Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 02-21-2013, 01:28 AM

In Question and Answers in Genesis 3 the ideas are spelled out more explicitly on the descending birds transforming Abraham:

Quote:

A certain divine excess was suddenly rendered calm to the man endued with virtue; for the trance, or ecstacy as the word itself evidently points out, is nothing else than a departure of the mind wandering beyond itself.{ekstasis, derived from existamai, in 2nd aor. act. exesteµn, "I was beside myself."} But the class of prophets loves to be subject to such influences; for when it is divining, and when the intellect is inspired with divine things, it no longer exists in itself, since it receives the divine spirit within and permits it to dwell with itself; or rather, as he himself has expressed it, as spirit falls upon him; since it does not come slowly over him, but rushes down upon him suddenly. Moreover, that which he has added afterwards applies admirably, that a great horror of darkness fell upon him. For all these things are ecstacies of the mind; for he also who is in a state of alarm is not in himself; but darkness is a hindrance to his sight; and in proportion as the horror is greater, so also do his powers of seeing and understanding become more obscured. And this is not said without reason: but as an indication of the evident knowledge of prophecy by which oracles and laws are given from God.

and ultimately heavenly transfiguration:

Quote:

Since to say to a dead man, "Thou shalt go to thy fathers," what else is this but to propose to him and set before him a second existence apart from the body as far as it is proper for the soul of the wise man to dwell by itself? But when he says this he does not mean by the fathers of Abraham his father, and his grandfather, and his great-grandfathers after the flesh, for they were not all deserving of praise so as to be by any possibility any honour to him who arrived at the succession of the same order, but he appears by this expression to be assigning to him for his fathers, according to the opinion of many commentators, all the elements into which the mortal man when deceased is resolved. But to me he appears to intend to indicate the incorporeal substances and inhabiters of the divine world, whom in other passages he is accustomed to call angels. Moreover the words which follow are not by any means without an object, that he is nourished in peace and in a fair old age. For the wicked and depraved man is nourished in battle, and lives and departs in a very bad old age. But the good man, in both phases of existence, both in that which is in connection with the body and in that which is apart from the body, cultivates peace, and is alone completely virtuous, such as no foolish person is found to be, even though he should live longer than an elephant; on which account he here carefully said, "Thou shalt go to thy fathers, being nourished-not in an advanced old age, but-in a fair old age." For many foolish persons also have their lives extended to a greatly lengthened period, but it is only the man who is desirous of virtue who enjoys a good old age and one endued with virtue.

and on the birds symbolizing heaven:

Quote:

But the whole heaven is found to be familiarly connected with flying birds such as the pigeon and turtle dove, being distributed as it is into the rotatory path of the planets and fixed stars. Therefore he dedicates the pigeon to the planets, for that is a tame and domestic animal, as also the planets are more familiarly connected with us as being nearer to the earth, and as having sympathies with us; but he consecrates the turtle dove to the fixed stars, for that animal is a lover of solitude, and flees from the conversation of the multitude, and from all connection of every kind. And so also the globe itself is remote, and a thing which wanders into the furthest extremities of the world. Therefore both the species of these two birds are assimilated to the divine attributes, since as Plato, the disciple of Socrates, says it is fitting that the heaven should have a swift chariot by reason of its very swift rotatory motion, which in fact surpasses even the birds themselves in the velocity of their course. But the birds above mentioned are singers; the prophet indicating by an enigmatical expression that perfect music which exists in heaven harmoniously adapted from the motion of the stars, since it is a proof of human art when the corresponding music of the voices of animals and of living instruments is adapted together by the industry of genius.

tanya · 02-21-2013, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

I would suggest that urMark was composed in Alexandria, and Mark was completed in Rome.

Thanks, Jake, two well informed, clearly articulated, succinct yet elaborate posts, with a proper emphasis on scholarship.

Two excellent submissions to the forum. Wonderful job.

:notworthy:

I would sound a note of caution, as one notoriously viewing the glass half empty, as being essentially devoid of any trace of water:

En Attendant Godot by Samuel Beckett was indeed written in Paris, however, is there any doubt that it could just as easily have been authored in Dublin? If Beckett made any mistakes in his French original, and I am not claiming that he did, would it be anyone's opinion that these mistakes were due to his having Gaelic or English as maternal language, rather than French?

We view Egypt as some kind of distant, alien place, far, far away from Rome. I think this is a mistake.

Egyptian food, cattle, grain, and other products, were critical to the proper functioning of the Roman empire, especially the army, invading Gaul, or Persia/Mesopotamia/Armenia, for centuries, before Mark was written. We tend to forget, that the Russians, facing both Napolean and Hitler, engaging in widespread scorched earth policy, to destroy all potential food and shelter, did not originate this defense against a superior military force. The Roman armies needed the Egyptian food, to survive, because the local villagers under assault, burned everything, rather than let it fall into the hands of the invaders.

Sea voyages between Rome and Alexandria were as normal for them, two thousand years ago, as airplane flights from Perth to Sydney, today.

So, no, I am not buying your idea that Mark wrote in Rome, for Romans. Maybe he did. Maybe not, I have no clue who "Mark" was, nor from where he hailed. I do agree that Mark did not live in Palestine, based on his improbable account of the geography there (Mark 7:31).

Horatio Parker · 02-21-2013, 07:11 AM

Very interesting stuff, Jake.

Where does this analysis place gMark? Still first?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

I have noted before, with G.Bolland, the importance of Alexandria in gospel origins. Stephan has also had thoughts along these lines. The gospel traditions began in Alexandria (not Palestine) based on an allegorical method of interpretation of the Septuagint exemplified by Philo. Many sources point to Rome as the origin of the gospel by a certain Mark, but there are also traditions that link GMark strongly to Egypt. According to Eusebius EH 2.16.1, Mark’s gospel was first proclaimed in Egypt, and the establishment of the churches in Alexandria was linked to Mark’s gospel. Chrysostom speaks of Egypt as the place of composition ("Hom. I. on Matt.", 3). I would suggest that urMark was composed in Alexandria, and Mark was completed in Rome.

Irenaeus reports that Basilides professed this: "Jesus did not suffer, but a certain Simon of Cyrene was obliged to carry the cross in his place. It was he whom, by ignorance and error, was crucified, having been transfigured by Jesus, in order to take the place of Jesus. As for Jesus, he took the shape of Simon and stood aside and laughed at them." AH 1.24.3. A literal reading of the Gospel of Mark supports Basilides. Simon of Cyrene carried the cross, and it is pronouns all the way until he is crucified. Mark 15:21-24.

According to traditions set down by Clement of Alexandria, the Gnostics claimed apostolic authority that parallels the proto-orthodox claims. (Or perhaps it was the other way round!) "Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter. Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul." Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, book 7, chapter 17.
Basilides taught in Egypt just after the revolt of the Jews in 115-117 CE. He also was a pupil of Menander.

Clement of Alexandria states that Basilides rose up under Hadrian and continued unto the reign of Antonius Pius, which give Basilides a career of at least until 138 CE. This would have made him a contemporary with Valentinus who left Egypt for Rome between 136 and 140 CE. Basilides had 365 emanations from the unoriginating Father, before arriving at the angels who created the world. These angels rule the world and the chief of these is the god of the Jews. One is reminded of certain Pauline passages such as Ephesians 6:12, “For our struggle is not against human opponents, but against rulers, authorities, cosmic powers in the darkness around us, and evil spiritual forces in the heavenly realm.”

Basilides had a remarkable observation against the god of the Jews. He alleged that the world had been created by angels (not by the “Father without birth”). These angels divided up the nations between themselves in a manner very reminiscent of the "Old Testament" One of these angels was the one reputed to be “God of the Jews.” He stirred up so much trouble, that the other angels (i.e princes) turned against him, and likewise the nations of the world turned against the nation of the Jews. I think this opinion can be directly linked to the revolts of the Jews against Rome, especially the little known second revolt in North Africa. I think it is at this time the Gnostic Jews of Alexandria turned from Yahweh because of his seemingly utter inability to to protect his religion and his people from destruction by other nations. And in his place, they created a new savior, Christ.

“Those angels who occupy the lowest heaven, that, namely, which is visible to us, formed all the things which are in the world, and made allotments among themselves of the earth and of those nations which are upon it. The chief of them is he who is thought to be the God of the Jews; and inasmuch as he desired to render the other nations subject to his own people, that is, the Jews, all the other princes resisted and opposed him. Wherefore all other nations were at enmity with his nation.” AH 1.24.4.

Basilides believed that the Father sent Christ to bestow deliverance on them that believe in him. But Basilides make a sharp distinction between Christ and Jesus.There is a similarity here to the comment by Irenaeus AH 3.11.7 that the gospel of Mark was previously in the hands of those heretics "who separate Jesus from Christ." We should not be much suprised to find that Basilides had a gospel mentioned by Origen, (Homilies on Luke 1.1), Jerome, Ambrose, Philip of Side, and the Venerable Bede.

As I said above, I tie the appearance of Mark to the the second rebellion which started in Cyrenaica and spread across northern Africa against Trajan (115-117 CE). And then chapter 13 :the Littke Apocalypse" was added in the 130's CE at the time of the Bar Kotchba revolt.

We can read of the second revolt in Eusebius, Church History 4.2.1-5 and Dio Cassius Hist. Rom. 68.32.1-3. It was immediately after this revolt, and in this area, that the first full blown Gnostic teachers appeared in Alexandria, namely Basilides, Valentinius, Carpocrates and his son Epiphanes.

It is interesting that these leaders were all from (or strongly associated) with Alexandria in the 120's CE. Basilides was a native of Alexandria. Valentinius was born in the Nile delta, educated & taught in Alexandria and moved to Rome where he was nearly elected Bishop. (This indicates that the proto- orthodox rejection of Gnostic teaching was something that only gradually developed). Likewise Carpocrates was from Alexandria and used only the "Gospel of the Hebrews" another heretical gospel that predated the canonical gospels.

Away in the East, in the "wild" areas of Asia Minor, another movement was afoot about the same time as Basilides, or perhaps a decade or so before. Here we find the followers of the Great Apostle himself, who had disappeared over the horizon into legend long before, but who was wont to return to his churches when they needed him the most, in the form of terrifying epistles. Today we know him as Paul, but perhaps earlier he was Simon.[See R.Price Amazing Colossal Apostle). These two religions, spreading from Alexandria and Pontus respectively, would meet, compete, and merge in the middle to late second century CE.

And yet, we are not quite finished even yet! There was another great leader of the early second century whose followers may have been of more significance than either of the other two. He was supposed to be the writer of Revelation and the arch enemy of Paul. Of course, I speak of Cerinthus.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

TedM · 02-21-2013, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted

I don't automatically accept your authority on this spin even though I know you have a much greater knowledge of many subjects than myself. I need you to convince me that you know what you are talking about.

It's not a matter of authority. It's a matter of you using your brains and making a reasoned analysis. I never asked you to accept anything other than your responsibility to read and evaluate logically.

But I gave you my logical reasoning as to why I disagree with you already. What more is to be said? There is no point to going through individual passages spin. I already have said I personally wouldn't find various passages to be Messianic. But my personal interpretation is not what is being discussed here.

aa5874 · 02-21-2013, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

...Canonical Mark (including short gMark) is the deliberate redaction of antenicean Church Fathers and their circles to refute heretical, Jewish and heathen attacks against proto-Orthodoxy, and to establish a church discipline...

Who are these "antenicean Church Fathers and their circles"?? The short gMark does not mention or establish any Church doctrine except that Jesus was the Son of God, was betrayed, crucified, buried, resurrected and will make a Second Advent..

In gMark, the Jews, the outsiders, did NOT understand what Jesus was talking about. Jesus was essentially performing miracles that were NOT humanly possible.

When he was arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin Jesus claimed he was the Son of God, was found guilty of death for blasphemy and was ultimately crucified under Pilate and then resurrected after three days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

...The legend of Judas is unknown before Irenaeus. We find no mention of the arch betrayer in Justin or the Gospel of Peter, which according to JDC incorporates material from a gospel more primitive than the canonical gospels. In GPeter, each of the Twelve in grief retires to their respective homes after the death of Jesus. Thus no member of the Twelve could have been the betrayer. Yet in Mark, we find Judas front and center, even though the crucial scene indicates an intermediate version in which the betrayer is nameless (14:24). And as RPrice has noted, why was one of the disciples the only one explicitly said to use a weapon (14:47) at the arrest of Jesus? Is this an indication of an even earlier version in which Jesus is captured by his disciples?...

Based on "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen, Celsus did write about the betrayal of Jesus in his "True Discourse" c 160 CE.

Origen's Against Celsus 2.11

Quote:

In the next place, that He was betrayed by those whom He called His disciples, is a circumstance which the Jew of Celsus learned from the Gospels; calling the one Judas, however, “many disciples,” that he might seem to add force to the accusation.

In book 2 of "Against Celsus" it is claimed that Celsus argued that the betrayal of Jesus was illogical because Jesus had already exposed Judas as a traitor.

Origen' Against Celsus 2.19

Quote:

Superficial also is his objection, that “it is always the case when a man against whom a plot is formed, and who comes to the knowledge of it, makes known to the conspirators that he is acquainted with their design, that the latter are turned from their purpose, and keep upon their guard.” .........and it is to no purpose that he says, “It is altogether impossible for those who heard beforehand that their designs were discovered, to carry out their plans of betrayal and denial.”

rlogan · 02-21-2013, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Yes, that would put it in a different light. Jesus displayed a certain amount of hubris, a tragic flaw, which led to his downfall and death.

So let's look at gMark as a play, a Greek Tragedy. When we do this, we begin to see that the audience plays a much greater role in the story than even the disciples.

yes, absolutely. There are all of these ironic opposites with the King being executed and the disciples being so stupid, etc. and the literary form being scenes being separated by exit/entrance. Vorkosigan had written on this a while ago here and now that I have gone through the geography I agree so much more with what he said about that.

For the geography makes no sense whatsoever, beyond borrowing from the Hebrew Bible some important prophetic place-names. But as a play, the scenes are handily broken up with "and they exited that place...and Jesus arrived at the borders of so-and-so". It is VERY easy imagining this as a play, and as you say the audience is very clearly at the fore of the writer's mind not in the sense a written novel would be - but as a performance audience.

Thank you so much for the material on Alexandria. Wow.

andrewcriddle · 02-21-2013, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Clauss states that some initiates of the cult “had undergone the taurobolium, that is, had undergone a ritual in which a bull was sacrificed over a pit containing the initiand; through the blood, he was reborn for eternity” http://tinyurl.com/asuj4q6
CLAUSS, M. (2000), The Roman Cult of Mithras. The God and His Mysteries, Edinburgh, Edinburgh U.
P. Page 31

Jake

The main evidence for a Mithraic taurobolium comes from an inscription dated to 391 CE which is a/ very late and b/ possibly not authentic.

See for example mythofthemithraic bloodbaptism

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv · 02-21-2013, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Very interesting stuff, Jake.

Where does this analysis place gMark? Still first?

Hi Horatio,

It may be that the priority of Mark only indicates that canonical Mark more closely reflects an urgospel than canonical Luke or canonical Matthew. This was Lachman’s observation so many years ago, and the so called “Lachmann Fallacy” is itself a misunderstanding by those (B. C. Butler, W. R. Farmer, Matthew priortists et. al.) who thoroughly misinterpreted Lachman’s work. I think that Lachman was probably pointing in the right direction, toward an early version of Mark, i.e. urMark.

Jake Jones IV

spin · 02-21-2013, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted

I don't automatically accept your authority on this spin even though I know you have a much greater knowledge of many subjects than myself. I need you to convince me that you know what you are talking about.

It's not a matter of authority. It's a matter of you using your brains and making a reasoned analysis. I never asked you to accept anything other than your responsibility to read and evaluate logically.

But I gave you my logical reasoning as to why I disagree with you already. What more is to be said? There is no point to going through individual passages spin. I already have said I personally wouldn't find various passages to be Messianic. But my personal interpretation is not what is being discussed here.

I have challenged you to contemplate what I consider to be the unfounded basis of your reasoning. Until you look into it yourself you will continue in my eyes to talk nonsense. The christian apologetic machine has over the centuries had to deal with many exigencies in maintaining clarity of understanding doctrine and the world. The result of that dealing is a layer of obfuscation that christians take as transparent. What you see isn't what is there, but a reconfigured version filtered by previous software upgrades.

You've probably been told all your christian life that the HB is full of messianic references. It's certain that over the centuries both Jews and christians have reread the HB looking for support for their own beliefs, ie those beliefs were already shaped and it is purely justification that ultimately motivates the investigation for signs of those beliefs.

The DSS shows Jews reinterpreting texts in the belief that they reflected their times (the "pesher" literature). The views, the doctrine, didn't come from the literature in these cases, but reflected the reinterpreters. This search for messianic signs in Hebrew literature in the wake of the development of christian theology is understandable, but eisegetical in nature. There is no doubt that some of this eisegetical analysis was done before the emergence of christian theology. The Jews were responsible for messianic expectation and they passed the process of investigation on to the emergent christians. These were in the process of repackaging the Jewish idea of the messiah to fit the dying savior whose sacrifice saved. Isaiah 9:6, for example, was never cited in the earliest christian literature, though we find Isa 9:1 in Mt 4:15. It was a post hoc "discovery". The vast bulk of christian so-called messianic prophecies are examples of the will to find proof in the past for what has come about. This is your inheritance.

The reality of Jewish messianic expectation has been clarified by the discovery of the DSS. Much of the scholarly speculation of the 19th c. has gone out the window and the book has been rewritten on the subject, for in the scrolls we have literature directly from the era and that helps to distinguish the thought of the time from that of expectation under the rabbis. You know next to nothing about the foundations of early christian thought. There are no indications of how the earliest notions of christian "messianism" were formulated, as we only have the gospels and the letters and no window into the formation, so your bizarre assumptions have no known connection with the process, although it does reflect the centuries of apologetics that followed the emergence of christianity, the cobbling together of references to past and future kings, of ambulant wisdom, of the remnant of Israel (the suffering servant), of random references taken totally out of context. The end result is an anti-historical pastiche of nonsense that makes understanding what happened harder for you.

Horatio Parker · 02-21-2013, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Very interesting stuff, Jake.

Where does this analysis place gMark? Still first?

Hi Horatio,

It may be that the priority of Mark only indicates that canonical Mark more closely reflects an urgospel than canonical Luke or canonical Matthew. This was Lachman’s observation so many years ago, and the so called “Lachmann Fallacy” is itself a misunderstanding by those (B. C. Butler, W. R. Farmer, Matthew priortists et. al.) who thoroughly misinterpreted Lachman’s work. I think that Lachman was probably pointing in the right direction, toward an early version of Mark, i.e. urMark.

Jake Jones IV

IOW IIUC gMark was not as extensively revised.

Something that occurred to me reading your post was the tension between the Greek and Jewish communities in Alexandria at this time. Might that attitude be reflected in gMark?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.