Grog

I know a lot of people have their pet theories on the origins of Christianity. I have been exploring the idea that the notion of memetic evolution can be useful in explaining the emergence of Jesus-belief which I think occurred in the middle to late first century. I have a background in both biology and in social science research, so the idea of applying principles of biological evolution to the study of the emergence of ideas is attractive to me.

Having said that, I recognize that there are shortcomings to this approach in terms of developing a testable hypothesis and sorting out coincidental similarities from genetic relationships is particularly difficult. Still, convergent adaptations can have the appearance of a genetic relationship when one is not present (consider placental mice compared to marsupial mice). In this case, though, convergent evolution is good enough. It doesn’t matter so much whether there is a genetic relationship between works or whether works developed certain themes in response to prevailing cultural conditions. So I recognize that this proposal is not a fully developed hypothesis. It is a developing hypothesis that I am putting out there.

Another point I would like to make is that the analogy of the development of innovative thought, just like innovative adaptation, includes the idea of punctuated equilibrium. In times of changing conditions, a stable equilibrium that has maintained a certain advantageous set of characteristics is upset giving rise, an opening, so to speak, to many new adaptations, all which are recombining and sorting out different combinations until a stabilized set of conditions selects for a specific set of characteristics that becomes stabilized in a population.
Click here for a biological example.

After the initial flourishing, the population becomes stabilized again and can exist for long periods of time depending on the prevailing conditions.

What I propose here is a punctuated equilibrium model.

One more issue is that memetic evolution was an idea first proposed by Richard Dawkins, famed as a "New Atheist." I am not attracted to this idea because of any atheist leanings or any identification with the view of Dawkins. In fact IIRC, Dawkins has stated a weak leaning toward an historicist view, but I don't think it is an issue that concerns him much.

So with that introduction, I want to lay out some preliminary observations.
First, the idea of the Son of God descending from heaven for the purpose of salvation or cleansing of the human race, while not a new idea in the first century, is an innovation in Judaic thought.

We can see that this idea pre-dates Christianity and any known Christian writings concerning a Jesus Christ, Son of God, descended to earth from heaven. And it clearly derives from a synthesis between Hellenism and Judaic, most clearly seen in the works of Philo. In fact, in Philo’s writings we find the first hints of what became incorporated into Christian thought and eventually applied to the figure of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Philo, writing in the first half of the first century (and thus pre-dating any documented Christian writings), describes a heavenly entity called the Logos, the intermediary between God and humanity. Philo describes the Logos as the first-born Son of God:


The Logos descended from heaven to Earth:

Notice the similarity between the descent of the Logos and the birth of Jesus described in Matthew and Luke:

When we recall that “wisdom” to Philo is Sophia, personified as a female, we can see that “sacred tabernacle in imitation of Sophia” is but a small step from the virgin womb of the Holy Mother of God, Mary.

In fact, we can see a similar idea in early Jewish apocalyptic thought. In the Apocalypse of Adam, the “illuminator of knowledge” is said to have “come from a virgin womb:”

In fact, the illuminator of knowledge is said to have been, specifically “born:” When we recognize that heavenly entities can be “born” and can be of the seed of mortals, then the argument that Galatians 4:4 supports a Paul who knows of a human being Jesus of Nazareth, born of the woman, Mary, largely evaporates.

The Apocalypse of Adam is considered to be a very early tract. John Turner estimated between 1st Century BCE and 1st Century CE. It isa Sethian document and generally considered non-christian, but the degree of Christian influence has been debated. I believe it pre-dates Christianity and that if there is influence it flows from Jewish apocalyptism, including works like ApocAdam, to Christianity. (See for example, Parrott, 1989)

The likenesses in the ApocAdam do not end at the virgin birth. As in Philo’s thought, and in the writings of Paul, the heavenly being will be sent to earth on a mission of salvation:

We continue to see the similarities between early Christian thought and Sethian literature:

Compare that to 1:Cor2:8:

The “powers’ mentioned in the Apocalypse of Adam are comparable to the “rulers of this age” in 1 Corinthians (see Lee, 1970)

The punishment of the “flesh of the man upon whom the holy spirit came” is also found in the Wisdom of Solomon:

Returning to Philo, as Richard Carrier has pointed out, we can see where the idea of the heavenly logos is united with the idea of a Messiah named Jesus:

This is a reference to Zechariah 6:12 and you can see that the man Philo refers to is named Joshua, which in Greek is the same name as Jesus:

So what elements of the Jesus myth preceded the Christian story of Jesus?

1. The heavenly revealer/illuminator
2. The descent of the Son of God
3. The shameful death of the Son of God
4. The redemption of mankind through the sacrifice of the Son of God
5. The virgin birth
6. The name of the heavenly intermediary: Jesus

Historicists can accept these observations, but claim these elements were retroactively applied to the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth. However, I think that each coincidence compounds the probability that this is true. For example, it just so happens that the apocalyptic preacher/zealot claimed to be the original founder of Christianity was named “Jesus,” certainly a loaded name, but coincidentally also the name of the figure referred to by Philo.

Now, sure, Jesus was a common name of the time. So, let’s be generous and say that there is a 25% chance that the man who happened to be deified was named Jesus. However, is it also a coincidence that of all the rebels and movements mentioned by Josephus, it happens to be this one that Josephus misses (assuming references to Jesus in Josephus are interpolations, which they are).

So the very figure hypothesized to not have existed but to have evolved as an idea also just happens to be the revolutionary not noticed by contemporaries. When historicists point to the crucifixion as the one sure fact in the Jesus story, it should be pointed out that this is derivative. The story itself already existed in previous non-christian works, not to mention that all the details of the crucifixion story are derived from other sources (I argue that gMark has used Josephus’ account of Jesus ben Ananus for the outline of the passion story).

When we look at the big picture of all these factors, I fail to see how one can rule out of hand the idea that Jesus-belief evolved out of earlier belief systems in the fertile ground of first century Hellenistic Judaism. What I have detailed here in this post is just a fragment of what could said about this.

aa5874

You have acknowledged your hypothesis is problematic so I would have expected you to understand that others would also have difficulty with it.

How can you fail see how your admitted problematic hypothesis is ruled out??

It is most mind boggling to me that you refuse to use the existing data and depend upon a most manipulated source with multiple unknown authors of which there is no 1st century manuscripts and virtually zero corroboration.

There is no heavenly Jesus story in or out the Canon, not even in the Pauline Corpus.

The stories of Jesus are about the Son of God when he was supposedly on earth during the reign of Augustus and Tiberius up to the time of Pilate procurator of Judea or up to 26-36 CE.

When was your heavenly Jesus crucified in the Pauline Corpus?

What did your heavenly Jesus do before the heavenly crucifixion??

"Paul" knows nothing of a heavenly or earthly Jesus ONLY a monstrous Myth Fable of a Resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:17 NAS
The Pauline Corpus is the Last in the evolution of the Jesus story in the Canon.

andrewcriddle

Whether or not the Apocalypse of Adam is influenced by Christianity is unclear.

It is, however, unlikely to be earlier than Christianity. The passage about the eighth kingdom seems to refer to the myths about Mithras and his birth from a rock. This familiarity with Mithraism is unlikely before the very late 1st century CE at the earliest.

Andrew Criddle

yalla

There is a new post up at Vridar.
It starts like this:

"The Christ we read about in the letters of the Apostle Paul has many striking similarities to another Christ we read about in the earlier Second Temple Jewish Book of the Parables of Enoch."

Note particularly the dating of the Parables of Enoch.

http://vridar.org/2013/08/05/christ-...ch/#more-43772

spin

You seem to have in mind a Roman trajectory. However, that is quite roundabout. Mithraism arrives in Rome and is taken to Palestine by a legion which is responsible for the Caesarea mithraeum late in the 1st century CE. Mithra (Latin: Mithras) was not native to Rome, which was a conservative religious center focused on the traditional religion, so we must account for the mysteric Mithra arriving from elsewhere. Plutarch locates Mithra at the center of mysteries in Cilicia well over a century earlier (Vita Pompeii 24.5). This helps establish the existence in Anatolia for Mithraic mysteries. A trajectory for familiarity with Mithraism is rather easy given that christian communities came to Anatolia after Mithras was noted there.

spin

Waddell's conjecture is so unconvincing regarding the claimed parallel with the destruction of Crassus. There are no specific similarities between the text and Crassus's end other than a reference to the Parthians (and the Medes, who had long disappeared). Milik using the same material dated the so-called Roman reference to 270-290 CE. Knibb, having considered the various datings based on the passage, rejects them all as the passage is too vague.

Grog

Questions regarding the dating of the Parables of Enoch aside, the wealth and richness of this early literature is immensely interesting.

On the other point regarding Mithras, the argument that Mithras arrives too late to influence Christianity depends on a late dating of the introduction of the mithraic mysteries and an early dating of the emergence of the Christ Myth (regardless of whether Jesus of Nazareth actually existed). I am not that interested in the relationship between the Mithraic Mysteries and early Christianity. I am more interested in the clash of Hellenism and Judaism. of course, there probably was borrowing both ways, but I think mostly in cosmetic ways.

Grog

Archeological evidence for the Mithras cult is older than any such evidence for Christianity, even if we accept the latest possible date of 100. By then there are underground temples. I would think that a cult would need some time to grow and develop before temples start emerging. Also, I think the rock could refer to the rock of Moses. This imagery is found in the Gospels as well as other apocryphal Christian literature, none of which is necessarily borrowing from or referring to the Mithras cult.

Grog

I recognize that all explanations are problematic. I even detect problems with your theory. With all the theories abounding, I think there might be room for one more.

aa5874

There are no fundamental problems with my theory based on the existing evidence from antiquity.

The Pauline Corpus is the last in the evolution of Jesus belief in the Canon.

[b]As soon as you put the Pauline Corpus LAST in the evolution of belief your problems will vanish--melt away.

In gMark, the Jesus character was NOT a Savior, did NOT want the outsiders to be converted and demanded that his disciples tell no-one he was Christ.

In fact, it is claimed in gMark that no-one was told Jesus was raised from the dead because of FEAR.

Peter and the disciples either Betrayed, abandoned or denied Jesus. The very LAST words of Peter was that he did NOT know Jesus in gMark.

Now, examine the Pauline Corpus--The Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians and the Thessalonians were told Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

It must be obvious that the author of gMark knew nothing of the Pauline letters to Churches claiming that Jesus was raised from the dead and that over 500 persons were seen of him including the disciples and apostles.

The post-resurrection visits are the products of the EVOLUTIONARY process which happened AFTER the short gMark.

Examine the Long gMark. What was ADDED?? What evolved??

1. The post-resurrection visits.

2. The Great Commission to preach the Gospel.

3. The sign of Speaking in Tongues


The Long gMark 16 We have the EVOLUTION.

We have the 12 additional verses in the Long gMark.

The Pauline Corpus is a "Carbon copy" of the EVOLUTION.

1. The resurrected Jesus also appeared to Paul. 1 Cor.15

2. Paul was commissioned to preach the Gospel to the uncircumcised. Galatians 2

3. Paul baptized people. 1 Cor.1

4. Paul had the sign of a believer--- he spoke in Tongues. 1 Cor.14

The Pauline Corpus is a product of the LATER additions found from Mark 16.9-20.