All the evidence of early separationism

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

All the evidence of early separationism

Post by Giuseppe »

I would like to list all the items of the evidence of separationism in general terms found until now:
  • Mark was said to be used by separationists;
  • in Mark there are indeed clues of separationism;
  • someone has denied that Marcion was docetist, by claiming that he was really separationist;
  • Cerinthus was said to be a separationist, meaning a "Jesus son of Joseph" as the carnal Jesus where the spiritual Christ enters in;
  • not concidentially, the tradition of the Messiah Son of Joseph as also a suffering Messiah from which the triumphal Messiah has to be distinct;
  • Valentinians distinguished also between a carnal Jesus suffering on earth, and a spiritual Christ crucified on the cosmic cross called Horos.
  • The separationism may be the reason why only the Messiah "Son of Joseph" had to be crucified precisely by Pilate (= known to be slaughterer of the 'descendants of Joseph', how the Samaritans called themselves).
  • 1 and 2 Corinthians could have addressed really Cerinthians, i.e. separationists, and, as such, deniers of a carnal Jesus being risen before any other risen.
  • Simon Magus was said to be 'from Samaria' to make the point that the real victim of the crucifixion was a "Messiah Son of Joseph", notoriously a Samaritan (since the Samaritans called themselves 'descendants of Joseph").
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: All the evidence of early separationism

Post by Giuseppe »

Given all this evidence (have I ignored something?), the following questions have to be raised:
  • is really necessary to assume, contra Occam, the existence of well two traditions of two Messiah, one suffering and the other triumphing ?
  • Is really necessary to distinguish the original "christological" separationism between Jesus and Christ from the Jewish tradition of two Messiah, one suffering and the other triumphing ?
I can answer 'no' to both the questions above, by pointing to a midrashical solution:

Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions:
And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

(Ezekiel 37:16)
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: All the evidence of early separationism

Post by Giuseppe »

The sense would be that the separationism is assumed from the beginning of the story until to his ideal end, the general resurrection of the dead, i.e. read: a collective resurrection of Israel, when the Ezekiel's prophecy will be realized and "they shall become one in thine hand", the hand of who ? Of the 'son of man', the same colossal risen Christ of the Gospel of Peter to mean that he is a collective figure.

This is not different from Cerinthus's view that the carnal Jesus, buried in the tomb, will rise only when all the true believers will rise.

The implication of the Cerinthus's view is that, being not still risen the carnal Jesus, a Paul has no right at all to have seen the Risen Christ.

This difference puts Cerinthus's followers in direct contrast with Paul's followers.
Last edited by Giuseppe on Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: All the evidence of early separationism

Post by Giuseppe »

I would add the following item of the same evidence pointing to a Separationist christology:
  • About the Samaritan figure Dositheus, Epiphanius said that he died in a cave.

    Is not this a parody of the Cerinthian belief that the carnal Jesus died and didn't rise, at least not until the collective resurrection of the dead, an event that even the good Epiphanius had all rights to deny!
ADDENDA
Note how, not coincidentially, Dositheus, a figure like Simon Magus, was said to be "Samaritan". Ethnical Samaritans don't count at all, here, for obvious midrashical reasons!
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: All the evidence of early separationism

Post by Giuseppe »

Last but not least, I note that the separationism is what, among different christologies, lends itself more than any other Christology to being portrayed by a sacred drama.

A sacred drama where the actor who plays the role of the victim represents, and only represents, the human recipient of the spiritual Christ.

The French Mythicist Dujardin, for example, raises the possibility that in the year 30 circa, the name of the actor starring as Jesus (in the sacred drama) was Simon of Cyrene.

Hence the intriguing question:

was Mark, or proto-Mark, the earliest Gospel, precisely in virtue of its separationist Christology ?

As the argument goes:
  • Separationism has in nuce the idea of a human actor starring as the divine Christ without being really the divine Christ.
  • The implicit presence of an actor in the definition of Separationism leads naturaliter to the need of a sacred drama to represent this particular Christology on the scene.
  • ...hence, differently from other rival christologies, Separationism is the more adapt to suggest the need to write a sacred drama. Precisely what 'Mark' (separationist) did.

Hence, it is not a coincidence that Mark, as the separationist gospel, was the first to have been written.
Post Reply