dog-on

Sophisticated Jews? Do you mean that actual Torah observers are unsophisticated and that this was the feeling among Jews?

By positing a Jewish origin, you add a bunch of complications.

Remove a Jewish origin and it makes i bit more sense, imo.

Wouldn't a more simple starting position be that Christianity seems to be a rejection of the Jewish view of God and a rejection, by God, of the Jews themselves as the chosen people?

Isn't this what Christianity actually is?

dog-on

What if a non-Jew, having spent some time reading the LXX has an inspiration in which he divines a secret hidden within those pages?

What if this person begins a new religion and uses the LXX to give his new religion historic weight and authority?

What if later followers meld more and more of the LXX into the original idea?

Why is this, not only possible, but not, in reality, the most likely chain of events?

If it is possible, as well as likely, then other than the use of a few texts, why does it require any Jewish connection at all?

Zeluvia

Don't normally butt in on this forum, but ... given the growth of any new movement, the size of the vacuum it has to move into should be part of the analysis no?

Also, to look at the size of the vacuum, shouldn't one examine growths of parrallel ideas?

Example: Prior to Christianity, what/who were the Greeks and Romans worshipping? Were those religions at a tipping point intellectually speaking? Did one god make more sense than many gods? Did it actually represent a leap forward in philosophical thinking at the time? What other cults saw growth during or right before? How similar were some of them to Christianity and how different from existing faith/worldview systems?

Imagine a society seeing through their old religion, finding it invalid and difficult to maintain, and then being offered something New, but with OLD roots...that made, quite simply, more sense.

I think the sheer number of spin off's to christianity point at a very large vacuum, as does the growth of the cult of Mithra.

I will leave you to your discussion.

dog-on

I have heard of the Atwell thesis, but without further evidence of the fact, I will tend to shy away from a conspiracy hypothesis.

This is a very good question and I, myself, tend toward a much earlier strain of Gnosticism than is currently entertained by scholarship.

A Christ that started entirely within a gnostic community and who was later "fleshed-out" seems, not only possible, but maybe even likely, considering the actual evidence.

All very good points that may indeed minimize any actual necessity for a Jewish origin.

mountainman

Dear dog-on,

I see the Gnostics as somehow related to the vast network of temples which were in place throughout the Roman empire prior to Constantine, and which most if not all other Roman emperors patronised in one way or another. The pre-basilica architecture was dominated by temples and shrines, and included libraries and gymnasia. The network of temples must have also included the prechristian Roman state religion -- the notion of flamens. Their histories are ancient and the notion of the "Pontifex Maximus" as a coordinator of all these disparate groups is highlighted by the fact that Julius Caesarbribed his way into the position.

The temples preserved the Hellenistic traditions associated with Zeus, Apollo, Asclepius, Diana, Aphrodite, of other cults and divinities -- in some sort of semi-tolerant and collegiate manner. In Alexandria, Egypto-Hellenic influence was stronger. I see the Gnostics as being related to this earlier network of temples --- the Hellenistic culture --- which also included the preservation of scientific knowledge, mathematics, geometry, astrology and astronomy, Pythagoras, Plato, and the entire lineage of "Pythagoreans" -- from Apollonius of Tyana, through the non-christian Ammonias Saccas, to a non-christian Origen, to Plotinus and Porphyry.

The lineage of the Hellenes (ie: the gnostics) was cut short in the 4th century. Eusebius' polemic against Apollonius is against the followers of the temple cults. Eusebius gloats that the temples have been trashed. He warns that the old divinity in the temples was evil, and to be associated with the worshop of idols. His new divinity is above that of Apollonius of Tyana. Eusebius writes the polemic at the pivotal point of change, from the old traditions of the Roman empire, to a new and strange tradition foretold by the ancient the Hebrew sages, and his "Ecclesiastical History".

Nag Hammadi Codices

These are time capsules buried by "gnostics" c.348 CE.
They have been translated from Coptic to English in 1970.
In the 4th century the gnostics lost their temples.
Constantine ordered c.324 CE that their business should cease.

At that time the Pachomian monastery system was established.
I think that many of the ex-pagan priests simply left Alexandria and elsewhere and whatever they could preserve out of town, hundreds of miles up the Nile, they preserved. The rest of the literature which was kept in the temples of the empire was probably destroyed with the temples. At the end of the fourth century the libraries went up - the Hellenistic temple culture (ie: I am associating this with "the gnostics") became virtually extinct because of christianity.

I am not convinced that the gnostics had any "christ" tradition, but rather were the preservers of Hermes, Asclepius, and others. I think that asceticism played a great part in the day-to-day lives of some of these people, and that the eastern empire before the arrival of Constantine may have looked like a "little India", but with a mass of ancient temples -- all open for trade.

The way that some of the gnostic literature deals with the various "heavens" (from the "first heaven" to the "tenth" or "twelfth"(?) heaven) is perhaps very similar to stages in the progressive development of ascetic practices, perhaps involving yoga. It is also related to the aphorism "know thyself" as an example of the path of personal development, and related to the path of enlightment or self-realisation as is common in the eastern Budddhist and Hindu traditions. Progressive levels of self-knowledge and/or awareness. Perhaps the final words of Plotinus are relevant ... "Strive to give back the Divine in yourselves to the Divine in the All".

In summary, I dont differentiate a great deal between the "gnostics" and the leading academics and/or priests associated with the Hellenistic/Roman temple culture which archaeologists and numismatists tell us was very healthy until the fourth century.

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

Christianity was not an advance in philosophical thinking - it more or less mirrored the current pagan thinking on most issues.

Prior to Christianity, Greco-Roman pagan intellectuals were moving towards a sort of philosophical monotheism based around one major god (Zeus-Jupiter), with the other gods seen as mere aspects of divinity. At the same time, the mysteries and various eastern religions were popular, including the worship of Isis.

Rodney Stark saw the "vacuum" as a vacuum of social support groups, especially for women and children.

gentleexit

You might say the whole empire was an India. The east was more colorful but everywhere practice trumped belief except for a "brahmin cast" who dwelled on highest gods and the order of the universe. This nature makes it highly unlikely that Christianity took hold through natural growth. Absent cohersion, you didn't see many Hindu's going Christian during the Raj. Which speaks to ...

... that is an imagined society. It has never existed anywhere. Has any culture from the bottom-up ever discarded their gods? Kings have imposed. There we have examples. But a complete, not just "protestant" sects, but complete change in a mass of people, without the rod of authority?

Plotinus disliked the gnostics, wrote against them but as you say there are parallels in their thought - the alike have most to dislike. Late philosophy and some of those we call gnostics do seem Indian in today's terms. It's no surprise that Apollonius was meant to have visited the Brahmins and that Plotinus wanted to visit too.

To this thread, the biggest argument against any significant Roman involvement in the formation of Christianity is the "Indian" nature of Roman society.

Start with a blank page. You must argue for your Christ. Question one - what's the audience? What would appeal to them? Who does the new testament address? Hellenes? Romans? Or diasporan Jews? Who is being called to lend their ears?

gentleexit

which is the nonsense part of his book I think. You didn't see good mother theresa converting Calcutta. When he argues for Jew converting Jew ala Mormon converting Christian, he draws on successful parallels. When he gets into selfless, fertile Christians converting wanton, self-absorbed "pagans", he's just another tired apologist.

rlogan

Couldn't agree more.

Take a look at the Nation of Isalm. Here too is an example where it wasn't Islam at all - just a handwaving "credentialing" in order to convince people there is some ancient legitimacy.

If you can dupe people so thoroughly in an age of mass communications, nearly universal education and literacy - just imagine what you can do when people are almost universally illiterate and never leave the block they were born on their entire lives.

Sheshbazzar

The ger toshavim "strangers of the gate" were NON- Jews, and remained as gentiles living amongst the Jews.
The term "ger toshav" (plural toshav'eem) is the Hebrew/Jewish designation for those Gentiles (NON-Jews) who would willingly live, and work within Jewish communities, abide by The Noachide laws, and abstain from working on the Jewish Sabbath Days.
Whatever degree of beliefe or acceptance these had for the actual religion of The Jews was optional. The Jewish concern was for the practical aspect of maintaining order and protecting the sanctity of The Sabbaths for the Jews.
The question that you are posing is the scenario that I am positing.
Being Greek speaking and reading gentiles it was only natural that any who took an interest in the Jewish religion would "search The Scriptures" looking specifically for how they were to apply to the Gentiles, "The NATIONS", and reasoning out their Gentile oriented perspective on the interpretation of The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings.
Devout Jews who searched the Scriptures, would have understood that in addition to ha'Elohim's plan for delivering the Jewish people, He also included other NATIONS and peoples within His plan of deliverance.
Devout Jews would therefore encourage the gentile inhabitants within their communities to study and believe The Scriptures apart from any plan or need to convert them into becoming Jewish (proselytes)
Both sides would understand that their separate status was within The Scriptural order, there was/is no need or compelling reason for a person born as a Gentile to undergo circumcision or to become a Jew in order to be "saved" and "delivered" along with the Jewish people.
All together being accounted as the the children of Abraham, the "father of many nations".

It would not be a person, but hundreds of thousands of individuals, both Jewish and Gentile who had so understood and interpreted The Scriptures for hundreds of years prior to the emergence of the distinctly gentile Christ-ian separate religion.
The original followers, as far back as -The Torah- was given and known, did not need meld more of The LXX, as they from the beginning, had incorporated all that is in The LXX, plus additional books that were omitted or dropped from the much latter Christ-ian canon.
If anything it was not a process of adding in, but of the gentile church dropping, leaving out, and eliminating "Jewish" books to further distance themselves from their "Jewish" roots.
The "Christ-ian" phenomenon did not have its beginning in the 1st century, as there had been both Jewish and gentile "christ" believers for centuries before.

The big transition following the 1st century was the claim that the "christ" had came, had lived, had died, and had resurrected, and the consequent expanded explanations that such a claim required, The written New Testement.


Bottom line, the Romans did not create or invent Christ-ianity, although they did force the adoption of standardised "orthodox" interpretations and practices.