Re: in the Gnostic tradition the women could make Jesus risen
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2020 2:02 pm
Interesting. I note, with underlining and different bolding, -
.
Couchoud's insight, if we accept it, might enable us to make a whole new sense out of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts that feature a beloved savior,* whether Mechizedek, Seth, Derdekas, or Zoroaster, who is only late in the day identified with Jesus. We need some sort of new key to unlock the meaning of these enigmatic texts and the mystery of where and how they fit into the evolution of early Christianity. Couchoud's theory might provide it.
What did the unquoted portion of the Philippians hymn call its Christ figure before his exaltation and possession of the throne-name "Jesus"? Could it perhaps have been one of these names? It would imply that the Christian Jesus was merely a more recent stage in the development of a much more ancient mythic character, just like Seth, Enosh, and the other ancient figures venerated by the Gnostics despite an utter lack, in the nature of the case, of any biographical or historical data about them.
Couchoud has indicated the final door we must pass through if we are to be consistent with the methodology that has served us so well thus far.
Dare we step through that door to what Schweitzer called "thoroughgoing skepticism"? Even if doing so will mean that the historical Jesus will have shrunk to the vanishing point?
.
Couchoud's insight, if we accept it, might enable us to make a whole new sense out of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts that feature a beloved savior,* whether Mechizedek, Seth, Derdekas, or Zoroaster, who is only late in the day identified with Jesus. We need some sort of new key to unlock the meaning of these enigmatic texts and the mystery of where and how they fit into the evolution of early Christianity. Couchoud's theory might provide it.
What did the unquoted portion of the Philippians hymn call its Christ figure before his exaltation and possession of the throne-name "Jesus"? Could it perhaps have been one of these names? It would imply that the Christian Jesus was merely a more recent stage in the development of a much more ancient mythic character, just like Seth, Enosh, and the other ancient figures venerated by the Gnostics despite an utter lack, in the nature of the case, of any biographical or historical data about them.
Couchoud has indicated the final door we must pass through if we are to be consistent with the methodology that has served us so well thus far.
Dare we step through that door to what Schweitzer called "thoroughgoing skepticism"? Even if doing so will mean that the historical Jesus will have shrunk to the vanishing point?
.
* [eta] I'm not sure stating 'a [singular] beloved saviour' would be appropriate here especially when "Mechizedek, Seth, Derdekas, or Zoroaster" and "Seth, Enosh, and the other ancient figures" are clearly multiple, plural characters.
What? That I agree with you?Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 1:21 pm
But so also this extraordinary finding:MrMacSon wrote: ↑Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:55 amI agree.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Nov 18, 2020 10:59 pm I can easily imagine a "Mark" (author) who replaces a celestial trial before demons with an earthly trial before Pilate, but hardly can I imagine a Gnostic author who replaces an earthly trial of Jesus before Pilate with a celestial trial of Adam before demons.
I find it extraordinary that people think that 'Gnostics' would have universally or almost universally taken NT texts and reverted them to what is almost certainly some sort of pre-Christian, Platonic or [early] Middle-Platonic theology. And I find it noteworthy that the Church Fathers like Irenaeus seems to have devoted far more ink to discussing so-called Gnostic theology than Christian theology - it's almost as if Christian theology was in its infancy when Irenaeus is supposed to have written.