Crucifixion in outer space among Valentinians: is Irenaeus ironic as modern mythicists?

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

Crucifixion in outer space among Valentinians: is Irenaeus ironic as modern mythicists?

Post by Giuseppe »

I have found this article in Spanish, from where I quote:

Los gnósticos se explayaban más en la escena de la pasión, en la que introducian la compleja doctrina de la crucifixión del Cristo superior, en la que la Cruz celeste es paradigma de la terrestre. Ireneo, por su parte, ridiculiza a los valentinianos por el hecho de que no se vean obligados a dar razón en el paradigma celeste de los detalles que acompaian a la escena del Calvario:

«Además se contradicen cuando afirman que la pasión del Sefior es figura de la expansión del Cristo superior, por la cual este se extiende hasta donde el Limite (ορος/σταυρος) formó a la Madre, y ellos mismos se refutan al no poder continuar la semejanza de la figura. ¿Dónde al Cristo de arriba se le dio vinagre por bebida? ¿Dónde se le atravesó de modo que saliera sangre y agua? dónde sudó gotas de sangre? Y podriamos continuar con todo aquello que los profetas anunciaron sobre él»29.



I translate partially only the first part:
The Gnostics ... introduced the complex doctrine of the crucifixion of the superior Christ, in which the heavenly Cross is the paradigm of the terrestrial one. Irenaeus, for his part, ridicules the Valentinians for the fact that they are not compelled to give reason in the heavenly paradigm for the details that accompany the scene of Calvary.

This Irenaeus who ridicules the Gnostics for their silence about any detail of the Passion story in the light of their outer space paradigm resembles the modern mythicists who "ridicule" Paul in virtue of the same reason.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Crucifixion in outer space among Valentinians: is Irenaeus ironic as modern mythicists?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe, have you read
  • Orbe, Antonio. Los primeros herejes ante la persecución. Analecta Gregoriana. Romae: Apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1956.
If not, I am sure you will love it. Orbe presents an in-depth argument that Valentinians believe in a heavenly crucifixion of the "higher Christ" for the salvation of the Aeons.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Crucifixion in outer space among Valentinians: is Irenaeus ironic as modern mythicists?

Post by Giuseppe »

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:27 am Giuseppe, have you read
  • Orbe, Antonio. Los primeros herejes ante la persecución. Analecta Gregoriana. Romae: Apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1956.
If not, I am sure you will love it.
I see. The problem is that the Spanish language is very hard for me to read. Possibly a digitalized version...

Neil, how is it going the digitalizazion of the Lublinski's book, in whiletime?

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:27 am Orbe presents an in-depth argument that Valentinians believe in a heavenly crucifixion of the "higher Christ" for the salvation of the Aeons.
I am only partially surprised. If you remember, I had started this long thread. It is evident that the notion is in the text, pace Secret Alias.

I would be interested about how much the idea couldn't be considered old.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Crucifixion in outer space among Valentinians: is Irenaeus ironic as modern mythicists?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 4:14 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:27 am Giuseppe, have you read
  • Orbe, Antonio. Los primeros herejes ante la persecución. Analecta Gregoriana. Romae: Apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1956.
If not, I am sure you will love it.
I see. The problem is that the Spanish language is very hard for me to read. Possibly a digitalized version...

Neil, how is it going the digitalizazion of the Lublinski's book, in whiletime?

I am sorry, Giuseppe. Since my return from overseas I have been slow to get back into processing Lublinski. I will get back onto it from this weekend.
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 4:14 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:27 am Orbe presents an in-depth argument that Valentinians believe in a heavenly crucifixion of the "higher Christ" for the salvation of the Aeons.
I am only partially surprised. If you remember, I had started this long thread. It is evident that the notion is in the text, pace Secret Alias.

I would be interested about how much the idea couldn't be considered old.
I will have to check out that earlier thread. Orbe does present what looks like a coherent case for the Valentinians having the notion of a heavenly crucifixion for the "Superior Christ" -- he relates it to their interpretation of "martyrdom" and the Valentinian justification for avoiding bloody martyrdom when possible, contrary to the Marcionites. The ecclesiastics (or "proto-Catholics") worked at reconciling the two positions.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Crucifixion in outer space among Valentinians: is Irenaeus ironic as modern mythicists?

Post by Giuseppe »

I don't know how much the celestial crucifixion could be meant as a radical form of docetism ("avoiding bloody martyrdom when possible"). It is not changing the place of the suffering that the suffering disappears.

As to digitalizazion, I have found a "new" mythicist author (really: of the past), one evidently who missed to my collection. More informations about him in future.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Crucifixion in outer space among Valentinians: is Irenaeus ironic as modern mythicists?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 8:55 pm

As to digitalizazion, I have found a "new" mythicist author (really: of the past), one evidently who missed to my collection. More informations about him in future.
Feel free to email. I have sent something re a digital file.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Crucifixion in outer space among Valentinians: is Irenaeus ironic as modern mythicists?

Post by schillingklaus »

Already Jean Magne referred in LOGIQUE DES DOGMES to Orbe's work EL PECADO DE LOS ARCHONTES.

Proper gnostics proved that YHWH and his henchmen acted maliciously in Genesis 3 due to his envy for Adam. Judaizers like Ireneus exonerated YHWH (identifying him with The Father) and illogically charged the serpent (then identified absurdly with Satan, Beliar, Baalzaphon, Lucifer, and what not) with envy. Tertullian blew a similar trumpet.

The same story is elaborated in the antignostic LIFE OF ADAM AND EVE.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Focusing on Terms

Post by billd89 »

schillingklaus wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 2:51 amProper gnostics proved that YHWH and his henchmen acted maliciously in Genesis 3 due to his envy for Adam. Judaizers like Ireneus exonerated YHWH (identifying him with The Father) and illogically charged the serpent (then identified absurdly with Satan, Beliar, Baalzaphon, Lucifer, and what not) with envy. Tertullian blew a similar trumpet.
"Proper gnostics proved that YHWH and his henchmen..."

Was Yahweh ever so named, explicitly? The god of the Jerusalem Temple specifically. If not, why assume that god "proven"?

Everyone is blinded even deranged by the false supposition of Monotheism. It was not; therefore, avoid that pitfall. On the contrary, Ialdabaoth is rather transparently the ancient Judeo-Egyptian Horon (or: a late expression of THAT god, as 'Artificer), a 'Second Power' who is not the true Father. (Whether YHWH is or is not considered the 'True Father' is a separate question.) Older Horon was conflated w/ Yahu c.600-400 BC, but that doesn't mean the ancient Semite god disappeared everywhere immediately. Or that a later separation was impossible in the future.

Horon (symbolized as a Sphinx) was both a curing god & destroying god: he was also represented by the Lion-faced Serpent in some quarters, betraying varied natures. Some Egyptian Semites (Judeo-Phoenician Canaanite descendents) would have recognized him as their problematic Creator, c.400 BC, and there was a merging in Genesis. Horon is not identical w/ YHWH, but more appropriately reappears -- under different names -- as the (sometimes) 'Bad Face' of a synthesized dual-natured, evolving 'Jewish' Deity (c.600-350 BC). Derivations of Judeo-Egyptian Horon of that period are much more complex than what I've just touched on here, however.

The Destroying Angel (i.e. a demoted god, formerly Horon) became rebel Satan when, exactly? I suppose after 150 BC, and I doubt everyone accepted that immediately, too.

Horon/Melqart/Herakles is identified w/ "Satan" by a few scholars; this isn't my idea.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: Italian vs. Spanish

Post by billd89 »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 4:14 amThe problem is that the Spanish language is very hard for me to read.
I thought you were native-speaking Italian? Color me surprised by this, because a) it's an old saw among Anglophones that 'its easy to understand Spanish, if you speak Italian' and b) I read French, and Spanish is fairly intelligible from that Romance language.

Los gnósticos se explayaban más en la escena de la pasión, en la que introducian la compleja doctrina de la crucifixión del Cristo superior, en la que la Cruz celeste es paradigma de la terrestre. Ireneo, por su parte, ridiculiza a los valentinianos por el hecho de que no se vean obligados a dar razón en el paradigma celeste de los detalles que acompaian a la escena del Calvario:

Without an e-translator, I can scan that w/ ~85% comprehension.

I'm well aware Italian and Spanish are different languages, but I know ppl who studied Italian at uni on the assumption they'd have an easy time understanding Spanish. (Maybe this is a dated & ridiculous American thing?) True or not, this idea persists. And the internet seems to agree.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Italian vs. Spanish

Post by Giuseppe »

billd89 wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:19 am
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 4:14 amThe problem is that the Spanish language is very hard for me to read.
I thought you were native-speaking Italian? Color me surprised by this, because a) it's an old saw among Anglophones that 'its easy to understand Spanish, if you speak Italian' and b) I read French, and Spanish is fairly intelligible from that Romance language.

Los gnósticos se explayaban más en la escena de la pasión, en la que introducian la compleja doctrina de la crucifixión del Cristo superior, en la que la Cruz celeste es paradigma de la terrestre. Ireneo, por su parte, ridiculiza a los valentinianos por el hecho de que no se vean obligados a dar razón en el paradigma celeste de los detalles que acompaian a la escena del Calvario:

Without an e-translator, I can scan that w/ ~85% comprehension.

I'm well aware Italian and Spanish are different languages, but I know ppl who studied Italian at uni on the assumption they'd have an easy time understanding Spanish. (Maybe this is a dated & ridiculous American thing?) True or not, this idea persists. And the internet seems to agree.
It depends from motivation.

I have learned to read French only because the best mythicist authors were French. Note that I have never dealt with the French language in the school. So the learning is due exclusively to motivation.

But since there are no Spanish mythicists of equal importance, then the motivation is absent.

There are also past German mythicists, but I have noted that 60% of their books deal always with theological problem of the kind: can mythicism be harmonized with the Christian faith? So the originality is not their strong.

Last but not least, Julius Caesar has done a good job in Gallia :D
Post Reply