 |
 |
Rob: > Wasn't part of the split between James and Paul over this issue? Paul, > wanting to proselytise the gentiles, arguing for a relaxation of the > stricter parts of The Law? Yup, the Acts of The Apostles gives an account of Paul's visit to the Jerusalem Elders, to James and Peter, about this very matter. > Hellenism was coming in early -- it's pre-NT (Philo of Alexandria, e.g. -- > even, bloody hell, the Septuagint translation in the same town earlier). > John is only the most +obviously+ Hellenic (nay, Platonic) of the Gospels. > The historic Jesus spoke Western Aramaic (that Petrus pun) but the NT as we > have it written is in Greek. > Yup, again, the NT is in +koine+ and too the Ephesian Gospel narrative is touched by the Logos, a most un-Rabbinical concept, but I'd be wary of extending the Hellenic patina of the Jews of the Diaspora to the ethics, ritual and works above faith-minded Nazarene sect. It's very telling that Thomas is so often known by a Greek name: Didymus. It's quite clear that the proto-Church did not fundamentally see itself outside of the People of the Book, despite an occasional converting centurion. Paul's mission to the Gentiles was tolerated, but without it seems any great enthusiasm. I think such an outlook would be alien to the exoticism of the Gnostics. Best Dave David Bircumshaw Leicester, England A Chide's Alphabet www.chidesplay.8m.com Painting Without Numbers www.paintstuff.20m.com/default.htm http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/default.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Hamilton" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 1:24 AM Subject: Re: Letter to a leftist friend/the real mystics/innocents > Dave: > > I absolutely +hate+ fighting wars on two fronts, but ... > > > I'm not too sure about a marriage of James the Just and Gnosticism, Rob, > my > > understanding is that the Jerusalem church (up to AD 62) was quite > > moralistic and severe in its adherence to Mosaic law. > > Wasn't part of the split between James and Paul over this issue? Paul, > wanting to proselytise the gentiles, arguing for a relaxation of the > stricter parts of The Law? > > Paul won, and by the time the four canonical gospels are written down, > they're written down in the context of a Pauline (rather than Christian, or > Jamesean) community. > > > Tho' at the same time > > it seemed to practise a kind of simple communism. I recall its adjuration > to > > Paul and his followers 'that (they) remember the poor'. I like the notion > > that I have sometimes seen sadly proposed, that the Ebionite sect, their > > name I believe meant 'the Lord's poor, who came to an extinction in > > (Southern?) Turkey as unorthodox, were actually the descendants, as in > > inheritors of traditions of the original Christian sect, so one is > presented > > with the plangent irony of the last remants of original Christianity being > > expunged by the Church Trumphans. > > Yeah ... (Best I can do!) > > > But surely the sophisms of the Gnostics, the very Hellenic concern with > > 'Wisdom', Hagia Sophia, is unlike the Judaic line? > > Hellenism was coming in early -- it's pre-NT (Philo of Alexandria, e.g. -- > even, bloody hell, the Septuagint translation in the same town earlier). > John is only the most +obviously+ Hellenic (nay, Platonic) of the Gospels. > The historic Jesus spoke Western Aramaic (that Petrus pun) but the NT as we > have it written is in Greek. > > So Hellenism is as Hellenism does -- it's more overt in +some+ of the > Gnostic texts than in others (there were bits of Hermes Trismegistus mixed > in among the rest at Nag Harrambi). So I don't think the Hellenic element > would necessarily rule out a James/Gnosticism connection. (_The Gospel of > Thomas_ is maybe more Greek than Matthew, Mark and Luke, but less so than > John.) > > But I'm by now +way+ beyond my depth, so it's time for me to retire, and > pass the baton. > > Candice? Mark? > > G'bye. > > Robin >