Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 10-11-2011, 10:02 AM

It is amazing how willfully ignorant scholars can be on the subject of other models for early Christianity. Origen hints in his Homilies on Luke that the Marcionites held that Paul was the Paraclete yet scholars, refusing to let go of their 'faith' in sanctity of the testimony of Irenaeus, won't allow for the idea that the Marcionite gospel could contain references to the Paraclete (the Paraclete is only referenced in John in the New Testament of the Catholics). Yet the Acts of Archelaus - a text developed in Osroene where Bauer and others have long argued had Marcionitism as its official orthodoxy - repeatedly reference the idea of Paul as the Paraclete as the normative belief of Christians. However scholars refuse to see this either. They don't even come up with an explanation to this.

However Tertullian also makes reference to the same idea in a subtle refutation of Marcionitism and Valentinism in his Prescription Against the Heretics 27 - 29 writing:

Quote:

Since, therefore, it is incredible that the apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of the message which they had to declare, or failed to make known to all men the entire rule of faith, let us see whether, while the apostles proclaimed it, perhaps, simply and fully, the churches, through their own fault, set it forth otherwise than the apostles had done. All these suggestions of distrust you may find put forward by the heretics. They bear in mind how the churches were rebuked by the apostle: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?” Gal. iii. 1. and, “Ye did run so well; who hath hindered you?” Gal. v. 7. and how the epistle actually begins: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him, who hath called you as His own in grace, to another gospel.” Gal. i. 6. That they likewise (remember), what was written to the Corinthians, that they “were yet carnal,” who “required to be fed with milk,” being as yet “unable to bear strong meat;” 1 Cor. iii. 1, and following verses. who also “thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know.” 1 Cor. viii. 2.When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected; let them also remember those (churches), concerning whose faith and knowledge and conversation the apostle “rejoices and gives thanks to God,” which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution.

Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, John xiv. 26. and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; John xv. 26. grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?

In whatever manner error came, it reigned of course only as long as there was an absence of heresies? Truth had to wait for certain Marcionites and Valentinians to set it free. During the interval the gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized; so many works of faith were wrongly wrought; so many miraculous gifts, so many spiritual endowments, were wrongly set in operation; so many priestly functions, so many mysteries were wrongly executed; and, to sum up the whole, so many martyrs wrongly received their crowns! Else, if not wrongly done, and to no purpose, how comes it to pass that the things of God were on their course before it was known to what God they belonged? that there were Christians before Christ was found? that there were heresies before true doctrine? Not so; for in all cases truth precedes its copy, the likeness succeeds the reality. Absurd enough, however, is it, that heresy should be deemed to have preceded its own prior doctrine, even on this account, because it is that (doctrine) itself which foretold that there should be heresies against which men would have to guard! To a church which possessed this doctrine, it was written—yea, the doctrine itself writes to its own church—“Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which we have preached, let him be accursed.”

andrewcriddle · 10-11-2011, 12:32 PM

Hi Stephan

I can't see a reference here to Paul being the Paraclete.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 10-11-2011, 01:08 PM

Well no one else saw it either so you might be right. It's always a bad sign when you're the only person that sees something. Let's break it down into stages. First the traditional idea associated with the heretics that 'the apostles' were ignorant of the deeper truths (cf. Irenaeus AH 3.1):

Quote:

Since, therefore, it is incredible that the apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of the message which they had to declare, or failed to make known to all men the entire rule of faith, let us see whether, while the apostles proclaimed it, perhaps, simply and fully, the churches, through their own fault, set it forth otherwise than the apostles had done. All these suggestions of distrust you may find put forward by the heretics.

Then he notes the traditional Marcionite interpretation of Galatians:

Quote:

They bear in mind how the churches were rebuked by the apostle: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?” Gal. iii. 1. and, “Ye did run so well; who hath hindered you?” Gal. v. 7. and how the epistle actually begins: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him, who hath called you as His own in grace, to another gospel.” Gal. i. 6. That they likewise (remember), what was written to the Corinthians, that they “were yet carnal,” who “required to be fed with milk,” being as yet “unable to bear strong meat;” 1 Cor. iii. 1, and following verses. who also “thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know.” 1 Cor. viii. 2.

Then Tertullian offers a correction of this heretical doctrine saying, yes Paul admonished the other apostles but that they were ultimately reconciled:

Quote:

When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected; let them also remember those (churches), concerning whose faith and knowledge and conversation the apostle “rejoices and gives thanks to God,” which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution.

Then Tertullian - assuming the correctness of his view that the scriptures show that Paul reconciled with Peter and the apostolic Church - goes on to speak ironically of the beliefs of those who claim that Paul went to the grave rejecting the apostles:

Quote:

Grant, then, that all have erred (ironic); that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony (ironic); that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, John xiv. 26. and for this asked of the Father that he (= the Paraclete) might be the teacher of truth; John xv. 26. grant, also, that he, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what he himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?

The question I guess comes down whether Tertullian could have made reference to the Paraclete without assuming a human or human office holders of that title. We know that all parties (Tertullian, Marcion, Valentinus) held that the Paraclete took human form. Isn't the purpose of Tertullian's statement that both Paul and the apostles were Paracletes? The idea does appear in the Acts of Archelaus alongside the traditional heretical view that Paul alone was the Paraclete:

Quote:

For he has given out that he is that Paraclete whom Jesus on His departure promised to send to the race of man for the salvation of the souls of the faithful; and this profession he makes as if he were somewhat superior even to Paul, who was an elect vessel and a called apostle, and who on that ground, while preaching the true doctrine, said: Or seek yea proof of that Christ who speaks in me? [AA 26]

Yet this man is now in our presence, and falls to produce any of the credentials which we have summarized in what we have already said, and declares that he is the Paraclete whose mission was presignified by Jesus. And by this assertion, in his ignorance perchance, he will make out Jesus Himself to be a liar; for thus He who once said that He would send the Paraclete no long time after, will be proved only to have sent this person, if we accept the testimony which he bears to himself, after an interval of three hundred years and more. In the day of judgment, then, what will those say to Jesus who have departed this life from that time on to the present period? Will they not meet Him with words like these: Do not punish its rigorously if we have failed to do Your works. For why, when You promised to send the Paraclete under Tiberius Caesar, to convince us of sin and of righteousness, did You send Him only under Probus the Roman emperor, and leave us orphaned, not with-standing that You said, 'I will not leave you comfortless (orphaned), ' and after You had also assured us that You would send the Paraclete presently after Your departure? What could we orphans do, having no guardian? We have committed no fault; it is You that has deceived us. But away with such a supposition in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of every soul. For He did not confine Himself to mere promises; but when He had once said, I go to my Father, and I send the Paraclete to you, straightway He sent (that gift of the Paraclete), dividing and imparting the same to His disciples—bestowing it, however, in greater fullness upon Paul. [AA 27]

And wherein, forsooth, did He make any tarrying, so that we should have to believe Him to have waited so long, even to these days, before He actually sent the Paraclete? Nay, rather, as has been already said above, He gave proof of His presence with us immediately, and did most abundantly impart Himself to Paul, whose testimony we also believe when he says, Unto me only is this grace given. For this is he who formerly was a persecutor of the Church of God, but who afterwards appeared openly before all men as a faithful minister of the Paraclete; by whose instrumentality His singular clemency was made known to all men, in such wise that even to us who some time were without hope the largess of His gifts has come. For which of us could have hoped that Paul, the persecutor and enemy of the Church, would prove its defender and guardian? Yea, and not that alone, but that he would become also its ruler, the founder and architect of the churches? Wherefore after him, and after those who were with Himself— that is, the disciples— we are not to look for the advent of any other (such), according to the Scriptures; for our Lord Jesus Christ says of this Paraclete, He shall receive of mine. Him therefore He selected as an acceptable vessel; and He sent this Paul to us in the Spirit. Into him the Spirit was poured; and as that Spirit could not abide upon all men, but only on Him who was born of Mary the mother of God, so that Spirit, the Paraclete, could not come into any other, but could only come upon the apostles and the sainted Paul. For he is a chosen vessel, He says, unto me, to bear my name before kings and the Gentiles. The apostle himself, too, states the same thing in his first epistle, where he says: According to the grace that is given to me of God, that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel of God. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost. And again: For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not wrought by me by word and deed. I am the last of all the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle. But by the grace of God I am what I am. And it, is his wish to have to deal with those who sought the proof of that Christ who spoke in him, for this reason, that the Paraclete was in him: and as having obtained His gift of grace, and as being enriched with magnificent, honour, he says: For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for you; for strength is made perfect in weakness. Again, that it was the Paraclete Himself who was in Paul, is indicated by our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel, when He says: If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray my Father, and He shall give you another Comforter. In these words He points to the Paraclete Himself, for He speaks of another Comforter. And hence we have given credit to Paul, and have hearkened to him when he says, Or do you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me? and when he expresses himself in similar terms, of which we have already spoken above. [AA 34]

And how, then, shall we credit the professions of this Manes, who comes from Persis, and declares himself to be the Paraclete? [AA 35]

For what says the Scripture? That every man heard the apostles speak in his own language through the Spirit, the Paraclete. [AA 36]

For just as no other had the capacity sufficient for sustaining the burden of the Paraclete except only the disciples and the blessed Paul [AA 50]

That name, therefore, he pretended on this account to assume to himself, in order that the people in the various communities, hearing the holy and divine name of Christ, might have no temptation to execrate and harass those disciples of his. Moreover, when they came upon the word which is given us in our Scriptures touching the Paraclete, he took it into his head that he himself might be that Paraclete; for he had not read with sufficient care to observe that the Paraclete had come already—namely, at the time when the apostles were still upon earth. [AA 54]

stephan huller · 10-12-2011, 08:50 PM

Another potential reference to Paul as the Paraclete:

Quote:

Now, if any limitation is set to marrying—such as the spiritual rule, which prescribes but one marriage under the Christian obedience, maintained by the authority of the Paraclete, —it will be His prerogative to fix the limit Who had once been diffuse in His permission; His to gather, Who once scattered; His to cut down the tree, Who planted it; His to reap the harvest, Who sowed the seed; His to declare, “It remaineth that they who have wives be as though they had none,” [Against Marcion 1.29]

jakejonesiv · 10-13-2011, 04:46 AM

Not suprising since GJohn also has a Marcionite layer.

Just to reiterate, in one passage, (Origen, Homilies 25.4-5) many of the theories discussed on FRDB are tied together.

Various sects were variously teaching that John the Baptist was the Christ, that Paul was the Christ, that Dositheus was the Christ, that Judas the Galilean was the Christ, that Paul and Marcion were seated on the right and left of Jesus in heaven, and that the Paraclete was the Apostle Paul!!

Here is the excerpt.

Quote:

… they kept wondering ''whether perhaps he [JOHN THE BAPTIST] was the Christ." (Lk 3.15). … Paul feared that even he might fall into this error. So he was unwilling to state everything about himself that he knew. He wanted no one … to say what had been said about John, that "he was the Christ." Some people said this even about DOSITHEUS, THE HERESIARCH OF THE SAMARITANS; others said it also about JUDAS THE GALILEAN. Finally, some people burst forth into such great audacity of love that they invented new and unheard of exaggerations about Paul.

For, some say this, that the passage in Scripture that speaks of "sitting at the Savior's right and left" (Mt 20.21 cf Mk 10:38) applies to PAUL AND MARCION: Paul sits at his right hand and Marcion at his left. Others read the passage, "I shall send you an advocate, the Spirit of Truth," (Jn 14:16) and are unwilling to understand a third person besides the Father and the Son, a divine and exalted nature. They take it to mean THE APOSTLE PAUL. …

Jake

stephan huller · 10-13-2011, 07:14 AM

Yes most scholars including von Harnack see both references as directed at the Marcionites. It becomes even stronger when we see the Acts of Archelaus take up the idea as 'orthodox' = reflecting the orthodoxy of the Christian community in Osroene which Bauer has already demonstrated was Marcionite since the mid second century.

jakejonesiv · 10-13-2011, 01:34 PM

In 1969 a Greek parchment codex (dated on on paleographical evidence to 5c. CE) was discovered in Upper Egypt, now designated Cologne Mani-Codex (Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis). It contains an account of Mani's career along with accounts of Mani's religious teachings..

Here is a brief excerpt from “On the Origin of His Body” The Cologne Mani Codex (P.Colon inv. Nr. 4780). It is from the beginning of the Mani letter to Edessa.

Quote:

“The truth of the secrets that I speak—about the laying on of hands that is mine—not from people have I received it nor from fleshly creatures, not even from studies in the scriptures. But when my most blessed father, who called me into his grace, saw me, since he did not wish me and the rest who are in the world to perish, he felt compassion, so that he might extend well- being to those prepared to be chosen by him from the sects. Then, by his grace, he pulled me from the council of the many who do not recognize the truth and revealed to me his secrets and those of the undefiled father of all the cosmos. He disclosed to me how I was before the foundation of the world, ….”

Written in the gospel of his most holy hope,

Quote:

“I, Mani, a messenger of Jesus Christ through the will of god, the father of truth, from whom I was born, who lives and abides forever …. The truth of ages that he revealed I have seen, and that truth I have disclosed … this immortal gospel that I have written, including in it these eminent mysteries … These things that he revealed I have shown to those who live from the truest vision, which I have seen, and from the most glorious revelation revealed to me.”

This can be found in “The Gnostic Bible” by Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer.

Best,
Jake

DCHindley · 10-13-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Your points are predictably monotonous. Mani lived in the third century and was clearly a student of a radicalized form of Marcionitism. His appearance at Harran to convince “Marcellus” (= Marcion) that he was the Paraclete. Not only does Mani appear to be aware of Marcionite Paraclete interpretations of the gospel and Apostolikon but moreover he exploits the deliberate ambiguity in those texts (= that Paul never openly announces that he is the messiah/Paraclete). It is also interesting that both Marcellus/Marcion and Mani are diminutives (of Mark and Menachem = Paraclete respectively). Muhammad is the Arabic equivalent of Paraclete although it isn't a diminutive. Islam is the historical heir to this ORIGINAL Christian tradition which may account why Harran was left untouched and allowed to persist in their belief system

I thought the pagan residents of Harran, forced to choose a holy book under threat of the Abbasid caliph al-Ma'mun, adopted the Hermetic books like the Sabians had already done. The teachings of Hermes Trismagestus (particularly in the Poimandres) were probably identified as a variant of Judaism. The caliph, FWIW, was into alchemy, an art closely associated with Hermeticism.

True he left the Aramean and Assyrian Christians be, but how does this make your blanket statements that Muhammed is the Arabic equivalent of Mani, the Persian(?) equivalent of Greek "paraclete" which is is equivalent to English "comforter", as if this all is related to your other blanket statement that Marcion put himself out as the Paraclete? Has something gotten confused with Montanus, who surely did identify himself with the Paraclete?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma%27mun

DCH

stephan huller · 10-13-2011, 03:21 PM

Make friends with someone who speaks Arabic. Muhammed= Paraclete. Driving

arnoldo · 10-13-2011, 03:51 PM

Irenaeus gives an account of the Apostle Paul being depicted by the gnostics as a kind of Super AEon when compared to the AEons of the other apostles.

Quote:

That they improperly and illogically apply both the parables and the actions of the Lord to their falsely−devised system, I prove as follows: They endeavour, for instance, to demonstrate that passion which, they say, happened in the case of the twelfth AEon, from this fact, that the passion of the Saviour was brought about by the twelfth apostle, and happened in the twelfth month. For they hold that He preached [only] for one year after His baptism. They maintain also that the same thing was clearly set forth in the case of her who suffered from the issue of blood. For the woman suffered during twelve years, and through touching the hem of the Saviour's garment she was made whole by that power which went forth from the Saviour, and which, they affirm, had a previous existence. For that Power who suffered was stretching herself outwards and flowing into immensity, so that she was in danger of being dissolved into the general substance [of the AEons]; but then, touching the primary Tetrad, which is typified by the hem of the garment, she was arrested,and ceased from her passion. . . Moreover we must not keep silence respecting Paul, but demand from them after the type of what AEon that apostle has been handed down to us, unless perchance [they affirm that he is a representative] of the Saviour compounded of them [all], who derived his being from the collected gifts of the whole, and whom they term All Things, as having been formed out of them all. Respecting this being the poet Hesiod has strikingly expressed himself, styling him Pandorathat is, "The gift of all"for this reason, that the best gift in the possession of all was centred in him.

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

10-11-2011, 12:32 PM	#2
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	Hi Stephan I can't see a reference here to Paul being the Paraclete. Andrew Criddle

10-13-2011, 07:14 AM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Yes most scholars including von Harnack see both references as directed at the Marcionites. It becomes even stronger when we see the Acts of Archelaus take up the idea as 'orthodox' = reflecting the orthodoxy of the Christian community in Osroene which Bauer has already demonstrated was Marcionite since the mid second century.

10-13-2011, 03:21 PM	#9
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Make friends with someone who speaks Arabic. Muhammed= Paraclete. Driving

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.