Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

(1 Cor 11)


(Hippolytus in his Refutation of All Heresies, Book 5 Chapter 5)

Surely the great difference is that in Paul Jesus is giving the his own body, while in the Hymn Jesus is giving a distinct thing, gnosis.

In the Hymn Jesus is the giver. In Paul Jesus is the gift, also.

In the Hymn, the gnosis given by Jesus doesn't make the hearers as "Jesuses" also, but it makes them Gnostics. In Paul, the "Jesus" given by Jesus himself makes the hearers as new "Jesuses" in their own right.

(I note en passant that Jesus is called Nazarene in a very old tradition. Nazarene may mean Observer, Knower. This reflects more the "Gnostic" Jesus of the Naassene tradition).

In old Pagan accusations raised against the Christians, they were accused of doing orgiastic banquets: precisely their eucharists. Evidently, just in the moment when the Christians were united (i.e. during the Eucharist), their unity provoked fear in the eyes of the Pagans. As when the insects are seen united, they provoke fear (think about a beehive).

The association was so strict between the Christians and their Jesus, during their Eucharist, that to deny the existence of Jesus as a spirit possessing an entire group was equivalent to deny the historicity of Jesus himself.


(Recognitions 8:62)

So , taking literally the words of Jesus, "This is my body", "This is my blood", since who is talking is a spirit in a vision, the Christians during the eucharist became possessed by a spirit, also, as part of the same collective vision. They became possessed by a spirit just as, and because of, Jesus himself, the his body and blood, was a spirit-possessor.

Hence the eucharist is evidence of Jesus (of Paul) being without a real body and a real blood, than the contrary.

The fact that the Eucharist happened "on the night he was betrayed" means that the possession by the collective spirit was an effect of the crucifixion itself. The spirit became collective as effect of a collective vision (and related possession), but the sharing of the same spirit by an entire group was a mere effect of the parting of the same spiritual body in multiple spiritual fragments (precisely the gift that is going to be given), and that parting was precisely the crucifixion.

There is where Paul and the Naassene Hymn sound similar, afterall. The gnosis given by Jesus in the hymn appears in Paul in the form of Jesus himself, as fragment of a larger spiritual body, after the crucifixion and the dismembering of a such giant body.

The feature of the gift as dismembered part of a larger body, is found in nuce in the same idea of the gnosis given, by definition of gnosis, to blind people. In gnostic language, the gnosis that is given is part of a larger gnosis, precisely the entire light of the Pleroma. In the precise moment when this fragment of light is given and introduced by a revealer in this obscure demiurgical creation, as the intrinsic logic goes, that fragment is per se a fruit of a division and hence of a death, a crucifixion.


The symbol of tao speaks of a such division of the gnosis, also. The little circle is separated by the his more obvious matrix with the same color, by an abyss of different color. The idea of a laceration from an original unity is implicit.

The following is from James G.D. Dunne, The Theology of Paul the Apostle.

arnoldo wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 8:20 am much the best way to make sense of the allusiveness of Paul’s use of Jesus tradition is that substantial amounts of this tradition were already part of the earliest churchs’ store of foundation traditions.

I am not saying this. I am saying that the collective spiritual possession, of any Christian participant in the sacred paste, by the spirit of Jesus during the Eucharist could be made possible only by assuming a spiritual laceration (read: a celestial crucifixion) of the original spiritual unity of the Jesus's body. Just as the giving of the gnosis in an otherwise blind world assumed necessarily the division (read: not a historical event) of that gnostic fragment of light from the original unity of the Pleroma.

It was rarely necessary to cite is as tradition stemming from Jesus himself since it was already known as such in the common discourse and worship of churches.

Funny. So, as the strange Dunn's logic goes, it was necessary for Paul to reiterate again and again the monotheistic faith in the creator, while he and the his readers had only to be satisfied by a mere "allusiveness" to shared traits of the Jesus tradition just with who, as the Naassenes, hated the creator and adored the Serpent of Genesis. Impossible. Simply impossible.

to Giuseppe,

Funny. So, as the strange Dunn's logic goes, it was necessary for Paul to reiterate again and again the monotheistic faith in the creator, while he and the his readers had only to be satisfied by a mere "allusiveness" to shared traits of the Jesus tradition just with who, as the Naassenes, hated the creator and adored the Serpent of Genesis. Impossible. Simply impossible.

First, I do not think Paul reiterated again and again the monotheistic faith in the creator.
Paul mentioned God as the creator only once (in 1 Corinthians). Sure he mentioned the God of the OT often, but that has to be expected from a Jew (as also was Jesus according to Paul), more so that God was presented then as also the one of Christians and Jesus.
The Naassenes were Gnostic Christians with their own beliefs. But they came about two generations after Paul's times and there is no evidence these Gnostic beliefs existed among some Christians when Paul was preaching.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:59 am there is no evidence these Gnostic beliefs existed among some Christians when Paul was preaching.

Philo talks about antinomianist Cainites. They were Gnostics even if they were not still Christians.

And the Naassene Hymn could be dated with equal probability even before Paul.