rlogan

Proto-Christian Organizations:

I have been curious about the origins of Christianity in terms of what groups might have been progenitors, or what analogue groups existed prior to the second century that can give us insights into proto-Christianity.

In the course of discussions here and reading, I have come to see the gospels as second century creations, but my focus here is early enough to where late first century adherents ought to find no fault with the question of early first century proto-Christian groups. In any case, we are rejecting the idea of Christianity stemming from a historical Jesus and radiating outward geographically and historically from the 30 CE gospel setting.

If there is no Jesus leading a break-away cult, then what groups provide us with insights on Proto-Christian development in the first Century? Doherty provides for us a model of evolution from the Christ in the mythical sphere to the "historical" Jesus, invented later. What the Doherty thesis does not do is articulate forcefully the likely "feed stock" for populating Christian churches. No detailing of likely precursor groups or sect models for analogy.

The Essenes first caught my attention in Josephus (Wars II, Ch. 8; Antiquities 18:1:2) for several reasons. Josephus went on at great length about the Essenes, but not the Pharisees or the Sadducces. Pliny (Natural History 5:18) and Philo (Every Good Man is Free, 12:75-91 also discussed the Essenes. Philo estimated them at 4,000 in about the year 20CE.

While the Essenes were Jewish in origin, they nevertheless rejected the temple cult and established independent communalities. They may have arisen historically as early as the 2nd Century BC in opposition to the "Wicked" rulers of the temple. 1st Century BC, perhaps - but regardless we have an excellent "break-away" group for candidacy. With an eschatology similar to Christianity.

It would be erroneous to think the descriptions of them would match "Christianity" in detail insamuch as our idea of Christianity is something that became canonical many centuries later. And I do not argue that they were "the" proto-Christians. (Sid Green, however does at http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...01/green1.html )

Regardless, the Essenes disappeared while the Christians arose simultaneously. Coincidence? It is not because the Essenes eschewed marriage and therefore went extinct under the maxim of natural selection. There were at least two types of Essenes. Moreover, one might expect the faith to evolve, and one possibility is either directly into Christianity, or for adherents to be likely candidates for doing so themselves.

This brings us to a discussion of the Damascus Document and the Community Rule Document. Some have argued that both of these are Essene - reflecting different orders of Essene tradition. There is argument about that, and it doesn't matter to me because all views leave us with prototypes for Christianity. Here is some background:

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/dd&cr.html


The Damascus Document was discovered in a huge cache of texts in a room adjoining a synagogue in Old Cairo about a hundred years ago. Additional fragments were also discovered at Qumran. It describes a sect that dates to the first century BC at the very least, but getting more precise than that is problemmatic.

Among the other gems in this document is reference to the "Teacher of Righteousness" who may have lived a century before the gospel Jesus. There appears to be a contemporaneous as well as future Teacher of Righteousness in this document as well.

As with all sects, this one believed Israel had fallen away, and of course the followers of the Damascus Document sect will be swept up to heaven in the end days. The interested reader is referred here to the text:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/cou...xts/CD1910.htm

The Community Rule sect may have been an offshoot of this Damascus Document parent group. It may have been unrelated, or a "close cousin". Its members appear to have been celibate though, and we also see no mention of the Teacher of Righteousness in their work. I am awaiting a copy of this from a gracious friend of mine here and will withhold further comment until I read more. Again, though, we have a potential prototype that also disappeared with the rise of Christianity.

I want to close this particular thread OP in terms of candidacy for proto-Christianity by mentioning the Didache as an "intermediate fossil" between an Essene-type group and a Christian group.

This document is currently being discussed here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=103157

But in relation to this thread, it speaks to a community that has obvious Jewish roots, yet also a new covenant, but without a historical Jesus being crucified. It is an intermediate form on the way to Christianity.

There have been leaders of other sects: Judas of Galilee led a revolt of the Zealots in the very early first century, for example. The zealots played an important role in the revolt leading to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. But they do not seem to have formed a "new covenant" as with the others above. I do not see them as prototypes in terms of forming a new religion.


The upshot of this thread is the belief that proto-Christianity is probably not so much a mystery. It is in front of our faces, but the gospel story fiction has us looking for something that doesn't exist. We should probably instead be looking at what already existed and be asking how it may have evolved into Christianity.

funinspace

I'm not sure if it fits at all into your quest for "proto Christians", but I've always found the Mandean's to be quite baffling. Unfortunately little is known of their past, and their own holy books are probably no older than 600-800 AD (if I remember right) from what I've read about it. However, they consider John the Baptist to be a key prophet, and Jesus a former follower turned heretic. My understanding is that it is essentially a dualistic faith with elements from Egypt and Judaism. The best I can guess, is that they are one of the early offshoots of what was changing around the area during the first century. They seam to have been forced out of the area for whatever reason, and evolved on their own. I doubt there is little to work with to form anything beyond conjectures... The one thing I draw from this, and Josephus, is that John the Baptist was probably more significant than what the emergent xians wrote.

spin

You've used the "E" word several times with regard to the scrolls, which makes me wonder have I written nothing on the subject on this list about the E-ssenes and their lack of connection with the scrolls?

I have argued that the scrolls simply could not have been written by a small group because of the vast number of scribes involved and the very few repeats of scribal hands copying texts. The texts came from the only place that could sustain the number of scribes implied by the scrolls, ie Jerusalem. The only people able to muster so many scribes would be the priestly establishment. Lo and behold, who are the leaders of the scrolls community? The sons of Zadok, the sons of Aaron and under them the sons of Levi. Sounds like the priestly establisment doesn't it? The Essenes accoring to Josephus were (mainly) celibate, a choice that denied bloodline which is so exceptionally important to the priesthood, as displayed in the terms sons of Aaron and sons of Levi. The Essenes elected their leaders, while the scrolls were led by the sons of Zadok, a hereditary group.

It is probable that the Essenes were not considered pure enough to enter the temple, so it's probable that they didn't reject the temple but it rejected them. Not being allowed to sacrifice there they had to seek alternative means.

The major source that Josephus uses on the Essenes gives no hint that they were separatist in their dwelling, for he says "They have no one certain city, but many of them dwell in every city", ie amongst the rest of the crowd. We give too much credence to Pliny.

I can see no reason to imagine that the Essenes were some forerunner to the xians. There is nothing in the gospels which would make one think of the organization Josephus describes. Theirs is a typically Jewish performance based religion with the daily ritual ablutions (unlike the once only batismal ritual bathing) codes of dress, full table fellowship, pecking order, and many other examples. The only thing that might induce one to think of xians is the ritual meal, but everyone had ritual meals not the least the Jews. Every time they sacrificed at the temple they partook in the sacrifice, ie a ritual meal. Theirs was a secret doctrine. They were strict sabbatarians. I see nothing that would tangibly induce anyone to see any direct connection with the xians whatsoever.

As to CD (Damascus Doc.), there is no reason to believe the text is any way sectarian. The text is interested in freewill offerings which are a strictly temple-centred cultic act (16.13) after which there is mention of priests, so the context is the temple. 4.13-14 deals withthe sin-offering, another strictly temple centred cultic act (all standard sacrifices were performed atthe temple). Priests were necessary in legal situations: if ten judges are chosen, four will be from Levi and Aaron (10:4-6). The text defends the necessity to send the best examples of animals to temple sacrifice (11.18-20). There is no thought that this text is not strictly temple-centred.

I don't know how often I've mentioned that the only historically known time when the temple had wicked priests was when Antiochus IV installed Menelaus as high priest who, along with his brother Lysimachus, skimmed temple cash into his pockets and who caused an exodus of priests to the wilderness to join Judas Maccabaeus. Note, that priests were the ones who saw Menelaus as wicked. So, why does everyone talk about sectarians?

Please forget about the Essenes in relation to the scrolls. The scrolls just aren't sectarian. I've had to listen to misguided crap about the Essenes from academics (box-top qualifications) for years, when they plainly have nothing to do with the scrolls.


spin

rlogan

Not to worry, spin.

I did not say the Essenes were the "scroll community", and if it makes any difference I think that the reverse is more likely true - that if "Essene" documents are amongst the scrolls (as is argued by some) that this is merely a large library and therefore quite naturally contains literature from more than one sect.

Indeed. I argued also on another thread that the idea of the Essenes running the pottery factory at Qumran was silly too.

Josephus indicated two kinds of Essenes.

Hmm. Do you have a source indicating this? So far what I have read is that the Essenes were quite dissatisfied with the temple authorities. I have your surmisal here, but I am not sure what it is based on.


Not something I am so worried about - but more so that they were a different sect.

For the moment I want to look at this. Some of the other stuff will require more study.

But this point is interesting. If their doctrine is secret, then it is difficult to say that they are basically just run-of-the-mill Jews.

Will consider this and revisit the document.

My background is limited. So I will look at this and also look more closely at the argument offered by the source I cited. I had a couple of others too.

oh, I would expect the temple library to have quite a bit of literature, some favored by one sect or another. It is in that sense I have spoken of it. That's all.

spin

I know, but I'm heading the flirtation off at the pass.

What Essene documents? Since when did the Essenes muster scribes? It took years to train scribes in scribal schools usually financed by the temple or sometimes perhaps the state.

So, assuming there were for amoment Essenes scrolls amongthe DSS, how would you detect them?

Oh, yes, but the main bunch was celibate, did they have leaders who weren't celibate?? It's good enough for us to be eunuchs for our beliefs, but not for our leaders?

Our only source here is Josephus's source. He indicates that we are dealing with a low class stratum group, disavowal of heredity, accepting children from people unable to support them, wearing clothes until they are rags. These are not the people allowed into the temple.

How is this sectarian notion insinuated into the scrolls?

Priests were not "just run-of-the-mill Jews".

Where did a temple library get such sectarian literature if the sect concerned was not a temple-centred sect?


spin

Amaleq13

I think the Theraputae are interesting group to look at while considering proto-Christianity if only because a later Church Father (Eusebius?) considered them similar.

Also, is there any information about "Nazoreans" prior to Christianity?

rlogan

Thank you for that tip. I'll follow up on that.


Yes. Now, I do not want to run afoul of this awful linguistic mess surrounding the different permutations of "naz - whatever". Spin might pin my ears back. There is a group of "Essenes" claiming to be the reconstituted Nazorean Essene Christians. They have a website essene.com or essenes.com

spin

Responding to amaleq13 regarding the existence of "Nazoreans" prior to Christianity:
Ummm, no.

The fanciful ravings of modern-day whacko religionists really doesn't cut it. Evidence of Nazoreans before the written traditions found in the gospels, their ain't.


spin

rlogan

OK, so I concede.



What we have in jeremiah 31:5-6 is Nosri (keeper or guardian)

And multiple references to nazarite (took a vow to God, didn't drink, or cut their hair).

Nazorean is not a clear linguistic derivative of either one of these.

Amaleq13

Interestingly enough, they seem to connect themselves to the Theraputae.

A quick google reveals that Philo is the primary source on the Theraputae and Eusebius is commenting on his description. E either calls them Christians or suggests P has misidentified a group of Christians as something else.