Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tanya · 08-19-2012, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

The idea on a Christian Bishop in Lyon in the Second Century is utterly absurd. Why convert barbarian tribes in Gaul to a Jewish/Greco-Roman religion when 99% of Jews and Greco-Romans were not converted?

Hi Jay,

I don't know whether or not there exists evidence positing Irenaeus in Lugdunum in the latter part of the second century. I doubt, very much, that he was addressing the "barbarian tribes", rather, I think he was addressing the Romans who lived in that Roman colony. We know that there were many Jews living in Spain, after 135 CE, so why not also in Lugdunum? If I am not mistaken, Lugdunum was the second most important city in the Roman Empire, after Rome, itself. I guess the majority of inhabitants in that fair city, spoke Latin, or Greek (Irenaeus' native language?) not some Gallic language, like Gaulish.

Many of those who followed Arius, a century later, were, however, members of "barbarian tribes in Gaul", so somewhere along the line, somebody must have reached out to them. Maybe it was Irenaeus. We don't have evidence, one way or the other, so far as I am aware.

Duvduv · 08-19-2012, 11:34 AM

At least when the 4th-5th century Regime was inventing its second century church writers to be venerated they could have come up with a better story than a guy in a place like Lyons to be propagating the official doctrine of mature Christendom. They were not very creative.

There is about as much a chance that an Irenaeus existed in the 2nd century and in Lyons as there were Justin's unnamed communities he was trying to save a couple of decades earlier.

stephan huller · 08-19-2012, 12:34 PM

Quote:

The idea on a Christian Bishop in Lyon in the Second Century is utterly absurd. Why convert barbarian tribes in Gaul to a Jewish/Greco-Roman religion when 99% of Jews and Greco-Romans were not converted?

Yes but it is worth noting that the Emperor Septimius Severus was the governor of Gaul who resided in Lyons around the time of Irenaeus. Was Irenaeus originally in the Severine household like many other Christians we know. Severus's wife Julia Domna was a Syrian, may well have corresponded with Hippolytus and was probably well disposed toward Christianity. Book Three seems to have been written either from Rome or with a Roman audience in mind.

stephan huller · 08-19-2012, 12:42 PM

Andrew:

Quote:

I'm afraid I don't see the claim that circumcision is a painful mutilation as implying that when the Bible speaks about circumcision it really means castration. (I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your argument here.)

Lets start with one important observation that the recently discovered Greek versions of the writings of Origen (Homily on Psalms) - Rufinus's translation has been thoroughly reworked and is not an accurate witness of the original text.

Remember if you read this section IN ITS ENTIRETY (and also the Homilies on Joshua) the discussion is not about circumcision but A SECOND CIRCUMCISION. In other words, that Jesus (= Joshua/Jesus) was established as a typology for the second (full/entire) cutting off of the penis.

If you read just this section it can sound like there is just one cutting, but read the statement in the context of what precedes it. The discussion is clearly about 'correcting' ONLY CUTTING THE FORESKIN.

The evidence that Marcionites castrated themselves is overwhelming from other sources (especially Tertullian).

stephan huller · 08-19-2012, 12:48 PM

With this in mind you have to ask what was circumcision and allegory for? And allegory necessarily is pointing to something other than itself:

Quote:

"So be it," they say,409 "Circumcision may indicate some mystery and may even contain an allegorical figure. Was it then proper that the forms of figures and enigmas of the law be established with pain and danger for the little children, with torments for the infant, tender and still innocent? Did the Lawgiver not have anywhere to put mystical figures except in the mutilation of shameful places

Whether or not you think the 'they' that immediately follows the reference to Marcion here is to a group absolutely associated with the heretic or superficially associated with him, the utterances concerning the cutting of the foreskin are argued to have been 'allegories' for something other 'mutilation of shameful places.' Indeed he speaks elsewhere of a 'circumcision of Christ' which is different that traditional circumcision and moreover 'the blood of Christ' as being one and the same with the circumcision Christ brought into the world.

I think the context of this statement and what appears in Clement's Stromata Book 5, it means that only castrated Christians could read the secret books held in the adyta/adyton (of the Church of St Mark).

stephan huller · 08-19-2012, 01:00 PM

Here is more of the section (keep in mind again that this certainly Rufinus's reworking of the castrated Origen's discussion of second circumcision):

Quote:

“Jesus the son of Nun is reported to have circumcised the sons of Israel for the second time with stone knives by the command of the Lord,402 which, when looked at literally, seems factually utterly impossible. For in those who have been circumcised once in the flesh of their foreskin, what could be found to remove in a second circumcision? But it is plain that our Jesus, who, after Moses, truly leads the sons of the Israel into the holy land flowing with milk and honey the promised land,404 circumcises the people comprised of believers405 not once but twice.” ...

Indeed, Marcion, who is a man who takes no pleasure at all in allegorical interpretation, is completely at a loss in explaining the Apostle’s words, “Circumcision is of value.” Not even concerning the details which are mentioned was he able to give an account in any respect whatsoever. Indeed, not only was Marcion accustomed to oppose the God of the law who gave circumcision, and to mark him out with a certain derision but all the heretics who repudiate the Old Testament, in company with the pagans. They all repeat similar things in opposition to the God of the law, as if they were in a federation committed to detraction. "So be it," they say, "Circumcision may indicate some mystery and may even contain an allegorical figure.” Was it then proper that the forms of figures and enigmas of the law be established with pain and danger for the little children, with torments for the infant, tender and still innocent? Did the Lawgiver not have anywhere to put mystical figures except in the mutilation of shameful places And was the law of the omnipotent and eternal God not able to arrange for a sign of the covenant except in the obscene parts of the bodily members? Is he then a good God who has ordered newborn human beings to be wounded immediately after they first look upon the light of a new day? And if, as it seems to you, he is Creator of soul and body, either he reprimands himself for forming that bodily part superfluously, since he immediately commands it to be sliced off, and he is correcting his own error through the sufferings of these unfortunate wretches; or he is unjustly commanding the removal of something he has made to be a necessary and useful bodily part. Moreover, if it is important to God to lead many people to the worship and practice of his religion, the greatest obstacle springs from circumcision, because everyone turns away from pain and flees from the derisive mockery which results from shameful deformity. Hence circumcision must be considered to be more of a hindrance to religion than an emblem of it." Either pagans opposed to the Lawgiver or heretics make great noises like these and many others similar to them."

I think it necessary to respond to both groups, but first to the pagans. No intelligent human being reprimands things in others which he considers honorable and great when practiced among his own people.410 For among yourselves, O heathen nations, circumcision is deemed as something so great that it may not be entrusted indiscriminately to the common person of low birth but to priests alone and to those among them who have been assigned to higher studies. For example, according to your own superstitions the Egyptians are deemed to be extremely ancient and learned. For nearly all the other nations have borrowed their sacred rites and ceremonies from them.411 Among them, I say, no one studied either geometry [M911] or astronomy, which are considered of particular importance among them, and assuredly no one tried to pry into the secrets of astrology and horoscopes, than which they reckon nothing more divine, unless he has received circumcision. The priest among them, the soothsayer, or attendant of any of their sacred temples, or as they themselves call them, their prophets: all of them are circumcised.412 In addition no one learned the priestly literature of the ancient Egyptians, which they call hieroglyphics, except the circumcised. No high priest or seer or mystic among them, no one whom they regard as knowledgeable of the mysteries of heaven (as they suppose) and of the underworld, is confided in unless he has been circumcised. Do you then condemn in us as something disgraceful and obscene what is esteemed among yourselves to be so honorable and great that you believe it possible for the secrets of the heavens and of the regions below the earth to be declared to you only by means of this particular sign? But suppose among you it would be necessary to seek a reason for so many causes of so many of your secret rites which were carried out with the aid of circumcision, and the kind of reason which ought not be despised, lest all your own ceremonies be equally undermined along with it. Why should you not expect that even this is done among us as well? Indeed if you would thumb through your own histories you will find that not only the priests and religious teachers of the Egyptians practiced circumcision but also the Arabs, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, and others, whose endeavors respecting superstitions of this kind were esteemed all the more honorable because of it.413

(29) Enough has been said against the pagans, to whom it was not proper to speak more openly concerning the mysteries of our law. Now our discourse should be directed against those who indeed believe in Christ but do not receive the law and the prophets. Without doubt you confess it to be true what is written in Peter's epistle, “We have been redeemed not at a corruptible price of silver and gold but with the precious blood of the only begotten." If then we have been bought at a price, as Paul also undoubtedly we were bought from someone whose slaves we were, who also demanded the price he wanted so that he might release from his authority those whom he was holding. Now it was the devil who was holding us, to whom we had been dragged off by our sins.417 Therefore he demanded the blood of Christ as the price for us. So then, until the blood of Jesus was given, which was so precious that it alone would suffice for the redemption of all, it was necessary for those who were being trained up in the law to offer their own blood for themselves [in the act of circumcision] as a kind of foreshadowing of the future redemption. And therefore for us as those for whom the price of Christ's blood has been furnished, we do not have need to offer a price for ourselves anymore, that is to say, to offer the blood of circumcision ...

And if the cutting off of someone's bodily part appeared to be mandatory, what could be more suitable than to find what appeared obscene and to remove that part whose diminution would not at all impede the body'sfunction? But they say, “If that bodily member was not necessary, it ought not have been made by the Creator; if it was made as something necessary, it should not be removed. Let us also ask them whether they would call the procreation of children necessary. Doubtless they will respond that it is necessary. Then those who, by their affirmation of continence and virginity, do not attend to the necessary duties of nature shall be reproachable; and everyone is to be compelled to get married, even those who, in accordance with the laws of the Gospel, “have castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of God,” even though these people have the authority for this precedent both in many other saints and even in the Lord Jesus himself.

Finally it ought to be said that just as many baptisms were necessary before the baptism of Christ, and many purifications were carried out before the purification through the Holy Spirit, and many sacrifices before the one sacrifice, the the spotless lamb, Christ, offered himself to the Father as a sacrifice, so also there was need of many circumcisions until the one circumcision in Christ was imparted to all. The pouring out of the blood of many came first until the redemption of all was accomplished through the blood of the one.

This whole section has been reworked by Rufinus undoubtedly yet he couldn't figure out what to do with the last words in red "even those who, in accordance with the laws of the Gospel, “have castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of God,” even though these people have the authority for this precedent both in many other saints and even in the Lord Jesus himself." Note also that the saying appears in a different form - 'kingdom of God' (a la secret Mark) rather than the Matthean version.

It always seemed strange to me that Matthew 19 is the only place the 'eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven' appeared. Now it is clear that the Marcionites had the expression in a slightly different form in their gospel. One of many traces of Matthew reported to have been in the Marcionite gospel.

The bottom line here is that (a) Rufinus has manipulated the original material (b) the section as it stands now begins with a familiar theme in Origen (the second circumcision) ends with a reference to the Marcionite gospel's reference to 'those castrated for the sake of the kingdom of God' but all the connecting argument has been obscured by Rufinus and (c) the second cirumcision is called 'redemption' in the same way the second baptism of the Marciani in Irenaeus (AH 1:21) is called redemption. I think they were connected.

stephan huller · 08-19-2012, 02:24 PM

If my instincts are sound this statement from the Homilies on Luke also sounds 'secret Mark-ish':

“When [Christ] died, we died with him and when he rose, we rose with him. So too we were circumcised along with him”(14.1)

stephan huller · 08-19-2012, 03:02 PM

I think this is checkmate. Optatus writes in the fourth century and preserves a complete - and unadulterated - understanding of the Egyptian/north African Church (the traditions are connected). Clearly there is a second circumcision and a second baptism which is connected by way of the Book of Joshua (= And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan." cf. Secret Mark and Book of Joshua LXX). The Marciani not only had a second baptism along with their north African cousins but also a second circumcision. The Marcionites similarly. It all goes back to secret Mark's wording and geography (Jesus and his disciple are physically on the other side of the Jordan like Joshua). There is no mention of water immersion because - I imagine - the reference to 'him' (= the disciple) crossing the Jordan became the baptism. This is why Irenaeus says in his account of the Marciani that some did not practice the redemption rite with water.

In any even I am sure I am not going to convince you that this all goes back to secret Mark (even though, when you think about it, both Origen and Irenaeus make mention of the Jewish terminology for return to the promised land = redemption/galut). At the very least the tradition of the Donatists helps fill in the corrupt details in Rufinus's edition of Origen:

Quote:

For you have recalled, in analogy with baptism, that the flood occurred once, and there was one circumcision for the Jewish people.2 And when you had treated these matters at the beginning of your treatise, you became, however, unmindful of them in the course of your treatise, by introducing two waters; and, since you were going to speak argumentatively about the true water and the false, you adopted an unwise method in constructing the opening of your oration. By attacking the unity of holy baptism, you confirm it; with regard to Jewish circumcision you wanted to boast, as a sort of founding principle, that the baptism of Christians had been foreshadowed in the circumcision of the Hebrews. You have defended the Catholic Church while you impugn it. For in the course of your treatise you have declared that you are making one baptism empty so that you may seem to make the other full. When you say that, apart from heretics' baptism, there is one sort and another sort, then even though you have tried to show that they are of different species, you could not deny that there are two. When you try to take away one of these, you you have been striving to turn the second visibly into a kind of first.

Now circumcision was sent forth as a type" before the arrival of baptism, and your treatise argues that among Christians there are two waters; therefore show that there were two circumcisions among the Jews also, one better, the other worse. If you look for this you will not be able to find it. The race of Abraham, to which the Jews belong, glories in being marked by this seal. Therefore the truth that follows should be such as the image sent before it. And furthermore God, as he wanted to show that a single thing ought to come later when truth succeeded, did not choose that anything be taken from the ear or from the finger, but that part of the body was chosen where the abstraction of the foreskin on one occasion produced a sign of health, which cannot happen again.5 For when done once it preserves health; if it happens again it may bring ruin. So too the baptism of Christians, jointly performed by the Trinity, confers grace; if it is repeated it causes life to be cast away. [Optatus, Against the Donatians 5th Book]

Optatus must have been really thick headed not to see that the Donatists were using Joshua as the basis for their claims of a second circumcision. Clearly Joshua represents a second baptism too because Exodus 15 is always read in conjunction with Easter Sunday. The absence of reference to 'Jesus' crossing the Jordan into the Promised Land, the land of milk and honey, when milk and honey was given to the catechumen, should have been the obvious clue.

sotto voce · 08-19-2012, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

If my instincts are sound this statement from the Homilies on Luke also sounds 'secret Mark-ish':

“When [Christ] died, we died with him and when he rose, we rose with him. So too we were circumcised along with him”(14.1)

This presumably means circumcision of the heart. 'Hence, we have no need at all for a circumcision of the flesh.'

'"Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer."' Dt 10:16 NIV

'"Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done."' Jer 4:4 NIV

'Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. Because it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh.' Php 3:2-3

stephan huller · 08-20-2012, 12:11 AM

Another important point to reconfirm that castration was the second circumcision. Origen begins by noting that Paul’s language with respect to “being bought at a price” (1 Cor 6:20) makes clear that “we were bought from someone whose slaves we were, who also demanded the price he wanted so that he might release from his authority those whom he was holding.” Origen argues that our former master was the devil while the Marcionites clearly inferred it was the god of the Jews. However both apparently agreed that the manner in which this ‘purchase’ was made was by ‘the blood of the second circumcision’ or as Origen terms it here ‘the blood of Jesus.’

Clearly then the traditional rite of circumcision – i.e. the cut off of the foreskin - was originally conceived as the slave ‘branding’ that made clear the individual was ‘owned’ by the god of the Jews. Castration was a clearly visible sign of the second circumcision by which the individual transferred to his new owner Christ. So it is that Origen continues “Therefore he demanded the blood of Christ as the price for us. So then, until the blood of Jesus was given, which was so precious that it alone would suffice for the redemption of all, it was necessary for those who were being trained up in the law to offer their own blood for themselves [in the act of circumcision] as a kind of foreshadowing of the future redemption. And therefore for us as those for whom the price of Christ's blood has been furnished, we do not have need to offer a price for ourselves anymore, that is to say, to offer the blood of circumcision.”

Origen's argument now doesn't make sense (undoubtedly owing to Rufinus deliberately obscuring its implications). The Marcionite interpretation of redemption being a purchase from the Jewish god of circumcision to the Christian god of castration also is intuitively more logical.

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

08-19-2012, 11:34 AM	#52
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	At least when the 4th-5th century Regime was inventing its second century church writers to be venerated they could have come up with a better story than a guy in a place like Lyons to be propagating the official doctrine of mature Christendom. They were not very creative. There is about as much a chance that an Irenaeus existed in the 2nd century and in Lyons as there were Justin's unnamed communities he was trying to save a couple of decades earlier.

08-19-2012, 02:24 PM	#57
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	If my instincts are sound this statement from the Homilies on Luke also sounds 'secret Mark-ish': “When [Christ] died, we died with him and when he rose, we rose with him. So too we were circumcised along with him”(14.1)

08-20-2012, 12:11 AM	#60
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Another important point to reconfirm that castration was the second circumcision. Origen begins by noting that Paul’s language with respect to “being bought at a price” (1 Cor 6:20) makes clear that “we were bought from someone whose slaves we were, who also demanded the price he wanted so that he might release from his authority those whom he was holding.” Origen argues that our former master was the devil while the Marcionites clearly inferred it was the god of the Jews. However both apparently agreed that the manner in which this ‘purchase’ was made was by ‘the blood of the second circumcision’ or as Origen terms it here ‘the blood of Jesus.’ Clearly then the traditional rite of circumcision – i.e. the cut off of the foreskin - was originally conceived as the slave ‘branding’ that made clear the individual was ‘owned’ by the god of the Jews. Castration was a clearly visible sign of the second circumcision by which the individual transferred to his new owner Christ. So it is that Origen continues “Therefore he demanded the blood of Christ as the price for us. So then, until the blood of Jesus was given, which was so precious that it alone would suffice for the redemption of all, it was necessary for those who were being trained up in the law to offer their own blood for themselves [in the act of circumcision] as a kind of foreshadowing of the future redemption. And therefore for us as those for whom the price of Christ's blood has been furnished, we do not have need to offer a price for ourselves anymore, that is to say, to offer the blood of circumcision.” Origen's argument now doesn't make sense (undoubtedly owing to Rufinus deliberately obscuring its implications). The Marcionite interpretation of redemption being a purchase from the Jewish god of circumcision to the Christian god of castration also is intuitively more logical.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.