Russellonius

The sources show they maintained interest (according to Wikipedia):

We have followed Hasmoneans to Alexandria in search of the origin of Christianity. When do we get to the part about the drinking of the blood of the messiah? Can we get there from Alexandria? Nag Hammadi (Gnostic Christian) texts do not have this wine/blood imagery except for the one in which Paul appears. Neither does the Didache or anything else outside of Pauline and Johannine texts.

The ritual drinking of blood (in form if not substance) is apostasy to "the Jews" unless the risen Christ has somehow fulfilled the Law. That's the story we're trying to piece together: In what way is this legal apostasy actually representative of legal fulfillment? In what way is it inside the 'Jewish' ethnic circle rather than outside of it?

I'm trying to think ahead to predict how the flight to Alexandria of righteous Zadokite heirs to the priesthood, followed by the flight of succeeding non-Zadokite Hasmonean priests to Alexandria, is going to lead to the public and willful Jewish apostasy of the Christian blood-drinking ritual in Alexandria according to this line of reasoning. I don't see how we can get there from here. Or is the blood of Christ Jesus and its communal ingestion not significant to Christian identity in the view of posters here?

The designated anointed one of the Christians is legally anathema to the Jews. That seems to be the point. Jesus Christ was definitely not the one who was expected to restore the fortunes of the nation, at least not materially. His glorification confirmed the contention, made by Jason and Menelaus long before - and certainly others later (e.g. Philo), that the ancestral customs were backwards and out-dated.

How is the spiritualistic re-evaluation of Judaism that was undoubtedly occurring in Egypt going to get us where we need to go - to the cosmic Christ and the Jerusalem above? To the fulfillment - meaning the newly non-binding status - of the Law of Moses?

Seems like we're tracing the activities of a legally conservative demographic to try to find out where the legally liberal demographic got their ideas for tweaking ancient tradition under the weight of Hellenic hegemony. I certainly can see that Philo was spiritualizing the tradition, but did he suggest ritual apostasy like (proto-)Christians did?

They seem to me to be parallel developments.

(Although 'Christian' Berenice had been married to Philo's nephew, so I would follow along if I could see the way.)

maryhelena

Sure, while the Jerusalem temple was standing its place in everyday Jewish worship was probably central. Outward appearance if nothing else. For the Hasmoneans in Alexandria - deprived of their role as King/Priests - it would be hard to imagine that they would put any real spiritual significance on what went on in the Jerusalem temple. And even going back to those that the Hasmonean King/Priests had, themselves, put out of businesss, the Zadokit priests - this earlier priesthood would hardly be expected to find spiritual significance with the Hasmonean King/Priests running the temple. Context the issue not the general appearance of what would continue to go on with the Jerusalem temple until 70 ce.


It’s a long journey from the events of 37 bc to Paul! To find out what ‘Paul’ was up to requires a better historical grasp of the intervening years than we have at present. Who was ‘Paul’? Who were those who preceded him? And dating ‘Paul’?

The “ritual drinking of blood (in form if not substance) is apostasy to the “Jews”. Indeed - which should make one immediately question if this ‘ritual’ was ever practiced at all! What we are dealing with in the NT is an origin story re early Christianity. Myth, symbolism, allegory etc. Yes, the ‘flesh and blood’ ‘ symbolic meal is there - but that this meal was actually performed in memory of a crucified man - is highly questionable re the non-historicity of the gospel Jesus. Obviously, the storyline re the ‘blood and flesh’ is based upon the Passover Lamb - a figurative take on this ‘history’. Was this figurative parallel ever acted out in some symbolic re-enactment? Who knows for sure - it’s only the assumption of a historical Jesus that gives legs to such a re-enactment idea. I don’t see the point: make up an idea in your head that some ancient ‘history’ should have a spiritual, intellectual, parallel - and then playact it out.... Yes, it’s a big jump from no blood drinking to drinking figurative or symbolic blood. But, again, context matters, The Law is one thing and Freedom from the Law something else. So the question is what made those proto-christian Jews decide that the Mosaic Law was fulfilled and that the way forward was for a spirituality without a literal temple. Again, it’s accurate history we need - along with an appreciation of OT prophecy, ie with a realization that Jewish history is salvation history; that historical events are viewed through the prisim of prophetic interpretations etc.

The Jews would never have accepted the gospel crucified Jesus as a messiah figure. That’s pretty bedrock history. And yes, the ‘ancestral customs’ were out of date and Judaism needed to move forward. But, as today, the old ways are more comfortable and its the ‘apostates’ and ‘heretics’ that press on forward......Ninety nine dollar question - who did it? But its not the conservatives we should be watching out for but those prepared to think the unthinkable...We know it happened; Christianity is living high. It’s that missing link – that moment in time when an idea crystallized in someone’s mind ‘Paul”? - and the timing was right - comes the moment comes the man....Not to rule Philo out of course - someone had to lay the intellectual groundwork. Maybe Philo had the product idea - and ‘Paul’ is the marketing manager.....Philo dies in 50 ce - and ‘Paul’ is the latecomer to the party - but has the wherewithal to run the show....
Parallel developments - you mean Alexandria and Jerusalem? No historical gospel crucified Jesus - so that particular timeframe would not be relevant for actual history.

Actually, I’ve been thinking......

If Alexandria was viewed, from a Hasmonean perspective, as being the new spiritual centre - and Jerusalem and its temple only a sideshow - would not Jerusalem become not a figurative or symbolic Alexandria (changing places sort of thing) but Babylon! What made me think of this was considering Josephus and his messianic connection with Vespasian. The Cyrus ‘anointed one’ connection seems rather evident! Cyrus and Babylon in 539 bc and Vespasian and Jerusalem in 70 ce. Perhaps Josephus was in the know as well as the Hasmoneans; once Jerusalem and its temple ceased to have meaning for the Hasmoneans, those with ‘eyes’ to see, then it’s fate was already sealed - Jewish spirituality was on the move. The writing, as in Babylon, was on the wall. Only after 70 ce was there real freedom to push ahead, to build the new spiritual temple re the Jerusalem above and Paul’s cosmic Christ. So, a similar context, parallel, to Babylon...

charles

I'm not sure I follow this thread. Is there someone suggesting that the Hasonaeans came over to Alexandria to start Christianity? I haven't heard this theory before.

stephan huller

By the time of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple the term Hasmonean wouldn't have meant anything. Both Agrippa and Josephus would have counted themselves as descendants of the Hasmoneans but connected with very different contemporary and religious groups.

The answer isn't to be found there

charles

What would you propose instead? Agrippa I would imagine having read your book. I am not entirely convinced though that there are strong enough ties between Agrippa and Alexandria to account for the manufacture of Christianity there. Your argument about the events of 38 AD are quite interesting. There certainly does seem to be a messianic underpinning to the manner in which Agrippa rescues the Jewish community then. Nevertheless there does seem to be a chasm, as Russelonius rightly remarks between the very pagan sounding rituals of Christianity and the Judaism of Agrippa and the Alexandrian Jewish community of Philo:

This is what I found unclear in your book. How do we get from Philo to Christianity?

Russellonius

Thanks, maryhelena, for posting the piece by Rachel Elior. That's good.

True, conservative Jews would not have accepted such a thing easily. We agree that it was not conservative ones who designated Jesus Christ that way. Therefore my question about following a group I consider to be conservative to Alexandria. I can't picture a Zadokite or non-Zadokite priestly class, removed from power, envisioning anything other than return to power so they can do it right. They very likely did devalue what happened in the Jerusalem Temple due to Herod's hand-picking priests from Babylonia (and Alexandria if I'm not mistaken) to replace the incumbents when he took power. To lessen priestly power in Judea was why he did that. Does their disenchantment logically lead to an apostate version of Judaism? Seems like they would be pushing the other way.

The 'Christian' Jewish messiah was an upside-down 'Jewish' messiah, first/last, least/greatest, etc. Jews who did not adhere to custom would be looking for a messiah that blessed their non-adherence, which is exactly what they got in Jesus Christ, their Lord. I'm seeing the Herodians, not the Hasmoneans (or even Philo), as champions of such non-adherence to custom.

Anthropologists identify eschatological beliefs as originating among peoples who realize that social progress has made the traditional ways impossible to retrieve or maintain. There's definitely that going on in the NT & DSS. It seems to me 'Christians' piggy-backed on that 'last days' motif and it did not originate with them (due to their high comfort level/low tension with the wider society) but rather with a group with whom they were in conflict. Thus the upside-down messiah did not come to restore the Law/Temple/Nation, but rather to provide the progressives a way forward (fulfillment of Law) that they needed to ground deeply in scripture for other 'Jews' to be even slightly interested in getting on board.

Without a literal temple and with the option of legal non-adherence. Jewish history is salvation history and salvation through Christ is not through legal observance, unlike before. The majority of Jews at the time were Diasporan and would have made a ready market for an antidote to Judean claims of monopoly on the faith. Especially if conservatives like Peter were on a mission to make Antiochans & Ephesians, for example, toe the line legally.

I'm trying on the idea of Alexandria as the 'hot seat', but I still lean to Asia Minor/Aegean Sea areas as the place where it got started. The Pauline version anyway. I think the original idea occurred in Herodian households, beginning with the reaction to John the Baptist's legal criticism of their behavior. Data-driven analysis. That was where the Christian story started in the texts. (Though of course things had been trending in that direction for centuries due to Hellenistic cultural encroachment.)

I'm interested, maryhelena, in why you passed on from the Herodians being the originators of the apostate faith. They seem to me to have stronger motives.

Stephan raises an objection that I second. I thought Herod had wiped out the dynastic line of Hasmoneans by murders within his family. (But then there would still have existed their social circle and their descendants.)

Welcome charles!

I will get around to arguing eventually that the "very pagan sounding rituals of Christianity" are rooted in the OT tradition, but in a reactionary way. The context certainly was influenced by paganism but was it intended to 'sound Jewish', as the fulfillment of the Law.

stephan huller

One point Russellonius

There is nothing in the Torah that requires a temple; only an altar for sacrifices but this theoretically could be carried out in a tent in the desert. The problem was that THREE altar locations had been established since the restoration. The Gerizim altar had been destroyed by John Hyrcanus of course and the Samaritans (especially the Dositheans) managed to get along just fine. The issue in the first century CE was that there were still TWO functioning altars. Every indication from the rabbinic literature is that the Alexandrian altar continued after the destruction of the destruction of the Jerusalem altar in 70 CE.

While it has been customary to speak of the destruction of the Jerusalem altar as 'the end of sacrifices' the rabbinic traditions infers that this wasn't exactly true. From the end of the Jewish War to the Trajanic revolt in Egypt there was probably a functioning altar and priesthood in Alexandria according to those sources. No one ever talks about this because quite frankly it makes everything a lot murkier and more complicated (and contradicts the general inherited presuppositions from the Catholic Church that Jesus came to end sacrifices PERIOD).

The justification of the end of sacrifices at the Jerusalem altar was established through the prophesies of Daniel. Yet these same prophesies theoretically at least do not preclude the possibility that sacrifices could be carried out somewhere else.

Indeed if you really think about it, the destruction of the Jerusalem altar took Israel back to the wandering in the wilderness. There was a kind of poetic 'statement' that an altar still existed in Egypt. Israel was back to the problem it had at the time of Moses. One can imagine that contemporary theologians (who have all since been silenced save for the Epistle of Barnabas) could have taken this idea in a number of different ways.

charles

I am not as familiar with the Jewish religion as I should be. I especially know very little about the faith as it appeared 2000 years ago. If I understand you correctly Stephen you are arguing that the stage between the crucifixion of Jesus and the 2nd century - maybe 100 to 150 years - might have happened in stages.

I think you are suggesting that there might have been a stage where it was still semi-Jewish.

I don't think this makes sense as there are no sources that I am familiar with that argue for a transitional faith such as you are suggesting. Everything I have ever read about Jewish Christianity and the Ebionites suggested that they maintained the Jewish Law without the temple sacrifices.

This is what Wikipedia writes:

I am not sure that this agrees with your theory.

mountainman

The 4th century editors of Josephus were Constantinian Romans. What is officially 'forgotten' lies beneath the surface here is simply the Graeco-Roman priesthood - itself largely following Egyptian priorities.

avi

I acknowledge having trouble following many aspects of this thread, though, I second Russellonius' affirmation of gratitude to maryhelena for posting Rachel Elior's interesting analysis.

If I have understood correctly, Stephan proposed that some of the Jews did not depart Egypt, with the fifth century BCE Exodus, but rather, remained in Alexandria, where they continued, at least until Philo's era, to sacrifice animals at an altar.

Problem is, Alexandria, founded by Alexander of Macedonia, began life in the fourth century BCE, more than a hundred years after the latest date for the "exodus". So, where were all those "Alexandrian" Jews living, in the interim?

Isn't it more likely that the "Alexandrian" Jews fled to Egypt during the invasion of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in the 6th century BCE?

avi