Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 01-22-2012, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Your ---- proposition is that Constantine invented the chi-rho .....

Are you crazy? I just posted a coin from BCE with the Chi-rho. Constantine OBVIOUSLY used an existing symbol.

Quote:

I am just confirming that if I could say that I think that you and your theory are so XXXXXXXXXXXXX that you should be thrown off this forum I would but I am barred from doing so Please find someone else to continue this idiotic discussion with. I consider it harassment even when you approach me with yet another variation of this stupidity. I will complain to the moderators. Please stop communicating with me in any form whatsoever.

You are asking questions in a public forum. If you consider my contributions to such questions idiotic, stupid, and of no significance, then you have an ignore button, and I suggest you use it. Have a nice day.

stephan huller · 01-22-2012, 08:29 AM

Anyway, now that this distraction is gone. Let's recap the wonderful service that David has done for us. If it wasn't for David I wouldn't have realized that we have proof that early Christians took semeion to mean 'cross-shape' or 'cross.' Why is this important? Well Clement's gospel (Secret Mark?) speaks of 'bearing about the semeion' rather than 'bearing about the cross.' The distinction is important. It means that those who undergo the mysteries are understood to be carrying about an invisible semeion of the cross (like Jesus in the image).

The idea of an 'invisible semeion' is strange enough. That seems to be an oxymoron like 'deafening silence' but let's see how the idea is put into comic use by the authors of the Clementine Literature.

The Aramaic equivalent of the Greek semeion is siman. The word bears a striking similarity to the Greek name Simon.

There is an exceedingly silly parody of the understanding still alive in the Clementine Literature where Clement's father Faustus receives the image of Simon and is worried that he will be executed by the Romans because of it. The Clementine Literature makes little mention of the Cross (if any at all) and is usually believed to have emerged from the Jewish Christian Ebionites.

I will compile a list of references to Faustus and then to the explicit mention that we must bear about the image of God:

Quote:

But I scarcely know either them or our mother, but bear about with me an obscure image of them, as through dreams. My mother's name was Mattidia, and my father's, Faustus; and of my brothers one was called Faustinus, and the other Faustinianus. Then after I, their third son, was born, my mother saw a vision—so my father told me— which told her, that unless she immediately took away her twin sons, and left the city of Rome for exile for twelve years, she and they must die by an all-destructive fate. [Homily 12.7]

Now at break of day Peter entered, and said: Clement, and his mother Mattidia, and my wife, must take their seats immediately on the waggon. And so they did straightway. And as we were hastening along the road to Balanæae, my mother asked me how my father was; and I said: My father went in search of you, and of my twin brothers Faustinus and Faustinianus, and is now nowhere to be found. But I fancy he must have died long ago, either perishing by shipwreck, or losing his way, or wasted away by grief. When she heard this, she burst into tears, and groaned through grief; but the joy which she felt at finding me, mitigated in some degree the painfulness of her recollections. And so we all went down together to Balanæae. [Homily 13.1]

Now when this summary narrative had been given by Peter, Nicetas and Aquila in amazement said: Is this indeed true, O Ruler and Lord of the universe, or is it a dream? And Peter said: Unless we are asleep, it certainly is true. On this they waited for a little in deep meditation, and then said: We are Faustinus and Faustinianus. From the commencement of your conversation we looked at each other, and conjectured much with regard to ourselves, whether what was said had reference to us or not; for we reflected that many coincidences take place in life. Wherefore we remained silent while our hearts beat fast. [ibid chapter 3]

The sons, on hearing their mother thus speak, could no longer, in obedience to the exhortation of Peter, restrain themselves, but rising up, they clasped her in their arms, showering down upon her tears and kisses. But she said: What is the meaning of this? And Peter answered: Courageously summon up your spirits, O woman, that you may enjoy your children; for these are Faustinus and Faustinianus, your sons, who, you said, had perished in the deep. For how they are alive, after they had in your opinion died on that most disastrous night, and how one of them now bears the name of Nicetas, and the other that of Aquila, they will themselves be able to tell you; for we, as well as you, have yet to learn this. When Peter thus spoke, my mother fainted away through her excessive joy, and was like to die. But when we had revived her she sat up, and coming to herself, she said: Be so good, my darling children, as tell us what happened to you after that disastrous night [ibid chapter 6]

And Nicetas, who in future is to be called Faustinus, began to speak. On that very night when, as you know, the ship went to pieces, we were taken up by some men, who did not fear to follow the profession of robbers on the deep. They placed us in a boat, and brought us along the coast, sometimes rowing and sometimes sending for provisions, and at length took us to Cæsarea Stratonis, and there tormented us by hunger, fear, and blows, that we might not recklessly disclose anything which they did not wish us to tell; and, moreover, changing our names, they succeeded in selling us. Now the woman who bought us was a proselyte of the Jews, an altogether worthy person, of the name of Justa. She adopted us as her own children, and zealously brought us up in all the learning of the Greeks. But we, becoming discreet with our years, were strongly attached to her religion, and we paid good heed to our culture, in order that, disputing with the other nations, we might be able to convince them of their error. We also made an accurate study of the doctrines of the philosophers, especially the most atheistic,—I mean those of Epicurus and Pyrrho,—in order that we might be the better able to refute them. [ibid chapter 7]

The Old Man Gives Information in Regard to Faustus the Father of Clement When the old man had thus spoken, I knew from what he said that the old man who he stated had died, was no other than your father. I did not wish, however, to communicate your circumstances to him until I should confer with you. But I ascertained where his lodging was, and I pointed out mine to him; and to make sure that my conjecture was right, I put this one question to him: 'What was the name of the old man?' And he said, 'Faustus.' 'And what were the names of his twin sons?' And he answered, 'Faustinus and Faustinianus.' 'What was the name of the third son?' He said, 'Clement.' 'What was their mother's name?' He said, 'Mattidia.' Accordingly, from compassion, I shed tears along with him, and, dismissing the multitudes, I came to you, in order that I might take counsel with you after we had partaken of food together. But I did not wish to disclose the matter to you before we had partaken of food, lest perchance you should be overcome by sorrow, and continue sad on the day of baptism, when even angels rejoice. At these statements of Peter we all fell a weeping along with our mother. But he beholding us in tears, said: Now let each one of you, through fear of God, bear bravely what has been said: for certainly it was not today that your father died, but long ago, as you conjecturing said. [Homily 14.8]

Now all of us who were with Peter asked each other questions the whole of the night, and continued awake, because of the pleasure and joy we derived from what was said. But when at length the dawn began to break, Peter, looking at me and my brothers, said: I am puzzled to think what your father has been about. And just as he was saying this, our father came in and caught Peter talking to us of him; and seeing him displeased, he accosted him, and rendered an apology for having slept outside. But we were amazed when we looked at him: for we saw the form of Simon, but heard the voice of our father Faustus. And when we were fleeing from him, and abhorring him, our father was astonished at receiving such harsh and hostile treatment from us. But Peter alone saw his natural shape, and said to us: Why do you in horror turn away from your own father? But we and our mother said: It is Simon that we see before us, with the voice of our father. And Peter said: You recognise only his voice, which is unaffected by magic; but as my eyes also are unaffected by magic, I can see his form as it really is, that he is not Simon, but your father Faustus. Then, looking to my father, he said: It is not your own true form that is seen by them, but that of Simon, our deadliest foe, and a most impious man. [Homily 20.12]

More to follow ...

DCHindley · 01-22-2012, 08:40 AM

Yes, I think that Justin (Apol 1.60) had attempted to interpret Plato's Timaeus 36c-e in a way that preserves Christian understanding of God, who created the world through Christ, and gives life to it through his Spirit.

Timaeus (36d-e) has

Now after that the framing of the soul was finished to the mind [κατὰ νοῦν] of him that framed her [συνιστάντι πᾶσα], next he fashioned within her all that is bodily, and he drew them together and fitted them middle to middle. And from the midst even unto the ends of heaven she was woven in everywhere and encompassed it around from without, and having her movement in herself she began a divine beginning of endless and reasonable life for ever and evermore. Now the body of the universe has been created visible ; but she is invisible, and she, even soul, has part in reason and in harmony.

Plato believed that The One (the supreme God) stood apart from a coexisting chaotic matter (that means it also existed of itself), and that another principal, the Demiurge (the craftsman, who also existed of himself), fashioned that chaotic matter into the visible universe using patterns from the Mind of the One.

It's still a little fuzzy to me exactly how Justin was interpreting this, but it seems to me that what Justin (as well as Philo) did was to reinterpret Plato so that the Supreme God and the Demiurge are merged into one principal.

The Mind of God was taken to be a second principal (Philo and later Christian thinkers like Origen called it the Logos/Reason of God, borrowing the term from the Aristotleans), through whom the chaotic matter created by the Supreme God took physical form.

Justin seems to go a step further, and thinks that the movement imparted to the universe (the rotation, etc) indicated a third principal, which he identified with the Spirit of God, although Plato himself attributed this to the Demiurge, who fashioned the World Soul out of leftovers from the fashioning of matter.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Irenaeus stole the idea from Justin and put it in the Proof of Apostolic Preaching:

Quote:

So then by the obedience wherewith He obeyed even unto death, hanging on the tree, He put away the old disobedience which was wrought in the tree. Now seeing that He is the Word of God Almighty, who in unseen wise in our midst is universally extended in all the world, and encompasses its length and breadth and height and depth [1] ----for by the Word of God the whole universe is ordered and disposed----in it is crucified the Son of God, inscribed crosswise upon it all:[2] for it is right that He being made visible, should set upon all things visible the sharing of His cross, that He might show His operation on visible things through a visible form. For He it is who illuminates the height, that is the heavens; and encompasses the deep which is beneath the earth; and stretches and spreads out the length from east to west; and steers across the breadth of north and south; summoning all that are scattered in every quarter to the knowledge of the Father.

[1] V, xvii. 4: Ἐπεὶ γὰρ διὰ ξύλου ἀπεβάλομεν αὐτόν (sc. τὸν λόγον Κυρίου), διὰ ξὐλου πάλιν φανερὸς τοῖς πᾶσιν ἐγένετο, ἐπιδεικνύων τὸ ὕψος καὶ μῆκος καῖ πλάτος ἐν ἑαυτῷ·καὶ, ὡς ἔφη τις τῶν προβεβηκότων πρεσβυτέρων, διὰ τῆς ἐκτάσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοὺς δὐο λαοὺς εἰς ἓνα θεὸν συνάγων. The Greek, preserved in a Catena, is here emended from the Latin and Armenian versions, both of which omit καὶ βάθος.
[2] V, xviii. 2: “in hoc mundo existens, et secundum invisibilitatem continet quæ facta sunt omnia, et in universa conditione infixus (Arm. “and in all this world in-crucified ”), quoniam Verbum Dei gubernans et disponensomnia.” The thought is taken from Justin (Ap. 1. 60), who attributes to Plato the words: Ἐχίασεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ παντί (cf. Timæus 36 B.C.). See above, Introd. p. 29. Justin says that Plato misunderstanding the story of the Brazen Serpent, μηδὲ νοήσας τύπον εἶναι σταυροῦ, ἀλλὰ χίασμα γοήσας, τὴν μετὰ τὸν πρῶτον θεὸν δύναμιν κεχίασθαι ἐν τῷ παντὶ εἶπε.

DCHindley · 01-22-2012, 10:35 AM

For those who follow this kind of stuff and prefer to have a copy for their own e-libraries, the book can be downloaded here as a searchable PDF.

The Google Books version is graphic image only, and Googling the title gets a lot of hits to sites that no longer have the file (copyright issue in UK?).

Introduction:
i. The document and its value (1)
ii. The debt of Irenaeus to Justin Martyr (6)
iii. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Justin and Irenaeus (24)
The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching (69)
Index of Scripture Quotations (152)
General Index (154)

Not such heavy reading after all.

DCH

stephan huller · 01-22-2012, 11:03 AM

Justin seems to go a step further, and thinks that the movement imparted to the universe (the rotation, etc) indicated a third principal, which he identified with the Spirit of God,

I would argue that Irenaeus modified Justin's original position but yes there is a progression of thought from Plato (and Philo). Interestingly Platonism within Christianity gets stronger the farther back in history you go and not the other way around demonstrating to me at least it is essential and original

tanya · 01-22-2012, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hindley

Here are the relevant passages of Justin's 1st apology:
And the physiological discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timaeus of Plato, where he says, "He placed him {crosswise} in the universe [lit. the all]," he borrowed in like manner from Moses;

Καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ παρὰ Πλάτωνι Τιμαίῳ φυσιολογού μενον περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅτε λέγει• Ἐχίασεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ παντί, παρὰ Μωυσέως λαβὼν ὁμοίως εἶπεν.(1)
...
...
For those who follow this kind of stuff and prefer to have a copy for their own e-libraries, the book can be downloaded here as a searchable PDF.

Great stuff, David.

Could I impose on you, to quote the Greek from Justin's 1st Apology, verse 67?

Alternatively, if you have a link to the Greek text, that would be excellent.

stephan huller · 01-22-2012, 11:33 AM

Its in Armenian which of course can only mean it was forged in Armenia by the same sixth century monk who translated Philo into Armenian

stephan huller · 01-22-2012, 12:05 PM

I had an idea this morning. I can't imagine how a chi-shaped cross could stand on its own. There had to a support beam behind it (hence the similarity to the chresimon). The idea that it was a chi-rho isn't essential to the story. The original idea must have been that Jesus was crucified on an x-shaped semeion (either a chi or tav depending on whether you were associating it with Greek or Aramaic letters). With me so far?

Now the question is why is this a 'semeion' rather than a chi? Why is the word 'sign' used throughout? Why does Clement's gospel lack the word 'cross' and only has the reference to a 'sign' which must be born on the body? What is the meaning of the clearly ironic symbolism here (notice the veil tears)? There is a palpable sense that the semeion is connected with the 'death' of the 'body' (= temple) and the restanding of something new and more perfect.

Drum roll please ...

Anyone familiar with all the theories about the presence of this legion in the gospel in various pericopes will immediately see the irony and the secret meaning which must have been thought to be present by the Marcionites etc.

This is clearly why the chi-shaped Cross was abandoned in the fourth century in favor of the neutral T-shaped cross. It erases the anti-Jewish 'secret irony' of the symbolism. It also dove-tails with the idea that the death of Jesus is like the 'revenge' narrative in Sophocles's Ajax.

Jesus's death not only leads to the destruction of Jeruisalem by the tenth legion but rather the seeds of the event are already present in the crucifixion given that the cross formed the ensign of the legion.

Not bad don't you think?

aeebee50 · 01-22-2012, 12:22 PM

Wow, you sure have done a lot of studying.

stephan huller · 01-22-2012, 12:32 PM

I forgot to send the book. Will do it Monday. Sorry

01-22-2012, 10:35 AM	#44
DCHindley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Mondcivitan Republic Posts: 2,550	Irenaeus' Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching For those who follow this kind of stuff and prefer to have a copy for their own e-libraries, the book can be downloaded here as a searchable PDF. The Google Books version is graphic image only, and Googling the title gets a lot of hits to sites that no longer have the file (copyright issue in UK?). Introduction: i. The document and its value (1) ii. The debt of Irenaeus to Justin Martyr (6) iii. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Justin and Irenaeus (24) The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching (69) Index of Scripture Quotations (152) General Index (154) Not such heavy reading after all. DCH

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

01-22-2012, 11:03 AM	#45
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Justin seems to go a step further, and thinks that the movement imparted to the universe (the rotation, etc) indicated a third principal, which he identified with the Spirit of God, I would argue that Irenaeus modified Justin's original position but yes there is a progression of thought from Plato (and Philo). Interestingly Platonism within Christianity gets stronger the farther back in history you go and not the other way around demonstrating to me at least it is essential and original

01-22-2012, 11:33 AM	#47
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Its in Armenian which of course can only mean it was forged in Armenia by the same sixth century monk who translated Philo into Armenian

01-22-2012, 12:05 PM	#48
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I had an idea this morning. I can't imagine how a chi-shaped cross could stand on its own. There had to a support beam behind it (hence the similarity to the chresimon). The idea that it was a chi-rho isn't essential to the story. The original idea must have been that Jesus was crucified on an x-shaped semeion (either a chi or tav depending on whether you were associating it with Greek or Aramaic letters). With me so far? Now the question is why is this a 'semeion' rather than a chi? Why is the word 'sign' used throughout? Why does Clement's gospel lack the word 'cross' and only has the reference to a 'sign' which must be born on the body? What is the meaning of the clearly ironic symbolism here (notice the veil tears)? There is a palpable sense that the semeion is connected with the 'death' of the 'body' (= temple) and the restanding of something new and more perfect. Drum roll please ... Anyone familiar with all the theories about the presence of this legion in the gospel in various pericopes will immediately see the irony and the secret meaning which must have been thought to be present by the Marcionites etc. This is clearly why the chi-shaped Cross was abandoned in the fourth century in favor of the neutral T-shaped cross. It erases the anti-Jewish 'secret irony' of the symbolism. It also dove-tails with the idea that the death of Jesus is like the 'revenge' narrative in Sophocles's Ajax. Jesus's death not only leads to the destruction of Jeruisalem by the tenth legion but rather the seeds of the event are already present in the crucifixion given that the cross formed the ensign of the legion. Not bad don't you think?

01-22-2012, 12:22 PM	#49
aeebee50 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Texas Posts: 5,810	Wow, you sure have done a lot of studying.

01-22-2012, 12:32 PM	#50
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I forgot to send the book. Will do it Monday. Sorry

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.