godfry n. glad

I like where this is going, but I'm curious as to how you make this assumption. Saul was exposed to what ? And, are you familiar with Ulansey's work on Mithraism. (If so, I'd like to hear your perspective on it.) You're not referring to _that_ "exposure" in Tarsus, are you?

Look, I readily admit to the possibility and probability of Zoroastrian belief in Syria at that time. The Parthians had held Jerusalem for a brief time in the previous century (1st century BCE). They were, during the 1st and 2nd centuries, Rome's most daunting opponent. But I don't know of enough evidence to claim that most Syrians were Zoroastrians. I'd had rather thought that Attis and Cybele and the Mesopotamian fertility gods, adapted and redacted themselves, and the Phonician and Caananite gods, and, as Hellenism was still quite strong, Artemis and the fading Greek pantheon, were present along with incursions of Zoroastrianism which had overlain it and then retreated. Can you provide evidence of this preponderance of Zoroastrianism in 1st century Syria? And in Tarsus?

I do think that the social upheaval surrounding the need to pacify the empire immediately adjacent to the ongoing front lines of a continuing war between two empires, Rome and Parthia, is a fertile ground for new invention in the face of the clear failure of the old paradigm - the destruction of the Temple. There are multiple responses to this incident, one of them mutated to become Christianity. Another became what we now know as Judaism. In that period. It was a time ripe for syncretism and recreation of old myths into new myths of hope and delivery.

I'm also not sure I agree that all mythic heroes are necessarily based upon some actual individual. Euhemerism is, in my estimation, a strong presence in such myths, but not a necessary precondition. I think the human imagination is strong enough to create, in thought alone, a new creation that offers some hope out of the dismal conditions of life and the looming and ever-present specter of death. I believe humans will create a delusion, something out of whole cloth, to create a shred of hope.
I think it's a human trait to do so.

I don't see why you don't think it possible. Can you explain?

godfry n. glad

NOGO

It seems that you have problems getting information and ideas from others.

If you had read the reference that I gave in my last post you would have realized that the eating of the bread has absolutely nothing to do with eating flesh and drinking blood.

If anything re-read John 6

63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

This is poken by Jesus to explain the following

51 "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

The "I" above is not the man speaking ... it is his words!
It is the words that come from heaven.

Get it?

That is the bread in the Last Supper - Jesus' teachings.

Verse 51 is repugnant even to Jesus' disciples as is presented in John 6, BUT the explanation is not.

spin

During the time of Pompey pirates lived in Cilicia who were devotees of Mithras. Plutarch in his life of Pompey says:As Tarsus was slap dab in the middle of the Cilician coast, I think it only reasonable that the cult of Mithras was practised there, whether Paul knew about it or not. That it was reported during the time of Pompey, who removed the threat of the pirates, doesn't mean that he expunged the cult as well as the pirates, for it was from this action that Mithraism was carried to Rome and Plutarch says that its rites "have been preserved to our own time".


spin

Amaleq13

No (hence "assumption") but that was my point. Where is the evidence for the apparent assumption that the Didache eucharist derives from Paul's?

Crossan (The Birth of Christianity, p.434) contrasts the eucharist traditions given by Paul and Mark with that in the Didache:

"One tradition, that in Paul and Mark, involves a ritual meal institutionalized by Jesus himself and connected with his own execution." (I would add the word "allegedly before "institutionalized")

"The other tradition, that in Didache 9-10, has none of those connections, and its prayers are extremely similar to standard Jewish prayers."

When I read this in the context of your views, I see the Didache tradition as more consistent with TJC. They seem to have used the meal to commemorate what they learned from Jesus including the fact that he was the Messiah. Thus, the wine is the "holy vine of David" while the bread is the "life and knowledge" made known through Jesus. That the Didache version sticks more closely to Jewish tradition seems to connect it to TJC and to deny accepting symbology that would be antithetical to Jews.

Crossan goes on to show that both traditions exhibit evidence of being influenced by Isaiah's Suffering Servant. He finds the pais (servant/child) from the Didache and Paul's paredideto in the Septuagint version to provide that connection. To me, this only reinforces my suspicion that belief in the sacrificed Jesus could have been entirely obtained from Scripture. These two use the same Scripture but move in different directions with it.

There is no indication in the Didache eucharist that it was instituted by Jesus. That is why it seems to make more sense as representing an earlier version than Paul's. The meal first exists in Jewish tradition, then is adapted by Jewish believers in Jesus then adapted by Paul.

Paul writes about it because certain members of the Corinthian church were apparently abusing the ritual...

Paul is clearly criticizing the Corinthians for the way they are conducting the ritual:

"For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper..."(1Cor 11:18-20, NASB, emphasis mine)

Paul goes on to describe specifically how they are not using the Lord's Supper as it was intended:

"...for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you."(11:21-22)

Then he repeats to them the revelation he has clearly previously told them:

"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you..."

Paul is writing a letter to correct the way the Corinthians are using the "tradition" he had given them.

I rely on Crossan for an understanding of the specifics of the misuse:

"We are talking about a patronal share-meal in which one of the wealthier members hosts the entire community. This is the typical situation of the house church. On the one hand, Paul clearly presumes that there are those who have food to eat at home and need not come to the Lord's Supper for sustenance. They are the haves. On the other hand, those haves "show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing." Those latter are the have-nots. The Lord's Supper is supposed to be a patronal share-meal in which the haves and have-nots can eat food together in common, but, of course, all or most of the food and drink must come from the haves. What happens, however, is that the nonworking haves can arrive before the working have-nots and eat together whatever they bring or their host prepares for them. When the have-nots arrive, there is nothing left for them, hence "one goes hungry [have-nots] and another becomes drunk [the haves]," as Paul put it." (The Birth of Christianity, p427)

I think it clearly does go back to an earlier time but that time is no earlier than when Paul first taught it to them.

I don't think I understand the connection between redaction and an historical character. One of the biggest "stumbling blocks" for me is the apparent early diversity of interpretations of Jesus. Though I think he sometimes goes a bit far in extrapolating separate communities, Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament? really drives that point home.

I want to avoid getting into the "myth tangent" if possible but I don't think the Jesus beliefs were "made up out of whole cloth". I think they were the result of devout Jews studying Scripture, praying, and fasting in an effort to understand why the Messiah had not come to rescue them from Roman oppression.

I think you make a good point here.

Assuming you are correct about TJC, what do you understand Paul's view of Jesus' messianic career to have been? He completely ignores it in his letters because it was apparently irrelevant to his gospel but what do you think he thought of it?

That is also a good point.

I think I will have to reread Galatians after obtaining a better understanding of your position. Paul complains that they are following a "different gospel" that seems to include following Jewish Law. I'll have to see if his complaints match what you hold TJC to have believed/preached.

But he remains essentially human throughout, correct?

Thanks for the additional explanation re: James. It seems to adequately address my concerns.

godfry n. glad

Yes, I'm well aware of that.

I'm interested in your (or the Cap'n's) response to Ulansey's hypothesis that the Mithraic practitioners of the first century were NOT practicing some derivation of Zoroastrianism, but a relatively newly invented (circa 2nd-3rd century BCE) mystery cult in Tarsus based upon the procession of the equinoxes and the role of the constellation of Perseus (patron hero of Tarsus) in the shifting of the heavens. Mithras = Perseus.

I believe this issue I started out on was that Zoroastrianism is not a precondition. If you point to Mithras as evidence of Zoroastrianism, then I point to Ulansey, who states that Mithraism, as known in Roman antiquity is NOT Zoroastrian, but a new mystery religion. Invented.... Which I would think would be quite a lesson if any were acquainted with the real nature...the mystery... of Mithras. Having grown up in the midst of it and all.

In short, Mithras does not necessarily equal Zoroastrian.

godfry

capnkirk

Mea culpa for not responding specifically to the reference from your last post that you have reiterated below. I should have taken the time then, but I will now.
Let's begin by placing GJohn in chronological perspective RE: Paul's letters and the Synoptic gospels. GJohn appears at least 20 (and some scholars say even more) years after the Synoptics and 40+ years after the last of Paul's letters. Now let's apply that stratigraphy to the process I have been describing (that of a conventional Jewish messiah being reinvented as a deity after his resurrection, followed by major redaction of EXISTING documents to better conform to the reinvented Christ). GJohn was not written until well after most of the rest of the NT. Therefore it is very difficult to assign pre-Paulist context to anything "John" wrote. The few times I have quoted him, it has been to demonstrate how far the process had progressed. It is my contention that by the time GJohn was written, (the Jewish messiah) Jesus had become unrecognizable. He uses no parables, nor any idiosyncratic rabbinical expressions; instead he spouts grandiose Hellenistic mysticism and proclaims himself a divine personage. By this time, the mystical deification of Jesus was complete.

I agree with the allegorical content of your analysis of the above verses, but not with the chronological context within which you place them. Rather, I would argue that the chronological placement of GJohn supports my contention that GJohn and (Ch 9 of) the Didache are contemporary with each other, and reflect diversification decades after the 55CE dating of I Chron.

Once again, sorry for not making this clear earlier.

capnkirk

A fully comprehensive understanding of the religious history of Syria detailing the dynamic realtionships between the various pantheons that you have named is quite involved and not necessary to establish the critical issues of just what young Saul was exposed to in Tarsus. We need only demonstrate that (at least) one of the several available candidates was popularly worshipped there; whether it was Mithras, Attis, Ba'al-Taraz, or Tammuz (or some combination of these) is largely immaterial in that all of them were variations on the same theme. Spin has offered evidence below (and you have already responded to it) in support of Mithras. I offer that Tarsus was actually named in honor of Ba'al-Taraz as at least strong circumstantial evidence of the local worship of that deity. There is also evidence supporting local worship of Attis and Tammuz, which can be explored if necessary.

Agreed! Though I feel compelled to clarify your final assertion just a little. Before the Exile, Judaism held that the world is governed solely by Yahweh; evil in the world is solely the product of human actions—there is no principle of evil (personified as Satan or otherwise). The afterlife is simply a House of Dust called Sheol in which the soul lasts for only a brief time. There is no talk or conception of an end of time or history, or of a world beyond this one. After the Exile, however, popular religion among the Judeans and the Jews of the Diaspora adopts several Zoroastrian innovations:

Dualism: After the Exile, the Hebrews adopt a concept of a more or less dualistic universe, in which all good and right comes from Yahweh, while all evil arises from a powerful principle of evil.

Eschatology and Apocalypticism: Popular Jewish religion begins to form an elaborate theology of the end of time, in which a deliverer would defeat once and for all the forces of evil and unrighteousness.

Messianism: Concurrent with the new eschatology, there is much talk of a deliverer who is called messiah, or anointed one. In Hebrew culture, only the head priest and the king were anointed, so this messiah often combined the functions of both religious and military leader.

Otherworldliness: Popular Judaism adopts an elaborate afterlife. Since justice does not seem to occur in this world, it is only logical that it will occur in another world. The afterlife becomes the place where good is rewarded and evil eternally punished.

As you can see, were it not for the infusion of these Zoroastrian concepts, Judaism would be a much more alien religion. So much so that it would have been impossible for Xtianity to have claimed ANY Judaic antecedency. It is striking that all these same Zoroastrian roots now form the pillars of Xtian cosmology.

I went back to the subject post, just to make sure. I only claimed that fabrication of myths from whole cloth is improbable rather than impossible. I say that in light of repeated instances of the eventual discovery of a real person (and/or event) at the root of myths once thought to have been created whole. Now, don't construe this to mean that the existence of such a kernel of truth in any way validates the myth. The usefulness of the kernel is usually limited to helping to identify the path of the myth's development, and the degree and nature of the embellishment. The kernel in the Noah myth is an example of this, serving to define the cultural and chronological root (Sumer 6,000 BCE) and the degree of substitution and embellishment (almost to the point of unrecognizability).

This was the application that I intended for the paragraph to be applied to the subject of HJ. I was defending my strategic approach to the issue, specifically: To drill down into the canonical record using archaeological and non-canonical historical sources as tools to see if I eventually reached a point where conflicting evidence essentially precluded the possibility of a HJ (in any guise). The result of that strategic approach yielded the scenario I have been presenting in this thread. Though I found what I believe to be compelling evidence, holding it forth here for challenges from the aggregate body of knowledge held by the members of this forum is a rigorous test, and (at least) parts of it may not survive. I have already had to amend some details, and others are still under spirited discussion.

godfry n. glad

Yet, what I understand you to be asserting is that source is Zoroastrian in nature. I question that assumption. Attis, Ba'al-Taraz, Tammuz AND Mithras (as versus the Zoroastrian Mithra) are NOT Zoroastrian in nature.

Still... Ulansey. Have you read his _The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World_? If not, you need to at least consider his hypotheses before committing yourself to this assertion that Roman Mithraic belief is Zoroastrian in source or nature. Ulansey has extended and revised much of the work done shortly after the beginning of the 20th century by Franz Cumont on Mithraic iconography and its meaning to the members of the mystery cult. It is a very short book and is available at Amazon.com here and probably available at your local public library.

Agreed on all points. Norman Cohn's _Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come_ is an excellent source for the influence of Zoroastrianism on both Judaic and Christian belief...the latter largely through its influence from Judaic belief. I suspect that other Zoroastrian influences may have come in through the syncretized elements within Hellenistic thought, as well.

That's what it's all about... Ain't it fun?

godfry

capnkirk

See my post responding to NOGO.


Let me use this quote to segue into one more inspection of the Lord's Supper in each of the three Synoptic gospels. This discussion has prompted me to go back and analyze them yet again. Here is what I found: First, the meal in question already had a long-established Jewish tradition behind it. This was the Passover meal. One can safely assume that the Jewish context for this meal was memorial rather than mystical, thus free (then as today) of mystical content. In the two earliest gospels GMark and GMatt, the text is almost identical; ...and gave it to the disciples, saying, "Take it: this is my body." Then he took the cup..."This is my blood of the Covenant which is poured out for many. (then he said, and this is the line that has been overlooked in this entire discussion) "I tell you the truth. I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the day I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.". This would appear to be an injunction(?) against performing this ritual again until his triumphal return and the reestablishment of his earthly kingdom.. Luke's version appends do this in remembrance of me. but retains the "I will not drink again..." quote. In all three cases, the wine/blood, bread/body is present (by redaction), but only in (Paulist) Luke is there ANY reference to the establishment of ANY memorial ritual, adding to the evidence that it was there only because of proximity to Paul's doctrine (via Luke).

Touche! Excellent analysis in support of your point!

Let me address the second part first. I have had to examine scholars use of the term early with respect to Xtianity. Their perspective is much broader than ours (within the context of our discussion) and many use that term for everything before 300 CE. so caveat lector.

Here is the connection between redaction and a historical character. If the redactions are excised from a document, what remains is a document about 'someone' (either historical or mythical). If mythical, then there must be another layer of embellishment/redaction (else the myth must have been created from whole cloth). Considering the relatively short period of time between the (presumed) HJ and the redactions, the whole cloth option is greatly diminished (as it would necessarily require a newly created myth, since a several hundred year old myth would surely be recognized by the intended readers of the redacted version).With the caveat that this is HIGHLY speculative and unsupportable beyond the circumstantial evidence already presented, I think that Paul considered it irrelevant.He remains utterly human throughout.

capnkirk

Actually I was asserting specifically that Paul's source was a salvific/sacrificed and resurrected deity, and that there were several mystery cults worshipping several viable candidates meeting that description.

Strictly in the interests of brevity (not always a good idea on this forum; this being a good case-in-point), since some of those candidates were Zoroastrain (or derivatives of), I included the Z allusion as point of reference. My clarification (to which your response is addressed) attempted to marginalize the importance which one (or amalgum of) was actually Paul's source, to the argument that his 'Christ' bore huge similarities to all of them. If you can exclude any of these candidates, I would be very interested in exploring that with you.

I have only read excerpts from and essays on Ulansey's work RE: Mithraism. Unfortunately, with my current workload, any significant study of his work will have to wait in my queue for a while. Thanks for the reference and the link...I might as well have the book(s) ready and waiting.

Got it. Read it. Studied it. That's probably why we agree on "all counts" (in the subject paragraphs).