Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iskander · 02-17-2012, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The censored text in the commentary does not sound like Rashi and is evidently a marginal gloss that was incorporated into the commentary not into the text of the Talmud. The entire discussion of gilyon has nothing to do with anything Christian. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. It's more anecdotal Judaism.

Furthermore, there were no Christian texts as evangelion around the Jews at the time of Rabbi Meir to be burned.
A text written by non-Jews is not something of "minim" -- only Jews who stray from the religion are called minim.
And the Talmud provides absolutely no evidence that there were any Jewish Christians at all in those days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Perhaps you are right, but...

SIFREI HA-MINIM

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...8_0_18487.html

Jesus lived and died a Jew; he was not the founder of Christianity and wrote no gospels.
For those living in Eretz Yisrael he would have been only one deceiver leading Israel stray.

It is possible for orthodox Jews to accept the existence of the man Jesus ,aka whatever

I’ll leave this subject on the shelve for now,

Thank you.

Duvduv · 02-17-2012, 10:58 AM

Sorry, Iskander. I don't really understand your question. Please feel free to rephrase it so it's clearer for me. Thanks.

Chili · 02-17-2012, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

[Jesus lived and died a Jew; he was not the founder of Christianity and wrote no gospels.
For those living in Eretz Yisrael he would have been only one deceiver leading Israel stray.

It is possible for orthodox Jews to accept the existence of the man Jesus ,aka whatever

I’ll leave this subject on the shelve for now,

Thank you.

And here we go again, and Jesus was not a Jew except in Matthew and in Mark and there is was a sinner too, and went back to Galilee is where Jesus went and that is where Jews do not want to be as Jew.

The word Jew is to be a 'sinner' and not a 'saved sinner' which is what Galilee is all about and so to lead a Jew to Galilee is to get him saved and so be a saved sinner too and that is, was, and always will be their greatest fear because that is where Herod does his thing.

andrewcriddle · 02-19-2012, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Regarding Hannah’s first hypothesis, he ignors that the text is being written by the Apostles and therefore is taking place within the lifetime of the apostles. It would not make narrative sense to mention any of the heretics who came after the lifetime of the apostles. In adv haer, III.3.4, we find that John was still alive in the time of Cerenthius:

Quote:

There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."

This matches the epistula’s text quite closely:

Quote:

[b]ecause of Simon and Qe¯le¯ntos (Cerinthus), the false apostles, this was written (i.e. the Epistula), that no one associate with them for in them is deceit with which they slay men; (it was written) so that you might be strong and not shaken and not disturbed and (that) you may not depart from the word of the Gospel, which you heard. When we heard it, we both committed it to memory and wrote it for all the world.

Quite obviously, if you are writing a story written by apostles, you cannot have them talking about heretics who lived after they died. Thus the fact that only two heretics who lived during the lifetime of the apostles are mentioned does not tell us when the text was written, but simply when the text was set. It also tells us that the hypothetical writer of the text was meant to be the Apostle John, the writer of the Gospel According to John. That is why the narrator says “we heard it, we both committed it to memory and wrote it for all the world.” We can also gleem from this passage that the writer almost certainly knew Irenaeus’ text claiming that John met Cerinthus.

Hi Jay

I've beem thinking about this.

You are probably correct that, whatever the date of actual composition, an explicit reference to say Marcion is unlikely in a letter suposedly written by the Apostles on the basis of a supposed discourse by Jesus. (The letter could say something like ...After Simon and Cerinthus have passed away behold Marcion will come forth leading many astray but do not listen to him... but I tend to agree this is a bit unlikely.)

However, there is another point, the heresy opposed by the letter seems to be teaching about Christ, probably some form of docetism. There does not seem to be a controversy about the relations between God the creator and the God of the Torah and the God who sent Christ into the world. The fact that the named heretics are Cerinthus and Simon would not prevent the authors of the letter from accusing these early heretics of distinguishing between the world creator and the God of Jesus. Heresiologists like Irenaeus accused Cerinthus and Simon of holding such views although this may be anachronistic and historically dubious.

The absence of such issues in the Epistula Apostolorum suggests that dualist heresy is not yet a significant concern. If so this, implies a date well before Irenaeus.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay · 02-20-2012, 04:19 AM

Hi andrewcriddle,

Thanks for this thoughtful post.

As you have agreed that the setting determines the naming of the Heretics, I will agree that the text is early relative to the major anti-heretical writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Irenaeus and probably prior to them.

The text may be divided into two parts. The first half, written later which is a review of some diverse Christian literature designed to refute a number of heretical and gnostic writings including Marcion and the Valentinians and a second part, involving the apostles trip to heaven for a question and answer session with Jesus. The question and answer session reminds me of the pistis sophia.
This was second second was written earlier than the first and just gives a general condemnation of all heretics:

Quote:

We said unto him: Lord, shall there then be teaching by others, diverse from that which thou hast spoken unto us ? He said unto us: It must needs be, that the evil and the good may be made manifest; and the judgement shall be manifest upon them that do these things, and according to their works shall they be judged and shall be delivered unto death.

Again we said unto him: Lord, blessed are we in that we see thee and hear thee declaring such things, for our eyes have beheld these great wonders that thou hast done. He answered and said unto us: Yea, rather blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed, for they shall be called children of the kingdom, and they shall be perfect among the perfect, and I will be unto them life in the kingdom of my Father.

Later, near the end, there's this:

Quote:

49 If thou hear aught against thy brother, give it no credence; slander not, and delight not in hearing slander. For thus it is written: Suffer not thine ear to receive aught against thy brother: but if thou seest aught, correct him, rebuke him, and convert him.

And we said unto him: Lord, thou hast in all things taught us and warned us. But, Lord, concerning the believers, even them to whom it belongeth to believe in the preaching of thy name: is it determined that among them also there shall be doubt and division, jealousy, confusion, hatred, and envy? For thou sayest: They shall find fault with one another and respect the person of them that sin, and hate them that rebuke them. And he answered and said unto us: How then shall the judgement come about, that the corn should be gathered into the garner and the chaff thereof cast into the fire?

50 They that hate such things, and love me and rebuke them that fulfil not my commandments, shall be hated and persecuted and despised and mocked. Men will of purpose speak of them that which is not true, and will band themselves together against them that love me. But these will rebuke them, that they may be saved. But them that will rebuke and chasten and warn them, them will they (the others) hate, and thrust them aside, and despise them, and hold themselves far from them that wish them good. But they that endure such things shall be like unto the martyrs with the Father, because they have striven for righteousness, and have not striven for corruption.

And we asked him: Lord, shall such things be among us? And he answered us: Fear not; it shall not be in many, but in a few. We said unto him: Yet tell us, in what manner it shall come to pass. And he said unto us: There shall come forth another doctrine, and a eonfusion, and because they shall strive after their own advancement, they shall bring forth an unprofitable doctrine. And therein shall be a deadly corruption (of uncleanness), and they shall teach it, and shall turn away them that believe on me from my commandments and cut them off from eternal life. But woe unto them that falsify this my word and commandment, and draw away them that hearken to them from the life of the doctrine and separate themselves from the commandment of life: for together with them they shall come into everlasting judgement.

I would place the composition of this second section sometime in the early 190's and the composition of the first section in the late 190's, slightly before the specific anti-heretical writings of Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus. It should be noted that the text quotes freely from many works, including the Gospel of Peter, Barnabus, and Shepherd of Hermes and does not privilege gospel or New Testament sources, similar to what Clement of Alexandria does. Since it is a general warning against heresy, it might be earlier, although the historical references I mentioned earlier suggest the 190's at the earliest.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Regarding Hannah’s first hypothesis, he ignors that the text is being written by the Apostles and therefore is taking place within the lifetime of the apostles. It would not make narrative sense to mention any of the heretics who came after the lifetime of the apostles. In adv haer, III.3.4, we find that John was still alive in the time of Cerenthius:

This matches the epistula’s text quite closely:

Quite obviously, if you are writing a story written by apostles, you cannot have them talking about heretics who lived after they died. Thus the fact that only two heretics who lived during the lifetime of the apostles are mentioned does not tell us when the text was written, but simply when the text was set. It also tells us that the hypothetical writer of the text was meant to be the Apostle John, the writer of the Gospel According to John. That is why the narrator says “we heard it, we both committed it to memory and wrote it for all the world.” We can also gleem from this passage that the writer almost certainly knew Irenaeus’ text claiming that John met Cerinthus.

Hi Jay

I've beem thinking about this.

You are probably correct that, whatever the date of actual composition, an explicit reference to say Marcion is unlikely in a letter suposedly written by the Apostles on the basis of a supposed discourse by Jesus. (The letter could say something like ...After Simon and Cerinthus have passed away behold Marcion will come forth leading many astray but do not listen to him... but I tend to agree this is a bit unlikely.)

However, there is another point, the heresy opposed by the letter seems to be teaching about Christ, probably some form of docetism. There does not seem to be a controversy about the relations between God the creator and the God of the Torah and the God who sent Christ into the world. The fact that the named heretics are Cerinthus and Simon would not prevent the authors of the letter from accusing these early heretics of distinguishing between the world creator and the God of Jesus. Heresiologists like Irenaeus accused Cerinthus and Simon of holding such views although this may be anachronistic and historically dubious.

The absence of such issues in the Epistula Apostolorum suggests that dualist heresy is not yet a significant concern. If so this, implies a date well before Irenaeus.

Andrew Criddle

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

02-17-2012, 10:58 AM	#102
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Sorry, Iskander. I don't really understand your question. Please feel free to rephrase it so it's clearer for me. Thanks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.