your boast of your noble descent, and of looking upon it as your glory; for, though archetypal models of virtue have been established in close connection with, and in a manner implanted in you, you have determined to give no good impression of them yourselves. (198) But that nobility is placed only in the acquisition of virtue, and that you ought to imagine that he who has that is the only man really noble, and not the man who is born of noble and virtuous parents, is plain from many circumstances."

Is echoed in Romans:

1:28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful:
32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them.
2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

[Stephan Huller]

Thank you Blood. Here is what I suspect. Philo's system is aristocratic. In his understanding the first class of people are perfect (= Isaac/high priest), the second class of people are capable of improvement to perfection (= Abraham/the priestly aristocratic class of Israel) and the last class, what he calls 'the bad men' the phauloi are given the Law (= Jacob). The bad man can't be made perfect, I don't believe.

In the earliest Christian tradition Chrestos comes to give his light soul or spirit soul to the 'sinners' (= phauloi) and he pushes aside the Law. The can now be made perfect and the 'foul' Law given by the 'foul' Demiurge to the foul is rendered useless because the perfect thing has replaced it.

I wouldn't expect this to be found in Philo. Christianity represents a development from the pre-existent aristocratic mysteries where Jesus, as I noted, comes for the garbage, the phauloi who were previously ignored or just kept enslaved to the Law in a former age.

[Stephan Huller]

An interesting passage in Clement. Phaulos is connected with the display of martyrdom:

But why are you not helped when persecuted? say they. What wrong is done us, as far as we are concerned, in being released by death to go to the Lord, and so undergoing a change of life, as if a change from one time of life to another? Did we think rightly, we should feel obliged to those who have afforded the means for speedy departure, if it is for love that we bear witness; and if not, we should appear to the multitude to be base men (εἰ δὲ μὴ φαῦλοί τινες ἄνδρες). [str 4.11]

[Blood]

Does Philo ever use Χριστός?

[Stephan Huller]

No. Xrisma a couple of times.

[Stephan Huller]

A case can be made that Clement represents the legacy of Christianity developing out of Philo's interest in phaulos. Look at this passage for instance. It is rooted in the idea of the proper course of action for the phauloi - the slaves, servants and subordinates in relation to their masters who are themselves - like the Demiurge - also described as phauloi. The treatises of Clement have nomina sacra so if we assume chrestos for XC etc we read:

Servants, be obedient in all things to those who are your masters according to the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις); not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but with singleness of heart, fearing the Lord (φοβούμενοι τὸν κύριον). And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as serving the Lord (τῷ κυρίῳ δουλεύοντες) and not men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive (ἀπὸ κυρίου ἀπολήψεσθε) the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Xrestos (τῷ γὰρ κυρίῳ Χρηστῷ δουλεύετε). For the wrongdoer shall receive the Wrong, which he hath done; and there is no respect of persons. Masters (οἱ κύριοι), render to your servants justice and equity; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven (καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔχετε κύριον ἐν οὐρανῷ), where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond, free: but Xrestos is all, and in all (ἀλλὰ πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσι Χρηστός)." And the earthly Church is the image of the heavenly, as we pray also "that the will of God may be done upon the earth as in heaven." "Putting on, therefore, bowels of mercy, gentleness, humbleness, meekness, long-suffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if one have a quarrel against any man; as also Xrestos hath forgiven us (καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χρηστὸς ἐχαρίσατο ἡμῖν), so also let us. And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of Xrestos (καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Χρηστοῦ) rule in your hearts, to which ye are called in one body; and be thankful." For there is no obstacle to adducing frequently the same Scripture in order to put Marcion to shame (ἐντροπὴν), if perchance he be persuaded and repents (μεταβάληται); by learning that the faithful ought to thank (εὐχάριστον) the Demiurge God (τῷ δημιουργῷ θεῷ), who hath called us, and who had evangelized in the body (καὶ εὐαγγελισαμένῳ ἐν σώματι). From these considerations the unity of the faith is clear, and it is shown who is the perfect man (ὁ τέλειος δέδεικται); so that though some are reluctant, and offer as much resistance as they can, though menaced with punishments at the hand of husband or master ( πρὸς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἢ πρὸς τοῦ δεσπότου), both the domestic and the wife will love wisdom (φιλοσοφήσει ὅ τε οἰκέτης ἥ τε γυνή). Moreover, the free (καὶ ἐλεύθερος), though threatened with death at a tyrant's hands, and brought before the tribunals, and all his substances imperilled, will by no means abandon piety; nor will the wife who dwells with a wicked husband (ἡ μὲν γυνὴ φαύλῳ συνοικοῦσα ἀνδρί), or the son if he has a bad father (ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἐὰν φαῦλον ἔχῃ πατέρα), or the domestic if he has a bad master ( ἢ πονηρὸν δεσπότην ὁ οἰκέτης), ever fail in holding nobly to virtue. But as it is noble for a man to die for virtue, and for liberty, and for himself, so also is it for a woman. [Strom 4.8]

The closest modern equivalent I can find to this worldview of early Christianity are the families on shows like Jerry Springer, Jenny Jones and similar shows at the turn of the millennium. The idea is that you have social hierarches where everyone is bad - only these extend from the ruler of the world down to the household dog. The advice to the faithful is to passively accept the dysfunction and exhibit martyrdom by ultimately showing indifference to the rulers. Their real ruler is Xrestos, the only redeeming figure in the cesspool which is all social units in the world.

I think this sentence is key. "For there is no obstacle to adducing frequently the same Scripture in order to put Marcion to shame (ἐντροπὴν), if perchance he be persuaded and repents (μεταβάληται)." I don't think the 'he' here is Marcion because - presumably - he has already died. The 'he' here is the phaulos authority figure who will be converted by the display of passive indifference which the martyr displays in the face of blind and brutal power. Where does this go back to? I think the display of Jesus before Pilate. Jesus is the paradigmatic indifferent. He doesn't goad the authorities into killing him but passively ignores their requests for acknowledgement of their authority. We can think here of the early legends of Pilate being converted to Christianity and speaking before the Senate as well as the Coptic apocrypha. But clearly lurking in the background is the Marcionite idea of the conversion of the Demiurge by Christ (remember for Clement Jesus is not the logos but a second hidden power so Photius based on his possession of a lost work by the Alexandria).

[Blood]

No. Xrisma a couple of times.

Talk about great omissions! About half-a-million extant words by a first-century Jewish author, and not only does he never mention "Jesus of Nazareth," he never speculates at all about the coming Χριστός? But according to all our theologians, first-century Jews were supposedly obsessed with the coming Messiah. Since Philo was using the same Bible as the Christians, the one where Χριστός appears something like 40 times, shouldn't they abandon that thesis?

(That was a rhetorical question, of course. They will never abandon that thesis.)

[Leucius Charinus]

Does Philo ever use Χριστός?

No. Philo has no knowledge of Jesus Christ, although Carrier seems to argue otherwise.
According to Blavatsky, The Esoteric Character of the Gospels:

• Philo Judaeus speaks of theochrestos "God-declared," or one who is declared by god, and of logia theochresta "sayings delivered by God"

Philo shows some understanding of some divine concept related to χρηστός (Strong's Number: 5543) transliteration: chrēstos, but zero understanding of a divine concept related to Χριστός (Strong's Number: 5547) transliteration: Christos. The reference above somewhere to how Aristotle compares and juxtaposes the concept of the good man χρηστός (Good) and ungrateful man (φαῦλος) is very interesting. How does Plato deal with these terms? There has been some discussion on this.

The contrast of good and bad is often found in the genre of drama. Above I have read references which suggest this undercurrent of drama is being purposefully used by the authors of the canonical gospels, acts and letters. Here is a quote from Lao Tzu (or someone later, I have not studied Chinese history) relating to the perennial story of the good man and the bad man. I offer this quote in the spirit of insight, not of external evidence. It may (or may not) provide a perspective on the discussion which has had some very interesting moments to date:

• Surely the good man is the bad man's teacher;
  and the bad man is the good man's business.
  If the one does not respect his teacher,
  or the other doesn't love his business,
  his error is very great.

[Blood]

I was aware that Philo does not mention Jesus. But to to not mention, in a general way, Χριστός, Greek for Anointed One or Messiah, despite tons of heavy exegesis based off of the LXX, is incredible. How is this silence explained?