Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 11:07 amstupid it has more to do with Blavatsky than antiquity.

Rich people were gnostics.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 11:28 am. He was the Constantine of the Christianity. As Justin was the Theodosius of the Christianity. Like the difference.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 11:51 am. Look at the story of Marcion coming to Rome and giving the church a large donation. Doesn't that speak at once of the closeness between the two?

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 11:07 am Your abuse of terminology is so bloody annoying.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 11:07 am When Clement [of Alexandria] uses the word 'gnostic' he does so as a Platonist. He knows that Moses was a 'gnostic.' He knows that prophets can be 'gnostic.' Jesus was 'gnostic.' But he doesn't mean the term to denote a separate 'church' or a movement or a tradition where these gnostics weren't also part of a broader 'church' ...

Clement clearly states that for most of the people faith was all they could hope for ...

robert j wrote: ↑Sun May 18, 2014 9:25 am The New Testament letter 2 Peter includes a very odd version of the transfiguration indeed, resembling a Mystery-Religion ritual.

I see 2 Peter as a recruitment letter in 3 parts --- carrot-stick-carrot -- corresponding to the 3 chapters. You guys are welcome (chapters 1 and 3), but these guys are not (chapter 2). The letter is addressed, "To those who have attained a faith of equal privilege with ours through the righteousness of our God and of our savior Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 1:1). The author of 2 Peter made a distinction. He reveals that he is addressing Christian communities of a different stripe (our faith vs. your faith), but the author none-the-less conceded that these communities had attained, "a faith of equal privilege".

Most investigators agree that when 2 Peter was written, versions of the four New Testament Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were already collecting dust on the proto-orthodox bookshelf. Paul's letters had been accepted as "scripture" (2 Peter 3:15-16), and Peter and Paul had been reconciled in Acts.

But the target audience of 2 Peter apparently had little interest in a human Galilean sage and fishing buddy of Peter --- this figure is nowhere in sight. The opening sections of the letter reveal the nature and interests of the target audience. Note how the author generously sprinkled the opening passages of the letter with terms associated with spiritual knowledge and Mystery-Religions. Forms of the Greek gnosis , in reference to spiritual knowledge, appear five times in verses 1:2 through 1:8, along with an enticement that, "…. you may become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

The transfiguration scene in 2 Peter (1:16-19) bears little resemblance to the versions found in the synoptic New Testament Gospels. The 2 Peter author cast the event in terms of a Mystery-Religion ritual, an experiential-sharing with the divine. The scene is cleverly introduced with the Greek term epoptai, typically translated in bibles as "eyewitness". But in an historical context, the word was used primarily as a technical term in the non-Christian Eleusinian Mysteries, widespread in the eastern Mediterranean at the time. The term was used to designate advanced initiates who had attained esoteric knowledge and had personally experienced the divine light. This is the only instance in the Christian bible where this word is used.

Totally missing in 2 Peter is the walking, talking, glowing man-Jesus found in all three synoptic Gospel versions of the transfiguration. In 2 Peter, a diaphanous Jesus is not an actor in the play, but merely a concept. Peter and his unnamed companions hear a "…. voice brought from heaven, being with Him on the holy mount." (2 Peter 1:18) This language is descriptive of a Mystery-Religion ritual where initiates seek to be "with" their god and to "hear" a divine message as they enter into the divine light. But this “voice” from heaven does nothing more than quote passages from the Jewish scriptures (2 Peter 1:17).

And what does the author follow with directly to those who may not be adequately impressed with his magical Mystery-experience on the mountain? He said, "And we have the sure prophetic word, to which you do well to take heed as to a lamp bringing light in a dark place …." (2 Peter 1:19). The 2 Peter author falls back to the ultimate proof and knowledge of the mysteries of Jesus …… the scriptures.

The author continues his drama, extending the magical Mystery tour with a scene reminiscent of a night-long, mountaintop ritual continuing "…. until that day should dawn and the bringer of light should arise in your own hearts." (2 Peter 1:19). This poetic passage, dripping with flavor of the Mysteries, is an enticement of personal enlightenment. The audience is told they have the rock-solid scriptures that can for now, if heeded, provide a light in the darkness, until that day of their own enlightenment when they too can share in the divine nature ---- when they too become epoptai.

The Greek phosphoros (2 Peter 1:19), meaning light-bringer, was the Greek name for their god of the morning star. His mother was Eos, the dawn, and he was often depicted as a child flying before her carrying a torch. This is another 2 Peter term found nowhere else in the New Testament.

For a glaring contrast, compare this Peter and his cosmic, light-bearing Christ to the Peter we find in Acts giving a speech about a very different Jesus (Acts 2:22-24).

The primary message in 2 Peter, I believe, is an acknowledgment of the critical point of commonality between the author and his target communities --- the scriptures. And we see another incursion in the never-ending battle for the authority to interpret those scriptures (2 Peter 1:20-21). The real prize. Still is.

robert j.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 11:42 am But this is the part you're not getting. When Irenaeus says X or Y or Z about various 'heresies' what is really is saying is - 'hey there is this bishop over there (or bishops over there) that hold to these sorts of crazy, wrong beliefs.' There is no reference to the masses, to the rabble, to the idiots. Both communities had mass amounts of morons. The reason why the heresies had to be defeated was because they were corrupting the rabble. The great Church wanted to 'save' the rabble from the sectarians. But as Tertullian says somewhere, you could walk into a Marcionite or 'heretical' church and pretty much assume that you were in an 'orthodox' church. There wasn't any difference between them outside of 'renegade' priests or bishops who weren't kowtowing the new line, the new books, the new creed promulgated in Rome in the late second century. Otherwise it was all the same.

The point is that - at least initially - there wasn't a group of believers who were 'Marcionites' and another group who were 'orthodox.' Every church official thought that his beliefs were the right beliefs. It was only gradually that what was and wasn't orthodox was decided and various names came to identify the losers or the vanquished. But initially at least all the churches thought they were the true Church the orthodox faith. Initially at least, the individual churches saw themselves as associated with a particular saint. But were they part of a 'catholic' Church? Yes even the Marcionites would have likely called themselves 'catholic' 'great' and 'worldwide.'

This idea you have of an ancient world which 'knew' all the distinctions as promulgated by Irenaeus as 'true distinctions' (i.e. ones that went beyond the pages of Irenaeus) or true beliefs and names that they themselves adhered to in the way Irenaeus tells us is just a lot of rot. Irenaeus is describing something to us. But the thing itself is distinct from the description.

robert j wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 12:11 pm Here's an OP I wrote about the odd nature of 2 Peter ---

And what does the author follow with directly to those who may not be adequately impressed with his magical Mystery-experience on the mountain? He said, "And we have the sure prophetic word, to which you do well to take heed as to a lamp bringing light in a dark place …." (2 Peter 1:19). The 2 Peter author falls back to the ultimate proof and knowledge of the mysteries of Jesus …… the scriptures.

The author continues his drama, extending the magical Mystery tour with a scene reminiscent of a night-long, mountaintop ritual continuing "…. until that day should dawn and the bringer of light should arise in your own hearts." (2 Peter 1:19). This poetic passage, dripping with flavor of the Mysteries, is an enticement of personal enlightenment. The audience is told they have the rock-solid scriptures that can for now, if heeded, provide a light in the darkness, until that day of their own enlightenment when they too can share in the divine nature ---- when they too become epoptai.

The Greek phosphoros (2 Peter 1:19), meaning light-bringer, was the Greek name for their god of the morning star. His mother was Eos, the dawn, and he was often depicted as a child flying before her carrying a torch. This is another 2 Peter term found nowhere else in the New Testament.

Now most of the Greeks assigned to Dionysos, Apollon, Hekate (Hecate), the Mousai (Muses),
and above all to Demeter, everything of an orgiastic or Bacchic or choral nature, as well as the mystic element in initiations; and they give the name Iakkhos (Iacchus) not only to Dionysus but also to the leader-in-chief of the mysteries, who is the Daimon of Demeter. And branch-bearing, choral dancing, and initiations are common elements in the worship of these gods.

Come, arise, from sleep awaking, come the fiery torches shaking,
O Iacchus! O Iacchus!
Morning Star that shinest nightly.