An ancient mythicist accusation in Recognitions 8:62

[Ben C. Smith]

The Greek for most of the Recognitions is lost to us, but here is Rufinus' Latin for the phrase in question:

"And, therefore, since amongst these philosophers are things uncertain, we must come to the true Prophet. Him God the Father wished to be loved by all, and accordingly He has been pleased wholly to extinguish those opinions which have originated with men, and in regard to which there is nothing like certainty -- that He the true Prophet might be the more sought after, and that He whom they had obscured should show to men the way of truth.

"For on this account also God made the world, and by Him the world is filled; whence also He is everywhere near to them who seek Him, though He be sought in the remotest ends of the earth. But if any one seek Him not purely, nor holily, nor faithfully, He is indeed within him, because He is everywhere, and is found within the minds of all men; but, as we have said before, He is dormant to the unbelieving, and is held to be absent from those by whom His existence is not believed [sed, ut supra diximus, infidelibus dormit et absens habetur his, a quibus esse non creditur]."

And when Peter had said this, and more to the same effect, concerning the true Prophet, he dismissed the crowds; and when he very earnestly entreated the old man to remain with us, he could prevail nothing; but he also departed, to return next day, as had been agreed upon. And after this, we also, with Peter, went to our lodging, and enjoyed our accustomed food and rest.

[Ben C. Smith]

Excuse my too much rapid reading of the your posts, but I don't understand your point. Isn't already consensus that the Recognitions include a Jewish-Christian layer on which later catholic layers were added?
Therefore it would be expected to see inconsistencies of the kind ''True Prophet as entirely mythical being versus True Prophet as lived in a specific time and place under Pilate''.
Why the need of the your analysis?

Rather, I wonder about the very cold reception, in this forum, of the Rylands's claimed evidence in Recognitions of the fact that the True Prophet, identified expliciter with the ''aeternal Christ'', appeared already again and again in previous times.

Dude, he is testing your hypothesis. He is looking for either confirmation or disconfirmation. You ought to be grateful to him instead of... whatever this is.

[Peter Kirby]

A major reason for reading the whole Recognitions was to resolve quite clearly in my mind whether it might be the existence of God that is not believed in, according to VIII.62, or whether it is the existence of "the true Prophet" which is disbelieved. If the statements were about God instead, then they wouldn't be as relevant, as we know there were atheists in antiquity. (The old man originally seems to be one, for example.)

A thorough and sympathetic reading of the text, however, points to the subject being "the true Prophet."

Book VIII, Chapter 62 - Peter concludes.

“And, therefore, since amongst these philosophers are things uncertain, we must come to the true Prophet. Him God the Father wished to be loved by all, and accordingly He has been pleased wholly to extinguish those opinions which have originated with men, and in regard to which there is nothing like certainty—that He the true Prophet might be the more sought after, and that He whom they had obscured should show to men the way of truth. For on this account also God made the world, and by Him the world is filled; whence also He is everywhere near to them who seek Him, though He be sought in the remotest ends of the earth. But if any one seek Him not purely, nor holily, nor faithfully, He is indeed within him, because He is everywhere, and is found within the minds of all men; but, as we have said before, He is dormant to the unbelieving, and is held to be absent from those by whom His existence is not believed.” And when Peter had said this, and more to the same effect, concerning the true Prophet, he dismissed the crowds; and when he very earnestly entreated the old man to remain with us, he could prevail nothing; but he also departed, to return next day, as had been agreed upon. And after this, we also, with Peter, went to our lodging, and enjoyed our accustomed food and rest."

Here's why:

(a) we must come to the true Prophet ... He the true Prophet might be the more sought after ... concerning the true Prophet

All of these phrases confirm that it is the "true Prophet" that is the subject of this passage. It's already the most obvious reading. Nevertheless, we are still chiefly interested in the words bracketed in-between, with all the pronouns. So we specifically are looking at:

"...and by Him the world is filled; whence also He is everywhere near to them who seek Him, though He be sought in the remotest ends of the earth. But if any one seek Him not purely, nor holily, nor faithfully, He is indeed within him, because He is everywhere, and is found within the minds of all men; but, as we have said before, He is dormant to the unbelieving, and is held to be absent from those by whom His existence is not believed.”

And, in this matter, the Chapter 59 shortly before removes all doubt about the subject (of the pronoun "He"/"Him").

Book VIII, Chapter 59 - Peter speaks of the true prophet revealing the truth to the pure of heart.

"But I would not have you think, that in saying this I take away the power of judging concerning things; but I give counsel that no one walk through devious places, and rush into errors without end. And therefore I advise not only wise men, but indeed all men who have a desire of knowing what is advantageous to them, that they seek after the true Prophet; for it is He alone who knoweth all things, and who knoweth what and how every man is seeking. For He is within the mind of every one of us, but in those who have no desire of the knowledge of God and His righteousness, He is inoperative; but He works in those who seek after that which is profitable to their souls, and kindles in them the light of knowledge. Wherefore seek Him first of all; and if you do not find Him, expect not that you shall learn anything from any other. But He is soon found by those who diligently seek Him through love of the truth, and whose souls are not taken possession of by wickedness. For He is present with those who desire Him in the innocency of their spirits, who bear patiently, and draw sighs from the bottom of their hearts through love of the truth; but He deserts malevolent minds, because as a prophet He knows the thoughts of every one. And therefore let no one think that he can find Him by his own wisdom, unless, as we have said, he empty his mind of all wickedness, and conceive a pure and faithful desire to know Him. For when any one has so prepared himself, He Himself as a prophet, seeing a mind prepared for Him, of His own accord offers Himself to his knowledge."

(b) He is everywhere near to them who seek Him / He is everywhere

Here is the language of "seeking" and also the omnipresence - or, at least, constant presence for those who seek him in good faith - of the true Prophet ("He is present with those who desire Him in the innocency of their spirits" above, also "the True Prophet...He is present with us at all times" in Book II, Chapter 22).

(c) seek Him not purely, nor holily, nor faithfully

Compare "He is present with those who desire Him in the innocency of their spirits" and "conceive a pure and faithful desire to know Him" from chapter 59.

(d) is found within the minds of all men

Compare "He is within the mind of every one of us" in chapter 59.

(e) as we have said before, He is dormant to the unbelieving

And here comes the final proof of identity. The passage refers explicitly back to chapter 59:

And therefore I advise not only wise men, but indeed all men who have a desire of knowing what is advantageous to them, that they seek after the true Prophet; for it is He alone who knoweth all things, and who knoweth what and how every man is seeking. For He is within the mind of every one of us, but in those who have no desire of the knowledge of God and His righteousness, He is inoperative; but He works in those who seek after that which is profitable to their souls, and kindles in them the light of knowledge. Wherefore seek Him first of all; and if you do not find Him, expect not that you shall learn anything from any other. But He is soon found by those who diligently seek Him through love of the truth, and whose souls are not taken possession of by wickedness. For He is present with those who desire Him in the innocency of their spirits, who bear patiently, and draw sighs from the bottom of their hearts through love of the truth; but He deserts malevolent minds, because as a prophet He knows the thoughts of every one.

And this passage clinches the identity of this "He" as "the true Prophet," who "as a prophet" knows the thoughts of every one and is within the mind of every one, although "he is inoperative" for those who have no desire to know God's righteousness (i.e., "He is dormant to the unbelieving").

Accordingly, in the final bit:

“And, therefore, since amongst these philosophers are things uncertain, we must come to the true Prophet. Him God the Father wished to be loved by all, and accordingly He has been pleased wholly to extinguish those opinions which have originated with men, and in regard to which there is nothing like certainty—that He the true Prophet might be the more sought after, and that He whom they had obscured should show to men the way of truth. For on this account also God made the world, and by Him the world is filled; whence also He is everywhere near to them who seek Him, though He be sought in the remotest ends of the earth. But if any one seek Him not purely, nor holily, nor faithfully, He is indeed within him, because He is everywhere, and is found within the minds of all men; but, as we have said before, He is dormant to the unbelieving, and is held to be absent from those by whom His existence is not believed.” And when Peter had said this, and more to the same effect, concerning the true Prophet, he dismissed the crowds; and when he very earnestly entreated the old man to remain with us, he could prevail nothing; but he also departed, to return next day, as had been agreed upon. And after this, we also, with Peter, went to our lodging, and enjoyed our accustomed food and rest."

Just as "He is dormant to the unbelieving" refers to the true Prophet, so does "and is held to be absent from those by whom His existence is not believed" also mean that these people do not believe in the existence of the true Prophet.

(Which is logical. Many philosophers believed in a Creator but didn't have access to the prophetic truth; they didn't seek the true Prophet, not believing.)

There are other questions we can still ask, but this does seem to be a pretty relevant quote, in the scheme of things.

The harder question is going to be what is meant by not believing in the existence of the true Prophet.

[Giuseppe]

The harder question is going to be what is meant by not believing in the existence of the true Prophet

This remembers only partially a speculation made by Paul-Louis Couchoud about the suetonian ''impulsore Chresto'': a possible conflict in Rome between Jewish Christians and Jews about the Christ, ''the former stating that he had already appeared, the latter denying it''.

But in Recognitions 8:62 the denial is more radical: I would suggest that here the same existence of the mythical celestial Christ is denied, not even of a historical Jesus (assumed as already preached). In other terms, a possible evidence of an accusation against mythicist Christians, not against historicist Christians.

[Peter Kirby]

There are two interpretations that compete here:

(1) That not believing in the existence of the true Prophet means just not believing in the general idea of there being one, some day.

In this vein, Samaritans for example believe in the true Prophet and also (in the text) believe in Jesus, but they don't make the identity between the two.

Book I, Chapter 54

"Another schism is that of the Samaritans; for they deny the resurrection of the dead, and assert that God is not to be worshipped in Jerusalem, but on Mount Gerizim. They indeed rightly, from the predictions of Moses, expect the one true Prophet; but by the wickedness of Dositheus they were hindered from believing that Jesus is He whom they were expecting."

The Samaritans are singled out, among all the sects, for expecting "the one true Prophet." This does seem significant. When speaking of the Jews in general, the term switches to "Christ" or at best "the one prophesied by Moses," which seems to be a step down from the shared understanding regarding "the one true Prophet" claimed to have been achieved by the Samaritans. The Samaritans have presumably also read some of the "angel of the Lord" passages similarly (according to what I've read anyway [?]). So they may go one step beyond simple expectation, into having an idea that the true Prophet has been waiting in the wings somewhere and has interacted with Abraham and Moses. Dositheus and Simon, in succession, deceive those among the Samaritans regarding the Prophet. Simon, by simply claiming to be him.

Book VII, Chapter 33

"But we adhered, for friendship’s sake and boyish companionship, to one Simon, a magician, who was educated along with us, so that we were almost deceived by him. For there is mention made in our religion of a certain Prophet, whose coming was hoped for by all who observe that religion, through whom immortal and happy life is promised to be given to those who believe in Him. Now we thought that this Simon was he."

Apparently if there is any group that actually believes in the true Prophet, outside of the circle of the believers led by James and Peter, it would be the Samaritans. Everyone else (non-Samaritan, non-Simonian, non-Christian) would not be those who believed in the true Prophet, although they may be expectant regarding a "Christ" figure (which seems more of a least common denominator reference to messianic expectation).

(2) That not believing in the existence of the true Prophet means also not believing in Jesus.

The question isn't so much whether those who don't believe in the existence of the true Prophet don't believe in the existence of the true Prophet generally (I would guess that they don't). The question is more about why they don't believe in the existence of the true Prophet. Is it because they don't believe that the scriptures are interpreted correctly (or they don't believe in scripture)? Is it because they don't believe it applies to Jesus (or they don't believe in Jesus)?

They may not believe in scripture. From the context, with the refutation of the "philosophers" (the "Greeks") and their vain speculation, the Gentiles seem to be the main target. So perhaps they aren't presumed to have any real motivation to go to (Jewish) scripture to find the existence of the true Prophet foretold there. That's distinctly not the Gentile path to belief, since they didn't have the scripture. They started from something more distinctly Christian, the preaching about Jesus. We may thus, likewise, discard the idea that they believe the scripture didn't apply to Jesus, as that's not the main concern of the Gentiles and the philosophers.

This leaves the most likely option, with reference to disbelievers such as the contemporary philosophers, that they did not believe in the existence of the true Prophet because they did not believe in Jesus. And at this point, we can attempt to split hairs further. Does not believing in Jesus mean:

(2)(a) Not believing that Jesus was all he was cracked up to be (perhaps just another "magician").

or

(2)(b) Not believing that Jesus existed / appeared.

This is a much harder question to resolve definitively, but it's a little amazing that we're even able to consider it (given the history of this kind of thing -- this has been the rallying cry for a long time - "nobody in antiquity disbelieved in Jesus' appearance on earth" - well, it's hard to prove that).

However, I'm struck again by some of the particular wording of this text, which might mean that there truly were people who did not believe in the existence of "the true Prophet" (i.e. Jesus). Indeed, if the group who produced this text presented Jesus as "the true Prophet," this is quite what you'd expect a denial of the claim of his existence to look like: a denial of the existence of the true Prophet (much the same way saying that Christ didn't exist, e.g. in Arthur Drews' formulation, "The Christ Myth," is also meant to implicate Jesus).

There are three portions of the text that also make me wonder, in this regard.

Book I, chapter 6.

"Not to make a long story of it, whilst I was tossed upon these billows of my thought, a certain report, which took its rise in the regions of the East in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, gradually reached us; and gaining strength as it passed through every place, like some good message sent from God, it was filling the whole world, and suffered not the divine will to be concealed in silence. For it was spread over all places, announcing that there was a certain person in Judæa, who, beginning in the springtime, was preaching the kingdom of God to the Jews ... These and such like things were confirmed in process of time, not now by frequent rumours, but by the plain statements of persons coming from those quarters; and day by day the truth of the matter was further disclosed."

Book I, chapter 11.

“Only expound to me the doctrine of that man who you say has appeared, and I will arrange your sayings in my language, and will preach the kingdom and righteousness of Almighty God; and after that, if you wish it, I shall even sail along with you, for I am extremely desirous to see Judæa, and perhaps I shall remain with you always.”

Book V, Chapter 10

"He therefore is the true Prophet, who appeared to us, as you have heard, in Judæa, who, standing in public places, by a simple command made the blind see, the deaf hear, cast out demons, restored health to the sick, and life to the dead; and since nothing was impossible to Him, He even perceived the thoughts of men, which is possible for none but God only. ..."

The objective distance created by these statements are all the more interesting as they are coming from a believing writer.

Combined with the reference to those who don't believe in the existence of the true Prophet, they create a definite impression that some did doubt.

I can find no way to refute this suspicion; thus, while it may not be proven in all details, it certainly seems to be a legitimate reading.

[Peter Kirby]

Excuse my too much rapid reading of the your posts, but I don't understand your point. Isn't already consensus that the Recognitions include a Jewish-Christian layer on which later catholic layers were added?
Therefore it would be expected to see inconsistencies of the kind ''True Prophet as entirely mythical being versus True Prophet as lived in a specific time and place under Pilate''.
Why the need of the your analysis?

Rather, I wonder about the very cold reception, in this forum, of the Rylands's claimed evidence in Recognitions of the fact that the True Prophet, identified expliciter with the ''aeternal Christ'', appeared already again and again in previous times.

Dude, he is testing your hypothesis. He is looking for either confirmation or disconfirmation. You ought to be grateful to him instead of... whatever this is.

This is correct, of course. (I've also just been gathering various observations that came up along the way.)

The harder question is going to be what is meant by not believing in the existence of the true Prophet

This remembers only partially a speculation made by Paul-Louis Couchoud about the suetonian ''impulsore Chresto'': a possible conflict in Rome between Jewish Christians and Jews about the Christ, ''the former stating that he had already appeared, the latter denying it''.

But in Recognitions 8:62 the denial is more radical: I would suggest that here the same existence of the mythical celestial Christ is denied, not even of a historical Jesus (assumed as already preached). In other terms, a possible evidence of an accusation against mythicist Christians, not against historicist Christians.

I'm not sure what you read my intent as being -- and you don't seem to know either -- but I assure you it is nothing nefarious.

You seem to be under the impression that I was writing to correct you. Men who believe they are being criticized will say many things to rebuff the criticism. And so you've said some things, apparently, to head off whatever you think I may be writing to gainsay you.

Since you've been second guessing me without seeing my last post on the subject, I think I should just ignore your comments and invite you to resubmit them if you believe any are still pertinent.

[Giuseppe]

Excuse me, Peter, but I have started my previous post with the words:

Excuse my too much rapid reading of the your posts, but I don't understand your point. ...

...therefore more than a criticism (in any case, always welcomed by me), I was only wondering if your point was ''since a historical Jesus is named in the text, then the writer couldn't be suspected as mythicist''. Therefore I have remembered the subdivision in layers of the work and, in a second post, I have advanced the hypothesis that it is not the historical Jesus the subject who is denied, but the same 100% mythical Christ of ''mythicist'' Christians (and of the same author of the quoted passage).

In conclusion, after the your last post, I think that there would be more unity in the text than I have hoped: the author of the passage was really a historicist.

In particular, the entire passage of Book I, chapter 6 reads as a description of the real first propagation of the historicist idea (the process described as euhemerization by Carrier):

Chapter VI.—Hears of Christ.

Not to make a long story of it, whilst I was tossed upon these billows of my thought, a certain report, which took its rise in the regions of the East in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, gradually reached us; and gaining strength as it passed through every place, like some good message sent from God, it was filling the whole world, and suffered not the divine will to be concealed in silence. For it was spread over all places, announcing that there was a certain person in Judæa, who, beginning in the springtime, 535 was preaching the kingdom of God to the Jews, and saying that those should receive it who should observe the ordinances of His commandments and His doctrine. And that His speech might be believed to be worthy of credit, and full of the Divinity, He was said to perform many mighty works, and wonderful signs and prodigies by His mere word; so that, as one having power from God, He made the deaf to hear, and the blind to see, and the lame to stand erect, and expelled every infirmity and all demons from men; yea, that He even raised dead persons who were brought to Him; that He cured lepers also, looking at them from a distance; and that there was absolutely nothing which seemed impossible to Him. These and such like things were confirmed in process of time, not now by frequent rumours, but by the plain statements of persons coming from those quarters; and day by day the truth of the matter was further disclosed.

My congratulations though for the your conclusion.

[Peter Kirby]

My congratulations though for the your conclusion.

And thanks for the find!

[outhouse]

but I don't understand your point.

He is exploring how bad your context and interpretation is, on all angles while exploring the possible correct meaning in as great a detail as one can.

[outhouse]

A thorough and sympathetic reading of the text, however, points to the subject being "the true Prophet."

the following sentence helped me to place context away from the OP

And when Peter had said this, and more to the same effect, concerning the true Prophet