Salm: the epistles make the case for the acceptance of the gospels

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Salm: the epistles make the case for the acceptance of the gospels

Post by Giuseppe »

Now this is very interesting:

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2022/01/ ... -and-paul/

What is "proto-catholic" in Paul is clearly the enphasis on the crucifixion of Jesus.

The suspicion is great that a such emphasis is polemically designed to confute the Christians who denied that Jesus was crucified.

So Mark, where the Messianic Secret, docet Dykstra, is revealed by the centurion, makes the same point: the true Jesus Christ died on the cross. Here I can add the Stahl/Couchoud's genial exegesis: the false Christ, the Christ of the heretics, didn't die on the cross, he escaped shamefully, as "Barabbas".

Assuming the premise that the epistles are designed to confute the deniers of the crucified Christ, i.e. Docetists (not only anti-demiurgist Docetists but also Jewish Docetists), then what both (authors of the epistles and their enemies) shared? was it the belief that Jesus was connected originally, beyond if apparently or really, with the crucifixio? Or was the crucifixion the apt form of death who was able "to fix" the spiritual Jesus in the prison of the flesh?

The idea of the crucifixion as chaining to flesh is suggestive and is found in Philo.

One may imagine the early proto-catholics who thought in their mind: "if we introduce the idea that a pure spirit was crucified, then those there out can't more claim that it was a pure spirit, since only carnal people can be crucified".

The crucifixion was designed to work just as the eucharist: to prove that Jesus was carnal and not a pure spirit.

The adorers of the Jesus-pure-Spirit reacted to the news of a crucified Jesus by claiming the obvious, for them: the pure spirit only appeared to be crucified.


From the other hand, it is curious that the docetism can be seen as mythicist evidence or as historicist evidence.
  • Reinach persuaded me that docetism was an apology against early anti-Christian mythicists;
  • Turone persuaded me that the docetism was an early form of apology against Pagans who accused Jesus of sedition.


So Salm:

The purpose of the epistles is, as noted above, to reinforce faith in the saving cross of Jesus. That is the core of Catholic Christian doctrine. The (invented) details of Jesus’ earthly ministry are entirely secondary.

The Gospels-Epistles sequence is contrary to, say, the one proposed in Tom Dykstra’s insightful book, Mark: Canonizer of Paul (reviewed on this website here). Dykstra concludes (p. 19): “For Mark, what is uniquely significant about Jesus is not his teaching but his passion, crucifixion, and resurrection.” That is, of course, totally Pauline. Perhaps the best way to view the gospels and epistles is not the one before the other, but both corpora in tandem: they arose more or less together in the later second century, working ‘off one another,’ as it were.

In any case, it appears to me that the Pauline corpus fits neatly into the “Watch and Wait” period 150–200 CE. Like Ad Autolycum, the epistles avoid direct mention of Jesus of Nazareth and speak eloquently of the spiritual Jesus of old. They emphasize in first place the “cross of Christ” and thus implicitly betray knowledge of the (forthcoming) figure Jesus of Nazareth.

(my bold)
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Salm: the epistles make the case for the acceptance of the gospels

Post by Giuseppe »

So Ben on the crucifixion as chaining to flesh, in Philo:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:06 am [*]Philo, in On the Posterity of Cain and His Exile 17.61, compares souls being attached to bodies to men being attached to crosses via crucifixion.
This is pure catholicism: isn't it?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Salm: the epistles make the case for the acceptance of the gospels

Post by Giuseppe »

Hence, in this scenario, there would be no need for Paul to mention a Pilate.

Paul wanted to persuade opponents that Jesus was chained to the flesh by the crucifixion, not that Jesus was crucified by Pilate.

This still says us that Paul didn't know no connection at all between Jesus and Pilate, because otherwise the mere mention of Pilate as killer of Jesus would have proved too much easily the entire point of Paul: that Jesus was crucified therefore he was in the flesh, even only for few hours.

So, Paul preceded all the Gospels, even assuming the premises of Salm's logic above, pace Salm.

Paul was a precursor of the gospels (meaning: Paul implies Mark, just as Einstein implies Hiroshima) , because Paul was one of the early Christians who wanted to fix Jesus to the flesh.

Even if "in the flesh" meant still, for Paul, the lower heavens, outer space.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Salm: the epistles make the case for the acceptance of the gospels

Post by schillingklaus »

The eucharist does not prove anything about the carnality of the Christ, only the late corruption of the etiological myths of the eucharist can be abused for that purpose.

The epistles are late and incoherent patchwork, so they do not precede gospels in general.

The crucifixion myth derives from the works of Plato, where the soul of the cosmos is attached to some celestial, ideal cross by the demiurge.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Salm: the epistles make the case for the acceptance of the gospels

Post by Giuseppe »

To my knowledge, Jean Magne considered genuine the Paul's epistles. Nowhere he raises doubts about their authenticity in the way Detering does. Hence it is possible to merge both Doherty's view and Magne's view.

And I would add: it is possible to merge also Salm's view about the anti-Docetist focus on crucifixion in Paul.

In his books, Doherty has never denied the presence of anti-demiurgists in the first century CE: which makes alone his view entirely compatible with Magne's view on the anti-demiurgist origins of Christianity.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Stop the falsification of historical sources via "translations"

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:44 pm So Ben on the crucifixion as chaining to flesh, in Philo:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:06 am [*]Philo, in On the Posterity of Cain and His Exile 17.61, compares souls being attached to bodies to men being attached to crosses via crucifixion.
This is pure catholicism: isn't it?
Emphasis mine

Again, as almost always, the translation here is falsified and "Christified".
The full text including footnotes, for the relevant portion here, is

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.01.0168

Plat. Rep. 2.362a
[362a] the branding-iron in his eyes, and finally, after every extremity of suffering, he will be crucified,1 and so will learn his lesson that not to be but to seem just is what we ought to desire. And the saying of Aeschylus2 was, it seems, far more correctly applicable to the unjust man. For it is literally true, they will say, that the unjust man, as pursuing what clings closely to reality, to truth, and not regulating his life by opinion, desires not to seem but to be unjust,“ Exploiting the deep furrows of his wit

1 Or strictly “impaled.” Cf. Cicero De Rep. iii. 27. Writers on Plato and Christianity have often compared the fate of Plato's just man with the crucifixion.

2 Aesch. Seven 592-594

Here's the Greek, the relevant portion of it: it can be loaded on the right

[362α] ἐκκαυθήσεται τὠφθαλμώ, τελευτῶν πάντα κακὰ παθὼν ἀνασχινδυλευθήσεται καὶ γνώσεται ὅτι οὐκ εἶναι δίκαιον ἀλλὰ δοκεῖν δεῖ ἐθέλειν. τὸ δὲ τοῦ Αἰσχύλου πολὺ ἦν ἄρα ὀρθότερον λέγειν κατὰ τοῦ ἀδίκου. τῷ ὄντι γὰρ φήσουσι τὸν ἄδικον, ἅτε ἐπιτηδεύοντα πρᾶγμα ἀληθείας ἐχόμενον καὶ οὐ πρὸς δόξαν ζῶντα, οὐ δοκεῖν ἄδικον ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι ἐθέλειν, “βαθεῖαν ἄλοκα διὰ φρενὸς καρπούμενον,”

ἀνασχινδυλευθήσεται is the passive voice future indicative 3rd person singular of ἀνασχινδυλεύω, which can be broken down into ἀνα-σχιν-δυλεύω

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... nduleu%2Fw

You can click the second word there and it'll lead to

ἀνασκολοπ-ίζω :—Pass., with fut. Med. -σκολοπιοῦμαι (in pass. sense) Hdt.3.132, 4.43, but Pass.
A. [select] “-σκολοπισθήσομαι” Luc.Prom.7: aor. -εσκολοπίσθην ib.2,10: pf. “-εσκολόπισμαι” Id.Peregr.13:—fix on a pole or stake, impale, Hdt.1.128, 3.159, al.; in 9.78 it is used convertibly with ἀνασταυρόω, asin Ph.1.237,687, Luc.Peregr.11.

Yet the crux of the matter is in the core word σκινδύλιον which is

A.small piece of wood, shingle, SIG671 B17 (Delph., ii B.C.): cf. σχινδύλη

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ndu%2Flion

The verb simply means 'to stake' and it means just that.
Stop reading the falsified translations by Christian translators or editors, almost all of what has come down to us from Greek or Latin is Christified, whether that was intentional or not doesn't matter: but it all is heavily lopsided and biased, viewed through Western Christian eyes

I ask all of you to be critical, to pay attention to what you are quoting, because you are contributing to the falsification of history by carelessly quoting what others feed you.
I don't ask you to become fluent in ancient Greek, but use whatever tools the great Internet offers, first of which is a reliable dictionary

You can look up any Greek word via

https://outils.biblissima.fr/fr/eulexis ... k&dict=LSJ

and if you use the first box it'll give you what it can; start deleting from the right when you don't get the desired result, as conjugations and declensions in Greek start at the right, leaving the left of a word intact

You can find out the exact tense and person of a verb by using the second box 'Fléchir un lemme', or you can use Bill Mounce's if it involves an NT verse:

https://bible.xojocloud.net/

Use the Dictionary Entry Lookup from Perseus' TUFTS, according to the transcription rules there although it usually also takes a word without diacritics

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/se ... 99.04.0057

I urge all of you, please, stop spreading this disease, these lies, this deceit and falsification. You are actively helping to continue to obfuscate the facts, and as such are contributing to the Christian myth and Grand Lies which were started by the Church Fathers.
Take the texts and nothing but the texts, in their original form, and nothing else - or imply that you're just an ignorant idiot who is merely parroting what others say without having verified whether what they said was accurate


Just look at e.g. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8928 as an exemplary factual, quantifiable piece of research at the exact right level and with the exact right means.
Thousands of opinions have been given on the Testimonium Flavium, and an equal amount of books, papers and articles has been written: yet just a dozen posts unequivocally establishes its inauthenticity - done and dusted, let's move on to the next topic

Please. Stop the opinionating, the hearsay, the gossip. Get to the source and nothing but the source, and make it traceable, verifiable, transparent - at the click of a mouse. I strive for nothing less in my work and it greatly facilitates every discussion, argument and debate that could (and should!) arise from it
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Salm: the epistles make the case for the acceptance of the gospels

Post by Ken Olson »

Philo - On the Posterity of Cain and his Exile 17.61 - Loeb Classics - Philo v2 - F. H. Coleson & G. H. Whitaker p. 360 .png
Philo - On the Posterity of Cain and his Exile 17.61 - Loeb Classics - Philo v2 - F. H. Coleson & G. H. Whitaker p. 360 .png (281.86 KiB) Viewed 1460 times
Philo, On the Posterity of Cain And His Exile 17.61 (Loeb - Philo, v. 2, Coleson & Whitaker, eds.

Best,

Ken
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Philo: Exile of Cain

Post by mlinssen »

https://archive.org/download/PhiloSuppl ... Giants.pdf

The complete works of Philo are available as well, this is just one of the 12-volume edition. It is also known via Loeb 227

Now, what did Ben suggest, while advocating his case as usual?

[*]Philo, in On the Posterity of Cain and His Exile 17.61

Page 360 (Greek) and 361 (English) of the book, screenshots attached

Line 7, 6 and 5 from the bottom. I'll just quote what Samuel Gunnarson has to say on the matter in his fairly objective and factual work Crucifixion in Antiquity; I have footnotes left intact and inserted a line feed behind them

8.1.2. Suspensions by Nailing in Philo
When it comes to tracing Philo's use of άνασκολοπίζειν, an allegorical text comes in handy. The text occurs in the tract On the Posterity and Exile of Cain (De Postentate Cainî) and is a part of an ongoing allegori­cal discourse.
The [soul] that subjects itself to bodily couplings has as inhabitants the mentioned. Be­ing interpreted, Acheiman means "my brother," and Sesein "outside me," and Thalamein "one hanging." For [it is] a necessity, for the soul that loves the body, that the body should be acknowledged as a brother, and that the external good things should be honored especially. All [souls] in this state depend on lifeless [things], and like the sus­pended [άνασκολοπισθέντες ], [they are] nailed to [προσήλωνται] perishable materials until death. 3 7 6
Philo offers some additional information in this text. He combines άνασκολοπίζειν with προσηλοϋν and thereby gives an indication that he could connect άνασκολοπίζειν with nailing. Henge's and Kuhn's deci­sion to label the text as a crucifixion reference is nevertheless a too far-reaching conclusion. 3 7 7
What the text says is that the soul that loves the body is attached to it in the same way that a suspended person is nailed to some kind of suspension tool. 3 7 8
Philo's etymological comment on rf?n [ML: HEBREW] (Θαλαμειν) is also worth notice, nbn [ML: HEBREW] corresponds to κρεμαννύναι in Philo's eyes. Lastly, Philo indicates that he connects άνασκολοπίζειν and προσηλούν with an ante-mortem suspension - an execution. The people in the metaphor died after being nailed. Thus, Philo shows that the suspension he describes in his allegory has some resemblance to the punish­ment of crucifixion as defined in the present investigation. 3 7 9

3 7 6 Philo, Poster C. 61. ή μ έν οΰν σωμ ατικαις συζυγίαις υποβάλλουσα αυτήν οίκήτορας εχει τούς λεχθέντας * ερμ ηνεύεται δέ ό μ έν Άχειμ άν αδελφός μ ου, ό δέ Σεσείν έκτος μ ου, ό δέ Θαλαμ ειν κρεμ άμ ενος τις· ανάγκη γαρ ψυχαις ταις φιλοσωμ άτοις άδελφόν μ έν νομ ίζεσθαι τό σώμ α, τά δέ έκτος αγαθά διαφερόντως τετιμ ήσθαι· δσαι δέ τούτον διάκεινται τον τρόπον, άψυχων έκκρέμανται και καθάπερ οί άνασκολοπισθέντες άχρι θανάτου φθαρταις ύλαις προσήλωνται.

οί άνασκολοπισθέντες άχρι θανάτου φθαρταις ύλαις προσήλωνται

The impaled to-extreme to-death perishable wood nailed-to

That's it, good luck with that. They're both impaled and nailed, and it is likely that the latter is to be taken as a figurative expression of the former
Attachments
Philo_Crucifiction-English.jpg
Philo_Crucifiction-English.jpg (591.73 KiB) Viewed 1449 times
Philo_Crucifiction-Greek.jpg
Philo_Crucifiction-Greek.jpg (526.42 KiB) Viewed 1449 times
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Salm: the epistles make the case for the acceptance of the gospels

Post by mlinssen »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 7:12 am Philo - On the Posterity of Cain and his Exile 17.61 - Loeb Classics - Philo v2 - F. H. Coleson & G. H. Whitaker p. 360 .png

Philo, On the Posterity of Cain And His Exile 17.61 (Loeb - Philo, v. 2, Coleson & Whitaker, eds.

Best,

Ken
Thanks Ken, I was working on that as well, a you can see. What is the point that you wanted to make?
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Salm: the epistles make the case for the acceptance of the gospels

Post by Ken Olson »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:02 am Thanks Ken, I was working on that as well, a you can see. What is the point that you wanted to make?
I didn't know you were working on it. I thought we should have the Greek of Philo to look at.

Best,

Ken
Post Reply