Suspicions about the centurion...

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

Suspicions about the centurion...

Post by Giuseppe »


Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103124.htm

Why did he feel the need of specifying that Jesus stands by while he laughed?

If I am correct, in other sources it is said that this not-crucified Christ stands by before the crucified false Christ.

Now, in Mark the only person who is directly before the crucified is the centurion. In the light of the fact that some Christians preached that who was standing by the cross was the true Son of God, it sounds highly suspected the fact that in Mark the words of the centurion are a confirmation of the Divine Sonship of the crucified man.


Some say that the centurion was not serious in the his words "Really this man was the Son of God!".


Is this same absence of seriousness a trace of a preceding version where another person in the his same place was not so serious... ...at the point of laughing about the crucified man?
Last edited by Giuseppe on Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Suspicions about the centurion...

Post by Giuseppe »

Note also a strange irony: the centurion is an (allegory of an) archon. And it is said that the Gnostic Christ laughed about the archons who crucified another person different from Christ.

So there is the suspicion that there is at work also a reversal of the roles: the not-crucified Christ laughs about the archons according to Basilides, while the archon/centurion laughs about the crucified Christ in Mark.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Suspicions about the centurion...

Post by DCHindley »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:48 am
["Irenaeus 1.24:] Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103124.htm

Why did he feel the need of specifying that Jesus stands by while he laughed?
Whoever wrote this kind of statement seems to have conceived that Jesus' divine family (Father God, Motherly Holy Spirit, and Him the anointed prince) was exactly like that of human dynasties, who used people like pawns on a chess board , even compelling Simon of Cyrene to assume Jesus' identity, so Jesus could assume Simon's and thus stand by as a bystander and laugh at the error of the soldiers. Is this supposed to suggest that Simon was a human "volunteer," or was it like the movie The Godfather, when he calls in favors he is owed, and folks willingly stab the man who forced the original Gadfather to emigrate, knowing his guards will shoot him with their shotguns.

Jesus did seem to have had a reputation as a magician among Greek speakers, including stories of amazing escapes from the clutches of his opponents, not only by Jesus himself but also by some of his apostles in Acts.

This is adventure story time.

Uh oh, the wife's home !!! Gotta run <running yelling Yes honey doodle! I'm a coming ...">
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Suspicions about the centurion...

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:48 am
Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. [Irenaeus Adv Haers. 1.24.4 ]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103124.htm

Why did he feel the need of specifying that Jesus stands by while he laughed?
This begs the question: who is specifying this?

Is it Irenaeus? Is it Basilides (who Ireneaus is simply repeating)?

The previous section of that chapter, Adv Haers. 1.24.3 -
3. Basilides again, that he may appear to have discovered something more sublime and plausible, gives an immense development to his doctrines. He sets forth that Nous was first born of the unborn father, that from him, again, was born Logos, from Logos Phronesis, from Phronesis Sophia and Dynamis, and from Dynamis and Sophia the powers, and principalities, and angels, whom he also calls the first; and that by them the first heaven was made. Then other powers, being formed by emanation from these, created another heaven similar to the first; and in like manner, when others, again, had been formed by emanation from them, corresponding exactly to those above them, these, too, framed another third heaven; and then from this third, in downward order, there was a fourth succession of descendants; and so on, after the same fashion, they declare that more and more principalities and angels were formed, and three hundred and sixty-five heavens. Wherefore the year contains the same number of days in conformity with the number of the heavens.

Then section four which contains the passage Giuseppe has highlighted -

.
4. Those angels who occupy the lowest heaven, that, namely, which is visible to us, formed all the things which are in the world, and made allotments among themselves of the earth and of those nations which are upon it. The chief of them is he who is thought to be the God of the Jews; and inasmuch as he desired to render the other nations subject to his own people, that is, the Jews, all the other princes resisted and opposed him. Wherefore all other nations were at enmity with his nation. But the father without birth and without name, perceiving that they would be destroyed, sent his own first-begotten Nous (he it is who is called Christ) to bestow deliverance on those who believe in him, from the power of those who made the world. He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles.

Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them.

For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all. Those, then, who know these things have been freed from the principalities who formed the world; so that it is not incumbent on us to confess him who was crucified, but him who came in the form of a man, and was thought to be crucified, and was called Jesus, and was sent by the father ...
.

Is Irenaeus repeating Basilides' doctrine? or is Irenaeus laying out new doctrine? (or someone else's?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Suspicions about the centurion...

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:00 pmIs it Irenaeus? Is it Basilides (who Ireneaus is simply repeating)?
All valid questions. I have expressed doubt, based on Pearson, that Basilides ever taught that Jesus and Simon switched places.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Suspicions about the centurion...

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:47 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:00 pmIs it Irenaeus? Is it Basilides (who Ireneaus is simply repeating)?
All valid questions. I have expressed doubt, based on Pearson, that Basilides ever taught that Jesus and Simon switched places.
I get the impression that, in that chapter, Irenaeus is padding out the commentary, so certain parts can be attributed to Basilides' and certain passages are likely to be Irenaeus', while certain passages are unclear as to their 'source' eg.
3. Basilides again, that he may appear to have discovered something more sublime and plausible, gives an immense development to his doctrines. He sets forth that Nous was first born of the unborn father, that from him, again, was born Logos, from Logos Phronesis, from Phronesis Sophia and Dynamis, and from Dynamis and Sophia the powers, and principalities, and angels, whom he also calls the first; and that by them the first heaven was made. Then other powers, being formed by emanation from these, created another heaven similar to the first; and in like manner, when others, again, had been formed by emanation from them, corresponding exactly to those above them, these, too, framed another third heaven; and then from this third, in downward order, there was a fourth succession of descendants; and so on, after the same fashion, they declare that more and more principalities and angels were formed, and three hundred and sixty-five heavens. Wherefore the year contains the same number of days in conformity with the number of the heavens.

4. Those angels who occupy the lowest heaven, that, namely, which is visible to us, formed all the things which are in the world, and made allotments among themselves of the earth and of those nations which are upon it. The chief of them is he who is thought to be the God of the Jews; and inasmuch as he desired to render the other nations subject to his own people, that is, the Jews, all the other princes resisted and opposed him. Wherefore all other nations were at enmity with his nation. But the father without birth and without name, perceiving that they would be destroyed, sent his own first-begotten Nous (he it is who is called Christ) to bestow deliverance on those who believe in him, from the power of those who made the world. He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all. Those, then, who know these things have been freed from the principalities who formed the world; so that it is not incumbent on us to confess him who was crucified, but him who came in the form of a man, and was thought to be crucified, and was called Jesus, and was sent by the father, that by this dispensation he might destroy the works of the makers of the world. If any one, therefore, he declares, confesses the crucified, that man is still a slave, and under the power of those who formed our bodies; but he who denies him has been freed from these beings, and is acquainted with the dispensation of the unborn father.

5. Salvation belongs to the soul alone, for the body is by nature subject to corruption. He declares, too, that the prophecies were derived from those powers who were the makers of the world, but the law was specially given by their chief, who led the people out of the land of Egypt. He attaches no importance to [the question regarding] meats offered in sacrifice to idols, thinks them of no consequence, and makes use of them without any hesitation; he holds also the use of other things, and the practice of every kind of lust, a matter of perfect indifference. These men, moreover, practise magic; and use images, incantations, invocations, and every other kind of curious art. Coining also certain names as if they were those of the angels, they proclaim some of these as belonging to the first, and others to the second heaven; and then they strive to set forth the names, principles, angels, and powers of the three hundred and sixty-five imagined heavens. They also affirm that the barbarous name in which the Saviour ascended and descended, is Caulacau.

6. He, then, who has learned [these things], and known all the angels and their causes, is rendered invisible and incomprehensible to the angels and all the powers, even as Caulacau also was. And as the son was unknown to all, so must they also be known by no one; but while they know all, and pass through all, they themselves remain invisible and unknown to all; for, Do you, they say, know all, but let nobody know you. For this reason, persons of such a persuasion are also ready to recant [their opinions], yea, rather, it is impossible that they should suffer on account of a mere name, since they are like to all. The multitude, however, cannot understand these matters, but only one out of a thousand, or two out of ten thousand. They declare that they are no longer Jews, and that they are not yet Christians; and that it is not at all fitting to speak openly of their mysteries, but right to keep them secret by preserving silence.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Suspicions about the centurion...

Post by Giuseppe »

If I understand well your point (and Pearson's), Basilides thaught that Jesus suffered and Christ remained impassible (banal separationism), while others thaught a 'switch-ionism' between Jesus and a guy named Simon. Is this the point, right?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Suspicions about the centurion...

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:25 pm If I understand well your point (and Pearson's), Basilides thaught that Jesus suffered and Christ remained impassible (banal separationism)....
Yes, I think so.
...while others thought a 'switch-ionism' between Jesus and a guy named Simon. Is this the point, right?
Not exactly. Irenaeus tells us that Basilides thought that Jesus and Simon switched places, but Pearson's idea is that Basilides never thought this at all. Rather, Irenaeus misunderstood him on this point. Basilides really thought that Christ was already "gone" by the time Jesus suffered. Pearson gives a passage from the Nag Hammadi codices which points up how easy it would be for an unsympathetic critic like Irenaeus to make such a mistake, since both the physical Jesus and the man Simon could be considered "others" who suffered while the Christ got away cleanly.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply