Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 02-18-2009, 12:30 PM

Gestalt helps here - where are we - Rome 700 years old, Greece even older, Persia, Phoenicia (Carthage) and Egypt as old. Judaism making up fantastic stories about its importance - what battles did they win, what did they conquer, who was Solomon again - but they were causing massive troubles to Rome for a long time, and some of their groups - the Pharisees - were dangerous because they were asserting slaves had rights.

It might be conspiracy, it might be some stories or plays, it might be a pagan gnostic having visions of a Christ, another oriental cult that grew like a virtual particle big banging. A Pagan Jewish cult.

But it is a child of its context. The Judaic strand is given too much prominence because of xianity's central tenets that Christ is at the centre of the universe in Jerusalem.

But we an evolved primate on a funny planet on the edge of a non descript galaxy.

andrewcriddle · 02-18-2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Although the ten per cent figure may be questionable, IMO Christianity has to be a significant minority group for Constantine's policy of official support to make sense.

I think you underestimate his genuine enthusiasm for Christianity. Policy followed enthusiasm. He is subtle. Augustus-like subtle. He knows his cult is strange. He only promotes once he takes the east, where the cult is significant in some centers. It is no coincidence that he only starts building great temples for them then.

Any view on the pre-Constantine significance of Christianity really comes down to a view of that man. Did he latch unto the already rising or was he an enthusiast who did the rising? Was he a tyrant that genuine Christianity must bypass, making it advocate for intrinsic growth or was he a genuine enthusiast who made mistakes, the thirteenth apostle without which there would be no Church today, no forum like we're on now?

If Christianity was insignificant before Constantine it may make the determined effort to supress it by Diocletian et al hard to understand,

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

In favor of the apostle is the lack of archeology on a significant church before Constantine and a lack of third party notice. In favor of the "Church-undeniable" is ? Maybe belief in the Church undeniable?

When you speak of lack of archaeological evidence for significant pre-Constantinian Christianity I presume you mean things like evidence of Christian buildings. The evidence from manuscripts is somewhat different. I was reading Hurtado The Earliest Christian Artifacts (or via: amazon.co.uk) and for ancient literary texts (ie excluding invoices and private letters etc) we have these results: (p. 91)
2nd C. CE Classical 97.7% Christian 1.9% Jewish 0.4%
3rd C. CE Classical 88.9% Christian 10.3% Jewish 0.7% Gnostic 0.1%
4th C. CE Classical 59.7% Christian 38.0% Jewish 1.8% Gnostic 0.6%

I have various reservations about these figures but they seem to indicate a/ that 3rd century CE Christianity was already significant (10.3% of literary texts) b/ the major growth from the 3rd to 4th century seems a continuation of the growth from the 2nd to the 3rd century more than a radically new phenomenon.

Andrew Criddle

bacht · 02-18-2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Gestalt helps here - where are we - Rome 700 years old, Greece even older, Persia, Phoenicia (Carthage) and Egypt as old. Judaism making up fantastic stories about its importance - what battles did they win, what did they conquer, who was Solomon again - but they were causing massive troubles to Rome for a long time, and some of their groups - the Pharisees - were dangerous because they were asserting slaves had rights.

It might be conspiracy, it might be some stories or plays, it might be a pagan gnostic having visions of a Christ, another oriental cult that grew like a virtual particle big banging. A Pagan Jewish cult.

But it is a child of its context. The Judaic strand is given too much prominence because of xianity's central tenets that Christ is at the centre of the universe in Jerusalem.

But we are an evolved primate on a funny planet on the edge of a non-descript galaxy.

Well, the Greco-Romans had already adopted Isis and Mithras as well as the Greek pantheon, where else could they turn for new inspiration? The Jews had conveniently opted for self-destruction via Roman legions, why not exploit this to amuse the empire's masses?

mountainman · 02-18-2009, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

If Christianity was insignificant before Constantine it may make the determined effort to supress it by Diocletian et al hard to understand

Dear andrew,

How sure are we that Diocletian was politically active against christianity? I will concede (via the epigraphic remains) that Diocletian actively persecuted the Manichaeans in the late third century. We do not have the same quality of evidence that he knew anything about christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

Quote:

In favor of the apostle is the lack of archeology on a significant church before Constantine and a lack of third party notice. In favor of the "Church-undeniable" is ? Maybe belief in the Church undeniable?

When you speak of lack of archaeological evidence for significant pre-Constantinian Christianity I presume you mean things like evidence of Christian buildings. The evidence from manuscripts is somewhat different. I was reading Hurtado The Earliest Christian Artifacts (or via: amazon.co.uk) and for ancient literary texts (ie excluding invoices and private letters etc) we have these results: (p. 91)
2nd C. CE Classical 97.7% Christian 1.9% Jewish 0.4%
3rd C. CE Classical 88.9% Christian 10.3% Jewish 0.7% Gnostic 0.1%
4th C. CE Classical 59.7% Christian 38.0% Jewish 1.8% Gnostic 0.6%

I have various reservations about these figures but they seem to indicate a/ that 3rd century CE Christianity was already significant (10.3% of literary texts) b/ the major growth from the 3rd to 4th century seems a continuation of the growth from the 2nd to the 3rd century more than a radically new phenomenon.

I object to these stats on a number of grounds, the primary one being that:

1) they are entirely relative, not absolute, and
2) they do not therefore acknowledge the book-burning sprees of fourth century christians which we may safely presume did not include the burning of christian texts at the library of Alexandria. (ie: you are seeing a relative increase in the categories of the surviving texts, you are not seeing an absolute "growth". The "growth" may well have been caused by mass destruction on non-christian literature: Pythagoras, Euclid, Plato, Porphyry et al.)

The secondary objection is that the entire global collection of christian texts from the early centuries are furnished by one single historical fourth century politically motivated author-person, at a very critical time in christian politics, along with the only extant history of the christians for those early centuries, which no political commentator has yet seen fit to question. The existence of the massive integrity problems with the Historia Augusta should provide a sufficient reason to pause over the political integrity of the Historia Ecclesiastica and In Preparation for the Gospels.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 02-18-2009, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

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

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

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.

Dear rlogan and dog-on,

In addition to the above, imagine that you had the absolute power of all the mass communications and education, but you purposefully kept the people universally illiterate by burning and destroying the educated literature and lavishly publishing the bible -- just imagine what you can do when you keep the people illiterate, and legislate that people are never to leave the block they were born on, for the purpose of simplifying Poll Tax (see Empire Chrysargyron) collections.

Best wishes,

Pete

No Robots · 02-18-2009, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Another method might be to ask the question where do the gnostics fit in, on the basis that everyone thinks that gnostics (who appear very Hellenistic rather that Jewish) have something to do with christian origins but we dont know what.

According to Constantin Brunner, "[t]he gnostics were fighting for the authentic Judaism taught by Christ" (Our Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 329).

gentleexit · 02-18-2009, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

If Christianity was insignificant before Constantine it may make the determined effort to supress it by Diocletian et al hard to understand.

What was "persecution"? The term is used freely in the Church histories. Licinius was accused of persecution too and yet there was Eusebius of Nicomedia, bishoping to that tyrant's court right to his end. And as for extent, total the "martyrs of Palestine" and the numbers are small. They only grow later, long after Constantine raised up the Church. Then every little town seems to have had martyrs.

Were the Christians many in the east - I don't think there's an argument for any size in the west - then you'd have Josephus-like numbers being pushed around. Such disruption would have been noted beyond the Church Histories and it's not. Many cities would have been pushed to the brink and yet you don't hear of this, even in the Church histories. Alexandria was probably the largest Christian center and yet you don't hear of disruption to Rome's grain supply, something that was feared later when Christians were sizable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

When you speak of lack of archaeological evidence for significant pre-Constantinian Christianity I presume you mean things like evidence of Christian buildings. The evidence from manuscripts is somewhat different. I was reading Hurtado The Earliest Christian Artifacts (or via: amazon.co.uk) and for ancient literary texts (ie excluding invoices and private letters etc) we have these results: (p. 91)
2nd C. CE Classical 97.7% Christian 1.9% Jewish 0.4%
3rd C. CE Classical 88.9% Christian 10.3% Jewish 0.7% Gnostic 0.1%
4th C. CE Classical 59.7% Christian 38.0% Jewish 1.8% Gnostic 0.6%

I have various reservations about these figures but they seem to indicate a/ that 3rd century CE Christianity was already significant (10.3% of literary texts) b/ the major growth from the 3rd to 4th century seems a continuation of the growth from the 2nd to the 3rd century more than a radically new phenomenon.

And here's 10% in the third century again. But this is all from Egypt right? Oxyrhynchus etc. If anywhere can yield evidence of an early Christian community, it's Egypt. And the copts do mark the year from the reign of Diocletian! I'd say though that just as the Christian numbers seem too high, the Jewish numbers seem very low. How does he split Gnostic vs Christian vs Jewish. Is every Greek old testament given to the Christians? Manuscripts is a topic with meat.

Thanks for the reference Andrew. I'm going to read it. It's hard to find anything substantial on early Christian artifacts.

mountainman · 02-18-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Another method might be to ask the question where do the gnostics fit in, on the basis that everyone thinks that gnostics (who appear very Hellenistic rather that Jewish) have something to do with christian origins but we dont know what.

According to Constantin Brunner, "[t]he gnostics were fighting for the authentic Judaism taught by Christ" (Our Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 329).

Dear No Robots,

As much as I respect Brunner, I would respect more his assessment of the Nag Hammadi codices, the gJudas and the many Syriac gnostic texts which have been published since he passed. Unfortunately, Brunner is unable to comment upon these new waves of gnostic discoveries: new primary evidence for whatever/whoever it is that we think/understand the gnostics were.

The new discoveries suggest rather than any Jewish influence, the gnostics were influenced by the Hellenistic and Egyptian connections --- Hermes, Thoth, Asclepius ... the Logos, the Sophia - ascetics with a touch of Plato. The gnostic new testament apocrypha suggest authorship by Hellenistic romance novelist(s) who wrote for the popularity of general public -- monstrous whopping yarns jammed-pck with the miraculous tales, perhaps even entitled "The Travels of the Apostles" (see Photius). These gnostic authors were extremely well-researched in a logical manner concerning the text and the narrative of the new testament canon. The new evidential use of Coptic (from Greek) and Syriac (from Greek) suggests the gnostics were Hellenes (IMO). It also suggests that they wrote (or at least preserved) at a time when it would not have been expedient to preserve their works in either Greek or Latin. [It is interesting that Nestorius is also preserved in the Syriac from the fifth century.] When they wrote is of course the all-important question yet to be addressed. What does this new evidence alone suggest?

Best wishes,

Pete

No Robots · 02-18-2009, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

As much as I respect Brunner, I would respect more his assessment of the Nag Hammadi codices, the gJudas and the many Syriac gnostic texts which have been published since he passed. Unfortunately, Brunner is unable to comment upon these new waves of gnostic discoveries: new primary evidence for whatever/whoever it is that we think/understand the gnostics were.

Hi Pete:

If anything, the Nag Hammadi codices bear out Brunner's position. See The Nag Hammadi Library (or via: amazon.co.uk) by James M. Robinson, which describes at length the essentially Jewish nature of these documents.

dog-on · 02-19-2009, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

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?

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.

Interesting take but, I'd actually like to see some evidence for any of this.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-18-2009, 12:30 PM	#41
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Gestalt helps here - where are we - Rome 700 years old, Greece even older, Persia, Phoenicia (Carthage) and Egypt as old. Judaism making up fantastic stories about its importance - what battles did they win, what did they conquer, who was Solomon again - but they were causing massive troubles to Rome for a long time, and some of their groups - the Pharisees - were dangerous because they were asserting slaves had rights. It might be conspiracy, it might be some stories or plays, it might be a pagan gnostic having visions of a Christ, another oriental cult that grew like a virtual particle big banging. A Pagan Jewish cult. But it is a child of its context. The Judaic strand is given too much prominence because of xianity's central tenets that Christ is at the centre of the universe in Jerusalem. But we an evolved primate on a funny planet on the edge of a non descript galaxy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.