"a commonplace belief among historians of the early church that early Christianity did not emphasize Jesus’ crucifixion"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: "a commonplace belief among historians of the early church that early Christianity did not emphasize Jesus’ crucifix

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:32 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:24 pm Why?
I'm interested, viewtopic.php?p=118516#p118516
Okay, on that thread you ask:
Do any of the Church Fathers talk about Jesus crucified?
To which the response is, yes, lots of them. So many, in fact, that I wonder whether I am understanding what you are truly asking. I mean, we have Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and many more.

If you are asking about the specific phrase in crucem (which you do not mention on that thread), then I am not sure. But if you are just asking about Jesus being crucified (which you do mention on that thread), then the list above is far, far from exhaustive.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6841
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: "a commonplace belief among historians of the early church that early Christianity did not emphasize Jesus’ crucifix

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:49 pm
Okay, on that thread you ask:
Do any of the Church Fathers talk about Jesus crucified?
That thread is this thread.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:49 pm To which the response is, yes, lots of them. So many, in fact, that I wonder whether I am understanding what you are truly asking. I mean, we have Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and many more.
The OP clearly lays out Hurtado saying the Church Father's didn't talk about crucifixion. So that question^, "Do any of the Church Fathers talk about Jesus crucified? was in relation to that.

I am well aware those Fathers, which you list - Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Origen, Clement of Alexandria - talk about Jesus crucified. I have recently made lots of posts about some of them doing that. Which, for some reason, you felt the need to complain about missing -
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:34 pm I feel like I am missing an entire swath of context for the discussions about crucifixion on this forum of late.
:confusedsmiley:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:49 pm If you are asking about the specific phrase in crucem (which you do not mention on that thread), then I am not sure.
Finally, a straight forward answer comment from you. Lift your game, Ben. Be constructive and less childishly passive-aggressive, or stay out of my face. Comprende?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6841
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Re:Stauros

Post by MrMacSon »


.
The Valentinian system

2.1 Synopsis
2.2 Aeons
2.3 Sophia
2.4 Anthropos
2.5 Christ


2.6 Horos

A figure entirely peculiar to Valentinian Gnosticism is that of Horos (the Limiter). The name is perhaps an echo of the Egyptian Horus.[14][21]

The task of Horos is to separate the fallen Aeons from the upper world of Aeons. At the same time he becomes a kind of world-creative power, who in this capacity helps to construct an ordered world out of Sophia and her passions. He is also called Stauros (cross), and we frequently meet with references to the figure of Stauros. Speculations about the Stauros are older than Christianity, and a Platonic conception may have been at work here. Plato had already stated that the World-Soul revealed itself in the form of the letter Chi (X), by which he meant that figure described in the heavens by the intersecting orbits of the sun and the planetary ecliptic. Since through this double orbit all the movements of the heavenly powers are determined, so all "becoming" and all life depend on it, and thus we can understand the statement that the World-Soul appears in the form of an X, or a cross.[14]

The cross can also stand for the wondrous Aeon on whom depends the ordering and life of the world, and thus Horos-Stauros appears here as the first redeemer of Sophia from her passions, and as the orderer of the creation of the world which now begins. Naturally, then, the figure of Horos-Stauros was often assimilated to that of the Christian Redeemer. We possibly find echoes of this in the Gospel of Peter, where the Cross itself is depicted as speaking and even floating out of the tomb.

(These paragraphs are from V.5 here https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Enc ... lentinians,
which is a reproduction of [14] Bousset, Wilhelm (1911) "Valentinus and the Valentinians," Encyclopædia Britannica. 27 (11th ed.). pp. 852–857)


2.7 Monism
2.8 Demiurge
2.9 Creation of Man
2.10 Soteriology
2.11 Gnosis


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentini ... ian_system

21, Legge, Francis (1914). Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity. New York: University Books. p.105.
.

It's interesting that Stauros was the name of a theological entity in what would have been a theological system - albeit a gnostic one - concurrent with early Christianity and particularly with Justin Martyr.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6841
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Christ in Valentinianism

Post by MrMacSon »

And the Valentinian-gnostic system would not have been that far removed rom the budding Christian one -

.
The Valentinian system

2.5 Christ

Next to Sophia stands a male redeeming divinity. In the true Valentinian system, the Christ is the son of the fallen Sophia, who is thus conceived as an individual. Sophia conceives a passion for the First Father himself, or rather, under pretext of love she seeks to draw near to the unattainable Bythos, the Unknowable, and to comprehend his greatness. She brings forth, through her longing for that higher being, an Aeon who is higher and purer than herself, and at once rises into the celestial worlds. Christ has pity on the abortive substance born of Sophia and gives it essence and form, whereupon Sophia tries to rise again to the Father, but in vain. In the enigmatic figure of Christ we again find hidden the original conception of the Primal Man, who sinks down into matter but rises again.

In the fully developed Ptolemaean system we find a kindred conception, but with a slight difference. Here Christ and Sophia appear as brother and sister, with Christ representing the higher and Sophia the lower element. When this world has been born from Sophia in consequence of her passion, two Aeons, Nous (mind) and Aletheia (truth), by command of the Father, produce two new Aeons, Christ and the Holy Ghost; these restore order in the Pleroma, and in consequence all Aeons combine their best and most wonderful qualities to produce a new Aeon, Jesus, Logos, Soter, or Christ, the "First Fruits" whom they offer to the Father. And this celestial redeemer-Aeon [Jesus, Logos, Soter, or Christ] now enters into a marriage with the fallen Aeon; they are the "bride and bridegroom". It is boldly stated in the exposition in Hippolytus' Philosophumena [aka Refutation of All Heresies] that they produce between them 70 celestial angels.

This myth can be connected with the historic Jesus of Nazareth by further relating that Christ, having been united to the Sophia, descends into the earthly Jesus, the son of Mary, at his baptism, and becomes the Saviour of men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentini ... ian_system
.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6841
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: "a commonplace belief among historians of the early church that early Christianity did not emphasize Jesus’ crucifix

Post by MrMacSon »

Did the word/s stauros, stauroo, etc, have dual meaning to some early Christians?

Was there an implication of Christ being put on [a] Stauros to supplant it/him? Was there a dual meaning being addressed? or intended?

Was it part of a 'developing orthodoxy' v 'gnostic' adversary ?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: "a commonplace belief among historians of the early church that early Christianity did not emphasize Jesus’ crucifix

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:29 am Did the word/s stauros, stauroo, etc, have dual meaning to some early Christians?

Was there an implication of Christ being put on [a] Stauros to supplant it/him? Was there a dual meaning being addressed? or intended?

Was it part of a 'developing orthodoxy' v 'gnostic' adversary ?
If you take the plain staurogram, it's just a T and an R, or en R and a T for that matter.
The word in Thomas logion 55 is ⲥ⳨ⲟⲥ and it could be anything really: STauRoS, SoTeRoS, SaTyRoS, etc

Note that the superlinear in Coptic serves to form vowels, eg. ⲛ ̄ⲧⲱⲧⲛ ̄ would be pronounced entooten.
No superlinears on the word in Thomas, so perhaps it was just STROS or SRTOS

But it's likely that stauros and soteros "were twin concepts".
I'd almost go Hebrew with it, STR or SRT. Like he did with IHS
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6841
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: "a commonplace belief among historians of the early church that early Christianity did not emphasize Jesus’ crucifix

Post by MrMacSon »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:58 am
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:29 am
Did the word/s stauros, stauroo, etc, have dual meaning to some early Christians?

Was there an implication of Christ being put on [a] Stauros to supplant it/him? Was there a dual meaning being addressed? or intended?

Was it part of a 'developing orthodoxy' v 'gnostic' adversary ?
.
If you take the plain staurogram, it's just a T and an R, or en R and a T for that matter.
The word in Thomas logion 55 is ⲥ⳨ⲟⲥ and it could be anything really: STauRoS, SoTeRoS, SaTyRoS, etc
Yes, the potential for the staurogram to have a place and role is another dimension ... to consider ...

mlinssen wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:58 am But it's likely that stauros and soteros "were twin concepts".
I'd almost go Hebrew with it, STR or SRT. Like he did with IHS
The Greek of Ireaneus shows that, from that screenshot your post up-thread viewtopic.php?p=118792#p118792

which includes Σταυρον/Stauros and σταυρον/stauros; and calls Σταυρον [Stauros], l. Σωτήρα, Saviour

From a crude translation -

he is Σταυρον, Stauros, while in so far as he divides and separates, he is Horos. They then represent the Σταυρον, Stauros [ l. Σωτήρα, Saviour ] as having indicated this twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said, "Whosoever doth not bear his σταυρον [stauros; cross], and follow after me, cannot be my disciple;"(5) and again, "Taking up the σταυρον [stauros; cross] follow me;"(6) but the separating power when He said, "I came not to send peace, but a word."

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: "a commonplace belief among historians of the early church that early Christianity did not emphasize Jesus’ crucifix

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:35 am
mlinssen wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:58 am
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:29 am
Did the word/s stauros, stauroo, etc, have dual meaning to some early Christians?

Was there an implication of Christ being put on [a] Stauros to supplant it/him? Was there a dual meaning being addressed? or intended?

Was it part of a 'developing orthodoxy' v 'gnostic' adversary ?
.
If you take the plain staurogram, it's just a T and an R, or en R and a T for that matter.
The word in Thomas logion 55 is ⲥ⳨ⲟⲥ and it could be anything really: STauRoS, SoTeRoS, SaTyRoS, etc
Yes, the potential for the staurogram to have a place and role is another dimension ... to consider ...

mlinssen wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:58 am But it's likely that stauros and soteros "were twin concepts".
I'd almost go Hebrew with it, STR or SRT. Like he did with IHS
The Greek of Ireaneus shows that, from that screenshot your post up-thread viewtopic.php?p=118792#p118792

which includes Σταυρον/Stauros and σταυρον/stauros; and calls Σταυρον [Stauros], l. Σωτήρα, Saviour

From a crude translation -

he is Σταυρον, Stauros, while in so far as he divides and separates, he is Horos. They then represent the Σταυρον, Stauros [ l. Σωτήρα, Saviour ] as having indicated this twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said, "Whosoever doth not bear his σταυρον [stauros; cross], and follow after me, cannot be my disciple;"(5) and again, "Taking up the σταυρον [stauros; cross] follow me;"(6) but the separating power when He said, "I came not to send peace, but a word."

Yes, I laughed out loud when I read that. There's a typo in that text by the way, it's not yours: sword is the word, not word (sic)

The screenshot I made is of Thomas logion 55, which says exactly what Irenaeus is quoting, and the other quote is Thomas logion 16

55 said IS : he-who-will hate his father not with his(F) mother he will be-able make-be Disciple not to I and not he hate his(PL) brother with his(PL) sister not he carry of his Stauros within my(F) manner he will come-to-be not he been-made Worthy-one to I

16 said IS : Perhaps they think viz. the(PL) human : have I come to cast of a(n) Peace upon the World and they know not : have I come to cast of some(PL) division upon the earth a(n) fire a(n) sword a(n) War there-be five Indeed will come-to-be in a(n) house there-be three will come-to-be upon two and two upon three the father upon the child and the child upon the father and they will stay to foot they in-case they been-made the(PL) Solitary

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6841
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: "a commonplace belief among historians of the early church that early Christianity did not emphasize Jesus’ crucifix

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:25 pm
mlinssen wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:18 am But it's likely that stauros and soteros "were twin concepts".
I'd almost go Hebrew with it, STR or SRT. Like he did with IHS
The Greek of Ireaneus1 shows that, from that screenshot your post up-thread viewtopic.php?p=118792#p118792

which includes Σταυρον/Stauros and σταυρον/stauros; and calls Σταυρον [Stauros], l. Σωτήρα, Saviour

From a crude translation -

he is Σταυρον, Stauros, while in so far as he divides and separates, he is Horos. They then represent the Σταυρον, Stauros [ l. Σωτήρα, Saviour ] as having indicated this twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said, "Whosoever doth not bear his σταυρον [stauros; cross], and follow after me, cannot be my disciple;"(5) and again, "Taking up the σταυρον [stauros; cross] follow me;"(6) but the separating power when He said, "I came not to send peace, but a word."

1 I just had another look, I don't think that text is Irenaeus, I think it's Epiphanius, judging by the heading on p. 207 or 208

(and I can't find it in the English version of Irenaeus' Against Heresies, though there are a few passages which are similar: I,3.1; II,12.7; and IV,35.4 - which might suggest Epiphanius was using Irenaeus)

mlinssen wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:58 am
Yes, I laughed out loud when I read that. There's a typo in that text by the way, it's not yours: sword is the word, not word (sic)
Yeah, I did wonder if it was supposed to be sword, as per one or two verses in Matt 10 (I think).

mlinssen wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:58 am
The screenshot I made is of Thomas logion 55, which says exactly what Irenaeus?? is quoting, and the other quote is Thomas logion 16

55 said IS : he-who-will hate his father not with his(F) mother he will be-able make-be Disciple not to I and not he hate his(PL) brother with his(PL) sister not he carry of his Stauros within my(F) manner he will come-to-be not he been-made Worthy-one to I

16 said IS : Perhaps they think viz. the(PL) human : have I come to cast of a(n) Peace upon the World and they know not : have I come to cast of some(PL) division upon the earth a(n) fire a(n) sword a(n) War there-be five Indeed will come-to-be in a(n) house there-be three will come-to-be upon two and two upon three the father upon the child and the child upon the father and they will stay to foot they in-case they been-made the(PL) Solitary

Cheers, that's interesting 'alignment' with Thomas logia for a Church Father (who, as I noted above, may be Epiphanius, which would be interesting).
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 731
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: "a commonplace belief among historians of the early church that early Christianity did not emphasize Jesus’ crucifix

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:25 pm
mlinssen wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:18 am But it's likely that stauros and soteros "were twin concepts".
I'd almost go Hebrew with it, STR or SRT. Like he did with IHS
The Greek of Ireaneus1 shows that, from that screenshot your post up-thread viewtopic.php?p=118792#p118792

which includes Σταυρον/Stauros and σταυρον/stauros; and calls Σταυρον [Stauros], l. Σωτήρα, Saviour
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:35 am From a crude translation -

he is Σταυρον, Stauros, while in so far as he divides and separates, he is Horos. They then represent the Σταυρον, Stauros [ l. Σωτήρα, Saviour ] as having indicated this twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said, "Whosoever doth not bear his σταυρον [stauros; cross], and follow after me, cannot be my disciple;"(5) and again, "Taking up the σταυρον [stauros; cross] follow me;"(6) but the separating power when He said, "I came not to send peace, but a word."

1 I just had another look, I don't think that text is Irenaeus, I think it's Epiphanius, judging by the heading on p. 207 or 208

(and I can't find it in the English version of Irenaeus' Against Heresies, though there are a few passages which are similar: I,3.1; II,12.7; and IV,35.4 - which might suggest Epiphanius was using Irenaeus)

mlinssen wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:58 am
Yes, I laughed out loud when I read that. There's a typo in that text by the way, it's not yours: sword is the word, not word (sic)
Yeah, I did wonder if it was supposed to be sword, as per one or two verses in Matt 10 (I think).

mlinssen wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:58 am
The screenshot I made is of Thomas logion 55, which says exactly what Irenaeus?? is quoting, and the other quote is Thomas logion 16

55 said IS : he-who-will hate his father not with his(F) mother he will be-able make-be Disciple not to I and not he hate his(PL) brother with his(PL) sister not he carry of his Stauros within my(F) manner he will come-to-be not he been-made Worthy-one to I

16 said IS : Perhaps they think viz. the(PL) human : have I come to cast of a(n) Peace upon the World and they know not : have I come to cast of some(PL) division upon the earth a(n) fire a(n) sword a(n) War there-be five Indeed will come-to-be in a(n) house there-be three will come-to-be upon two and two upon three the father upon the child and the child upon the father and they will stay to foot they in-case they been-made the(PL) Solitary

Cheers, that's interesting 'alignment' with Thomas logia for a Church Father (who, as I noted above, may be Epiphanius, which would be interesting).
You switched us both in the top 2 quotes! LOL (I fixed it here)

Yeah, it is, isn't it. Epiphanius also wrote an Against Heresies indeed. Don't have it but it sounds interesting
Post Reply