Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-25-2013, 11:25 AM

Quote:

To me Hebrews and 1 Clement look very similar.

But it is easy to demonstrate that 1 Clement has been adulterated with much orthodox-leaning material added. As such this would weaken the argument for 'letting Hebrews be Hebrews.' I suspect it has been corrupted.

Quote:

Both quote Scripture extensively.

But that's undoubtedly part of the corruption.

Quote:

They even betray the same laziness at times about looking up the source of quotations: “But someone has testified somewhere … “ (Heb. 2:6); “For he has spoken somewhere about …” (Heb 4:4). Compare with 1 Clement’s “For it says somewhere…” (in chapters 15, 21, 26, 28), and “For the Scripture somewhere says…” (42).

That's very important. But is that falsifier or the original author? Irenaeus often demonstrates a similar sloppiness or inexactness.

Quote:

Neither writing gives its author’s name.

But Irenaeus does identify 1 Clement as having 'Clement' for an author. He cites Luke as the real author of the Marcionite gospel. Why the rejection of Hebrews?

Another point that is worth looking at. If Clement was writing against a gnostic faction in Corinth it is odd that he does not cite passages in Paul's correspondence with the Corinthians which have been interpreted by scholars as being directed against supposed gnostic tendencies. This would seem to indicate to me at least that the current theological interest of the latter - i.e. the most overt - were later additions to the text. There was something else at the heart of 1 Clement just as we may suppose - if parallels do hold up between the texts - with respect to Hebrews. Hebrews is a specific orthodox redaction where its anti-gnostic tendencies may have only developed because of the second century orthodox redaction.

stephan huller · 01-25-2013, 11:29 AM

Irenaeus's testimony about Clement:

Quote:

Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things.

The point again is that the emboldened text is what Irenaeus says 1 Clement 'was about.' But again why weren't the expected portions of 1 Corinthians used? My assumption is that Irenaeus manipulated the text to arrive at the desired 'orientation' cited above. But the question remains unanswered - why not use the expected portions of 1 Corinthians? Why not adulterate and accept Hebrews? What contemporary circumstance, what contemporary article(s) of faith was/were putting limits on Irenaeus's creativity or rewriting of history?

The same situation shows up with respect to Ignatius. This offers a third puzzle. Irenaeus cites the material from to the Romans but does not name the author. Another author (Hippolytus?) subsequent to Irenaeus 'fixed' the Ignatian corpus (= the long Greek text). So the question again remains - what was limiting Irenaeus? Was it that his understanding of orthodoxy was still 'heretical' by later standards? Yes almost certainly. But what else? It's like the superhero stories. What couldn't he do? What was his kryptonite? What was the historical reality in contemporary Christianity he couldn't overcome, he couldn't wipe away.

EarlDoherty · 01-25-2013, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RParvus

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Perhaps the question is - does the Hebrews preserve something which is proto-Pauline (i.e. before the Catholic corruption of the Apostolikon) or something which was pushed to the side by Irenaeus (the likely corruptor of the Apostolikon) and revived by his student Hippolytus? Why is there so much uncertainty about the author? My opinion is that both identifications of 'Clement' and 'Luke' point to the same underlying assumption - i.e. Roman meddling. The further question is - why didn't Irenaeus corrupt Hebrews?

Stephan,

To me Hebrews and 1 Clement look very similar. Both quote Scripture extensively. The Greek of both is recognized as quite good. They share a number of ideas and expressions. They even betray the same laziness at times about looking up the source of quotations: “But someone has testified somewhere … “ (Heb. 2:6); “For he has spoken somewhere about …” (Heb 4:4). Compare with 1 Clement’s “For it says somewhere…” (in chapters 15, 21, 26, 28), and “For the Scripture somewhere says…” (42).

Neither writing gives its author’s name. And both are apparently trying to pass themselves off as being letters to particular communities of the sub-apostolic period but, in reality, are theological treatises whose intended readership is Christians of their author’s own day (130 – 140 CE).

I agree with Joseph Turmel that 1 Clement was written by a proto-orthodox Christian around 140 CE to undercut Marcionism. Its meandering is only apparent. It tackles one after another the doctrines that Marcion denied but, in order to do so without even acknowledging him, it has to meander from one doctrine to another. To spell out the unifying principle—opposition to Marcionism—would have ruined the fictitious picture its author was drawing of a first-century proto-orthodox church in Corinth.

I see Hebrews as coming from the same proto-orthodox circle but a bit earlier—perhaps (as per Couchoud) around 130 CE. The target of Hebrews was Simonianism. The epistle aimed to provide a proto-orthodox substitute for Simon of Samaria’s doctrine. To that end it emphasizes the Son’s possession of a real human body and also his very real suffering in that body. In view was Simon’s claim that the Son only appeared to be human and only apparently suffered. And Hebrews emphasizes that the visible world is good, its maker being the Father of Jesus. And that the Law, though merely a shadow of the future covenant, was still basically good and put in place by God. And that what the Son of God came to free mankind from was its sins. Jesus as divine high priest came to make propitiation for them.

So what we have in Hebrews is an early proto-orthodox substitute for Simon’s blasphemous system that had the Son of God coming to free mankind from the bondage of the flesh and the sin-inciting Law, both of which were imposed by the inferior angels who made the world. The author of Hebrews was apparently so happy with the method he employed that he later tried the same thing on Marcionism (1 Clement). But ultimately the proto-orthodox came up with an even better idea: Sanitize a collection of Simon’s letters! The result, of course, did not read as smoothly as the compositions they had made from scratch. But despite the many rough spots caused by their intervention, their doctored letters proved to be remarkably effective. Even Marcion’s crying “Foul!” and his attempt to restore them proved fruitless in the end.

Hello Roger,

I would say that your commonalities between Hebrews and 1 Clement are too general and slight to show anything, let alone that they are both the product of the same writer. And Hebrews is anything but "rambling" as is 1 Clement. The former is tightly organized, the latter is all over the place. Again, I make the point that a deliberately agenda-driven forgery would not show such a style, with the agenda virtually undetectable. I cannot see any clear-cut examples of a focused countering to Marcionism.

And Turmel's contention that "It tackles one after another the doctrines that Marcion denied but, in order to do so without even acknowledging him, it has to meander from one doctrine to another. To spell out the unifying principle—opposition to Marcionism—would have ruined the fictitious picture its author was drawing of a first-century proto-orthodox church in Corinth," contains within itself an example of choosing to see in a document something that is really not there. How can we securely identify an anti-Marcionite agenda given that the author allegedly 'deliberately' prevents such a thing from being evident? Isn't that a fallacy, indicating that Turmel and others are imposing on 1 Clement something they choose to see there, rather than something which is in any way evident without that prior imposition? (If an agenda has to be read into a document with this kind of reasoning, usually by means of modern sophistics, then the forger has defeated his purpose.)

I also have to dispute your idea that Hebrews was written to emphasize Jesus coming to earth in a real human body. That is precisely the thing that is missing in the entire work. Not a single word of Jesus on earth. Not a single example of how he behaved in a human body or performed any human activities. Not a single comparison of a word in scripture attributed to him being related to a fulfillment in history on earth. His 'tempting' was entirely in terms of his salvific activities, which this epistle more than any other places in a heavenly setting. Even the references to his suffering are never offered in terms of an earthly location or emphasized to make a point about that suffering being in human flesh as opposed to a docetic interpretation.

You are probably relying almost exclusively on 2:14f which, if you read the Greek carefully, says that the Son took on blood and flesh only in a "resemblance" manner (paraplesios). And the point of that "likeness" motif is to further the writer's contention that humans are to be regarded as "brothers" of Jesus and share in aspects which make it possible for Jesus to save them (the "paradigmatic parallel" principle). (Nothing 'anti-Simonian' here.) 5:7 has him "in the days of his flesh" (not a more natural phrase like, "while he lived on earth") doing things taken from scripture, as is 10:5. The very description of the Son in 1:2-3 doesn't even refer to an incarnation, let alone that incarnation's identity, and in comparing him as superior to the angels, not a single reference is made to anything he did on earth or even to the fact that, unlike the angels, he actually was given a human body to do his work.

There simply is no "emphasis of the Son's real human flesh," and if its purpose was to counter Simonian claims that he came to free us from human flesh, as you say, and not in the habits of a human body, then we would indeed see an emphasis of the Son's real human flesh beyond the one or two verses commonly appealed to.

Far from the purpose you suggest, I see Hebrews as entirely written to urge the community to hold fast, to have faith that Jesus' sacrifice in heaven, and because it has taken place in heaven with Jesus deriving his priesthood from the line of a heavenly Melchizedek, has established a new covenant which for believers will guarantee they will enter into God's rest. The Son's actions (never placed on earth) also provide an example and a reason to trust that he has indeed redeemed them and can serve as heavenly High Priest to intercede with God. Even what he did "in the days of his flesh" relates only to scriptural references on the subject of intercession with God. All these things scripture, he says, has revealed and they must trust in that revelation.

Where an anti-Simonian agenda is to be found in all this, I really don't know.

Earl Doherty

sotto voce · 01-25-2013, 12:43 PM

All this stuff and nonsense! What the hell are you people farting about, eh? Unless you're all concealed Jesuits, which is quite probable, come to think of it! The letter attributed to Clement is an obvious ploy to get the Corinthians to accept imperial authority via what was alleged internally to be the Roman church. It may have had bugger all to do with any actual church. It mimics the style of NT writers in a way that must have brought laughter to any familiar with the NT. I can just imagine the Jewish authors grinning at it before they sent it up for imperial approval.

The only possible purpose of it for moderns is to show how much authority the real NT letters had.

EarlDoherty · 01-25-2013, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

All this stuff and nonsense! What the hell are you people farting about, eh? Unless you're all concealed Jesuits, which is quite probable, come to think of it! The letter attributed to Clement is an obvious ploy to get the Corinthians to accept imperial authority via what was alleged internally to be the Roman church. It may have had bugger all to do with any actual church. It mimics the style of NT writers in a way that must have brought laughter to any familiar with the NT. I can just imagine the Jewish authors grinning at it before they sent it up for imperial approval.

The only possible purpose of it for moderns is to show how much authority the real NT letters had.

This may come as news to you, sv, but nothing in this posting represents a supportive or counter argument. And you have apparently ignored or passed over everything I've said on the matter, here and elsewhere. Simple declaration of one's own position does not by itself constitute debate.

Earl Doherty

aa5874 · 01-25-2013, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I also have to dispute your idea that Hebrews was written to emphasize Jesus coming to earth in a real human body. That is precisely the thing that is missing in the entire work. Not a single word of Jesus on earth....

Your claim is erroneous. There are many passages in Hebrews that imply Jesus Christ was on earth and spoke to the Hebrews.

Hebrews 1

Quote:

....
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall beto me a Son?6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world.......

Hebrews 2

Quote:

3How shall we escape , if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him...

Hebrews 2

Quote:

9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Hebrews 3

Quote:

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.3For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses...

Hebrews 5

Quote:

5So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day haveI begotten thee.6As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death...

jakejonesiv · 01-25-2013, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RParvus

To me Hebrews and 1 Clement look very similar. Both quote Scripture extensively. The Greek of both is recognized as quite good. They share a number of ideas and expressions. They even betray the same laziness at times about looking up the source of quotations: “But someone has testified somewhere … “ (Heb. 2:6); “For he has spoken somewhere about …” (Heb 4:4). Compare with 1 Clement’s “For it says somewhere…” (in chapters 15, 21, 26, 28), and “For the Scripture somewhere says…” (42).

Neither writing gives its author’s name. And both are apparently trying to pass themselves off as being letters to particular communities of the sub-apostolic period but, in reality, are theological treatises whose intended readership is Christians of their author’s own day (130 – 140 CE).

I agree with Joseph Turmel that 1 Clement was written by a proto-orthodox Christian around 140 CE to undercut Marcionism.

Hi Roger,

You have brought great observations, as always! The common attribution of authorship of Hebrews and 1 Clement was noted by Origen.

14. But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God only knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle. Origen, according to Eusebius, EH 4.25.14

The author of 1 Clement and Hebrews both apparently wrote from a large city, and used the Septuagint version of the Jewish Scriptures.

But there is still something a bit different about Hebrews that does not fit.

Let us consider that the author was invoking Joshua Revidcus in which an identity of Jesus(Iesous) Christ with the Joshua's of the Septuagint, (Joshua son of Nun and Joshua the son of Jehozadak) is established.

Please consider that Jesus the High Priest in Hebrews is partially derived from Joshua the High priest of Zech chapter 3, who sttod before the Angel of the Lord and withstood Satan (3:1) and who was the symbol for the Branch (3:8).

Zech 3:8 Hear now, O Joshua (Iesosus=Jesus LXX) the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.

According to Acts 18:24-25, Apollos (Apelles?) of Alexandria knew nothing more than John’s baptism but taught accurately concerning Iesous merely from reading in the scriptures. Both Bolland and Alfred Loisy commented on the incredible implications of this passage. It means the story of Jesus could be read (in an allegorical manner) directly from the Septuagint before there ever was a “New” Testament.

Consider "in the days of his flesh" and "suffered outside the gate" refer to Joshua's experiences outside the wilderness camp. There is good reason to look for this connection: the author of Hebrews never departs from the time of the Tabernacle in the wilderness campl (This is no mention whatsoever to the Jerusalem temple).

Jesus (Iesous) is clearly Joshua (Iesous) son of Nun in Hebrews 4:8, and hence also in the long passage about Moses and the Wilderness leading up to this. Moses was unable to lead the children of Israel out of the wilderness. This was accomplished by Jesus/Joshua/Iesous. In the days of his Flesh Joshua had suffered outside the wilderness camp from the effects of seeing God" even more often than Moses. Thus Joshua/Jesus was counted worthy of more honor than Moses (3:3).

We find in the beginning of the Exodus tale, The Angel of Lord was to lead the Israelites to the promised land, and this same Angel was to bear the name of God never before revealed. The very name of God himself, which would make this name (Jesus) the highest name anywhere.

This is profound. The Angel of the Lord, named Jesus, was to lead the Isrealites to the promised land. Jesus is declared to be the secret, never before revealed, name of God. And it is Oshea, renamed Jesus, who
allegedly does accomplish this work. This was declared "mysteriously" through Moses (Justin, Trypho 75). "For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, 'for My name is in Him,' was Jesus."

Now, we should not underestimate the richness of the myth that unlies the character of the OT Hero Joshua son of Nun, that almost seemlessly transfrers to Jesus Christ of the New Testamant. Joshua (formerly Oshea Numbers 13:16) is the direct counterpart of the heavenly General of the angelic army, Joshua 5:13-15, the storm god whose name he takes. Exodus 23:20-12, Philo, De Mutt. Nom. 21, Justin, Trypho 75.

The alleged exploits of Joshua the son of Nun include the retelling of the myth of the primidoral "March of the Divine Warrior" which is recorded in Habakkuk Chapter 3. He holds the stylized two pronged lightning bolt of Syro-Paelestinian storm god. He defeats the sea god as in Canaanite mythology, 3:10, 13. "Sun and the moon stood in their places" 3:11. God comes from the South as in the manner of the thunder and lightning storms of the region. [Which is why Jesus Christ comes on the clouds of heaven with lightning [Matt 24:27,30] God comes forth to save his people but particularly his anointed one the Christ (Hab. 3:13), who can be none other than Joshua. (Why did Jesus find the barren fig tree? See Hab. 3:17.)

Daniel 7:13-14 itself was influenced by the "March of the Divine Warrior" which is recorded in Habakkuk Chapter 3. If the stories of Joshua son of Nun were also inspired by this (as Hab. 3:11 seems to indicate), might we not already have a connection of the Son of Man with a figure of Joshua/Jesus?
Can anyone doubt why Joshua Messiah comes on the clouds of heaven?

The author of Hebrews quite clearly establishes an link between Jesus and Joshua in Heb 4:8, to the extent that different translations have rendered Iesous in the Greek as either Joshua or Jesus.

But how do we arrive at a divine Johua?

Joshua was said to ascend (Exodus 24:13) and descend the Holy Mount with
Moses. In later legend he was thought to have shared the beatific vision with Moses and become divine. Moses face shown after one encounter on the mountain, and this corresponds with Jesus in the Transfiguration. Indeed, Joshua experienced the divine presence face to face in the Tabernacle even more than Moses. Exodus 33:11 cf Hebrews 13:1-2. What happened to him? He was filled with the Spirit of Wisdom (Deut 34:9) and completed the work that Moses could never complete.

In the first century CE Philo employed a midrashic tradition which interpreted Moses' ascent to Siani as a heavenly ascent where he was deified. (De Somnii 1.36, De Posteritute Caini 28.31, De Confusione
Linguarum 30-32, Quaestones et Solutioners in Exodum 2.29)

Since Joshua alone was said to have accompanied him (Exodus 24:13-14 ), legend grew that Joshua shared in that deification, and the ascent and descent to heaven/Sinai. This presumed legend lies behind Ephesians 4:8-10. The Targum on the Psalms 68:18 reads: 'Thou ascendedst up to the firmament, O prophet Moses, thou tookest captives captive, thou didst teach the words of the Law, thou gavest them as gifts to the children of men'. In the Assumption of Moses, the dying Moses calls Jesus/Joshua to him and gives him the task of finishing his work, christening his books (Jesus Christ?), leading to the ushering in of "the consummation of the end of the days." Assumption of Moses, 1.12-14.

Jake Jones IV

stephan huller · 01-25-2013, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Jesus (Iesous) is clearly Joshua (Iesous) son of Nun in Hebrews 4:8, and hence also in the long passage about Moses and the Wilderness leading up to this. Moses was unable to lead the children of Israel out of the wilderness. This was accomplished by Jesus/Joshua/Iesous.

But we should flesh this out a little better as this is becoming a mythicist forum. The Church Fathers beginning with Justin didn't make the connection between the man 'Joshua' and the man 'Jesus' but rather - once again using the LXX - the idea that the name 'Iesous' was a supernatural being who transformed Oshea into the Savior and presumably did the same with an individual in the gospel narrative (= adoptionalism). This is very important to make sense of the material because it has to be noted that there is absolutely no precedent for the Joshua-Jesus connection as generally put forth (Kraft's book embarrassingly misrepresents the actual Samaritan position).

stephan huller · 01-25-2013, 09:01 PM

As is often the case the discussion is usually quite two dimensional - i.e. the juxtaposition between those claim 'that Jesus was a man' and the opposite point of view that 'Jesus was a supernatural being.' But the reality is that both understandings might have been true - i.e. that 'adoptionalism' undoubtedly involved a supernatural Jesus (i.e. the one who transformed Oshea into Jesus) and a human figure probably originally named Simon, who 'became Jesus.'

In another thread aa brought up the line 'and the word became flesh.' The plain meaning of the statement - if we assume a pre-incarnate Logos - is that the man who was taken to be 'Jesus' could not have originally been so named (just like Oshea). Indeed most people get it wrong because of the baptism narrative in the synoptics (i.e. that a man named Jesus somehow 'became' Christ with the dove landing on his head).

But look at the manner in which Irenaeus preserves the original formulation with respect to the name 'Iesous' current among the heresies in Book Three:

Quote:

But Simeon also--he who had received an intimation from the Holy Ghost that he should not see death, until first he had beheld Christ Jesus--taking Him, the first-begotten of the Virgin, into his hands, blessed God, and said, "Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy word: because mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel;" confessing thus, that the infant whom he was holding in his hands, Jesus, born of Mary, was Christ Himself, the Son of God, the light of all, the glory of Israel itself, and the peace and refreshing of those who had fallen asleep. For He was already despoiling men, by removing their ignorance, conferring upon them His own knowledge, and scattering abroad those who recognised Him, as Esaias says: "Call His name, Quickly spoil, Rapidly divide." Now these are the works of Christ. He therefore was Himself Christ, whom Simeon carrying [in his arms] blessed the Most High; on beholding whom the shepherds glorified God; whom John, while yet in his mother's womb, and He (Christ) in that of Mary, recognising as the Lord, saluted with leaping; whom the Magi, when they had seen, adored, and offered their gifts [to Him], as I have already stated, and prostrated themselves to the eternal King, departed by another way, not now returning by the way of the Assyrians. "For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, Father or mother, He shall receive the power of Damascus, and the spoils of Samaria, against the king of the Assyrians;" declaring, in a mysterious manner indeed, but emphatically, that the Lord did fight with a hidden hand against Amalek. For this cause, too, He suddenly removed those children belonging to the house of David, whose happy lot it was to have been born at that time, that He might send them on before into His kingdom

Now let's look at the line "that the Lord did fight with a hidden hand against Amalek." The point isn't just that it comes from the same section of Numbers which tells of Moses giving the name 'Jesus' to Oshea. Justin Martyr explicitly connects the scripture with Christian baptism in chapter 49 of the Dialogue with Trypho:

Quote:

To this I replied, “Do you not think that the same thing happened in the case of Joshua the son of Nave (Nun), who succeeded to the command of the people after Moses, when Moses was commanded to lay his hands on Joshua, and God said to him, ‘I will take of the spirit which is in thee, and put it on him?’ ” [Num. 11:17] "As therefore," I say, "while Moses was still among men, God took of the spirit which was in Moses and put it on Joshua, even so God was able to cause[the spirit] of Elijah to come upon John; in order that, as Christ at His first coming appeared inglorious, even so the first coming of the spirit, which remained always pure in Elijah s like that of Christ, might be perceived to be inglorious. For the Lord said He would wage war against Amalek with concealed hand; and you will not deny that Amalek fell. But if it is said that only in the glorious advent of Christ war will be waged with Amalek, how great will the fulfilment of Scripture be which says, 'God will wage war against Amalek with hidden hand!' You can perceive that the concealed power of God was in Christ the crucified, before whom demons, and all the principalities and powers of the earth, tremble."[Dialogue 49]

And again later more specifically:

Quote:

"Listen, therefore," say I, "to what follows; for Moses first exhibited this seeming curse of Christ's by the signs which he made." "Of what [signs] do you speak?" said he. "When the people," replied I, "waged war with Amalek, and the son of Nave (Nun) by name Jesus (Joshua), led the fight, Moses himself prayed to God, stretching out both hands, and Hur with Aaron supported them during the whole day, so that they might not hang down when he got wearied. For if he gave up any part of this sign, which was an imitation of the cross, the people were beaten, as is recorded in the writings of Moses; but if he remained in this form, Amalek was proportionally defeated, and he who prevailed prevailed by the cross. For it was not because Moses so prayed that the people were stronger, but because, while one who bore the name of Jesus (Joshua) was in the forefront of the battle, he himself made the sign of the cross ... [for] the same figure is revealed for the destruction and condemnation of the unbelievers; even as Amalek was defeated and Israel victorious when the people came out of Egypt, by means of the type of the stretching out of Moses' hands, and the name of Jesus (Joshua), by which the son of Nave (Nun) was called. And it seems that the type and sign, which was erected to counteract the serpents which bit Israel, was intended for the salvation of those who believe that death was declared to come thereafter on the serpent through Him that would be crucified, but salvation to those who had been bitten by him and had betaken themselves to Him that sent His Son into the world to be crucified. For the Spirit of prophecy by Moses did not teach us to believe in the serpent, since it shows us that he was cursed by God from the beginning; and in Isaiah tells us that he shall be put to death as an enemy by the mighty sword, which is Christ. [91]

And again:

Quote:

we are more faithful to God than you, who were redeemed from Egypt with a high hand and a visitation of great glory, when the sea was parted for you, and a passage left dry, in which [God] slew those who pursued you with a very great equipment, and splendid chariots, bringing back upon them the sea which had been made a way for your sakes; on whom also a pillar of light shone, in order that you, more than any other nation in the world, might possess a peculiar light, never-failing and never-setting; for whom He rained manna as nourishment, fit for the heavenly angels, in order that you might have no need to prepare your food; and the water at Marah was made sweet; and a sign of Him that was to be crucified was made, both in the matter of the serpents which bit you, as I already mentioned (God anticipating before the proper times these mysteries, in order to confer grace upon you, to whom you are always convicted of being thankless), as well as in the type of the extending of the hands of Moses, and of Oshea being named Jesus; when you fought against Amalek: concerning which God enjoined that the incident be recorded, and the name of Jesus laid up in your understandings; saying that this is He who would blot out the memorial of Amalek from under heaven. Now it is clear that the memorial of Amalek remained after the son of Nave (Nun): but He makes it manifest through Jesus, who was crucified, of whom also those symbols were fore-announcements of all that would happen to Him, the demons would be destroyed, and would dread His name, and that all principalities and kingdoms would fear Him; and that they who believe in Him out of all nations would be shown as God-fearing and peaceful men; and the facts already quoted by me, Trypho, indicate this ... "You are aware, then," I continued, "that when the ark of the testimony was seized by the enemies of Ashdod, and a terrible and incurable malady had broken out among them, they resolved to place it on a cart to which they yoked cows that had recently calved, for the purpose of ascertaining by trial whether or not they had been plagued by God's power on account of the ark, and if God wished it to be taken back to the place from which it had been carried away. And when they had done this, the cows, led by no man, went not to the place whence the ark had been taken, but to the fields of a certain man whose name was Oshea, the same as his whose name was altered to Jesus, as has been previously mentioned, who also led the people into the land and meted it out to them: and when the cows had come into these fields they remained there, showing to you thereby that they were guided by the name of power; just as formerly the people who survived of those that came out of Egypt, were guided into the land by him who had received the name Jesus, who before was called Oshea.[131 - 132]

The point through all of this is that scholars have been misled by Irenaeus's claims about a spiritual 'Christ' flying down on to a man named Jesus. This was not the original understanding of adoptionalism. Instead a being identified as 'the name Jesus' came upon someone else - in the manner of Oshea - and transformed him into the man taken to be Jesus.

stephan huller · 01-25-2013, 09:04 PM

I guess my point is that the early Church Fathers may not have been 'making up' the parallels with Old Testament narratives like 'the name Jesus' destroying Amalek. Couldn't the gospel have been a 'myth' (God I hate using that term) which - in its original Marcionite form - could be unlocked through applying the standard idea of Moses making the sign of the Cross and Joshua being 'adopted' by the name Jesus?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-25-2013, 12:43 PM	#294
sotto voce Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: UK Posts: 3,057	All this stuff and nonsense! What the hell are you people farting about, eh? Unless you're all concealed Jesuits, which is quite probable, come to think of it! The letter attributed to Clement is an obvious ploy to get the Corinthians to accept imperial authority via what was alleged internally to be the Roman church. It may have had bugger all to do with any actual church. It mimics the style of NT writers in a way that must have brought laughter to any familiar with the NT. I can just imagine the Jewish authors grinning at it before they sent it up for imperial approval. The only possible purpose of it for moderns is to show how much authority the real NT letters had.

01-25-2013, 09:04 PM	#300
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I guess my point is that the early Church Fathers may not have been 'making up' the parallels with Old Testament narratives like 'the name Jesus' destroying Amalek. Couldn't the gospel have been a 'myth' (God I hate using that term) which - in its original Marcionite form - could be unlocked through applying the standard idea of Moses making the sign of the Cross and Joshua being 'adopted' by the name Jesus?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.