For example, so p. 359:
(my bold)
For example, so p. 359:
Do you postdate Paul? If not (or if we're just talking about a broad 50-80 AD range) then this may be indicative of an earliest deific perspective for these "Christians", who could've had something like the Johannine/Thomasine dynamic where Christ is a god and is a son of the (unknown) God. I almost wonder if the "unknown god" thing was based on how there was no concrete understanding of who the higher god was, so you have a branch embracing the ineffable nature (with precedence in other traditions, like Hermeticism, IIRC) and then another branch that tries to make it into Yahweh. With the huge amount of variety within the so-called gnostic traditions, it looks like Yahweh as the highest god was a minority opinion.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 8:46 am For example, so p. 359:The statement made above that G probably distinguished between the Creator and the Supreme Being is deducible from the fact that he was writing chiefly for Jews. After writing in verse 8 of chapter iv, "not knowing God, ye were in bondage to them which by nature are no gods," he proceeds immediately, without any break : "but now that ye have come to know God how turn ye back to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again? Ye observe seasons," etc. In the immediately preceding passage also he had been addressing Jews, saying that the heir who had been in wardship to the law had now received the sonship. Such terms, as before observed, are quite inapplicable to Gentiles. He, therefore, is telling his Jewish readers that they had not previously known God, and were in bondage to them which by nature are no gods
(my bold)
If Paul preaching of Jesus had nothing to do with Moses or the Jewish god, then who would have had any interest in his message? If there is no OT to "prove by prophecy" who Jesus was, then what would lead anyone to believe in Jesus?rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:01 am
I'm confident that Paul and VoI do reject Moses. "Jewish Gnosticism" rejects Moses. "Jewish Gnosticism" embraces the demiurgical myth, which holds that the Highest God is not the Creator. Paul and the writer of VoI might have also held this view, but it isn't clear whether they did or not. Regardless, the rejection of Moses by Paul and the writer of VoI was enough to make their ideas appealing to people who did adopt the demiurgical myth, which includes Marcion, Valentinian, and whatever other "Gnostic" types there were.
Possibly. Firstly we should keep in mind that Christianity wasn't necessarily that popular until after the orthodox takeover. There did seem to be a "Gnostic" movement independent of Jesus worship, which blended Judaism with Neoplatonism. God-fearers and such were already around. "Paul" doesn't seem to have actually been very popular. It seems that Marcion rescued him from obscurity. I still hold to my view that the Gospel of Mark is what made Paul.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 1:10 pm If Paul preaching of Jesus had nothing to do with Moses or the Jewish god, then who would have had any interest in his message? If there is no OT to "prove by prophecy" who Jesus was, then what would lead anyone to believe in Jesus?
Is it likely that one man, Paul, who said his message was true because of a vision he once had, and without any appeal to other witnesses or prophecy, would be able to start a new religion that might attract Marcion or anyone else?
Interesting to note the salvific aspect as so early! I think I agree, and it's probably good to note that the most common denominator is that salvific nature of this figure, and I think you're right in saying that the words/deeds/life were seen as the main "source" of this salvific nature (note that there is no event that causes the salvation in the Gospel of Thomas apart from the effect of the sayings) and that the details of these words/deeds/life were extremely vague, subject to wild creative invention. Certainly agree that the Pauline atonement theology was a later idea.davidmartin wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 12:55 am I might add that early on this figure was considered salvific. The Odes demonstrate that
But his whole nature was basically salvific it wasn't the cross it was the words/deeds/life as a whole. The Pauline atonement theology was a later restating of this, which took a good long while to become 'orthodox'
I'm beginning to understand that "Christianity" (might as well call it pre-Christianity, I suppose) was similarly non-theological, rather basic in its mysticism.They apparently didn't go along with the theology of orthodoxy and had mystical leanings
I need to correct the above. I have re-read the Gospel of Judas (what little is extant of it) and think that it, if Simonian, should more properly be assigned to the Basilidean branch instead of the Saturnilian. Irenaeus says that Saturnilus “was the first to say that two kinds of men had been molded by the angels, the one wicked, the other good” (Against Heresies, 1,24, 2), but Basilides too subscribed to this idea as well as Saturnilus’ docetism. Although both were said to have been pupils of Menander, Saturnilus may have been active a bit earlier than Basilides, for Irenaeus speaks of him first. One at least, if not both, may have identified as Jews before coming under the tutelage of Menander, for we are told that Basilideans claimed “they are no longer Jews, but not yet Christians” (Against Heresies, 1,24,6). Justin, of course, considers both offshoots of Simonianism to be Christians-in-name-only (Dialogue with Trypho, 35).RParvus wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:11 pm Neil,
I noticed your plug and decided to add here a few thoughts about how Judas might fit into my Simonian/Saturnilian scenario. Realize that what I offer is here is half-baked, perhaps in more ways than one, but I’ll put it forward for whatever it is worth.
In the recently uncovered Gospel of Judas it is Judas who is the conduit for the “real” message of Jesus. There is much in that Gospel that resonates well with the admittedly little that we know from Irenaeus about the Saturnilians. One item in particular that catches my attention is the idea that men (created not by the highest God, but by lower angels) fall into two groups: one made for an imperishable realm and the other for total perishability. This type of predestinatory division calls to mind the “vessels of destruction” (Rom. 9:22) in the letter to the Romans with its: “Who are you, o man, to talk back to God? Will what is made talk back to its maker? ‘Why have you created me so?’ Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one? - Rom. 9:20-21).
For me it also calls to mind the parable about the types of soil (hearers) in chapter 4 of gMark, the chapter in which Jesus is said to have privately revealed to his disciples the “mystery of the kingdom of God”. As Morna Hooker notes in her commentary on Mark: “The existence of four groups of hearers should not conceal the fact that basically there are only two: those whose hearing of the word bears fruit and those who hearing proves to be fruitless” (p. 132). Yet Jesus, in telling the parable, says that the reason he speaks in parables is to prevent some of his hearers from understanding.
It seems strange that there is so much repetition of the word “Hear!” in chapter four of gMark when at the same time Jesus is there preventing some of the hearers from understanding. Unless it is some kind of clue. Remember that Simonians claimed that Simon’s name meant “Hear!” and that it was given to him by the highest God when Simon heard/obeyed the command to descend to this world. And they believed that Simon was the Christ. And IF the Gospel of Judas was Simonian/Saturnilian in origin, it may be that an earlier gMark was modified at some point by them to provide pointers to the “real” gospel. That would give us a modified gMark for “those on the outside” (Mk. 4:11) that pointed to gJudas for those on the inside. And so it would come to pass that, as Mark 4 says, “Nothing is hidden” (in gMark) “except to be revealed” (in gJudas), “and nothing is concealed”(in gMark) ”except to be brought into the open” (in gJudas). “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear! And he said to them, ‘Pay attention to what you hear!’ ” (Mk. 4:22-23).
In this scenario there would, of course, have to be a third stage of development in which the proto-orthodox had the final say and further modified/cleaned up gMark to mesh with their own beliefs. One way to counter Simonian/Saturnilian pretensions regarding Judas’ private information would be to make him a traitor. Words like the following would belong to the third stage: “For the son of man indeed goes, as it is written of him, but woe to that man by who the son of man is betrayed” (Mk. 14:21). But perhaps initially there were some, Justin among them, that preferred to just ignore the claim of those who, as Justin saw it, were Christians-in-name-only. Why separate Judas from the 12 and wrongly tarnish his status just to counter an utterly baseless heretical claim?
Neil,neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:54 pm
But one question: Does not Irenaeus also inform us that a tradition associated the Gospel of Mark with Basilides? Comment? (esp in the context of this discussion?)
What if Mark modified Basilides? (fwiw, I think switcheroos were more common than is acknowledged)RParvus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:29 pm It is the same incident as the switcheroo I mentioned between Simon of Cyrene and the laughing Jesus (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1,24, 4). Some think it was gMark’s careless use of pronouns at 15: 21–25 that gave Basilides the idea for the switcheroo. But if, as I suspect, Basilides modified an earlier gMark, the so-called carelessness may have been deliberate.