stephan huller

The first utterance = "I am the God, your Lord which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." I think Philo counted "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" as the first commandment with the Christians. Have you ever read how Philo uses Exodus 20:2 for his inherited system of hypostases? We read:

As Alan Segal notes "Philo uses Ex. 20:2 for the same reason that the rabbis did — to show the unification of both God's attributes at the Sinai theophany. This similarity is especially striking when one notices that otherwise Philo almost never comments on Ex. 20:2, preferring as a basis for his exegesis the text of the Ten Commandments which occurs in Deuteronomy." (Two Powers in Heaven (or via: amazon.co.uk) p. 176)

Two Powers in Heaven is required reading for anyone hoping to have a meaningful discussion on Marcion. If you haven't read the late professor's work, please do so.

GakuseiDon

Apologies if you've given the cite and I've missed it, but which of Philo's work best expresses what you have written above?

stephan huller

Sorry I forgot to include the reference (now corrected). Also found a list of quotes assembled by Segal online on this topic - http://www.columbia.edu/itc/religion...ilo_selections.

stephan huller

The material in the Mimar Marqe while certainly no longer expressing the idea that God was a series of hypostases (ben Hayyim clearly acknowledges the surviving text suffers from massive interpolations) nevertheless seems to interpret Exodus 20:2 and 3 as reserved for the worship of foreign gods (like the Golden Calf). There is no explicit denial that the god of Israel wasn't a unity developed from a collection of hypostases. The use of the plural in discussing God (especially in Genesis) as proof that there were more than one god is clearly a known heretical position within Judaism in the rabbinic literature. It was not an 'innovation' of a Christian heretic named Marcion or Simon Magus. Only Christians buy into this nonsense. It was a belief that existed long before Marcion and Simon were alleged to have lived. It may well have been the original Jewish and Samaritan understanding.

GakuseiDon

I think I found it:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book21.html

But it is not right for the man who anchors on the hope of the alliance of God to crouch and tremble, to whom God says, "I am the God who was seen by thee in the place of God." (1.228) A very glorious boast for the soul, that God should think fit to appear to and to converse with it. And do not pass by what is here said, but examine it accurately, and see whether there are really two Gods. For it is said: "I am the God who was seen by thee;" not in my place, but in the place of God, as if he meant of some other God. (1.229) What then ought we to say? There is one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous; on which account the holy scripture on the present occasion indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the expression being, "I am the God (ho Theos);" but when the word is used incorrectly, it is put without the article, the expression being, "He who was seen by thee in the place," not of the God (tou Theou), but simply "of God" (Theou); (1.230) and what he here calls God is his most ancient word, not having any superstitious regard to the position of the names, but only proposing one end to himself, namely, to give a true account of the matter...

Accordingly, to the incorporeal souls which are occupied in his service, it is natural for him to appear as he is, conversing with them as a friend with his friends; but to those souls which are still in the body he must appear in the resemblance of the angels, though without changing his nature (for he is unchangeable), but merely implanting in those who behold him an idea of his having another form, so that they fancy that it is his image, not an imitation of him, but the very archetypal appearance itself. (1.233) There is then an old story much celebrated, that the Divinity, assuming the resemblance of men of different countries, goes round the different cities of men, searching out the deeds of iniquity and lawlessness; and perhaps, though the fable is not true, it is a suitable and profitable one.

I don't see any 'two gods, one better and one merely good' in Philo, nor even pre-existing in Philo. Only the one God, 'one better understood' (by incorporeal souls) and 'one worse understood' (by souls still in the body).

stephan huller

According to Philo there are three gods for three different 'types' of people - the perfect, the good and the bad. Kurios = the hypostasis for bad people = Jacob. Theos = the hypostasis for those undergoing 'improvement' through education = Abraham. While the name of the perfect god is never given but is attributed to Isaac who is perfect from birth.

Look at the language of the Pentateuch = god of Abraham, god of Isaac, god of Jacob. Why phrase it that way?

Exodus 3:6 - וַיֹּאמֶר, אָנֹכִי אֱלֹהֵי אָבִיךָ, אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אֱלֹהֵי יִצְחָק, וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב

Why emphasize the unity of God in the Shema in that entirely odd way unless we are dealing with a set of hypostases argued to be one? Notice also that the divine names are different in Philo's LXX than any of our surviving texts and Philo consistently identifies each of the powers as 'operating' in different capacities (i.e. judgment, mercy). Notice also that the earliest rabbinic tradition attributes mercy and judgment as two divine hypostases EXACTLY in the manner ascribed to Marcion in Irenaeus Against Heresies Book Three. They all come from the same ancient source and our emphasis on monotheism is entirely artificial.

judge

What is the evidence for this?

stephan huller

As it would take too long to demonstrate the situation with every single Church Father why not name the Church Father and I will make the argument

Toto

Two Powers in Heaven website - maintained by Mike Heiser Google books preview of Two Powers in Heaven

GakuseiDon

Can you provide a reference to Philo having the hypostasis for bad people as a type of Jacob? It doesn't mesh with what I've read. For example, in his "The Cherubim::
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book5.html

... And she having conceived, brought forth, not to God, for he alone is sufficient and all-abundant for himself, but to him who underwent labour for the sake of that which is good, namely, for Jacob...

And from the same link I gave earlier:

for the scriptures says, "I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father," but in reality Abraham was his grandfather; and then proceeds, "And the God of Isaac," and in this case he does not add, "thy father:" (1.167) is it not then worth while to examine into the cause of this difference? Undoubtedly it is; let us then in a careful manner apply ourselves to the consideration of the cause. Philosophers say that virtue exists among men, either by nature, or by practice, or by learning. On which account the sacred scriptures represent the three founders of the nation of the Israelites as wise men; not indeed originally endowed with the same kind of wisdom, but arriving rapidly at the same end. (1.168) For the eldest of them, Abraham, had instruction for his guide in the road which conducted him to virtue; as we shall show in another treatise to the best of our power. And Isaac, who is the middle one of the three, had a self-taught and self-instructed nature. And Jacob, the third, arrived at this point by industry and practice, in accordance with which were his labours of wrestling and contention. (1.169) Since then there are thus three different manners by which wisdom exists among men, it happens that the two extremes are the most nearly and frequently united. For the virtue which is acquired by practice, is the offspring of that which is derived from learning.

Same God, but different 'wisdoms'.

At the same link, Philo describes God:

for we must imagine that the living God stands above all things, like the charioteer of a chariot, or the pilot of a ship; that is, above bodies, and above souls, and above all creatures, and above the earth, and above the air, and above the heaven, and above all the powers of the outward senses, and above the invisible natures, in short, above all things whether visible or invisible; for having made the whole to depend upon himself, he governs it and all the vastness of nature... Therefore he who stands upon the ladder of heaven says to him who is beholding the dream, "I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac; be not Afraid."{38}{#ge 28:13.} This oracle and this vision were also the firmest support of the soul devoted to the practice of virtue, inasmuch as it taught it that the Lord and God of the universe is both these things also to his own race, being entitled both the Lord and God of all men, and of his grandfathers and ancestors, and being called by both names in order that the whole world and the man devoted to virtue might have the same inheritance; since it is also said, "The Lord himself is his Inheritance."{39}{deuteronomy 10:9.}

I think you've lost me. Are you talking about those who wrote the Bible from the perspective of Philo, or from their own perspective?

There's no doubt that Philo believed in God, and angels, and all manner of divine beings. Whether we would call it 'monotheism' depends on the definition we want to use. But Philo believed in an 'overarching' God. The problem that Platonists had to face was how can an unchanging or perfect God create the world? Making decisions implies changes and needs. The solution was the Logos -- an emanation from God that can create the world while leaving a perfect God unchanged. The example used by Second Century Christians was a ray of light emanating from the sun. The light is part of the sun, and comes from the sun, but it leaves the sun unchanged.

I think we need to be careful of the use of 'god' here. Dunn, for example, doesn't believe that the earliest Christians worshipped Christ as God, because some of the traditional elements of worship -- sacrifices, etc -- weren't paid to Christ. There was no doubt that he was considered a divine being, as anyone who made it into the true heavens were. But that didn't make him a God, at least not initially.

A similar example is St Christopher. People pray to him for safe travel. But do they do that because they consider him a god who might get the job done where God could not? No, they understand he is the middle-man.

I'm not sure what your point is on Philo seeing Mercy and Judgement as hypostases. I think he saw them in a similar way to Plutarch, who wrote in "Isis and Osiris": "If we revere and honour what is orderly and good and beneficial as the work of Isis and as the image and reflection and reason of Osiris, we shall not be wrong."

Anyway, I always find your posts interesting even if I rarely comment. I'm just not sure what you are getting at here. But I will read further with interest.