Stephan Hoebeeck on the philosophical origins of Christianity

[Giuseppe]

Reviewing Nanine Charbonnel, Neil has quoted the Christian theologian Jean-Luc Marion about the identity of Jesus and Logos insofar both are 'delivered':

[Among the delivered up gifts] of the Logos . . . it is necessary to place the Scriptures — logia delivered as really as the Logos has actually “delivered himself” (Galatians 2:20). Would the last … gift, which renders immediate mediation possible, and is therefore inscribed within the hierarchy as in its unique place, be revelation, recorded in the words of scripture, after having been designated in the flesh of the Word? . . .

In delivering itself, the Logos delivers the logia. We translate by “Scriptures,” but it would be better to understand them as “dicts” that include before all else the deeds and the gestures, the res gestae of the Logos

This equation Jesus = Logos explains definitely why Jesus has been euhemerized as a speaker of logia, and the same equation has interesting implications about why Jesus had to be "delivered up" to gentiles: it is YHWH who is going to give new scriptures (== logia == Jesus) to gentiles.

This removes also the risk, raised by Jean Magne, that the YHWH who "delivers" Jesus to death can be a judaization of the evil demiurge who kills Jesus in a previous anti-demiurgical myth.


I am quoting Neil and Charbonnel about this point precisely in this thread, because Hooebeeck seems to be very similar to Charbonnel when Neil writes:

Given Christianity’s emergence from Judaism, NC asks the invention of Christianity itself consists in just this double meaning of the word “deliver”.

(my bold)

Compare that Charbonnel's suggestion about the identity Jesus==Logos at the same Origin of Christianity with the following words of Hoebeeck:

Encore une fois, Jésus est un symbole philosophique; en effet, pour Philon le Logos représente l'activité bienfaisante de Dieu, et il montre que pour réaliser cette activité, il peut prendre d'innombrables formes. Les chrétiens limiteront les innombrables formes que peut prendre le logos a une seule forme, celle de Jésus: le christianisme est né.

https://essenochristianisme.blogspot.co ... -t-il.html

This raises the possibility that the early Apologists before Justin, or Christian adorers of the Logos, Quadratus, Aristides, Diognetus, were less ignorant than they appear: could they, so focused on identity Jesus== Logos, ignore the so striking implications above of said equation? Hardly so.

[Giuseppe]

L'invention du christianisme ne consiste-elle pas dans ce double sens accordé à la livraison ?

(Nanine Charbonnel)

This point has interesting implications also about the role of Pilate in the early Gospels.

Pilate is the person who delivers Jesus to death, hence Pilate is the necessary agent who realizes the prophecy about Jesus being delivered to gentiles.

Now, historically, Pilate was the same guy who in a precise circonstance, during his trial in Rome to defend himself from the accusation of having shown too much cruelty against the Samaritan false prophet, had spoken very probably the Latin term Christus to explain who the Samaritan false prophet claimed to be.

Hence, Pilate is part and parcel of this process of transmission/delivery of the Logos Christ to the gentiles, having been Pilate the first to talk about a Christus in Rome.

By the mouth of Pilate, it was the Logos who was going to be given. Which makes virtually Pilate the first apostle of Christ in Rome.

[billd89]

Compare that Charbonnel's suggestion about the identity Jesus==Logos at the same Origin of Christianity with the following words of Hoebeeck:

Encore une fois, Jésus est un symbole philosophique; en effet, pour Philon le Logos représente l'activité bienfaisante de Dieu, et il montre que pour réaliser cette activité, il peut prendre d'innombrables formes. Les chrétiens limiteront les innombrables formes que peut prendre le logos a une seule forme, celle de Jésus: le christianisme est né.

https://essenochristianisme.blogspot.co ... -t-il.html

If I understand this correctly, a stage is missing.

'Jesus Christianity' is created when the Myth of the Jesus Personnage (c.40-85 AD) is attached to, covers and/or substitutes for a somewhat earlier Christos Mythos (25 BC? - 75 AD). The Christos Mythos was hijacked!

I believe that Philo knew of the Christos Mythos, which had begun penetrating the Judeo-Egyptian 'Sons of God' cult late in his lifetime: the Anatole Scandal provides a hint. I still have no clear idea when & where the Christos Myth originates; I know the basic Osiris theory, too.

[Giuseppe]

If I understand this correctly, a stage is missing.

'Jesus Christianity' is created when the Myth of the Jesus Personnage (c.40-85 AD) is attached to, covers and/or substitutes for a somewhat earlier Christos Mythos (25 BC? - 75 AD). The Christos Mythos was hijacked!

I believe that Philo knew of the Christos Mythos, which had begun penetrating the Egyptian 'Sons of God' cult late in his lifetime. I still have no clear idea when & where the Christos Myth originates; I know the basic Osiris theory, too.

Are you trolling? From what I have read until now from Hoebeek's blog (the book should arrive next days) he argues, in short:

that some Judaizers, around the 120 CE, had euhemerized the Philonic Logos as "Jesus" and "Christ". In this invention, they used as material also memories of a historical Jesus crucified by Pilate (a marginal detail that is not interesting for the mythicist thesis) without no relation with said Judaizers.

The idea, shared possibly also by Charbonnel, is the following:

• after the Kitos War, the goal of Judaizers is to judaize Gentiles by resolving their not easy approach to Jewish observances etc

• they needed, for gentile proselites, new scriptures to replace the Pentateuch (and with it, the disturbing Jewish observances etc)

• the idea of new scriptures is the same idea of a Logos who has to be transmitted to gentiles, by various logia.

• hence: they personified the Philonic Logos as a man: 'Jesus Christ'.

• During the invention, they used to carnalize their Jesus, the historical memories of a lost Jesus slain by Pilate.

Is it more clear now ?

When I will read the Hoebeek's book, I will see if I can confirm this pattern.

[billd89]

On a point Philo was THE innovator.

He said that the Temple is the image of the Logos.
Only that claim is necessary to personify the Logos, if the goal is to re-built the worship of the Temple.

Can you cite where Philo says that? Go to primary sources.

I've looked at Yonge's and Colson's translations, THEN the Greek. Guess which is most accurate? THIS is what Philo wrote (it is explicitly NOT 'ikonic' - it is more like nested boxes? I'm grappling w/ the metaphysical meaning here):

2) De Somniis, 1.215:

δύο γάρ, ὡς ἔοικεν, θεοῦ, ἓν μὲν ὅδε κόσμος, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἀρχιερεὺς πρωτόγονος αὐτοῦ θεῖος λόγος, ἕτερον δὲ λογικὴ ψυχή, ἧς ἱερεὺς πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἄνθρωπος, οὗ μίμημα αἰσθητὸν τὰς πατρίους εὐχὰς ·καὶ θυσίας ἐπιτελῶν ἐστιν, ᾧ τὸν εἰρημένον ἐπιτέτραπται χιτῶνα ἐνδύεσθαι, τοῦ παντὸς ἀντίμιμον ὄντα οὐρανοῦ, ἵνα συνιερουργῇ καὶ κόσμος ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ τῷ παντὶ ἄνθρωπος.

See Yonge's 19th C trans. of 'On Dreams' and then my own adaptation/trans.:
"Apparently there are two temples of God: one is this Cosmos, where His Own First-born Son, Divine Logos, serves as the High Priest. The other is the Rational Soul, the whose Priest is Actualized Man {ἀλήθειαν ανθρωπος: Truth-seeking, insightful man}. The perceptible copy {of the Archetype or Second Son; i.e. human Actualized Man} is not a mimic performing paternal prayers and sacrificial acts, but one allowed to put on the aforesaid tunic/mantle (exact replica of the entire Heaven), so both Cosmos with man and man with the Whole may synergistically realize a pious discernment and supra-rational accord (accomplishing sacrifices)."

If Cosmos and Psyche are equivalent domains (i.e. Adam Kadmon is 'Second Son'), then Philo's four-stage schema would draw like this:
--- God --- ____________________________ --- World-Soul ---
1. Cosmos. ____________________________1. Psyche (Rational Soul).
2. Logos. _____________________________ 2. Aletheian Anthropos (Noetic Form = Archetype; imperceptible Copy).
3. High Priest. ________________________ 3. Therapeut (Actualized Man = Teacher).
4. (Pious Religious Devotee.) ____________ 4. (Pious Theosophical Student.)

However, if Logos and Psyche are the equivalents (i.e. the faculty of Divine Mind), then Philo's four-stage schema should draw like this:
--- God --- ____________________________ --- Wisdom---
1. Cosmos. ____________________________ 1. (World-Soul)
2. Logos. _____________________________ 2. Psyche (Rational Soul).
3. High Priest. _________________________ 3a. Aletheian Anthropos (Noetic Form = Archetype; imperceptible Copy).
______________________________________ 3b. Therapeut ( = a Divinized Teacher has become 'Aletheian Anthropos').
4. (Pious Religious Devotee.) _____________ 4. (Pious Theosophical Student.)

I think what Philo means by De Somniis, 1.215 is simpler: Aletheian Anthropos is indwelling the Rational Soul, just as Logos is indwelling the Cosmos. Although these are on different levels & may lack precise symetry, the 'A.A.' (i.e. a divinized man) is able to connect to the higher plane by transcendent Similarity and through his symbolic mantle of Cosmic sympathy. Contemplating the Cosmos is the transcendent paradigm, by synthemata or symbol, here. (Comparing his other works, Philo is inconsistent interpretating the Logos-Anthropos, as scholars have noted. Perhaps contradictions are explained by different systems, or Philo's own propagandistic revisionism?)

The mundane mimic (i.e. 'religious hypocrite' or unspiritual devotee) merely performs hollow rituals, whereas (the Copy of) Aletheian Man - a holy man, call him a Therapeut? - accomplishes sacrifices through Cosmic Sympathy. Yonge and Colson's simplistic translation (συνιερουργῇ = "join") might imply a correspondent shift - that the Man-Subject removes to a different Place-Object (Cosmos as topos). From the metaphysical terminology, transposition/translation is likely but NOT yet evident. The key term is synierourgē which has multiple mystical meanings, yet the translators' simple verb "join" doesnt adequately convey the truth of what's happening here.

συνίημι = to discern one another, to bring together, to bring to mutual understanding, to act in pious accord. Synesis is a complex mental faculty: a judgmental harmony. συνιερουργῇ = synergistically consecrating a supra-rational accord. (Also check Syneidēsis: Cosmic Consciousness.)

Melchizedek was 'the Savior' for the Jewish mercenaries in Egypt, c.200 BC. A domineering Mosaic fraternity -relative newcomers- would have none of that, so translated the ancient Phoenician Sun-God/Warrior King into smthg abstract, hellenized, neutral: 'Logos' (Melch. >> ==Logos).

Philo didnt make this up - he explored the theme, 100-200 years later. But then a Christos Myth appeared (Logos >> ==Christos). From where? When exactly?

THEN Jesus appeared, later. Epistle to Hebrews would have us looking around 50 AD, for that replacement (Christos >> ==Jesus).

Philo refers to some fuss (in my link), it suggests messianic Judaism was encroaching upon the 'Sons of God' cult (which many scholars have argued: Philo was once a Member) and this was about 25 AD. Just sayin'! The window is narrow, one generation...

[Giuseppe]

Can you cite where Philo says that? Go to primary sources.

I am expecting the book for more info in such sense. In whiletime...

But a Christos Myth appeared. From where? When exactly?

THEN Jesus came later. Epistle to Hebrews would have us looking around 50 AD, for that replacement.

I repeat: if you search for a paradigm of the kind:

• before a cult of a deity Jesus (=read: epistles) before the 70 CE

• then, after the 70, a story (= first gospel) about Jesus under Pilate

...then go to read Carrier, Doherty, Couchoud, Dujardin. They have said anything could be said in such sense.

What I am interested to is an invention of the Gospel Jesus without having before a deity Jesus, i.e. with epistles (=Paul) being invented after the first gospel and not before.

Is now it more clear because I see you as a troll, here?

[Giuseppe]

• Now, returning to the topic of the thread, I find simply amazing the fact that the idea of Logos contains in nuce the idea of a preaching that has to be transmitted to others by logia.
  Who wanted to personify the Logos had only to invent a preacher. It is 100% expected.

• I remember that Richard Carrier said somewhere that "Mark" (author) invented a Jesus apocalyptic prophet because the early Christians were apocalyptic prophets.

How much is Carrier unaware of the implications of the Logos idea!!!

[billd89]

To reach the goal ("accomplishing sacrifices" = to receive wisdom), you must synergistically realize a pious discernment and supra-rational accord.

Little man: in your impiety and with your small thinking ('grasping' sounds more accurate), how will you possibly learn the Truth?

[Giuseppe]

The same title of Christ for Jesus comes from the titles of the Logos.

• The Logos is a celestial high priest.

• Any high priest is an anointed (=Christ) of his own right (en passant, in Zechariah, a Joshua is high priest also, and as such an anointed).

• Therefore the Logos is anointed (=Christ) too.

Hence the title of Christ for Jesus didn't derive originally from the meaning of King-Conqueror (i.e. from the davidic title of king).

This is why in Mark Jesus denies to be the davidic Christ.

This is also why, differently from the traditional expected davidic King-Messiah, the Christ Jesus can be defeated.

[neilgodfrey]

Stephen Hoebeeck has made a summary of the ideas in his book available at https://www.academia.edu/13029752/An_al ... ristianity