The Solution to the Problem of 'Paul'

[Stephan Huller]

Here are two citations given in the notes of Diog. Laer. The first is Theaet. 147c. Neither, in fact, say what Diog. Laer. makes Plato say. I wonder whether Platonic corpus was edited in the Christian era to deny him saying what the Christians knew he originally said (i.e. the Demiurge is stupid). After all, it would have been common to assume that a craftsman, while skilled, wouldn't be as enlightened as someone who didn't work. That was the cultural prejudices of the age and every age - even our own - for that matter. People who go to trade schools to this day are looked down upon. 'University' is seen as a superior education (although strangely in the US they don't make the explicit distinction that the rest of the world does between a 'college' and a 'university'). When I was first asked in this country 'what college did you go to?' my first instinct (as a Canadian) was to say 'College? You think I went to a college? I went to a university."

[146b] Theodorus
That sort of thing would not be at all rude, Socrates; but tell one of the youths to answer your questions; for I am unused to such conversation and, moreover, I am not of an age to accustom myself to it. But that would be fitting for these young men, and they would improve much more than I; for the fact is, youth admits of improvement in every way. Come, question Theaetetus as you began to do, and do not let him off.

Socrates
Well, Theaetetus, you hear what Theodorus says,
[146c] and I think you will not wish to disobey him, nor is it right for a young person to disobey a wise man when he gives instructions about such matters. Come, speak up well and nobly. What do you think knowledge is?

Theaetetus
Well, Socrates, I must, since you bid me. For, if I make a mistake, you are sure to set me right.

Socrates
Certainly, if we can.

Theaetetus
Well then, I think the things one might learn from Theodorus are knowledge—geometry and all the things you spoke of just now—and also cobblery and [146d] the other craftsmen's arts (δημιουργῶν τέχναι); each and all of these are nothing else but knowledge.

Socrates
You are noble and generous, my friend, for when you are asked for one thing you give many, and a variety of things instead of a simple answer.

Theaetetus
What do you mean by that, Socrates?

Socrates
Nothing, perhaps; but I will tell you what I think I mean. When you say “cobblery” you speak of nothing else than the art of making shoes, do you?

Theaetetus
Nothing else.

[146e] Socrates
And when you say “carpentry” (τεκτονικήν)? Do you mean anything else than the art of making wooden furnishings?

Theaetetus
Nothing else by that, either.

Socrates
Then in both cases you define that to which each form of knowledge belongs?

Theaetetus
Yes.

Socrates
But the question, Theaetetus, was not to what knowledge belongs, nor how many the forms of knowledge are; for we did not wish to number them, but to find out what knowledge itself really is. Or is there nothing in what I say?

Theaetetus
Nay, you are quite right.

Socrates
Take this example. If anyone should ask us about some common everyday thing (φαύλων), for instance, what clay is, and we should reply that it is the potters' clay and the oven makers' clay and the brickmakers' clay, should we not be ridiculous?

Theaetetus
Perhaps.

Socrates
Yes in the first place for assuming that the questioner can understand from our answer what clay is, when we say “clay,” no matter whether we add “the image-makers'” [147b] or any other craftsmen's (δημιουργῶν). Or does anyone, do you think, understand the name of anything when he does not know what the thing is?

Theaetetus
By no means.

Socrates
Then he does not understand knowledge of shoes if he does not know knowledge.

Theaetetus
No.

Socrates
Then he who is ignorant of knowledge does not understand cobblery or any other art.

Theaetetus
That is true.

Socrates
Then it is a ridiculous answer to the question “what is knowledge?” when we give the name of some art; [147c] for we give in our answer something that knowledge belongs to, when that was not what we were asked.

Theaetetus
So it seems.

Socrates:

Secondly, when we might have given a short, everyday (φαύλως) answer, we go an interminable distance round; for instance, in the question about clay, the everyday, simple thing (φαῦλόν) would be to say “clay is earth mixed with moisture” without regard to whose clay it is.

Rep. 527 d οὐ πάνυ φαῦλον ἀλλὰ χαλεπὸν πιστεῦσαι.

[Stephan Huller]

The more that I actually have time to examine the passage in the Theaetetus the more I see it does conform to the idea that the 'Demiurge' was inferior already in Plato. And then from reading this passage I had an insight as to where to begin to identify Paul as Demiurge - that fucking passage in 1 Corinthians chapter 3 that we saw Origen and Clement and the whole Alexandrian (Platonic) tradition take an interest in:

According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise architect (σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων) I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it.

This would be the launching pad for any argument that the apostle = the Demiurge = ho phaulos. I bet there is a reference somewhere to this. Already Origen wrote:

But if, on the contrary, the works of the wicked man (τοῦ φαύλου ἔργα) are spoken of figuratively under the names of "wood, or hay, or stubble," why does it not at once occur (to inquire) in what sense the word "fire" is to be taken, so that "wood" of such a kind should be consumed? for (the Scripture) says: "The fire will try each man's work of what sort it is. [4.13] etc

The same idea appears in Clement of Alexandria:

“According to the grace,” it is said, “given to me as a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation. And another buildeth on it gold and silver, precious stones.” (1 Cor. iii. 10–13) Such is the gnostic superstructure on the foundation of faith in Christ Jesus. But “the stubble, and the wood, and the hay,” are the additions of heresies. “But the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is.” In allusion to the gnostic edifice also in the Epistle to the Romans, he says, “For I desire to see you, that I may impart unto you a spiritual gift, that ye may be established.” Rom. i. 11. It was impossible that gifts of this sort could be written without disguise. [Clement Stromata 5.4]

How could Origen not have known that Plato identifies the Demiurge as phaulos? The idea has to be that Paul wrote a spiritual gospel, something that an ordinary 'craftsman' couldn't have accomplished because of his animal nature. But how to prove this ... The key word may be 'wise' - σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων. He's not just an architect, not just the Demiurge but a craftsman who has special knowledge through his experience in the third heaven.

[Stephan Huller]

Yes I am creeping towards the finish line. There is indeed an early reference which indirectly helps identify the apostle as the Demiurge. It comes from the Philosophumena's discussion of the Demiurge discovering there is a higher god above him:

And than all the subjacent (entities) whatsoever there were among them which remained mundane, He became more wise, more powerful, more comely, more lustrous, (in fact,) pre-eminent for beauty above any entities yon could mention with the exception of the Sonship alone, which is still left in the (conglomeration of) all germs. For he was not aware that there is (a Sonship) wiser and more powerful, and better than Himself. Therefore imagining Himself to be Lord, and Governor, and a wise Master Builder, He turns Himself to (the work of) the creation of every object in the cosmical system. And first, he deemed it proper not to be alone, but made unto Himself, and generated from adjacent (entities), a Son far superior to Him self, and wiser. For all these things had the non-existent Deity previously determined upon, when He cast down the (conglomeration of) all germs. Beholding, therefore, the Son, He was seized with astonishment, and loved (Him), and was struck with amazement. For some beauty of this description appeared to the Great Archon to belong to the Son, and the Archon caused Him to sit on his right (hand). This is, according to these (heretics), what is denominated the Ogdoad, where the Great Archon has his throne. The entire celestial creation, then, that is, the AEther, He Himself, the Great Wise Demiurge formed. The Son, however, begotten of this (Archon), operates in Him, and offered Him suggestions, being endued with far greater wisdom than the Demiurge Himself.

The reference to the Demiurge first witnessing Jesus and being 'astonished' and 'loving him' sounds suspiciously like Secret Mark or at least the encounter with the youth in Mark chapter 10 also. In any event, it would seem that the Basilideans would argue that Genesis says 'God' (= Elohim) created the universe (rather than 'Lord' = Yahweh) because the two were originally one and Elohim (= Jesus) was 'in' him. After the two separated into two separate powers, the Demiurge became stupid (= phaulos) until he met him again after the resurrection. But the implication seems to be, in keeping with our original discussion, that when Jesus ( Elohim) was acting within the Demiurge he was a 'Wise Architect'). So too then with Paul. The 'wise' part is Jesus in Paul cf. 'Christ is in me' and other references in Paul.

But now comes the question, what was it that Paul was 'building' that rivals the creation of the world of the 'real' Demiurge? Answer: it must be the gospel (cf. 1 Corinthians 2 and all the 'wisdom' discussion). 'Wisdom' is a code word for Torah (= holy written text) in Hebrew traditions. Marqe in Samaritan lore is said to have similarly 'formed Wisdom' when speaking of his holy Mimar Marqe, the authoritative exegesis in Samaritan tradition.

[Stephan Huller]

So once we see how the heretics read 1 Corinthians 3:10 (= that the Apostle resembled the Demiurge 'fortified' or 'spiritualized' with the addition of Jesus) we can turn to Tertullian's attack against Marcion with the same passage:

What has he also to do with illustrations from our God? For when (the apostle) calls himself “a wise master-builder,” 1 Corinthians 3:10 we find that the Creator by Isaiah designates the teacher who sketches out the divine discipline by the same title, “I will take away from Judah the cunning artifi cer,” etc. And was it not Paul himself who was there foretold, destined “to be taken away from Judah”— that is, from Judaism— for the erection of Christianity, in order “to lay that only foundation, which is Christ?” 1 Corinthians 3:11 Of this work the Creator also by the same prophet says, “Behold, I lay in Sion for a foundation a precious stone and honourable; and he that rests thereon shall not be confounded.” Isaiah 28:16 Unless it be, that God professed Himself to be the builder up of an earthly work, that so He might not give any sign of His Christ, as destined to be the foundation of such as believe in Him, upon which every man should build at will the superstructure of either sound or worthless doctrine; forasmuch as it is the Creator's function, when a man's work shall be tried by fire, (or) when a reward shall be recompensed to him by fire; because it is by fire that the test is applied to the building which you erect upon the foundation which is laid by Him, that is, the foundation of His Christ. “Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” 1 Corinthians 3:16 Now, since man is the property, and the work, and the image and likeness of the Creator, having his flesh, formed by Him of the ground, and his soul of His afflatus, it follows that Marcion's god wholly dwells in a temple which belongs to another, if so be we are not the Creator's temple. But “if any man defile the temple of God, he shall be himself destroyed” — of course, by the God of the temple. 1 Corinthians 3:17 If you threaten an avenger, you threaten us with the Creator. “

Of course idiots (you see I am already on the same page with these neo-Platonists as 'stupid' and the like is my favorite adjective to describe things of this world) read this passage and 'agree' with Tertullian - 'yes' the moronic argument goes 'since Paul draws from images and metaphors that describe the Creator therefore he must not have been the heretic Marcionites say he was.' But this not just stupid but fucking stupid because they fail to address the essential heresy implied in Paul identifying himself as the Creator.

Paul isn't saying 'I love the Creator' but I am the Demiurge or better yet (and even crazier) I am the Demiurge 'supercharged' or raised to the next level by being united with Jesus. He is certainly drawing from the Platonic notion of the Creator as a Demiurge but then applies that to himself in the Church. How anyone squares this with 'normative' Christianity, I haven't a clue. Whenever someone says 'I am a god' warning lights come on in my head 'crazy, crazy ...'

[Stephan Huller]

So can we at least agree that Paul identified himself as the Demiurge? Yes. Does that mean that the name Παῦλος now derived from the Platonic understanding of the Demiurge as ὁ φαῦλος? I think the case suddenly got very persuasive. After here is what you have going for it:

1. paulos and phaulos are etymologically related and this relationship was known to native speakers.
2. Paul identifies himself as the Platonic Demiurge. A simple Jew couldn't have identified himself as a 'divine craftsman.' He had to have knowledge of Platonism and the identification of the Demiurge as φαῦλος within the writings of Plato.
3. the preferred method of identifying the apostle in early writings was 'ho apostolos.' References to his name 'Paul' are very rare. Part of the reason can be explained that making reference to a teacher called ho phaulos would be embarrassingly strange to non-Christians. I think Celsus has this epithet in mind when, in the middle of dealing with the Pauline corpus he makes mention of the Marcionites. It is noteworthy that after mentioning the Simonians and other sects by name, Origen just makes general allusion to the fact that the Marcionites come up next. But look at the actual context for a moment:

We, however, who from a love of learning examine to the utmost of our ability not only the contents of Scripture, and the differences to which they give rise, but have also, from love to the truth, investigated as far as we could the opinions of philosophers, have never at any time met with these sects. He makes mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion. [chapter break] In the next place, that he may have the appearance of knowing still more than he has yet mentioned, he says, agreeably to his usual custom, that “there are others who have wickedly invented some being as their teacher and demon, and who wallow about in a great darkness, more unholy and accursed than that of the companions of the Egyptian Antinous.” (Εἶθ' ἵνα δοκῇ καὶ ἄλλους εἰδέναι παρ' οὓς ὠνόμασε, φησὶν ἑαυτῷ συνήθως ὅτι ἄλλοι ἄλλον διδάσκαλόν τε καὶ δαίμονα, κακῶς πλαζόμενοι καὶ καλινδούμενοι <εὕραντο προ στάτην> κατὰ σκότον πολὺν τῶν Ἀντίνου τοῦ κατ' Αἴγυπτον θιασωτῶν ἀνομώτερόν τε καὶ μιαρώτερον) And he seems to me, indeed, in touching on these matters, to say with a certain degree of truth, that there are certain others (ὅτι τινὲς ἄλλοι) who have wickedly invented another demon (ἄλλον δαίμονα κακῶς πλαζόμενοι), and who have found him to be their lord (καὶ καλινδούμενοι εὕραντο προστάτην), as they wallow about in the great darkness of their ignorance (κατὰ πολὺν τὸν τῆς ἀγνοίας σκότον). With respect, however, to Antinous, who is compared with our Jesus, we shall not repeat what we have already said in the preceding pages. “Moreover,” he continues, “these persons utter against one another dreadful blasphemies, saying all manner of things shameful to be spoken; nor will they yield in the slightest point for the sake of harmony, hating each other with a perfect hatred” (Καὶ βλασφημοῦσι δέ, φησίν, εἰς ἀλλήλους οὗτοι πάνδεινα ῥητὰ καὶ ἄρρητα· καὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴξαιεν οὐδὲ καθ' ὁτιοῦν εἰς ὁμόνοιαν, πάντῃ ἀλλήλους ἀποστυγοῦντες) Now, in answer to this, we have already said that in philosophy and medicine sects are to be found warring against sects ... [extended apology on the part of Origen for Christians who behave like this] ... we would not regard with hatred the corrupters of Christianity, nor term those who had fallen into error Circes and flattering deceivers (οὐκ ἂν ἀποστυγήσαιεν τοὺς παραχαράττοντας τὰ χριστιανισμοῦ οὐδὲ Κίρκας καὶ κύκηθρα αἱμύλα λέγοιεν τοὺς πεπλανημέ νους). Celsus appears to me to have misunderstood the statement of the apostle, which declares that “in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving of them who believe;” and to have misunderstood also those who employed these declarations of the apostle against such as had corrupted the doctrines of Christianity. And it is owing to this cause that Celsus has said that “certain among the Christians are called 'cauterized in the ears;'” and also that some are termed “enigmas,” — a term which we have never met. The expression “stumbling-block” is, indeed, of frequent occurrence in these writings—an appellation which we are accustomed to apply to those who turn away simple persons, and those who are easily deceived, from sound doctrine. But neither we, nor, I imagine, any other, whether Christian or heretic, know of any who are styled Sirens, who betray and deceive, and stop their ears, and change into swine those whom they delude. And yet this man, who affects to know everything, uses such language as the following: “You may hear,” he says, “all those who differ so widely, and who assail each other in their disputes with the most shameless language, uttering the words, 'The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.'” And this is the only phrase which, it appears, Celsus could remember out of Paul's writings; and yet why should we not also employ innumerable other quotations from the Scriptures, such as, “For though we do walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh; (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds,) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God?”

But since he asserts that “you may hear all those who differ so widely saying, 'The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world,'” we shall show the falsity of such a statement. For there are certain heretical sects which do not receive the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, as the two sects of Ebionites, and those who are termed Encratites. Those, then, who do not regard the apostle as a holy and wise man, will not adopt his language, and say, “The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.” And consequently in this point, too, Celsus is guilty of falsehood. He continues, moreover, to linger over the accusations which he brings against the diversity of sects which exist, but does not appear to me to be accurate in the language which he employs, nor to have carefully observed or understood how it is that those Christians who have made progress in their studies say that they are possessed of greater knowledge than the Jews; and also, whether they acknowledge the same Scriptures, but interpret them differently, or whether they do not recognise these books as divine. For we find both of these views prevailing among the sects. He then continues: “Although they have no foundation for the doctrine, let us examine the system itself; and, in the first place, let us mention the corruptions which they have made through ignorance and misunderstanding, when in the discussion of elementary principles they express their opinions in the most absurd manner on things which they do not understand, such as the following.” And then, to certain expressions which are continually in the mouths of the believers in Christianity, he opposes certain others from the writings of the philosophers, with the object of making it appear that the noble sentiments which Celsus supposes to be used by Christians have been expressed in better and clearer language by the philosophers, in order that he might drag away to the study of philosophy those who are caught by opinions which at once evidence their noble and religious character. We shall, however, here terminate the fifth book, and begin the sixth with what follows.

This extended section I would argue deals with the Marcionites - not referencing the name 'Marcion' or 'Marcionite' specifically (there is no direct evidence of that) - but rather Celsus sees them IMO as having a teacher who identifies himself as a 'wicked demon' (= ὁ φαῦλος).

[Stephan Huller]

On the equivalence of demiourgos and technites see Hebrews 11:10:

For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect (τεχνίτης) and builder (δημιουργός) is God.

[Stephan Huller]

I am not sure that the aforementioned passage in Origen has been translated correctly:

“there are others who have wickedly invented some being as their teacher and demon, and who wallow about in a great darkness, more unholy and accursed than that of the companions of the Egyptian Antinous.”

ὅτι ἄλλοι ἄλλον διδάσκαλόν τε καὶ δαίμονα, κακῶς πλαζόμενοι καὶ καλινδούμενοι <εὕραντο προ στάτην> κατὰ σκότον πολὺν τῶν Ἀντίνου τοῦ κατ' Αἴγυπτον θιασωτῶν ἀνομώτερόν τε καὶ μιαρώτερον

there are others who because of another teacher and demon, wrongly stray and wallow in a darkness more unholy and accursed than that of the Egyptian Antinous's companions.

I just noticed that the terminology could be taken in an astrological sense for πλαζόμενοι derives from πλάζω and like πλανάω means to make to wander or roam. The sense here seems very close to the Letter to Theodore - viz. "You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians. For these are "wandering stars" referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins." I think the allusion to Antinous implies that a human being has been taken to be a god or daimon too.

[Charles Wilson]

And than all the subjacent (entities) whatsoever there were among them which remained mundane, He became more wise, more powerful, more comely, more lustrous, (in fact,) pre-eminent for beauty above any entities yon could mention with the exception of the Sonship alone, which is still left in the (conglomeration of) all germs. For he was not aware that there is (a Sonship) wiser and more powerful, and better than Himself. Therefore imagining Himself to be Lord, and Governor, and a wise Master Builder, He turns Himself to (the work of) the creation of every object in the cosmical system. And first, he deemed it proper not to be alone, but made unto Himself, and generated from adjacent (entities), a Son far superior to Him self, and wiser. For all these things had the non-existent Deity previously determined upon, when He cast down the (conglomeration of) all germs. Beholding, therefore, the Son, He was seized with astonishment, and loved (Him), and was struck with amazement. For some beauty of this description appeared to the Great Archon to belong to the Son, and the Archon caused Him to sit on his right (hand). This is, according to these (heretics), what is denominated the Ogdoad, where the Great Archon has his throne. The entire celestial creation, then, that is, the AEther, He Himself, the Great Wise Demiurge formed. The Son, however, begotten of this (Archon), operates in Him, and offered Him suggestions, being endued with far greater wisdom than the Demiurge Himself.

The reference to the Demiurge first witnessing Jesus and being 'astonished' and 'loving him' sounds suspiciously like Secret Mark or at least the encounter with the youth in Mark chapter 10 also...But now comes the question, what was it that Paul was 'building' that rivals the creation of the world of the 'real' Demiurge? Answer: it must be the gospel (cf. 1 Corinthians 2 and all the 'wisdom' discussion).

See what happens when you get on the other side of that "Creation Line" with Christianity? You start to believe that these people were writing to EXPLAIN what they were up to.

"Paul" <=> "Mucianus", Governor of Syria. He gets into a tiff with Vespasian and meets Titus on the Road to Damascus and throws in with Vespasian after an exchange of Advisors and Bureaucrats. Vespasian marches through Alexandria to control the grain harvest in order to starve Rome if necessary, in order to set the stage for his Ascension as Emperor. You think think the Road Grading of Judea is the only History goin' on here at this time?

Mucianus travels by way of the Pontus. He steals everything including the silverware to assemble the machinery to march on Rome ahead of Vespasian. (Note: The Freedman Anicetus torches some Greeks after Mucianus leaves and Vespasian sends some Thugs to settle things. Anicetus is Double-Crossed and you can read of this in Acts, "The Queen's Eunuch". "Sinope" is in that area and later plays some role in the History of the creation of the NT...)

"Paul" => "Tiny" is a vicious play on words for Mucianus:

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Vespasian":

"He [[Vespasian]] bore the frank language of his friends,the quips of pleaders, and the impudence of the philosophers with the greatest patience. Though Licinius Mucianus, a man of notorious unchastity, presumed upon his services to treat Vespasian with scant respect, he never had the heart to criticize him except privately and then only to the extent of adding to a complaint made to a common friend, the significant words: "I at least am a man." "

WADDER'YA T'INK THAT MEANS, "I at least am a man", HUH? It ain't the Demi-Urge what made Mucianus into "Tiny" ain't it? They are telling you what they are gonna do. It is most transparent in John, Ch. 11 and 12 and the Book of Acts chronicles Mucianus. If you focus on an already created Mythic Being and you create a community that must have believed in this Being, there is nothing that can be done. You'll never see it.

And it's there, staring you in the face.

CW

[Stephan Huller]

This is just complete nonsense. You must have nothing better to do than find ways to make your theory fit anything that appears on this board. Keep it to yourself. I am trying to do new things here. Almost everything I post to this and any other thread are in the hopes of finding similarly minded original thinkers. This is just the same old nonsense and only shows that you must be an old man. Old people can't produce new original thoughts. I am convinced you are at least over 50. Same fucking thing over and over again. Like the old fart who goes to the 'diner' because 'it's where he always eats.'

The train of thought I am now taking - Paul's self-identification with the cosmic Demiurge has nothing to do with this shit you are serving. Please go away.

[Ulan]

I found the initial idea quite intriguing, but somewhat lost it at the Paul=Demiurge twist, not regarding the textual similarities, but conceptually. I get the similarities in the conversion experience, and Paul's allusion to being Christ himself (more than just in a general sense) lifts its head in the literature from time to time, but equating himself with Yahweh? Sounds somewhat suicidal, at least if he was a real person.

But why Saul -> Paul. Was Saul ever described as phaulos? No connection? I may have missed that though.