DCHindley

The "passer-by" lifestyle recommended by the Jesus of the GoT seems to have a Gnostic (big "G") air to it. The Gnostic is "in" the physical world but is not "part" of it because they have discovered how to get out, escape, from it.

You have an interesting analysis below.

1) No problem here.

2) By what process were gentiles exposed to the Greek translation of Jewish scriptures that they could "find" that mystery in it? It is arcane lore foreign in many ways to Greek or Roman thought, and copies of them were only available to a few due to cost or sacred nature.

3 & 5) By what process did these gentiles come to this conclusion, one that involves processes and a concept of godhood that are essentially alien to Jewish religious beliefs? To be honest, I think this has to involve processes of expectation, disappointment, re-examination of those expectations, and subsequent modification (a dialectic process).

4) Is such a doctrine clearly and systematically presented in the preserved writings of Paul, assuming he is a "preacher" of a revealed gospel? Or are they simply reflected in the form they have reached us in? I think the countless very able but ultimately unsuccessful attempts to make sense of the Christological doctrine disqualifies the first possibility. But if it is merely reflected in the writings of Paul as they have been preserved, other processes must have been at work to have placed them there.

The actual history of the development of early Christianity may be more complicated and subtle than might at first appear. I certainly do not think it is as simple as assuming the NT lays things out plain, or even in coded language.

DCH

mountainman

Thanks dog-on, I have some further questions for you ...

The Greek writings were already in Greek.
Plato and the Logos of Heraclitus etc.
Those who I know of repecting the Hebrew writings were essentially "Greeks".
Even Philo is considered by Momigliano to be more greek than Hebrew.
And somehow Platonic philosophy got interwoven into the picture.
Where do the Greek writings fit into things for you?


The "gentiles" with respect to NT studies in all reasonableness
must be identified with the Greeks. And yes, some of the Greeks
did see the charm of the Hebrew expressions, but they also had their
own Hellenistic expressions - to which they cleaved.

I do not see that this mystery is the exclusive "intellectual property"
of any nation but rather as something which is continually recast
from one generation to another. The mystery involves the connection
between the NT canonical and the NT non canonical writings and the
field of ancient history.



OK. So are you saying that ou think Paul - the author of the Pauline
Epistles, the Letter exchange with Senecca, etc -- was an historical
person, and if so in which century did he live?


I can allow this possibility from the evidence available, but it does
not explain how the people who revered Zeus and Apollo and his
son Asclepius abandoned their culture for the NT. (ie the Greeks).

We also need to examine the "fracturing" of the "Gnostics".
Who were they?


It seems to me that the NT presented to the Greeks a christian god who was Hebrew. It seems to me that the Greek (nation/civilisation) existed largely unaffected by the rise of Rome in the epoch BCE, and that it was thus the cradle for any events occuring in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries. The big question remains in which century was the NT literature authored in Greek.

mountainman

Quite reminiscent of Heraclitus' 'You cannot step twice into the same river'.

We can assume that the Greek gentiles gathered together in schools
of learning, acadmies and at libraries. We should not assume that the Greeks found any more "mystery" in the LXX than in any other literature which they preserved in the cenuries under Roman rule. The Greek gentiles certainly found "mystery" in the revival of Pythagoreanism and Platonism at this same epoch.

The question in my mind is exactly when was the LXX singled out to become one of the sources for the authors of the NT canon.

dog-on

It only takes one individual to come up with an idea. Others can simply riff on it.

It is a simple solution. An individual, "Paul", became interested in Judaism and in the process of learning their lore, discovered something completely different.

If any of the legends concerning this character are the least bit true, Paul came from Tarsus, which would have exposed him to a completely different religious understanding to that of the Hebrews.

Why I think that this is, at least, plausible, is the fact that it is easier for someone foreign to a belief system to derive a completely new understanding of that system, even reading the exact same materials. This is due to the lack of having had certain concepts ingrained during childhood. The additional mechanism would be that certain concepts, foreign to the central lore are brought to the table. This makes it possible that a completely different understanding could be derived from the same source materials. This is also why, in my view, Paul may not have been an actual Jew.


How about the simple fact that throughout the OT, the people who are favored happen to not to be your people?

What if you happened to believe that the stories you were reading actually happened and that they were true?

What if, in the midst of your anguish of being a reject, you have an epiphany?

Of course, the concepts alien to Jewish belief were not alien to some Helenic thought or even, perhaps, Eastern thought of the time (near east).
Then, of course, there was Roman thought.

They are preserved via the writings of people like Justin, Ireneaus and Tertullian.

Actually, they are preserved rather well, no code involved.

dog-on

It seems to me that a Greek god was derived from the Hebrew writings and later recast in order to gain a back story.

I mean, who wants to worship the unknown god...

I also think that the evidence, as it sits, supports exactly this.

mountainman

Most Greek god's known to the 21st century have many inscriptions,
besides temples, shrines and discussion amidst the papyri. Whatever
Greek god was derived from the LXX seems to have kept a low profile
in this media until the epoch when the recasting took place - in the
fourth century.

How well do you think the name of the Jesus cult was known
when it became the state religion? Do you think the NT was
known to many greeks before Constantine published it?
Eusebius himself states he was the first to look at its history.
Do you think we should take Eusebius literally?

dog-on

Iesous Christos has done anything but kept a low profile.


Regarding the precise popularity of the Jesus cult, pre-Constantine, I suppose that your guess is as good as mine.

Rome built Christianity, wherever it originally came from.

show_no_mercy

Isn't there a story in Acts of the Apostles where Paul says to some Greeks that the sacrifices they made to the "unknown god" was in fact the Christian god?

I don't remember chapter/verse off the top of my head.

dog-on

Not surprising, is it.

Of course, Acts was written at the same time Luke was repackaged. All to counter one shipbuilder from Sinope.

mountainman

What do make of the Gnostics **?
Who were they?
How do they fit in to the picture?


nb: *** by Gnostics I mean the authors
of the NHL and the NT apocryphal "stories".
(ie: the docetic minded heretics)