Russellonius

We may only be talking about characters in a book. We know for sure that much of it is fiction because of the supernatural agency. We exclude supernatural claims from the analysis. But the supernatural claim itself is a natural phenomenon. People make such claims for a purpose. If anybody suggests that Captain Ahab was pursuing Moby Dick because he was getting low on lamp oil - that is not a valid explanation for that character's motivation. He represents something, but it couldn't be that. No way. We can discuss the motivation of characters whether fictional or not. Jesus was not sent from heaven, period. But if he was sent from heaven according to some authors, we would like to know for what purpose.

I think we're using more similar methods than you recognize. I just can't see coming up with theories that do not attempt to explain the cross and the blood and how they make the New Covenant different from the Old. Those are parts of the data set and close to the core. There are similarities between the covenants, too. I have said that among the similarities are that the Christians were zealous for the One God and the voice of the prophets. The big difference is that Christians were not zealous for the Law.

I don't mean to cause you frustration. I'm beginning to see how you (and Stephan) could think that Alexandrian developments in allegorizing Judaism could have contributed to the origin. It's not something I have studied much because I didn't think that was where the action was. We find Logos in Philo and gJohn. I need to look into this more.

Duh! But yet we have an actual historical artifact that says he did. Somebody wrote that for a reason. I don't want to hear your explanation for how that came about, but I'm sure I will anyway and it will include CAPITALIZED WORDS!

I wrote about the social attachments of the author know as 'Paul'. Religion is a social phenomenon and while all these authors of undetermined identity were creating PLANTED writings to be STORED until later Christianity was spreading through the normal channels that religion always moves through: social attachments. If 'Paul' was connected to Caesar (and he was taken under arrest to Rome to stand trial also) Then it would be good to investigate the social connectedness of centers of power.

Clivedurdle

Probably the main function of the Library of Alexandria was rewriting Homer for modern times. And what do we find about the gospel of Mark?

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...erandmark.html

Add a very significant Jewish population that were clearly evolving very differently in a separate part of the Greek Empires.

avi

Thanks for the reference. Here's a quote from your article:

Ok, so we begin to learn about your source of information:

Who was "Pionius"?

Here is a quote from Roger Pearse, summarizing J.B. Lightfoot's historic study of the patristic authors:

So, Stephan, your source of information, upon which you base your theory, is a tenth century compilation, with various lacunae. One wonders whether or not someone a few hundred years earlier(Marcus Aurelius), had mentioned either Polycarp or Polonius? Here is a counterweight: finger in the pie--Eusebius.

avi

maryhelena

As I wrote earlier, I can't see that the symbolic blood/wine drinking of the New Covenant is in anyway a rejection of the Old Covenant. I made the point regarding a re-interpretation of the Old Covenant - a spiritual interpretation - that allows for the OT to retain it's 'good' elements while dropping those elements that were considered to be archaic - animal sacrifices. The blood issue, as in Acts, remains as an entrenched ''law' that the New Covenant had no 'authority' to negate.

So, where does this leave us?

I can suggest that the Old and the New Covenants reflect two different contexts - a literal, historical context and the new spiritual context. That's the easy part. But does not answer the question of why the symbolic drinking of blood was going to be acceptable within that spiritual context. What we need is the missing link, the switch over that allowed for a symbolic use of blood to not be offensive.

The gospel Jesus on the cross the switch over? Hardly. What significances is there in a gentle Jesus who preached for around a year, upset a few people with his theological ideas and ends up crucified. There is only theological interpretations possible from such a scenario - whether Jesus was historical or mythological. But the 'Law' was historical - at least in the sense that the Jews had a set code of right conduct. The question is - could the 'Law' have had, or was seen to have had, within a historical setting, a re-interpretation in a purely spiritual context; a change in focus from the literal historical context to a spiritual context. The gospel storyline suggests that this was so. The question then becomes - if not the gospel Jesus - then who, where and when. I don't think a literary interpretation of the gospel Jesus story is going to answer these question. It's back to the history books.

Russell, I think perhaps this blood issue is getting off topic here - I'll put up a new thread later re the Hasmonean connection in all of this...

bacht

Inheriting the trade of ruined Tyre and becoming the center of the new commerce between Europe and the Arabian and Indian East, the city grew in less than a generation to be larger than Carthage. In a century, Alexandria had become the largest city in the world and for some centuries more, was second only to Rome. It became the main Greek city of Egypt, with an extraordinary mix of Greeks from many cities and backgrounds. Nominally a free Hellenistic city, Alexandria retained its senate of Roman times and the judicial functions of that body were restored by Septimius Severus after temporary abolition by Augustus.

Alexandria was not only a center of Hellenism but was also home to the largest Jewish community in the world.

Other than collecting works from the past, the library was also home to a host of international scholars, well-patronized by the Ptolemaic dynasty with travel, lodging and stipends for their whole families. As a research institution, the library filled its stacks with new works in mathematics, astronomy, physics, natural sciences and other subjects. It was at the Library of Alexandria that the scientific method was first conceived and put into practice, and its empirical standards applied in one of the first and certainly strongest homes for serious textual criticism. As the same text often existed in several different versions, comparative textual criticism was crucial for ensuring their veracity. Once ascertained, canonical copies would then be made for scholars, royalty and wealthy bibliophiles the world over, this commerce bringing income to the library. The editors at the Library of Alexandria are especially well known for their work on Homeric texts. The more famous editors generally also held the title of head librarian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alexandria

Alexandria could have been the most stimulating place to live in the world before the decline of the Roman imperium.

stephan huller

Avi,

The text in question is called 'the Life of Polycarp' and it is usually dated to the fourth century. If we can't use information from a fourth century document to make sense of a second century story how can any sense be made of Christian history? (besides of course the nihilistic - 'it's all bullshit' approach of some at this forum).

There has to be some middle ground between saying a tradition is one hundred percent reliable because the eyewitness was standing there with a camcorder and a tradition is worthless because an eyewitness wasn't standing there with a camcorder.

I think that you deliberately set the bar so high because you really aren't interested in the subject matter. It really is unrealistically high. Is the sacking of Troy complete bullshit because there probably wasn't a historical 'Homer' and the Iliad was passed along by word of mouth for centuries before being written down? Is everything Plato wrote about Socrates 'complete bullshit' because used the dialogues to introduce his own ideas?

Where does this end? It seems to be so utterly nihilistic. As I said before, if you aren't willing to reconstruct history with what has survived, why not find something else to do? I don't understand where this all leads to besides a never ending chorus of 'it's all bullshit.'

avi

Correct me if I err, here, Stephan, but, I don't recall employing any scatological terminology to impeach your article.

Perhaps your tone and choice of vocabulary reflect a kind of contempt for my submissions to the forum, well, no problem, if so.

One would hope that the discourse, if not polite, would at least focus on the issues, rather than the personalities or lack of skill of the individuals submitting comments.

The issue here, in this subthread, is your explanation that your conclusion about Polycarp was based upon the writings of Pionius, a mysterious chap with only one extant document attributed to him, a document at best described as comprising lacunae and interpolations.

I am not asking you to recant your theory, I am simply asking that you acknowledge the thinness of your documentary support.

The issue, in my opinion, is not how little I know, or how little I care, about various issues. I don't perceive myself as the issue. Maybe I misjudge the extent to which I have caused grievous harm to you, or to others.

The issue, in my opinion, is the degree of optimism we acknowledge, in regarding as valid, this person's, or that person's theory about any topic.

In this instance, in a thread supposedly devoted to Alexandrine Christianity, you introduced, what appears to me to be a tangent, discussing your theory that writings attributed to Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Clement, (none of whom, to the best of my knowledge, lived in Alexandria) ought to be re-evaluated as possibly representing only one or perhaps two authors, rather than four.

Your theory is neither uninteresting, nor without considerable sympathy on the forum, but, it does seem, through my rosy spectacles, as if it has little to do with elaborating how Christianity spread in Alexandria.

Your response to my complaint about the pallor of your sources, strikes me at least, if no one else, as quite inappropriate, not at all what I had anticipated, though, not so very different, in hindsight, from your earlier response to another comment I had offered on this same thread:
avi

stephan huller

When someone writes an article, it's like making a dinner for guests. I've invited you into my home and laid the table for you. If the person has just popped a meal in the microwave, you have the right to say that you don't like eating food out of the microwave because you think it might cause cancer. But if you come over as a guest and the host has spent hours trying to make you dinner you owe that person the courtesy of at least showing proper consideration and politesse. Saying that the mashed potatoes didn't look good because they came out the wrong color and not touching any of the rest of the food might upset the host.