Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EmmaZunz · 04-07-2012, 02:11 AM

--

EmmaZunz · 04-07-2012, 02:22 AM

You think that stuff in Hermas is based on history??? I'm reading the supposedly HJ passages from Hermas you have given, but I can't make head nor tail of them TBH. They surely don't describe anything like the HJ we are used to.

There is no mention of death or resurrection, nor any specific Gospel-HJ vocab. The theology is very strange - "for the flesh that has been found without spot or defilement, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, [will receive a reward ]"??? Weird.

Perhaps Hermas also has heard echos of the idea of a HJ, but since he had no specific information he filled it in in his own peculiar idiom.

We're looking for a writer who clearly fully knows about HJ (uses specific Gospel vocab) and yet largely ignores him in favour of some other presentation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Gdon
If Barnabas, why not throw in Hermas?

Yes, I think the Shepherd of Hermas is a wonderful example of the point I am making.

That's right. And neither the Gospels nor other NT canon are used as authoritative. According to Richard Carrier in his "Formation of the NT canon" (basically a summary of Metzger):
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

As all this is going on, however, one of the first written texts to become universally popular and an object of praise among Christians is none other than the book of Hermas, a.k.a. "The Sheppherd," an unusual (to us) collection of "visions, mandates, and similitudes" (the names of the three books that comprise it). This was written at some time in the 2nd century, and we have papyrus fragments from that very century to prove it (M 63-4). It may date even from the 1st century (cf. op. cit. n. 1), but references inside and outside the text create likely dates ranging from 95 to 154 A.D. (both Origen and Jerome thought the author was the very Hermas known to Paul, i.e. Romans 16.14), but it is probably more likely later than earlier in that range.

So popular the Sheppherd was that it was widely regarded as inspired--it was actually included, along with the Epistle of Barnabas, as the final book in the oldest NT codex that survives intact, the Codex Sinaiticus (c. 300 A.D.). But even the book of Hermas never names or quotes exactly any NT text. It contains many statements which resemble those in various NT books, but this could just as well reflect a common oral tradition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Of course, irrespective of what they thort, it does not mean there was a HJ, it is simply part of the evidence which requires explanation. These guys are late on the scene and historicisation presumably well advanced - if indeed that is what occured.

Might we reckon that since you & Earl are still arguing the toss over that evidence that it doesn't tend to support either case all that much?

Not really. Doherty is still arguing the toss. From my perspective the game has been run and completed. Even other mythicists like Carrier and Wells don't support Doherty on his laughably bad analysis of Second Century writers.

But let's look at the Shepherd of Hermas in more detail. The text is here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co.../shepherd.html

As you have pointed out, there is no reference to "Jesus" or "Christ". There are no direct references to the Gospels, or to Paul, or to anything else. Yet, what do you make of the following? Keep in mind that the Shepherd of Hermas is usually thought to be an Adoptionist text; that is, "Christ" and "Jesus" are two separate entities, where Jesus is a human being "walking according to the flesh" in whom the Holy Spirit dwelt:

The holy, pre-existent Spirit, that created every creature, God made to dwell in flesh, which He chose. This flesh, accordingly, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was nobly subject to that Spirit, walking religiously and chastely, in no respect defiling the Spirit; and accordingly, after living excellently and purely, and after labouring and co-operating with the Spirit, and having in everything acted vigorously and courageously along with the Holy Spirit, He assumed it as a partner with it. For this conduct of the flesh pleased Him, because it was not defiled on the earth while having the Holy Spirit. He took, therefore, as fellow-councillors His Son and the glorious angels, in order that this flesh, which had been subject to the body without a fault, might have some place of tabernacle, and that it might not appear that the reward [of its servitude had been lost ], for the flesh that has been found without spot or defilement, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, [will receive a reward ]

In the following passage, the "rock" is thought to refer to "the Christ", pre-existent and divine; while the "gate" is thought to be the man Jesus:

"This rock," he answered, "and this gate are the Son of God."

"How, sir?" I said; "the rock is old, and the gate is new."

"Listen," he said, "and understand, O ignorant man. The Son of God is older than all His creatures, so that He was a fellow-councillor with the Father in His work of creation: for this reason is He old."

"And why is the gate new, sir?" I said.

"Because," he answered, "He became manifest in the last days of the dispensation: for this reason the gate was made new, that they who are to be saved by it might enter into the kingdom of God.

Again, let me point out that there is no reference to "Jesus" or "Christ", or to Pilate or any Gospel details. Yet it seems here you need to make a choice: is this work referring to Jesus or not? If not, what is it talking about? Who is the person who became manifest in the flesh in the last days, who was the embodiment of the Son of God? If so, how does it reset our expectations about what we see in other earlier literature?

GakuseiDon · 04-07-2012, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

I don't think I accept what you say I accept.

What exactly do you mean here that I accept?

That there are early texts where the historical Jesus idea is known, but with little details and not really developed. One of the examples is the Epistle of Barnabas.

GakuseiDon · 04-07-2012, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

You think that stuff in Hermas is based on history??? I'm reading the supposedly HJ passages from Hermas you have given, but I can't make head nor tail of them TBH. They surely don't describe anything like the HJ we are used to.

Actually, it isn't that much different from what you find in a lot of early literature, esp the gnostic writings.

I can't think that the "gate" being referred to here can be anyone other than Jesus. "God made to dwell in flesh" and "the flesh that has been found without spot or defilement" and "He became manifest in the last days of the dispensation". Yet remarkably, no mention of the names "Jesus" or "Christ", no Gospel details, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

There is no mention of death or resurrection, nor any specific Gospel-HJ vocab. The theology is very strange - "for the flesh that has been found without spot or defilement, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, [will receive a reward ]"??? Weird.

This has to do with the idea that Jesus was a "perfect man", or a man who became perfect, and so became a fitting vessel for the Holy Spirit. You can see that idea in "adoptionist" or gnostic texts. Some examples:

Hbr 5:7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,
8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.
9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him

and Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho:

[Typho states that Justin should say that]... this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ, [it is well]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

Perhaps Hermas also has heard echos of the idea of a HJ, but since he had no specific information he filled it in in his own peculiar idiom.

Yes, that's possible. So this can inform our expectations when we find a similar silence in other early writings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

We're looking for a writer who clearly fully knows about HJ (uses specific Gospel vocab) and yet largely ignores him in favour of some other presentation.

No, the examples I am highlighting are those who don't appear to be aware of Gospel details, but nonetheless appear to believe in a historical Jesus.

Solo · 04-07-2012, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

A story I heard.

Einstein was in the audience at a conference.

The speaker concluded ..'and this is so'.

Einstein asked 'But why imust this be so?'

The speaker replied 'Because it is written'

Euinstein asked 'Written were?'

The speaker exclaimed angrily pounding his fist on the podium 'In my book!!!'

He was paraphrasing Paul's 1 Cor 4:6

I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

God told Paul to go to the Gentiles because Jews took his interpretation of tanakh as a sure sign they had to do with a meshugah or an apostate. But how would the Gentiles know ?

Best,
Jiri

EmmaZunz · 04-07-2012, 05:50 AM

None of the Hermas sounds like HJ to me (I've changed my mind).

Here's the passage:

"God planted the vineyard, that is to say, He created the people, and gave them to His Son; and the Son appointed His angels over them to keep them; and He Himself purged away their sins, having suffered many trials and undergone many labours, for no one is able to dig without labour and toil. He Himself, then, having purged away the sins of the people, showed them the paths of life by giving them the law which He received from His Father...

"And why the Lord took His Son as councillor, and the glorious angels, regarding the heirship of the slave, listen. The holy, pre-existent Spirit, that created every creature, God made to dwell in flesh, which He chose. This flesh, accordingly, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was nobly subject to that Spirit, walking religiously and chastely, in no respect defiling the Spirit; and accordingly, after living excellently and purely, and after labouring and co-operating with the Spirit, and having in everything acted vigorously and courageously along with the Holy Spirit, He assumed it as a partner with it. For this conduct of the flesh pleased Him, because it was not defiled on the earth while having the Holy Spirit. He took, therefore, as fellow-councillors His Son and the glorious angels, in order that this flesh, which had been subject to the body without a fault, might have some place of tabernacle, and that it might not appear that the reward [of its servitude had been lost ], for the flesh that has been found without spot or defilement, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, [will receive a reward ]."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co.../shepherd.html

It doesn't make sense to me.

The Son suffered to purge the people's sins (where? when? who?).

Then the Spirit dwelt in undefiled flesh (which is not described as an individual person; it could well be it dwelt in many people who did no sin) (the Spirit maybe dwelt in flesh in the same way the Holy Spirit dwelt in the apostles after Pentecost in Acts - not incarnation but something else).

Then God took his Son and glorious angels as councillors in order to reward the undefiled flesh. But that doesn't seem to follow on in any logical way.

It doesn't say that the Son was incarnated. I don't get it. Maybe you can make some sense of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

You think that stuff in Hermas is based on history??? I'm reading the supposedly HJ passages from Hermas you have given, but I can't make head nor tail of them TBH. They surely don't describe anything like the HJ we are used to.

Actually, it isn't that much different from what you find in a lot of early literature, esp the gnostic writings.

I can't think that the "gate" being referred to here can be anyone other than Jesus. "God made to dwell in flesh" and "the flesh that has been found without spot or defilement" and "He became manifest in the last days of the dispensation". Yet remarkably, no mention of the names "Jesus" or "Christ", no Gospel details, etc.

This has to do with the idea that Jesus was a "perfect man", or a man who became perfect, and so became a fitting vessel for the Holy Spirit. You can see that idea in "adoptionist" or gnostic texts. Some examples:

Hbr 5:7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,
8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.
9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him

and Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho:

[Typho states that Justin should say that]... this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ, [it is well]

Yes, that's possible. So this can inform our expectations when we find a similar silence in other early writings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

We're looking for a writer who clearly fully knows about HJ (uses specific Gospel vocab) and yet largely ignores him in favour of some other presentation.

No, the examples I am highlighting are those who don't appear to be aware of Gospel details, but nonetheless appear to believe in a historical Jesus.

GakuseiDon · 04-07-2012, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

None of the Hermas sounds like HJ to me (I've changed my mind).

Okay. Given that the Shepherd of Hermas doesn't use the words "Jesus" or "Christ" or make any direct references to Gospel materials or the NT at all, it is an important point whether the author has a historical Jesus in mind or not. If he/she does, then we would need to discuss the implications of this. If the author didn't, then it would be interesting to discuss the implications of that also.

Richard Carrier writes on the SoH:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

As all this is going on, however, one of the first written texts to become universally popular and an object of praise among Christians is none other than the book of Hermas, a.k.a. "The Sheppherd," an unusual (to us) collection of "visions, mandates, and similitudes" (the names of the three books that comprise it). This was written at some time in the 2nd century, and we have papyrus fragments from that very century to prove it (M 63-4). It may date even from the 1st century (cf. op. cit. n. 1), but references inside and outside the text create likely dates ranging from 95 to 154 A.D...

So popular the Sheppherd was that it was widely regarded as inspired--it was actually included, along with the Epistle of Barnabas, as the final book in the oldest NT codex that survives intact, the Codex Sinaiticus (c. 300 A.D.). But even the book of Hermas never names or quotes exactly any NT text. It contains many statements which resemble those in various NT books, but this could just as well reflect a common oral tradition. It is noteworthy that the only book actually named by Hermas is an apocryphal Jewish text, the Book of Eldad and Modat. In contrast, it is notable that none of the Gospels or canonical Epistles ever name any book of any kind apart from Jude--which cites another apocryphal text, the Book of Enoch (vv. 14-15)...

Irenaeus includes the book of Hermas as holy scripture, a part of the NT (Against All Heresies 4.20.2).

So it, along with the Epistle of Barnbas, are interesting examples of texts with very little awareness of a historical Jesus, that made their way into the early proto-orthodox 'canon', in which ALL the epistles in the NT show a similar lack of awareness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

Here's the passage:

"God planted the vineyard, that is to say, He created the people, and gave them to His Son; and the Son appointed His angels over them to keep them; and He Himself purged away their sins, having suffered many trials and undergone many labours, for no one is able to dig without labour and toil. He Himself, then, having purged away the sins of the people, showed them the paths of life by giving them the law which He received from His Father...

"And why the Lord took His Son as councillor, and the glorious angels, regarding the heirship of the slave, listen. The holy, pre-existent Spirit, that created every creature, God made to dwell in flesh, which He chose. This flesh, accordingly, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was nobly subject to that Spirit, walking religiously and chastely, in no respect defiling the Spirit; and accordingly, after living excellently and purely, and after labouring and co-operating with the Spirit, and having in everything acted vigorously and courageously along with the Holy Spirit, He assumed it as a partner with it. For this conduct of the flesh pleased Him, because it was not defiled on the earth while having the Holy Spirit. He took, therefore, as fellow-councillors His Son and the glorious angels, in order that this flesh, which had been subject to the body without a fault, might have some place of tabernacle, and that it might not appear that the reward [of its servitude had been lost ], for the flesh that has been found without spot or defilement, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, [will receive a reward ]."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co.../shepherd.html

It doesn't make sense to me.

The Son suffered to purge the people's sins (where? when? who?).

We can propose a list of candidates, and I suggest the historical Jesus would be at the top, given the sketchy information available. Would you agree that the HJ is most likely the person being referred to here? If not, who do you think the text is referring to? But if so, why didn't the author use the name "Jesus" or "Christ" or any other details?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

Then the Spirit dwelt in undefiled flesh (which is not described as an individual person; it could well be it dwelt in many people who did no sin) (the Spirit maybe dwelt in flesh in the same way the Holy Spirit dwelt in the apostles after Pentecost in Acts - not incarnation but something else).

It's possible that by "the holy, pre-existent Spirit, that created every creature, God made to dwell in flesh" the author means a group of people rather than an individual, though "He became manifest in the last days of the dispensation" suggests an individual. Still, the author doesn't name any individual here, so maybe it could be a group of people. But then why doesn't the author name the group of people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

Then God took his Son and glorious angels as councillors in order to reward the undefiled flesh. But that doesn't seem to follow on in any logical way.

It doesn't say that the Son was incarnated. I don't get it. Maybe you can make some sense of it.

If this is a reference to Jesus Christ, either historical or Doherty's Pauline one, then the reward would be the resurrection from the dead. But again, why didn't the author state this clearly?

Toto · 04-07-2012, 11:57 AM

I have had this discussion with GDon before, but he seems unable or unwilling to get the point.

There are second century writers who believed that Christ appeared on earth, but show no interest in the details of his earthly existence. But it is a mistake to say that these writers believed in a "historical Jesus." They believed in a spiritual Jesus Christ, and they believed as a matter of dogma that "He" had appeared on earth, worked miracles, and rose to heaven. Their repetition of bits of this dogma does not mean that they had any evidence for the existence of a mundane historical person who preached in Galilee and got himself crucified by Pilate.

The case is very different for a putative first century writer like Paul. Paul allegedly met the historical Jesus' actual flesh and blood, and showed him no respect. Paul ignored any opportunity to learn more about this supposedly historical Jesus. This is an anomaly that cannot be cured by a bogus analogy to second century writers in an entirely different milieu.

Doherty's analysis is absolutely correct. It is not "laughably bad." Richard Carrier did not describe it as laughably bad, and if GDon uses that phrase again I will suggest that he apply for a job with Newt Gingrich, who refined and perfected the modern art of political slander.

Toto · 04-07-2012, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

.... Given that the Shepherd of Hermas doesn't use the words "Jesus" or "Christ" or make any direct references to Gospel materials or the NT at all, it is an important point whether the author has a historical Jesus in mind or not. If he/she does, then we would need to discuss the implications of this. If the author didn't, then it would be interesting to discuss the implications of that also.

...

GDon, you've been here for years repeating that we need to discuss the "implications" of early Christians who might have had a historical Jesus in mind but didn't discuss him.

At this point, it is not interesting. It is getting boring.

Please get to the point. What conclusions do you draw from this? Why is it important?

Do you agree with my statement that these authors "believed in a spiritual Jesus Christ, and they believed as a matter of dogma that "He" had appeared on earth, worked miracles, and rose to heaven. Their repetition of bits of this dogma does not mean that they had any evidence for the existence of a mundane historical person who preached in Galilee and got himself crucified by Pilate."

GakuseiDon · 04-07-2012, 12:05 PM

Toto, my point has nothing to do with Paul. My point still stands even if Doherty is correct about the origins of Christianity. If you want to discuss something else, that's fine, but I won't be responding. Thank you.

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

04-07-2012, 02:11 AM	#71
EmmaZunz Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: UK Posts: 98	--

04-07-2012, 11:57 AM	#78
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I have had this discussion with GDon before, but he seems unable or unwilling to get the point. There are second century writers who believed that Christ appeared on earth, but show no interest in the details of his earthly existence. But it is a mistake to say that these writers believed in a "historical Jesus." They believed in a spiritual Jesus Christ, and they believed as a matter of dogma that "He" had appeared on earth, worked miracles, and rose to heaven. Their repetition of bits of this dogma does not mean that they had any evidence for the existence of a mundane historical person who preached in Galilee and got himself crucified by Pilate. The case is very different for a putative first century writer like Paul. Paul allegedly met the historical Jesus' actual flesh and blood, and showed him no respect. Paul ignored any opportunity to learn more about this supposedly historical Jesus. This is an anomaly that cannot be cured by a bogus analogy to second century writers in an entirely different milieu. Doherty's analysis is absolutely correct. It is not "laughably bad." Richard Carrier did not describe it as laughably bad, and if GDon uses that phrase again I will suggest that he apply for a job with Newt Gingrich, who refined and perfected the modern art of political slander.

04-07-2012, 12:05 PM	#80
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Toto, my point has nothing to do with Paul. My point still stands even if Doherty is correct about the origins of Christianity. If you want to discuss something else, that's fine, but I won't be responding. Thank you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.