Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 01-01-2012, 04:32 PM

Wouldn't this have something to do with the manner he Platonized Judaism, so that the creator God is the same as "the Good?"

PHE Quod deterius potiori insidiari . 1:46 ... However, the good God [ὁ ... χρηστὸς θεὸς] will neither allow that invulnerable species among created things to be subdued by passion, nor will he surrender the practice of virtue to bloody and raging destruction.

The cases I can find on the fly are:

Quod deterius potiori insidiari . 1:46 ... However, the good God [ὁ ... χρηστὸς θεὸς] will neither allow that invulnerable species among created things to be subdued by passion, nor will he surrender the practice of virtue to bloody and raging destruction.

De mutatione nominum 1:253 What then does the merciful God [τί οὖν ὁ χρηστὸς θεός] say?

De Abrahamo 1:203 ... God is merciful, and compassionate and kind [χρηστὸς ὢν καὶ φιλάνθρωπος ὁ θεός]

Quaestiones in Genesim (fragment. 2:54 inasmuch as the Father is kind and merciful, and most humane, still he is rather inclined to alleviate the evil than to add to men's misery. [β] χρηστός ὢν καὶ φιλάνθρωπος ὁ θεὸς ἐπικουφίζει τὰ κακὰ μᾶλλον ἢ προστίθησι ταῖς συμφοραῖς.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I had five minutes while my son was playing video games to notice something significant. Philo repeatedly references God as chrestos. Moses too. Christos is never used anywhere. More later

stephan huller · 01-01-2012, 04:37 PM

I have the Philo concordance. There are at least seventy references some very interesting. But I'm still at the movies. Yet Philo also doesn't have one god of the Jews but a collection of powers like Marcion. It can't be coincidence that both had a chrestos God and that chrestos = yashar and that yashar is always taken to be the root of the name Israel and Jacob got the name Israel from contact with God and Philo (seemingly implausibly) thinks the name Israel means “a man seeing God.”. Its all connected like some massive mechanical framework

stephan huller · 01-01-2012, 11:23 PM

It isn't just that Philo has a 'Good God' but that it is impossible to believe that the Marcionites could have invented a 'Good God' which wasn't one and the same as Philo and the Alexandrian tradition. Yes, it wasn't just a title of God used among the Alexandrian Jews but the Alexandrian Christians too.

Quote:

For no hindrance stands in the way of him who is bent on the knowledge of God. Neither childlessness, nor poverty, nor obscurity, nor want, can hinder him who eagerly strives after the knowledge of God; nor does any one who has conquered by brass or iron the true wisdom for himself choose to exchange it, for it is vastly preferred to everything else. Chrestos is able to save in every place (ὁ χρηστός ἐστι πανταχοῦ σωτήριος). [Exhort. 10]

This, I think, is signified by the utterance of the Saviour, "The foxes have holes, but the Son of man hath not where to lay His head." For on the believer alone, who is separated entirely from the rest, who by the Scripture are called wild beasts, rests the head of the universe, the kind and gentle Word (ὁ χρηστὸς καὶ ἥμερος λόγος), "who taketh the wise in their own craftiness. For the Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they axe vain" [Clement Strom. 1.3]

But the benignant logos (ὁ χρηστὸς λόγος), abounding in humanity, teaches that neither is it right to cut down cultivated trees, or to cut down the grain before the harvest, for mischiefs sake [ibid 2.9]

For He Himself has said, "I will neyer leave thee, nor forsake thee," as having judged thee worthy according to the true election. Thus, then, while we attempt piously to advance, we shall have put on us the mild yoke of the Lord (ὁ χρηστὸς τοῦ κυρίου ζυγός) from faith to faith, one charioteer driving each of us onward to salvation, that the meet fruit of beatitude may be won. [ibid 2.20]

Thus they are in opposition to their Maker and hasten towards him who is called the good God (πρὸς τὸν κεκληκότα ἀγαθόν), but not to the God, as they say, of the other kind (θεὸν ἐν ἄλλῳ τρόπῳ). As they wish to leave nothing of their own behind them on this earth, they are continent, not of their own free choice, but from hatred of the Creator, being unwilling to use what he has made. But these [Marcionite] folk, who in their blasphemous fight against God have abandoned natural reasoning, and despise the long-suffering and goodness of God (καὶ χρηστότητος τοῦ θεοῦ), even if they do not wish to marry, use the food made by the Creator and breathe his air; for they are his works and dwell in his world. [ibid 3.3]

ἐπεὶ ὁ χρηστὸς πατὴρ τὸν ζῶντα ἄρτον αἰτούντων ἡμῶν αὐτὸν (οὐχ ὃν βούλεται λίθον τροφὴν γε νέσθαι τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ὁ ἀντικείμενος) δίδωσι τοῖς τὸ «πνεῦμα τῆς υἱοθεσίας» εἰληφόσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρός [Origen de Oratio 10.2]

ἀλλ' ὅμως ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ τὸ ἐπὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις ἐπαίρεσθαι ἀκίνδυνόν ἐστιν, ὁ χρηστὸς πατὴρ ὡς ἐδωρήσατο αὐτῷ ὀπτασίας καὶ ὁράματα, οὕτως αὐτῷ ἐν χαρίσματος μοίρᾳ ἔδωκεν «ἄγγελον σατάν, ἵνα αὐτὸν κολαφίσῃ, ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρητα [Origen Jeremiam 12.8]

Οὕτω δὲ ἐστε δυστυχεῖς, ὥστε οὐδὲ τοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῖν παραδεδομένοις ἐμμενενήκατε: καὶ ταῦτα δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον καὶ δυσσεβέστερον ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιγινομένων ἐξειργάσθη. τὸν γοῦν Ἰησοῦν οὔτε Παῦλος ἐτόλμησεν εἰπεῖν θεὸν οὔτε Ματθαῖος οὔτε Λουκᾶς οὔτε Μάρκος. ἀλλ̓ὁ χρηστὸς Ἰωάννης, αἰσθόμενος ἤδη πολὺ πλῆθος ἑαλωκὸς ἐν πολλαῖς τῶν Ἑλληνίδων καὶ Ἰταλιωτίδων πόλεων ὑπὸ ταύτης τῆς νόσου, ἀκούων δέ, οἶμαι, καὶ τὰ μνήματα Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου λάθρᾳ μέν, ἀκούων δὲ ὅμως αὐτὰ θεραπευόμενα πρῶτος ἐτόλμησεν εἰπεῖν [Contra Galilaeos 327a - b]

In the Homilies on Jeremiah Origen strangely cites 2 Corinthians as if 'good Father' is in the text but then in On Prayer strangely he identifies 'the good Father' as a Marcionite term:

Quote:

Therefore God delivered them unto passions of dishonor: for both their females changed the natural use into the unnatural, and the males likewise setting aside the natural use of the female, were consumed . . . and so on. And again shortly after: And as they proved not to have God in full knowledge, God delivered them unto a reprobate mind to do the unseemly. We may simply confront dividers of the Godhead with all these passages and put these questions to them since they hold that the good Father of Our Lord is distinct from the God of the law. Is it the good God who leads into temptation one who fails in prayer? Is it the Father of the Lord who delivers in the lusts of their hearts those who have already done some sin unto uncleanness to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves?

Is it He who, as they themselves say, is free from judging and punishing, who delivers unto passions of dishonor and unto a reprobate mind to do the unseemly men who would not have fallen into the lusts of their hearts had they not been delivered to them by God, who would not have succumbed to passions of dishonor had they not been delivered to them by God, and who would not have lapsed into a reprobate mind but for the fact that the so condemned had been delivered to it by God. I am well aware that these passages will trouble such thinkers exceedingly. Indeed they have fashioned in imagination a God other than the Maker of heaven and earth, because they find many such passages in the Law and the Prophets and have been offended by the author of such utterances as not good. But I on my part, for the sake of that question, raised in connection with the words Bring us
not into Temptation, which led to my citation of the apostle's words also, must now consider whether I in turn find a solution of apparent contradictions worth considering. Well, it is my belief that God rules over each rational soul, having regard to its everlasting life, in such a way that it is always in possession of free will and is itself responsible alike for being, in the better way, in progress towards the perfection of goodness, or otherwise for descending as the result of heedlessness to this or that degree of aggravation of vice.

I don't know how all of this reconciles itself. But notice that Origen says 'divides the godhead.' It is not beyond the realm of possibilities that Philo's understanding was somehow shared by the Marcionites. I just haven't figured it out yet.

stephan huller · 01-02-2012, 11:39 AM

The second Philonic reference to “the Good God” Quod deterius potiori insidiari . 1:46 is a reference to El Shaddai which has a value of 345. That is very significant. For it would reinforce that “the Good God” is not the supreme God but the hypostasis haShem (Samaritan Shemah) = 345 = Moses who also identified as kind, good etc by Philo. I am that I am = 543 and the two powers together = 888. Marqe and the Samaritan tradition take a deep interest in all these names and numbers. Broadie noticed striking similarities between Marqe and Philo

stephan huller · 01-02-2012, 03:38 PM

It is also interesting that Rashi interprets El Shaddai as coming from dai (dalet-yod) = “sufficient, enough.”. This is certainly not the meaning of the epithet. Nevertheless it shows how different a page the rabbis were on with respect to our “God Almighty.”. The LXX turns this into “your God” which according to the Alexandrian system confirms the explicit identification of Philo that this the power of mercy (= the god Chrestos).

Genesis 17 is a problematic passage for monotheists but I think its the key to unlock the Marcionite tradition which is clearly Alexandrian (hence their preservation too of a Pauline Epistle to the Alexandrians).

I'm also going to figure out what Marqe does with Genesis 17 and El Shaddai

stephan huller · 01-02-2012, 03:55 PM

It turns out that the Samaritans also connected Shaddai with “sufficient.” Look at Genesis 49:25. The LXX, Syriac, Coptic all follow suit apparently. This even though the etymology is implausible. What does Shaddai really mean? It would seem the idea of Chrestos here would make sense if it came from “breasts.” This has been suggested before and it is certainly more plausible than “sufficient”

But “God (of/with) breasts”? The idea explains Jesus's relationship with John

stephan huller · 01-02-2012, 04:25 PM

And now look here! Clement of Alexandria identifies his Jesus as the 'Good God' of Philo (i.e. that Jesus was present in Gen 17 and identifies him as the god of the passage):

Quote:

Again, when He speaks in His own person, He confesses Himself to be the Instructor: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt." Who, then, has the power of leading in and out? Is it not the Instructor? This was He who appeared to Abraham, and said to him, "I am thy God, be accepted before Me;" and in a way most befitting an instructor, forms him into a faithful child, saying, "And be blameless; and I will make My covenant between Me and thee, and try seed." There is the communication of the Instructor's friendship. [Paed. 1.56.2]

What are the odds that this has nothing at all to do with Marcion's Jesus Chrestos? I'd say that it quite impossible given the presence of Marcionites in Alexandria and the Pauline Epistle to the Alexandrians in the Marcionite canon. The noose is tightening around the bullshit claims about the Marcionite Jesus developed uncritically from the Church Fathers by a handful of modern scholars.

Maklelan · 01-02-2012, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It turns out that the Samaritans also connected Shaddai with “sufficient.” Look at Genesis 49:25. The LXX, Syriac, Coptic all follow suit apparently. This even though the etymology is implausible. What does Shaddai really mean? It would seem the idea of Chrestos here would make sense if it came from “breasts.” This has been suggested before and it is certainly more plausible than “sufficient”

But “God (of/with) breasts”? The idea explains Jesus's relationship with John

I've pointed out some of these publications elsewhere, but you might be interested in reading some of them:

David Biale, “The God with Breasts: El Shaddai in the Bible,” History of Religions 21.3 [1982]: 240–56; E. L. Abel, “The Nature of the Patriarchal God ‘El Shadday,’” Numen 20.1 (1973): 48–59; A. Caquot, “Une contribution ougaritique a la prehistoire du titre divin Shadday,” in Congress Volume Paris, 1992 (J. A. Emerton, ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1–12; M. Weippert, “שַׁדַּי Šadday (Divine Name),” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, eds.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997), 3.1304–10; Harriet Lutzky, “Shadday as a Goddess Epithet,” Vetus Testamentum 48:1 (1998): 15–36; “Shadday שׁדי,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Second Edition, Extensively Revised (Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, eds.; Leiden: Brill, 1999], 749–53; Joann Hackett, The Balaam Texts from Deir ‘Alla (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984), 85–89; John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 32–34; Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel. Second Edition (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 34, 58–59; Francesca Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2004), 270–82).

The most likely etymology, in my opinion, derives the title from "wilderness."

stephan huller · 01-02-2012, 07:49 PM

Thank you for that Maklelan, one more thing to read. Yet for the moment it is enough to complete my proof that Chrestos is the Alexandrian equivalent of yashar and that Marcionitism was 'pure' Alexandrianism (Clement and Origen represent the progressive prostitution of that original tradition of Mark to the Roman tradition).

Let's begin by going back to the explicit 'Good God' reference in On the Change of Names:

Quote:

Since the, the virtuous man has been bred up among and practised in these and similar divisions and discriminations of things, does he not rightly appear to pray that Ishmael may live, if he is not as yet able to become the father of Isaac? What then does the Good God say [τί οὖν ὁ χρηστὸς θεός]? To him who asks for one thing he gives two, and on him who prays for what is less he bestows what is greater; for, says the historian, he said unto Abraham, "Yea, behold, Sarrah thy wife shall bring forth a Son." Very felicitous and significant is this answer, "Yea;" for what can be more suitable to and more like the character of God, than to promise good things and to ratify that promise with all speed! But what God promises every foolish man repudiates; therefore the sacred scriptures represent Leah as hated, and on this account it is that she received that name; for Leah, being interpreted, means "repudiating and labouring," because we all turn away from virtue and think it a laborious thing, by reason of its very often imposing commands on us which are not pleasant. But nevertheless, she is thought worthy of such an honourable reception from the prince, that her womb is opened by him, so as to receive the seed of divine generation, in order to cause the production of honourable pursuits and actions. Learn therefore, O soul, that Sarrah, that is, virtue, will bring forth to thee a son; and that Hagar, or intermediate instruction, is not the only one who will do so; for her offspring is one which has its knowledge from teaching, but the offspring of the other is entirely self-taught. And do not wonder, if God, who brings forth all good things, has also brought forth this race, which, though rare upon the earth, is very numerous in heaven. [De Mutione Nomimum 1.253 - 55]

We shall endeavor to show that El Shaddai = the 'Good God' (ὁ χρηστὸς θεός) of the Marcionite system? Our Hebrew text reads:

Quote:

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.” [Gen 17.1 - 2]

Philo's LXX abandoned the reference to El Shaddai and read instead:

Quote:

Abraham was ninety and nine years old; and the Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said unto him, I am thy God.

Theos is the merciful power and chrestos is an important part of mercy. Philo connects the terminology with the divine name theos as we have just seen.

Philo identifies the 'Good God' (ὁ χρηστὸς θεός) as El Shaddai and moreover this being as the angel which gives Jacob the name Israel. For we read a few sentences later Philo elaborate on this figure 'the living God':

Quote:

Do not, however, think that the living God, he who is truly living, is ever seen so as to be comprehended by any human being; for we have no power in ourselves to see any thing, by which we may be able to conceive any adequate notion of him; we have no external sense suited to that purpose (for he is not an object which can be discerned by the outward sense), nor any strength adequate to it: therefore, Moses, the spectator of the invisible nature, the man who really saw God (for the sacred scriptures say that he entered "into the Darkness," by which expression they mean figuratively to intimate the invisible essence), having investigated every part of every thing, sought to see clearly the much-desired and only God [ibid]

Philo consistently gives the implausible explanation of the name Israel as 'a man seeing God' so clearly he has it in his head that the 'Good God' (ὁ χρηστὸς θεός) is somehow the merciful aspect of the godhead who granted divinity to the human race. I think we are on the doorstep of connecting El Shaddai to the being who wrestled with Jacob and gave him the name Israel it would be easy to connect that being back to Chrestos (as yashar = χρηστὸς in LXX Proverbs 2:21).

Yet for the moment let's just acknowledge that Clement - who was heavily influenced by Philo and was clearly aware of Philo's identification of the presence of the 'Good God' in Genesis 17.1 unmistakably identifies Jesus in the place of Philo's ὁ χρηστὸς θεός:

Quote:

Again, when He speaks in His own person, He confesses Himself to be the Instructor: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt." Who, then, has the power of leading in and out? Is it not the Instructor? This was He who appeared to Abraham, and said to him, "I am thy God, be accepted before Me;" and in a way most befitting an instructor, forms him into a faithful child, saying, "And be blameless; and I will make My covenant between Me and thee, and try seed." There is the communication of the Instructor's friendship. And He most manifestly appears as Jacob's instructor. He says accordingly to him, "Lo, I am with thee, to keep thee in all the way in which thou shalt go; and I will bring thee back into this land: for I will not leave thee till I do what I have told thee." He is said, too, to have wrestled with Him. "And Jacob was left alone, and there wrestled with him a man (the Instructor) till the morning." This was the man who led, and brought, and wrestled with, and anointed the athlete Jacob against evil.

Now that the Word was at once Jacob's trainer and the Instructor of humanity [appears from this]--"He asked," it is said, "His name, and said to him, Tell me what is Try name." And he said, "Why is it that thou askest My name?" For He reserved the new name for the new people--the babe; and was as yet unnamed, the Lord God not having yet become man. Yet Jacob called the name of the place, "Face of God." "For I have seen," he says, "God face to face; and my life is preserved." The face of God is the Word by whom God is manifested and made known. Then also was he named Israel, because he saw God the Lord. It was God, the Word, the Instructor, who said to him again afterwards, "Fear not to go down into Egypt." See how the Instructor follows the righteous man, and how He anoints the athlete, teaching him to trip up his antagonist.

It takes a blond man not to see the connection here between Clement's identification of Jesus as not only the very divine being caled ὁ χρηστὸς θεός by Philo but moreover he that gave the name 'Israel' to Jacob. To this end even if Clement and Philo were not themselves aware of the yashar-Chrestos it is clearly at the heart of the Alexandrian tradition. Somewhere at the beginning of the tradition someone was aware of the substitution.

For the Targumim, the Peshitta translate Jeshurun by Israel while Smith notes that this view was advanced because:

Quote:

Israel was "upright among the nations;" as yesharim, "the upright" (Num. xxiii. 10; Ps. cxi. 1) is a poetical appellation of the chosen people, who did that which was right (hay-yashar) in the eyes of Jehovah, in contradistinction from the idolatrous heathen who did that which was preeminently the evil (ha-ra) and worshiped false gods. This seems to have been the view adopted by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion — who, according to the account of their version given by Jerome (on Is. xliv. 2), must have had (Ms or eMt/Taros — and by the Vulgate in three passages. Malvenda (quoted in Poole's Synopsis, lieut. xxxii. 15), taking the same root, applies it ironically to Israel. For the like reason, on the authority of the above- mentioned Father, the book of Genesis was called "the book of the just"

I also think the reference to Jesus anointed Jacob is a further intimation that the original Christ of the Christian tradition was someone other than Jesus. The disciple who shared Jacob's name (= James) is a good place to start. I happen also to suspect that 'James' was a title rather than an actual person. There are too many parallels between Mark and James. But that's another story.

DCHindley · 01-03-2012, 04:15 AM

Stephan,

I do not see the clear relationship between that passage in C of A and "Philo's 'Good God'." Could you be more specific?

Sometimes I think you just throw a ton of stuff at the wall and see what sticks.

Gotta take my son to school (2" fresh snow, always fun).

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And now look here! Clement of Alexandria identifies his Jesus as the 'Good God' of Philo (i.e. that Jesus was present in Gen 17 and identifies him as the god of the passage):

Quote:

Again, when He speaks in His own person, He confesses Himself to be the Instructor: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt." Who, then, has the power of leading in and out? Is it not the Instructor? This was He who appeared to Abraham, and said to him, "I am thy God, be accepted before Me;" and in a way most befitting an instructor, forms him into a faithful child, saying, "And be blameless; and I will make My covenant between Me and thee, and try seed." There is the communication of the Instructor's friendship. [Paed. 1.56.2]

What are the odds that this has nothing at all to do with Marcion's Jesus Chrestos? I'd say that it quite impossible given the presence of Marcionites in Alexandria and the Pauline Epistle to the Alexandrians in the Marcionite canon. The noose is tightening around the bullshit claims about the Marcionite Jesus developed uncritically from the Church Fathers by a handful of modern scholars.

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

01-01-2012, 04:37 PM	#122
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have the Philo concordance. There are at least seventy references some very interesting. But I'm still at the movies. Yet Philo also doesn't have one god of the Jews but a collection of powers like Marcion. It can't be coincidence that both had a chrestos God and that chrestos = yashar and that yashar is always taken to be the root of the name Israel and Jacob got the name Israel from contact with God and Philo (seemingly implausibly) thinks the name Israel means “a man seeing God.”. Its all connected like some massive mechanical framework

01-02-2012, 11:39 AM	#124
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The second Philonic reference to “the Good God” Quod deterius potiori insidiari . 1:46 is a reference to El Shaddai which has a value of 345. That is very significant. For it would reinforce that “the Good God” is not the supreme God but the hypostasis haShem (Samaritan Shemah) = 345 = Moses who also identified as kind, good etc by Philo. I am that I am = 543 and the two powers together = 888. Marqe and the Samaritan tradition take a deep interest in all these names and numbers. Broadie noticed striking similarities between Marqe and Philo

01-02-2012, 03:38 PM	#125
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It is also interesting that Rashi interprets El Shaddai as coming from dai (dalet-yod) = “sufficient, enough.”. This is certainly not the meaning of the epithet. Nevertheless it shows how different a page the rabbis were on with respect to our “God Almighty.”. The LXX turns this into “your God” which according to the Alexandrian system confirms the explicit identification of Philo that this the power of mercy (= the god Chrestos). Genesis 17 is a problematic passage for monotheists but I think its the key to unlock the Marcionite tradition which is clearly Alexandrian (hence their preservation too of a Pauline Epistle to the Alexandrians). I'm also going to figure out what Marqe does with Genesis 17 and El Shaddai

01-02-2012, 03:55 PM	#126
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It turns out that the Samaritans also connected Shaddai with “sufficient.” Look at Genesis 49:25. The LXX, Syriac, Coptic all follow suit apparently. This even though the etymology is implausible. What does Shaddai really mean? It would seem the idea of Chrestos here would make sense if it came from “breasts.” This has been suggested before and it is certainly more plausible than “sufficient” But “God (of/with) breasts”? The idea explains Jesus's relationship with John

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.