Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-26-2011, 07:01 PM

To answer the original question. The earliest interpretations of the material can be broken down into two points of view both Alexandrian. The 'Carpocratians' said there is no connection between the new commandment of Jesus - viz. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" or some such variant - and the Law and Prophets. Clement argues at length that this radical asceticism IS in keeping with the Law and the prophets at least 'spiritually.' The same kinds of arguments occur in all writers who used a Diatessaron. Aphrahat and Ephrem always point to the same examples (i.e. Moses abstaining from sex before receiving the Torah, Joshua was a virgin, Daniel the eunuch etc.). Yet it should be noted that even these writers did not resemble American evangelicals. The authority of the Law and prophets was definitely over with the destruction of the temple etc.

I think the Marcionites and even the Carpocratians were closer to Clement than he let's on. One can look at the Carpocratian emphasis of a strict interpretation of Mark 10:17 - 31 and wonder if they really were as 'libertine' as everyone claims they were. To me at least by arguing for a kind of Christian communism it is hard to reconcile this with the idea that they were of 'loose morals.' We can see from Stromateis Book Three that some of this comes from the arguments they developed to hold wives in common from Plato's Republic.

One might even see them as rejecting the authority of the Alexandrian ecclesiastical elite (i.e. Clement himself). We know very little about the Alexandrian Church in this period. Yet there are signs of it being involved in some sort of 'hypocrisy' or at least something which might be viewed as 'hypocritical' by more traditionally minded members.

I am not suggesting that the Carpocratians represented the 'true Alexandrian Church' but it should be noted that we always get reports of the leadership bowing down to Roman dictates. We needn't think only in terms of Secret Mark's sanctioning of swearing false oaths. The context was clearly the sacramentum of baptism as established by the Romans (a military-style oath swearing ceremony which traditional Alexandrians shunned cf Dionysius's exchange over the issue or the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism, Irenaeus's report on the 'Marcosians' etc.) Yet Clement hints at a wider acceptance of 'hypocrisy' in the highest ranks of the contemporary Church in Strom 6.15:

For instance, Paul circumcised Timothy because of the Jews who believed, in order that the catechumen of the law (οἱ ἐκ νόμου κατηχούμενοι) those of the faith who were from Judaism might not apostasize (ἀποστῶσι) because the carnal interpretation of the Law which was coming to an end, knowing right well that circumcision does not justify; for he professed that "all things were for all" by common consent (ὡμολόγει), preserving those of the dogmas that were essential (τὰ κύρια τῶν δογμάτων), "that he might gain all."(1 Cor 9.19) And Daniel, under the king of the Persians, wore "the chain," though he despised not the afflictions of the people.

The first part of section deals with the obvious incompatibility with what is describe in Acts with Galatians chapter 6. The Marcionites simply said that Acts was a forgery. Clement uses the contradiction to say that hypocrisy or inconsistency in doctrinal issues was divinely sanctioned.

The example of Daniel is especially interesting given that our surviving information about the Pope of that period - Demetrius - goes out of its way to compare Demetrius to Daniel. Daniel is described as accepting a governing post with an evil government (the Babylonians). This is the context of the 'chain' reference here. Yet I wonder if Clement is pointing also to a contemporary phenomenon. Were the eunuch governors of Alexandria also compromising its traditional values and beliefs to accomodate themselves to a wicked government (i.e. Commodus and the Severan Emperors)? I think so. All of which adds a new dimension to the 'Carpocratian' vs. Alexandrian presbytery debate which seems to have raged through the age.

spamandham · 01-26-2011, 09:44 PM

To me, I think it's important to understand what "kingdom of god" means. It is not heaven. The 'kingdom of god' is the church itself, which was in it's day a cult that required you to give up everything, as is typical even in modern cults.

The rich are typically not willing to give up everything for cult membership (though Scientology seems to have figured out a way past this log jam by demanding it a little at a time instead of all up front), and usually, neither are people with spouses and children.

The point of the story is basically "you who have given up everything are truly wonderful and will get to kiss Hank's ass, and everyone else sucks". There's no interesting moral, it's all part of the brainwashing.

stephan huller · 01-26-2011, 10:49 PM

I can appreciate where you are coming from spamandham. My feeling however is that we are only scratching the surface of the interpretation. The thing that always strikes me at least is how intelligent Clement is. How intelligent Origen is. How rich, successful and intelligent Ambrose is and we are only scratching the surface here.

I am not am apologist for Christianity. I don't find all the Church Fathers intelligent or particularly enlightened (or enlightening for that matter). Yet the writing style of Clement and Origen especially makes me wonder. Why were these men - who were intelligent enough to be in the company of pagan philosophical academies - why were they attracted to Christianity and the gospel of the Alexandrian Church?

This isn't the same as speaking about Eusebius and all those intelligent, philosophically inclined people who were attracted to Christianity in the fourth century. That's a whole different situation. There is no political expediency for Clement and Origen to join this other religion in Alexandria in a period where it was clearly being persecuted.

What was the attraction?

The Scientology example is bad because it appeals to Americans principally. I will stop right there ...

When you put Clement's writings under a microscope as I have for the last year you are struck by an unmistakable philosophical nexus. Here is someone who must have initially been attracted to Philo 'the Pythagorean' as he calls him. Someone who mixed traditional Jewish religion and Pythagoreanism and then he uncovers a messianic religion developed around a written text callled the gospel which Clement is convinced was developed from the same Pythagorean principles.

I don't even think Clement believes that the author simply fashioned Pythagorean mysteries himself as much as he 'tapped into' a cosmic revelaiton which 'confirmed' the same elemental proofs.

I know sometimes I might come across as someone who actually believes in this stuff myself. It's not that simple. I am trying to understand the principal players in earliest Christianity (or the earliest Christian evidence I can find) and I don't see the same types of people who are now attracted to what is called 'evangelical Christianity' or 'the Church' for that matter.

Clement became a Christian because he saw the fulfillment of Plato in the Church. So too Origen and likely hundreds - possibly thousands - of other souls that are now unknown to us.

While some of the Pythagorean and Platonic ideas seem really silly now, there is something lofty about all of this. There is an idealism which isn't 'religious' in the modern sense. I don't know that it can be all written off the way Joel Olsteen is a joke.

Joan of Bark · 01-28-2011, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Given that the man asked how he might gain eternal life, there is the indication of uncertainty on his part suggesting that he was unsure that his obedience to the law was sufficient to gain entry into heaven. While he might have viewed his wealth as an indicator of God's blessing, he does not appear to be so sure about this and seeks reassurance.

The issue seems to be whether the man was telling the truth in v20 when he said, "...all these [commandments] I have kept since I was a boy." It was not true as we read elsewhere that all have sinned and even David says in the psalms that he was born in sin. We might then view the question as, "Can a man who is good and seeks to obey God enter heaven by his own efforts?"

Jesus discerns the issue. He challenges the young man to give up his wealth and follow Him. The young man could not suggesting that he was trusting in his wealth and not in God so that his wealth had become his idol.

Had his wealth not been an issue, then Jesus would have touched on the the true issue. The whole point is that no one can enter heaven on their own merits because all the good that a person does cannot erase the evil that they have done.

A convenient interpretation for Christians who want to be wealthy and pious at the same time. Looking at the gospels as a coherent whole, as Christians claim to do, destroys that idea:

Matthew 6 (NIV)

Quote:

19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

There's also a passage where Jesus says essentially: woe to those who are wealthy, for they have their reward.

Christianity = hypocrisy.

bacht · 01-28-2011, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Christianity = hypocrisy.

I think it's more like Catholicism = pragmatism. They were plotting a "middle way" between strict asceticism and nihilistic materialism.

rhutchin · 01-28-2011, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

The whole point is that no one can enter heaven on their own merits because all the good that a person does cannot erase the evil that they have done.

I am not so sure that is the exact point...Clement's point seems to justify the ritual castration of both traditions. As long as one 'lusts' or 'covets' things one will not get into heaven.

That's one side of the issue, I think. The other side concerns whether a person's good works can get them into heaven. Putting them together, we might say that a person's good works cannot negate a person's covetous desires and get him into heaven.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Interestingly Clement (the crypto-Marcionite) understands that Paul knew that this saying as part of his gospel in Rom 7:7

Romans 7:7 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία; μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔγνων εἰ μὴ διὰ νόμου τήν τε γὰρ ἐπιθυμίαν οὐκ ᾔδειν εἰ μὴ ὁ νόμος ἔλεγεν οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις.

OK, so the purpose of the law was not to show a person how to get into heaven but to show a person why he cannot enter heaven.

stephan huller · 01-28-2011, 10:07 AM

You are correct that doing good deeds alone cannot get one into heaven. No one had ever put forward that idea at that point in history. The Alexandrians saw the Passion narrative as a path towards the recreation (= notsri) of humanity, to be made after the example of angels. You can see that a little in Stromata 3 where the Carpocratian talks about the Creator putting the bad yetser into humanity in order for him to be fruitful and multiply. The angels didn't do that. Jesus didn't do that. Monks don't do that. That's the path towards perfection. That's the path of Christianity.

rhutchin · 01-28-2011, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

To me, I think it's important to understand what "kingdom of god" means. It is not heaven. The 'kingdom of god' is the church itself, which was in it's day a cult that required you to give up everything, as is typical even in modern cults.

The kingdom of God is likely not the church. We have these verses that tell of the Kingdom of God leading us to conclude that it is something other than the church.

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. (Matthew 6:33)

But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Matthew 12:28)

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Matthew 19:24)

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. (Mark 1:15)

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: (Mark 9:47)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The rich are typically not willing to give up everything for cult membership (though Scientology seems to have figured out a way past this log jam by demanding it a little at a time instead of all up front), and usually, neither are people with spouses and children.

The issue then is why are the rich not willing to give up everything unless they do not believe in that for which they are called to give up everything.

rhutchin · 01-28-2011, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Given that the man asked how he might gain eternal life, there is the indication of uncertainty on his part suggesting that he was unsure that his obedience to the law was sufficient to gain entry into heaven. While he might have viewed his wealth as an indicator of God's blessing, he does not appear to be so sure about this and seeks reassurance.

The issue seems to be whether the man was telling the truth in v20 when he said, "...all these [commandments] I have kept since I was a boy." It was not true as we read elsewhere that all have sinned and even David says in the psalms that he was born in sin. We might then view the question as, "Can a man who is good and seeks to obey God enter heaven by his own efforts?"

Jesus discerns the issue. He challenges the young man to give up his wealth and follow Him. The young man could not suggesting that he was trusting in his wealth and not in God so that his wealth had become his idol.

Had his wealth not been an issue, then Jesus would have touched on the the true issue. The whole point is that no one can enter heaven on their own merits because all the good that a person does cannot erase the evil that they have done.

A convenient interpretation for Christians who want to be wealthy and pious at the same time. Looking at the gospels as a coherent whole, as Christians claim to do, destroys that idea:

Matthew 6 (NIV)

Quote:

19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

There's also a passage where Jesus says essentially: woe to those who are wealthy, for they have their reward.

Christianity = hypocrisy.

Where is the hypocrisy? Is it Christianity that is hypocrisy or is it those who might profess to be Christians who can be hypocrites. You appear to argue that it is those who profess to be Christians who can be hypocrites.

show_no_mercy · 01-28-2011, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Given that the man asked how he might gain eternal life, there is the indication of uncertainty on his part suggesting that he was unsure that his obedience to the law was sufficient to gain entry into heaven. While he might have viewed his wealth as an indicator of God's blessing, he does not appear to be so sure about this and seeks reassurance.

The issue seems to be whether the man was telling the truth in v20 when he said, "...all these [commandments] I have kept since I was a boy." It was not true as we read elsewhere that all have sinned and even David says in the psalms that he was born in sin. We might then view the question as, "Can a man who is good and seeks to obey God enter heaven by his own efforts?"

Jesus discerns the issue. He challenges the young man to give up his wealth and follow Him. The young man could not suggesting that he was trusting in his wealth and not in God so that his wealth had become his idol.

Had his wealth not been an issue, then Jesus would have touched on the the true issue. The whole point is that no one can enter heaven on their own merits because all the good that a person does cannot erase the evil that they have done.

A convenient interpretation for Christians who want to be wealthy and pious at the same time. Looking at the gospels as a coherent whole, as Christians claim to do, destroys that idea:

Matthew 6 (NIV)

Quote:

19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

There's also a passage where Jesus says essentially: woe to those who are wealthy, for they have their reward.

Christianity = hypocrisy.

Where is the hypocrisy? Is it Christianity that is hypocrisy or is it those who might profess to be Christians who can be hypocrites. You appear to argue that it is those who profess to be Christians who can be hypocrites.

Protestant Work Ethic?

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

01-26-2011, 07:01 PM	#11
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	To answer the original question. The earliest interpretations of the material can be broken down into two points of view both Alexandrian. The 'Carpocratians' said there is no connection between the new commandment of Jesus - viz. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" or some such variant - and the Law and Prophets. Clement argues at length that this radical asceticism IS in keeping with the Law and the prophets at least 'spiritually.' The same kinds of arguments occur in all writers who used a Diatessaron. Aphrahat and Ephrem always point to the same examples (i.e. Moses abstaining from sex before receiving the Torah, Joshua was a virgin, Daniel the eunuch etc.). Yet it should be noted that even these writers did not resemble American evangelicals. The authority of the Law and prophets was definitely over with the destruction of the temple etc. I think the Marcionites and even the Carpocratians were closer to Clement than he let's on. One can look at the Carpocratian emphasis of a strict interpretation of Mark 10:17 - 31 and wonder if they really were as 'libertine' as everyone claims they were. To me at least by arguing for a kind of Christian communism it is hard to reconcile this with the idea that they were of 'loose morals.' We can see from Stromateis Book Three that some of this comes from the arguments they developed to hold wives in common from Plato's Republic. One might even see them as rejecting the authority of the Alexandrian ecclesiastical elite (i.e. Clement himself). We know very little about the Alexandrian Church in this period. Yet there are signs of it being involved in some sort of 'hypocrisy' or at least something which might be viewed as 'hypocritical' by more traditionally minded members. I am not suggesting that the Carpocratians represented the 'true Alexandrian Church' but it should be noted that we always get reports of the leadership bowing down to Roman dictates. We needn't think only in terms of Secret Mark's sanctioning of swearing false oaths. The context was clearly the sacramentum of baptism as established by the Romans (a military-style oath swearing ceremony which traditional Alexandrians shunned cf Dionysius's exchange over the issue or the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism, Irenaeus's report on the 'Marcosians' etc.) Yet Clement hints at a wider acceptance of 'hypocrisy' in the highest ranks of the contemporary Church in Strom 6.15: For instance, Paul circumcised Timothy because of the Jews who believed, in order that the catechumen of the law (οἱ ἐκ νόμου κατηχούμενοι) those of the faith who were from Judaism might not apostasize (ἀποστῶσι) because the carnal interpretation of the Law which was coming to an end, knowing right well that circumcision does not justify; for he professed that "all things were for all" by common consent (ὡμολόγει), preserving those of the dogmas that were essential (τὰ κύρια τῶν δογμάτων), "that he might gain all."(1 Cor 9.19) And Daniel, under the king of the Persians, wore "the chain," though he despised not the afflictions of the people. The first part of section deals with the obvious incompatibility with what is describe in Acts with Galatians chapter 6. The Marcionites simply said that Acts was a forgery. Clement uses the contradiction to say that hypocrisy or inconsistency in doctrinal issues was divinely sanctioned. The example of Daniel is especially interesting given that our surviving information about the Pope of that period - Demetrius - goes out of its way to compare Demetrius to Daniel. Daniel is described as accepting a governing post with an evil government (the Babylonians). This is the context of the 'chain' reference here. Yet I wonder if Clement is pointing also to a contemporary phenomenon. Were the eunuch governors of Alexandria also compromising its traditional values and beliefs to accomodate themselves to a wicked government (i.e. Commodus and the Severan Emperors)? I think so. All of which adds a new dimension to the 'Carpocratian' vs. Alexandrian presbytery debate which seems to have raged through the age.

01-26-2011, 09:44 PM	#12
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	To me, I think it's important to understand what "kingdom of god" means. It is not heaven. The 'kingdom of god' is the church itself, which was in it's day a cult that required you to give up everything, as is typical even in modern cults. The rich are typically not willing to give up everything for cult membership (though Scientology seems to have figured out a way past this log jam by demanding it a little at a time instead of all up front), and usually, neither are people with spouses and children. The point of the story is basically "you who have given up everything are truly wonderful and will get to kiss Hank's ass, and everyone else sucks". There's no interesting moral, it's all part of the brainwashing.

01-26-2011, 10:49 PM	#13
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I can appreciate where you are coming from spamandham. My feeling however is that we are only scratching the surface of the interpretation. The thing that always strikes me at least is how intelligent Clement is. How intelligent Origen is. How rich, successful and intelligent Ambrose is and we are only scratching the surface here. I am not am apologist for Christianity. I don't find all the Church Fathers intelligent or particularly enlightened (or enlightening for that matter). Yet the writing style of Clement and Origen especially makes me wonder. Why were these men - who were intelligent enough to be in the company of pagan philosophical academies - why were they attracted to Christianity and the gospel of the Alexandrian Church? This isn't the same as speaking about Eusebius and all those intelligent, philosophically inclined people who were attracted to Christianity in the fourth century. That's a whole different situation. There is no political expediency for Clement and Origen to join this other religion in Alexandria in a period where it was clearly being persecuted. What was the attraction? The Scientology example is bad because it appeals to Americans principally. I will stop right there ... When you put Clement's writings under a microscope as I have for the last year you are struck by an unmistakable philosophical nexus. Here is someone who must have initially been attracted to Philo 'the Pythagorean' as he calls him. Someone who mixed traditional Jewish religion and Pythagoreanism and then he uncovers a messianic religion developed around a written text callled the gospel which Clement is convinced was developed from the same Pythagorean principles. I don't even think Clement believes that the author simply fashioned Pythagorean mysteries himself as much as he 'tapped into' a cosmic revelaiton which 'confirmed' the same elemental proofs. I know sometimes I might come across as someone who actually believes in this stuff myself. It's not that simple. I am trying to understand the principal players in earliest Christianity (or the earliest Christian evidence I can find) and I don't see the same types of people who are now attracted to what is called 'evangelical Christianity' or 'the Church' for that matter. Clement became a Christian because he saw the fulfillment of Plato in the Church. So too Origen and likely hundreds - possibly thousands - of other souls that are now unknown to us. While some of the Pythagorean and Platonic ideas seem really silly now, there is something lofty about all of this. There is an idealism which isn't 'religious' in the modern sense. I don't know that it can be all written off the way Joel Olsteen is a joke.

01-28-2011, 10:07 AM	#17
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	You are correct that doing good deeds alone cannot get one into heaven. No one had ever put forward that idea at that point in history. The Alexandrians saw the Passion narrative as a path towards the recreation (= notsri) of humanity, to be made after the example of angels. You can see that a little in Stromata 3 where the Carpocratian talks about the Creator putting the bad yetser into humanity in order for him to be fruitful and multiply. The angels didn't do that. Jesus didn't do that. Monks don't do that. That's the path towards perfection. That's the path of Christianity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.