Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

[Minimalist]

Do you guys totally reject the assessment of linguists like Frank Moore Crosse with their J and E writers?

The problem I have with it is that it is a closed universe. They have nothing to compare it to so they compare it to itself. It's a little bit like doing a dissertation on The Wizard of Oz and concluding that Dorothy was from Eastern Kansas instead of Western Kansas.

I'll have to see if I can find you a reference to a new book that I heard about. As I recall the argument is shifting from "northern" and "southern" to "older" and "newer." Time, instead of geography. I'll see what I can come up with and hope my memory is correct.

[Ishtar]

I saw an interview with Frank Moore Crosse where he said that they did compare the styles of writings to others in the geographical area, like neighbouring countries.

[seeker]

Do you guys totally reject the assessment of linguists like Frank Moore Crosse with their J and E writers?

I think Crosse was a brilliant guy but he also trained at a divinity school and studied under William Albright. His identification of J and E writers was not wrong but he really doesn't have all that much to say about the actual dates the texts were written (at least in what I have read of him).

Where he might say that J, E and other redactors wrote over say a thousand years I'd argue that it was more like a two or three hundred year period

[seeker]

Not rejecting - just saying the possibilities exist. Also - their assessments do indicate that there was more than one writing - don't they?

Definitely more than one. The whole factionalization between Sadducee and Pharisees suggests more than just different understandings of the same text. I think that, much as Christianity later did, the lack of a canon and definate texts created very different takes on the Jewish religion.

[Ishtar]

Mithras (Sol Invictus) Isis, Adonis, Tammuz, etc. You see what we cannot know is whether or not the gnostic groups were equally "mystery based" in the first century...or before...and only later wrote their stories down as a reaction to the "scriptures" being produced by other groups.

Not quite, Min.

First of all, the 'writing down bit' is a problem as it always is in an oral tradition, and particularly in this case because the secret teachings really were secret and adepts were threatened with all sorts if they revealed them, and then what was extant got burned by the Literalists.

But we do have Justin Martyr, himself a Samaritan, around 100 CE talking about Simon Magus (leader of the Gnostic Simonians) saying that Simon Magus was "regarded with great reverence by all Samaritans."

In his Second Apology he says: "And I despised the wicked and deceitful doctrine of Simon of my own nation. And if you give this book your authority, we will expose him before all....."

The amusing point here is that Justin Martyr only started his own school of Christianity in Rome after being turned down by the Gnostic ones. Bit like Arch starting his own forum!

Anyway, my point is: The 1st century Simonians had the dying and resurrecting godman story, (which is the classic Mystery story) but instead of Jesus, it's Simon the Cyrene who is crucified.

So we do have evidence of a Gnostic mystery story in the 1st century.

[Minimalist]

Justin Martyr was much later. He was writing to Emperor Antoninus Pius who ruled until 161.

Justin also made the curious admission that xtianity was not all that different from what the pagans believed.


If we take Pliny at his word, the "christians" he came across in Bythinia in 110 BC sang hymns to Christ "as to a god"... not "as a god." It conjures up images of muslims declaring "there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet."

[rich]

Ish wrote:

In his Second Apology he says: "And I despised the wicked and deceitful doctrine of Simon of my own nation. And if you give this book your authority, we will expose him before all....."

The amusing point here is that Justin Martyr only started his own school of Christianity in Rome after being turned down by the Gnostic ones. Bit like Arch starting his own forum!

Anyway, my point is: The 1st century Simonians had the dying and resurrecting godman story, (which is the classic Mystery story) but instead of Jesus, it's Simon the Cyrene who is crucified.

So we do have evidence of a Gnostic mystery story in the 1st century.

My underlining -

And it also appears that you have an other than gnostic interpretation also possibly by using the Justin Martyr reference. Back to the drawing board.

[Minimalist]

Here we go... thanks to Dr. Jim West for maintaining the link.

http://www.equinoxpub.com/books/showbook.asp?bkid=139

The authors argue that the scholarly use of language in dating biblical texts, and even the traditional standpoint on the chronological development of biblical Hebrew, are in need of thorough re-evaluation.

The authors argue that ‘Early’ Biblical Hebrew and ‘Late’ Biblical Hebrew do not represent different chronological periods in the history of biblical Hebrew, but instead represent co-existing styles of literary Hebrew throughout the biblical period.

[Ishtar]

Rich, your last post makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I am making the point that Justin Martyr was critcising the Simonians, so why are underlining it?

[Ishtar]

More early evidence - and can I quickly make this point. We don't have to attest Gnosticm to the first century to make the case, because a real life Jesus cannot be attested to then either.

Anyway, on to ...

Polycarp (ca. 69 – ca. 155) was a mentor of Iranaeus, and he preached mainly in Asia, in Smyrna. Gnosticism was huge among the Jews in the East – Tertulian bemoaned the fact that “Marcion’s followers filled the whole universe.”

OK, just a quick diversion to Marcion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion

Marcion is sometimes referred to as one of the gnostics, but from what assessment of his lost writings can be gleaned from his mainstream opponents, his teachings were quite different in nature.[2] His canon included ten Pauline Epistles and one gospel[3] called the Gospel of Marcion, a rejection of the whole Hebrew Bible, and did not include the rest of the books later incorporated into the canonical New Testament. He propounded a Christianity free from Jewish doctrines with Paul as the reliable source of authentic doctrine. Paul was, according to Marcion, the only apostle who had rightly understood the new message of salvation as delivered by Christ.

So I would say that if Marcion understood Paul’s deeper message, he must have been some sort of Gnostic. The theology of Marcionism would also qualify Marcion as a Gnostic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Marcion

Church Fathers wrote and the majority of modern scholars agree that Marcion edited Luke to fit his own theology, Marcionism. This view is consistent with the way he altered other books in his canon. It is also likely because Luke's gospel was believed to be complete by Marcion's time. In it, he eliminated the first two chapters concerning the nativity and beginning at Capernaum and made modifications of the remainder suitable to Marcionism. The differences in the texts below highlight the gnostic view that, first, Jesus did not follow the Prophets and, second, the earth is evil.

Anyway, to get back to the Literalist Polycarp, he was the scourge of the ‘heretics’ as Jerome says in his Illustrious Men 17:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html

Polycarp disciple of the apostle John and by him ordained bishop of Smyrna was chief of all Asia, where he saw and had as teachers some of the apostles and of those who had seen the Lord. He, on account of certain questions concerning the day of the Passover, went to Rome in the time of the emperor Antoninus Pius while Anicetus ruled the church in that city.

There he led back to the faith many of the believers who had been deceived through the persuasion of Marcion and Valentinus, and when. Marcion met him by chance and said "Do you know us" he replied, "I know the firstborn of the devil." Afterwards during the reign of Marcus Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus in the fourth persecution after Nero, in the presence of the proconsul holding court at Smyrna and all the people crying out against him in the Amphitheater, he was burned. He wrote a very valuable Epistle to the Philippians which is read to the present day in the meetings in Asia.

And here is the relevant extract from that epistle:

Polycarp 7:1
For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh, is antichrist: and whosoever shall not confess the
testimony of the Cross, is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert
the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is
neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the firstborn of
Satan.

Polycarp 7:2
Wherefore let us forsake the vain doing of the many and their false
teachings, and turn unto the word which was delivered unto us from
the beginning, being sober unto prayer and constant in fastings,
entreating the all-seeing God with supplications that He bring us
not into temptation, according as the Lord said, The Spirit is
indeed willing, but the flesh is weak. [/quote]

So whether or not we accept that Marcion was Gnostic (which I don’t doubt), the Valentinians certainly were – and Polycarp was preaching against them in the late first/early second century.

[rich]

Ish - I'm not on either side - I was using that to point out that there appears to be evidence of more than one type of interpretation. Whether or not they were approved by the Jews or the Christians. There could have been a thousand other views on it - just as there were so many different sects. Pick one and the others would say it was wrong. Were they all gnostic? Was there any that weren't? Did the gnostics pick up on another frame of thought and corrupt it? Did another sect pick up on the gnostics view and corrupt it? We don't really know.

[Ishtar]

Oh, so you were just stating the bleedin' obvious.

What are you - the Greek chorus?

[rich]

I can do that!

But either way - how would you interpret the OT gnostically and say Yahweh isn't relating to the demiurge?

[Ishtar]

I can do that!

But either way - how would you interpret the OT gnostically and say Yahweh isn't relating to the demiurge?

I don't interpret the OT gnostically. I believe that the OT contains some gnostic themes in its very early beginnings. There's a difference.

I also know enough about Yahweh to know where he comes from and how he got into the Hebrew Bible.

However, some do compare Yahweh to the demiurge - and so you're in good company.

So can we now get back to the early Christianity, which is what this thread is about?

[rich]

Ishtar wrote:

I also know enough about Yahweh to know where he comes from and how he got into the Hebrew Bible.

However, some do compare Yahweh to the demiurge - and so you're in good company.

So can we now get back to the early Christianity, which is what this thread is about?

But ish - that's the point - without knowing what the OT actually said before the Yahwists got into it - we can only draw a blank. We don't know that Yahweh was in the original - do we? And I can point to some inferences that do point to Yahweh as the demiurge - quite a few. And isn't that what gnosis was about - an evil creator god that wasn't the real god? And the serpent that gave man the "true" wisdom?