Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ulan wrote:

Secret Alias wrote:I think it is most likely that the idea regarding Jesus only having a 'semblance' of flesh is rooted in these concepts - https://books.google.com/books?id=JNGvC ... ah&f=false

It's also the Pauline concept in 1Cor 15. I guess Jewish spirits had bodies, just of matter from the spiritual realm. Paul's Jesus is a spirit, but that doesn't preclude a spiritual body.

The bodiless spirit is rather a Greek concept.

See the various chapters in Zechariah

Zechariah 1

7 On the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month, the month of Shebat, in the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to the prophet Zechariah son of Berekiah, the son of Iddo.

8 During the night I had a vision, and there before me was a man mounted on a red horse. He was standing among the myrtle trees in a ravine. Behind him were red, brown and white horses.

9 I asked, “What are these, my lord?”

The angel who was talking with me answered, “I will show you what they are.”

10 Then the man standing among the myrtle trees explained, “They are the ones the Lord has sent to go throughout the earth.”

11 And they reported to the angel of the Lord who was standing among the myrtle trees, “We have gone throughout the earth and found the whole world at rest and in peace.”

Zech 2

1 Then I looked up, and there before me was a man with a measuring line in his hand. 2 I asked, “Where are you going?”

He answered me, “To measure Jerusalem, to find out how wide and how long it is.”

3 While the angel who was speaking to me was leaving, another angel came to meet him 4 and said to him: “Run, tell that young man, ‘Jerusalem will be a city without walls because of the great number of people and animals in it. 5 And I myself will be a wall of fire around it,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will be its glory within.’

6 “Come! Come! Flee from the land of the north,” declares 'the Lord',, “for I have scattered you to the 'four winds of heaven',” declares the Lord.

Zech 3

1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan[a] standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”

3 Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.”

[a] [in] Hebrew satan means adversary - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

etc,

Well, the source material might be helpful, rather than just philosophizing on the subject:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1305

As usual I have no idea what MrMacson's point is.

Paul's Jesus is a spirit, but that doesn't preclude a spiritual body.

Indeed chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians is a good illustration of that.

And as I was coming back from recess duty today at my son's school I wanted to clarify something I wrote in response to Giuseppe. The Marcionites weren't that different from the Catholics just as the Samaritans aren't that different from the Jews. The religious authorities of antiquity exaggerated the 'heresy' of their opponents. That's why (I suspect) so many scholars accept the minimalist position on differences between the Marcionite scriptures and our own. I tend to agree in general terms but I argue that scholarship has underestimated the significance of the 'cento effect' repeated throughout the discussions of the heresies. I think the scriptural references were largely the same but the context ('the right order' in Papias's terminology) is always the often unsaid issue.

Indeed we see the same thing take place when we re-assemble the Book of Exodus from Qumran. The 'centonized' state of differences between the existing books of Exodus among the Samaritans and Jews (i.e. where bits and pieces of Deuteronomy are added to Exodus) are heightened not diminished the further we go back in time. It is amazing that no one ever mentions these 'centonized' Book of Exodus. It's known to only a handful of specialists. But it proves that context is everything.

And why exactly did someone come along and 'disturb the force' in the original Book of Exodus? It is obvious when you look at the early rabbinic testimony about the two powers heresy. Exodus in its original state left no doubt that Israel had two gods not one - i.e. the one seen on the mountain and the other heard from heaven. The text has even been corrupted to the point that the Israelites 'see' thunder in the most corrupt text (= the Masoretic). R Ishmael and the Samaritans have the correct reading.

Already when studying the two powers tradition Segal notes that the arguments used by the rabbis against the Jewish two powers tradition bear an uncanny resemblance to those scriptural references used by Adversus Marcionem against the Marcionites. That Marcion was a Jewish heresy is hinted at but never quite resolved in Segal's books. But the real question (once this is settled) is why on earth would it be so controversial to say that Israel saw one god on Sinai and heard another god in heaven? The only answer I can come up with is that our traditional assumption about Israel 'always being' a monotheistic tradition is flawed.

You just have to read Allen Brent's work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Brent and see that all religions were being corrupted at this time in history (late second/early third century). The Jews were no exception nor the Christians. The Roman government saw any deviation from 'one all power ruler' of the universe as a threat to national security and so Marcionitism became in some instances a capitol crime. Although I must admit the evidence is lacking to say that it was an Imperial decree against Marcionitism. The example though of the Imperial government delving into and executing 'Jews' for deviating from monarchianism is found in Abu'l Fath's Greek source from the third century. Imperial persecutions against the enemies of monarchianism did happen.

And you'd think the Christians would really seize upon this 'two powers' thing right? I mean 'Father' and 'Son' right there in Exodus. Justin does to a small degree. But the existing texts of Justin have been water-down and corrupted. By whom? Who else but Irenaeus.

Tracts discussing Spirits often referred to visions, which seem to have been dreams.

The notion of angelology seems to be relevant here - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... angelology

But remember that in Hebrew חָזָה means to see with the eyes but at the same time it has a visionary quality. A 'seer' is related and in Arabic too the same word means 'inner vision.' Languages are tricky things. Look at Exodus 24:11 at the very moment God is finally seen by the nobility (= chrestoi) of Israel

But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw (וַֽיֶּחֱזוּ֙) God, and they ate and drank.

Of course Philo would say they did not really see God and so too any Jewish teacher from any age. It was a vision and so chazah has this meaning too. When Balaam has his visions the verb is exclusively used:

He took up his discourse and said, "The oracle of Balaam the son of Beor, And the oracle of the man whose eye is opened; 4The oracle of him who hears the words of God, Who sees (יֶֽחֱזֶ֔ה) the vision of the Almighty, Falling down, yet having his eyes uncovered,

In one other situation it means 'select' but again the sense is a special kind of seeing done with the eyes. Philo would agree.

"Stage 1: The 'savior' (Jesus/Jeshua) is the abstract gnosis. It has no material body. (This is 'Primary Gnosticism' and requires neither God nor a redeemer.) [Until c. 50 BCE] "

Could anyone offer any speculation/details as to what this primary stage might have looked like in practice and belief? And are there any proposed historical reasons as to why it was superceded by the following "saviour spirit possessing people" stage?

Many thanks

I can only speak for my own theory.

1. the earliest manuscripts had nomena sacra which are a concept which - it is universally acknowledged - go back to the appearance of Paleo-Hebrew name(s) of God which appear on certain Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures.
2. the earliest nomen sacrum for the founder of Christianity is IC according to some authorities (Hurtado says IH but concedes it too goes back to a Hebrew interest in the word for 'life' both of which have a numerological value of 18).
3. while the IC nomen sacrum eventually functions like a Greek name in surviving manuscripts (i.e. takes the genitive form IY) if it goes back to a Hebrew word (like PIPI for instance) that form wouldn't have changed in the earliest manuscripts - i.e. it would appear like a static IC throughout.
4. if the static form IC was original I propose (with Irenaeus) that the original form was NOT a first letter last letter 'code' for IesouS but a transcription in Greek of the Hebrew word for 'fire/man' or Ish (as appears on the earliest Christian monument the Throne of St Mark now in Venice but originally the first Patriarchal throne of Alexandria. The translation of Ish for IC is attested in the LXX.
5. the Marcionite Apelles identifies the 'fiery god' as one of the three gods of the Marcionite 'trinity.' The supposition would be that in some form, as in the understanding of Justin Martyr the second god IC wrestled with Jacob, met Joseph in the field, stood with Moses in the burning bush and on Sinai (wherever an angel Ish appears in existing manuscripts).
6. as the primordial 'fire/man' he corresponds to the equation of fire with Logos in Philo of Alexandria and other Jewish writers. It probably goes back to a Persian understanding of fire (ateesh) as the primary element of the universe and its logos or guiding principal (eshah). Already Deuteronomy describes the Torah as eshdat lamo a Persian terminology thus connecting earliest Hebrew mysticism with Persian concepts (which makes sense because the opening description of Eden uses the Persian terminology pardes to describe the heavenly abode and makes it confirm to the symmetry of a Persian garden (i.e. the four rivers)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_gardens

7. The final step in my theory would be that - as Irenaeus reports numerous times in his Adversus Haereses - the original understanding associated with the Gospel of Mark (a claim he vehemently denies) understands 'IC' and 'XC' to be separate hypostases. In other words, the original 'fire/man' of the Pentateuch had a heavenly 'twin' who was the 'image of God' mentioned in Genesis 1:26 (IC is the 'man' made after the image). XC is 'Christ' (or 'Chrestos' as the heretics preferred). The implications of this system are that the 'heavenly Man' was somehow imperfect (not quite living up to the 'image' (the traditional Christian reading of the LXX assumes that Man was made after the image but not the likeness). The story seems to have been that Adam didn't have a chance because IC was imperfect when he was fashioned. At the end of times the 'image of God' (i.e. the beginning of the gospel) XC united with IC and remained there up until the crucifixion. The crucified Man represented some sort of atonement for the 'primal sin' not of Adam but of a failure on the part of IC. I have not figured out the original Hebrew term behind XC.