Is Pilate really a positive figure in Mark? A case for Barabbas=the spiritual Christ

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Pilate really a positive figure in Mark? A case for Barabbas=the spiritual Christ

Post by Giuseppe »

John2 writes:
And he associates Marcion with Luke and Valentinus with John and Ebionites with Matthew and not with Mark, even though their beliefs are separationist. So why should we think that he has Cerinthus in mind when he refers to those who prefer Mark when he associates Cerinthus with Ebionites (who used only Matthew) and Joseph and Mary (who are both named in Matthew) elsewhere?
I have given already my reason to believe that ''Cerinthus'' used Mark while the ebionites used Matthew. For me ''Cerinthus'' means: separationism + gnosticism (contempt of the Demiurge) + human birth from Joseph and Mary.
While ''ebionitism'' means:
separationism + Judaism + human birth from Joseph and Mary
Therefore, being Matthew notoriously more Jewish than Mark, then it follows that Cerinthians used proto-Mark, while Ebionites used proto-Matthew. Precisely the description given by pseudo-Tertullian, Adv. omn. haer. 3 :
“His successor was Ebion, not in agreement with Cerinthus in every point, because he says that the world was made by God, not by angels, and because it is written, no disciple is above (his) master, nor a servant above (his) lord, he brings to the fore likewise the Law, of course for the purpose of excluding the gospel and vindicating Judaism.
Note that for Ippolytus the ebionites were not separationists.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Is Pilate really a positive figure in Mark? A case for Barabbas=the spiritual Christ

Post by John2 »

Giuseppe wrote:
I have given already my reason to believe that ''Cerinthus'' used Mark while the ebionites used Matthew. For me ''Cerinthus'' means: separationism + gnosticism (contempt of the Demiurge) + human birth from Joseph and Mary.
While ''ebionitism'' means:
separationism + Judaism + human birth from Joseph and Mary
Therefore, being Matthew notoriously more Jewish than Mark, then it follows that Cerinthians used proto-Mark, while Ebionites used proto-Matthew. Precisely the description given by pseudo-Tertullian, Adv. omn. haer. 3 :

“His successor was Ebion, not in agreement with Cerinthus in every point, because he says that the world was made by God, not by angels, and because it is written, no disciple is above (his) master, nor a servant above (his) lord, he brings to the fore likewise the Law, of course for the purpose of excluding the gospel and vindicating Judaism.”

Note that for Ippolytus the ebionites were not separationists.
I think the problem here is that Pseudo-Tertullian may not be the most reliable source on Cerinthus. Streett says that Klijn has "a skeptical treatment of Pseudo-Tertullian's reliability concerning Cerinthus" in footnote 216 on page 61 here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=A2XN2 ... us&f=false

And according to Klijn on page 7 here:
We do not believe that Ps.-Tertullian, or the source he used, possessed any more information about Cerinthus than his predecessors had had. He merely ascribed some ideas to Cerinthus which were supposedly held by Gnostics, mentioned by Irenaeus ... it is quite obvious that Pseudo-Tertullian, even more than Irenaeus, describes Cerinthus as a Gnostic, ascribing to him Gnostic notions derived from Irenaeus' description of well known Gnostic leaders.

https://books.google.com/books?id=zs43A ... us&f=false


In other words, Pseudo-Tertullian is taking things that Irenaeus says about various gnostics and applying them to Cerinthus, i.e., he's reading Cerinthus into places in Irenaeus' account that may or may not be applicable to him (as I think you are doing regarding those who "separate Jesus from Christ" and prefer to use Mark.

Streett's take on the Pseudo-Tertullian passage is that:
While Pseudo-Tertullian does describe Cerinthus as holding to demiurgism, he gives no indication at all that Cerinthus divided Jesus from the Christ or taught that the Christ was an aeon who descended upon Jesus and eventually departed. Indeed, Cerinthus appears in many ways indistinguishable from the Judaizing Ebionites.

https://books.google.com/books?id=A2XN2 ... us&f=false
So if we only had Pseudo-Tertullian we would not know that Cerinthus was a "separationist" and therefore there is no reason to suppose that Pseudo-Tertullian himself thought that Cerinthus was one of the gnostics who separated Christ from Jesus and preferred to use Mark that Irenaeus mentions.

And what Epiphanius says about Cerinthians is similar to what Pseudo-Tertullian says about Ebionites.

Pseudo-Tertullian:
His successor was Ebion, not agreeing with Cerinthus in every point; in that he affirms the world to have been made by God, not by angels; and because it is written, “No disciple above his master, nor servant above his lord,” sets forth likewise the law as binding, of course for the purpose of excluding the gospel and vindicating Judaism.


Pan. 28.5.1:
For they [the Cerinthians] use the Gospel according to Matthew—in part and not in its entirety, but they do use it for the sake of the physical genealogy —and they cite the following as a proof-text, arguing from the Gospel, ' 'It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master.'
As far as I can tell, the only difference between Cerinthians and Ebionites explicitly mentioned by the Church fathers is that the former believed that a higher God or angel(s) than the God of the OT created the world. As Irenaeus puts it in AH 1.26.1-2:
1. Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.

2. Those who are called Ebionites agree [with orthodox Christians] that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.


And Hippolytus says the same thing in RH 7.21-22 (and that both Ebionites and Cerinthians were separationsists):
But a certain Cerinthus, himself being disciplined in the teaching of the Egyptians, asserted that the world was not made by the primal Deity, but by some virtue which was an offshoot from that Power which is above all things, and which (yet) is ignorant of the God that is above all. And he supposed that Jesus was not generated from a virgin, but that he was born son of Joseph and Mary, just in a manner similar with the rest of men, and that (Jesus) was more just and more wise (than all the human race). And (Cerinthus alleges) that, after the baptism (of our Lord), Christ in form of a dove came down upon him, from that absolute sovereignty which is above all things. And then, (according to this heretic,) Jesus proceeded to preach the unknown Father, and in attestation (of his mission) to work miracles. It was, however, (the opinion of Cerinthus,) that ultimately Christ departed from Jesus, and that Jesus suffered and rose again; whereas that Christ, being spiritual, remained beyond the possibility of suffering.

The Ebionaeans, however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).


So it would be weird to me if the Cerinthians did not also use Matthew like the Ebionites did (like Epiphanius says they did).
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Pilate really a positive figure in Mark? A case for Barabbas=the spiritual Christ

Post by Giuseppe »

John2 wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:48 pm So it would be weird to me if the Cerinthians did not also use Matthew like the Ebionites did (like Epiphanius says they did).
I may concede that the Cerinthians didn't use Mark, but surely I can't concede even the only possibility that the Cerinthians used Matthew. The Gospel of Matthew is ONLY for those who adore the God of the OT, beyond if they had an high or low Christology: ebionites and/or proto-catholics. If the Cerinthians were Gnostics, then surely Matthew was the 'heretical' gospel for them, a priori.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply