mountainman

The statement by Eusebius that the sacred matters of inspired teaching were exposed to the most shameful ridicule in the very theaters of the unbelievers strongly suggests that this ridicule was simple Greek satire, which was a very popular mode of theatre in the Graeco-Roman empire for centuries . The modern theatres of our age still do a brisk trade with satire as a means to ridicule just about everything.



The very existence of this violent antagonism between the orthodox canon people and the heretical anti-Christian people suggests a clash in religious ideologies, which to date has only been explicated by the victors. The orthodox descriptions of the success of the raising of christianity and Jesus to the state level of the Roman Empire are one side of the picture.

The evidence seems to reliably suggest that Arius suffered "damnatio memoriae" because of his (satirical) literary opposition to Constantine's mainstream christian agenda. Arius is described as a "christian bishop". This I think is a classic example of what you just said - For precisely that reason, anything Athanasius, Eusebius, and Constantine have to say about the precise content of Arius's views (or Arius himself for that matter) is not objectively reliable.

Somewhere between these two extremes lives the actual historical truth.

J-D

I've already pointed you at the evidence that disproves your theory about Arius's views. You just keep ignoring it.

graymouser

Here's my attempt at a synopsis of how Christianity got to be what we'd recognize as, you know, Christianity.

I think early Christianity was probably more palatable to what we'd call Gnosticism. Paul's letters put a very strong emphasis on personal salvation and his revelation through mystical experience, and not really so much on an earthly ministry. I don't discount that this may have had some earthly founder - even a man named Jesus who could even have been crucified - but this was not the important thing. Early proto-Christianity looks like it was more of a mystic, mystery-based religion that synthesized the Jewish scriptures with Hellenistic thought. It was probably spread widely but extremely thinly in the Greek-speaking Roman Empire in the years before 66 CE. The big controversy from early Christianity that survives in our literature would be how much the Jewish Law had to be followed. This period produced the Pauline epistles and there might be some continuity with it in other material (e.g. Q).

The event that seems epoch-making in Christianity is the Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple. I think Mark, or an early "proto-Mark," reflects a revolutionary shift within Christianity in relation to the end of the Temple. What's important, in my view, about Mark isn't that it makes Christ human or relatively recent, but that it moves the bulk of its emphasis from personal, mystic salvation to the imminent parousia and apocalypse. Mark is a midrashic work, primarily composed of OT parallels, that is making the forthright argument that the destruction of the Temple is just the prelude to an ultimate victory. Jesus Christ goes from being someone primarily experienced by mystic-apostles, to primarily the prophet of the fall of the Temple and the immanent Kingdom of God. The disciples are rather foolish and don't understand Jesus's message, which represents both the Twelve Tribes of Israel (the whole of the Jewish people) and the existing disciples. This is a transformation from a wisdom cult to something quite different.

Once Mark had its impact, the apocalyptic strain of Christianity flowered. There is cleanup: the disciples don't make it out so bad in Matthew or Luke, the theology is expounded, and the Markan apocalyptic narrative is merged with Q, which contains both wisdom and apocalyptic elements likely accreted over a number of years into some foundational sayings document. It's an assumption I won't make to say where Q came from - some of its material may have been originally related to other proto-Christian sources but without some documentation it's impossible to say that.

After a generation or two, as Mark, Matthew and Luke got circulated, the historicization was completed. Since Mark had written about real people (John the Baptist, Pilate, Herod), this story - even though it was primarily drawn from the Septuagint - became accepted as the life of a terrestrial Christ. Proto-orthodoxy came from the merging of the acceptable parts of the Pauline and other epistles with the synoptic tradition. Some believers didn't go away from the old gnosticism of proto-Christianity, but they were necessarily a smaller group with less emphasis on outreach before the end came. Documents were altered, forged and invented as time went on to smooth over the gaps and bumps, making the disparate theologies seem unified and the fact that several movements, or at least wings of movements, had been merged all look more like an organic process. I think lots of material (for one, the Apocalypse of John) were not actually Christian but got adopted because they were well-circulated and might as well have been.

As for a "historical Jesus" I don't know that such a person existed. If he did, with the documents we have, the midrash would seem to obscure anything particularly noteworthy from Mark, and the tendency of ancient writers to invent "appropriate" speeches (see Thucydides) would suggest that Q tells us little either.

Just some thoughts.

gurugeorge

You wouldn't get it by understanding Thomas as a text - you'd get it by putting into practice the hints Jesus gives for mystical praxis in that text (actually it's probably not Gnostic strictly-speaking, in the sense of the later Gnosticism canvassed by the hereseologists, but it's obviously related in some way, it's clearly a type of experiential mysticism).

"Eternal life" is the discovery of the part of you that is already (or feels already) eternal (already "saved", already risen above death). It's similar non-dual mysticism to some of the Eastern forms, such as Zen, Dzogchen, some Daoisms, etc. That part of you is "Christ within". (In rationalist terms, certain exercises involving prayer, scripture-reading and breathing patterns - pneuma - induce trance states, some of which lead to visionary experiences, some of which lead to unitive mystical experiences - in rationalist terms, an experience of pure awareness without thought or verbal mental categorisation, and without the ordinary sense of self.)

We have a text "Pistis Sophia", and in the Askew codex it was bound with another text, now lost, with the title of "Piste Sophiea Cotice". There are also more detailed scholarly investigations that I've come across in my travels as to how the word was used in some Gnostic texts, but I'd have to go digging to find them.

Sure, this is the orthodox position, but then Timothy is widely acknowledged as pseudepigraphic, is it not?

Probably a bit of both - there's mystical stuff and there's orthodox stuff, the faith bits could belong to either (e.g. an orthodox interpolator might see a faith term and, naturally reading it orthodoxly himself, might interpolate around it to strengthen that reading, say - or there might be a deliberate attempt to steer readers away from the older meaning). Sorry this is so vague, but I don't have time just now to dig into it deeper. There's a parallel sort of ambiguity of meaning in Eastern mysticism between "faith", read as something more like "heartfelt trust" (rather than belief), and Gnosis-equivalents like "Jnana". It's really just a shift in emphasis from the experience itself, one of knowledge, to the kind of settled trust/belief one has after having had such an experience.

Yeah I think imitation was part of it, no doubt, but (for the early mystics/visionaries I'm talking about) it's more in the sense of eliciting something that's already there, or attuning yourself to something that's already there:-

Galatians 4:6 “Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, father."

Now, to get this, you've got to get into the spirit of it ( ) - think of those times when you've been in despair, and something in the heart leaps out in longing for something better. Think also of the way we have an inner "moral compass" - there's nothing in nature that tells us of morality, it's something that comes from within that finds the world wanting. (Of course this is how it seemed to them; we can understand the growth of morality more in terms of evolutionary biology, etc., but I'm just pointing out how this sort of teaching would directly speak to people then, or to scientifically-uninformed people nowadays.)

The texts do not speak of a historical figure but a mythological figure - a wonder-working, divine entity, part man, part God. THAT is who was SUPPOSED to be historical. We moderns can't accept such an entity existed on the basis of the NT texts (Humean argument), so we look for other explanations for the existence of that myth, and the existence of the religion bound up with it. One possible explanation is euhemeristic - that there was an ordinary human being who's life and doings got blown out of all proportion, into a myth. That's possible, but the evidence for it is extremely weak.

What you are doing (what nearly everyone seems to do - I'm not singling you out! ) is looking at the Christ tale and mentally stripping it of the woo-woo stuff and assuming that what's left over, the humanly-plausible bits, apply to a real human being. Why do you think that's a reasonable move?

Suppose a future archaeologist did that about a Superman comic he dug up ("oh this Superman stuff looks fantastic - but the Clark Kent stuff looks plausible, so I guess the Superman story must be euhemeristic, must be based on some real human being - probably a bit like Clark Kent - who's story got blown up into this fantastic myth).

You see? There's no logical bite there whatsoever. Only if our archaeologist found (e.g.) some plausible connection between Simon & Shuster and some guy they knew (maybe a hick newspaper reporter who worked out in the gym with Shuster, for example) would the argument in the previous paragraph be given some sort of logical force.

Because that's what we have in the earliest texts. i.e. WHETHER OR NOT there was a historical Jesus, on the evidence we have Paul was a stone-gone mystic and visionary, and what his flock was doing was mysticism and occultism (1 Corinthians 12-13). That is absolutely what it says on the Pauline tin.

Had we some reason to believe there was a historical Jesus, THEN we could say "ah yes, Paul and the rest of them were merely riffing off that historical person in a woo-woo fashion". But in the absence of evidence for a real, historical human being, the best explanation is to take the evidence at face value: it was mysticism and occultism from the get-go.

I think I've already gone through this in this thread above - and in the "what would mythicist have seen if they'd been there 0-90 CE" thread.

My best guess is that there was already a small circle of kooks in Jerusalem who were of a sect that had formerly been apocalyptic but had become proto-gnostic. They "saw" in Scripture that the Messiah had already been, sub rosa (the "secret" not yet revealed) and won some sort of spiritual victory (granting Ehrman's argument that Jewish proto-gnosticism was a sort of spiritualisation of apocalypticism). They were probably mystics and visionaries themselves, or some of them, although that's not so secure a conclusion. This argument takes 1 Corinthians 15 as having something genuine (albeit messed around with). The operative terms are "according to Scripture" - normally it's read in a way that follows Matthew's reading (that the events were the fulfillment of scripture), but you can also read it that the Christ events were REPORTED BY Scripture (albeit in a hidden way).

Not long after that, there was another guy, who may actually have been called "Simon" but whose nickname was "Shorty", who may or may not have been either Jewish or Samaritan, who either heard of this idea and had a visionary experience based on it, or had a very similar inspiration himself and found subsequently that the Jerusalem people had had a similar idea just before him.

I think it's retro-prophesying originally, and partly a cute reversal of Messiah tropes (not to come, but has been, not kingly victor but spiritual), but with Paul it definitely becomes more a spiritual business along the lines of Asian mysticism (I say this merely for analogy because it's more familiar to us - of course the every culture has its home-grown equivalent, because these are faculties and capabilities of the human brain we are talking about).

See above, re. Bauer. Re. martyrs - I don't think the early Christians had that perspective, that's a later, orthodox idea (dying for a belief to "prove" it). The faith based movement (in the sense I am calling orthodoxy) arose as a result of Mark's (Mark himself being perhaps a proto-Gnostic of the old school) having the first apostles be people who knew the mythical entity personally; this idea is taken up by Roman (and possibly some Alexandrinian) Christians and developed into the idea of the Apostolic Succession. This drives a more literalist interpretation of the myth, and makes it more a matter of belief in certain propositions (because the teachers in the Roman line are supposed to have had the word from Jesus' mouth).

It wouldn't be - except it's not a man sacrificing his life we have in the myth, it's a man-god, a mythological being, a superhero-like entity. To find a man there, isn't as easy as just looking at the more down-to-earth components of the story and saying "Aha, here we have evidence of a man!"

Again, I think you are taking (a reasonable interpretation of) orthodoxy's word for it (this is what they would have you believe). There is no reason to do so. What this story actually is (IMHO, again based on the Bauer argument, the lack of man-Jesus evidence, and the presence of mysticism/occultism evidence) is the self-conscious narrative of a sub-sect that grew as one variant interpretation amongst many, in response to shared mystical/occult praxis.

mountainman

Greek speaking and writing kooks? Why in Jerusalem and not, for example, in Rome? How Greek was the gnosis? How does Apollonius of Tyana fit in to the environment of your best guess?

gurugeorge

Well, it's just that Jerusalem is mentioned by Paul as the place where he acknowledges there were people before him doing something similar to what he was doing (or, at least, who he felt ought to be consulted in some way).

Not sure - perhaps in terms of the "arms race" of miracles in the gospels (after the fame of A of T, maybe some Christians felt they had to beef up the "wondrous works")? I'm aware of potential links to Paul (via "Apollos" IIRC), but I'm not sure about that.

mountainman

According to the best guesses of reconstructed history (eg: Maria D) the notes taken by Damis of "The Life of Apollonius" must have been in existence at some stage during the 1st century, as also would have been the books which were written by Apollonius himself. Letter exchanges to emperors, philosophers and others authored by Apollonius were gathered up after his death - perhaps as late as the early 2nd century.

Is it possible that the "Early Christians" were unaware of all this?
What did they beef up? The possibility exists for a fabrication via literary collage.


The exact name "Apollonius" is specified in Codex Bezae. To compound the political considerations, the 4th century polemic authored by Eusebius against Apollonius needs to be adequately addressed.

It is not beyond the bounds of ancient historical possibility that Jesus and Paul represent fabricated composite facets of the one actual historical figure Apollonius of Tyana. Perhaps someone had an agenda to replace the traditional deities of the Graeco-Roman empire with a new form? By the "Graeco" divinities I mean those as might be outlined by Peter Kingsley. The Logos and the concept of the Holy Trinity were continual expressions of the Greeks from Pythagoras to Plotinus. They may have been simply commandeered, perhaps with the LXX and other Greek literature.

Elijah

So the mystic form of salvation (since it doesn’t seem to be quite Gnostic) that you think was the original movement is just a figure of speech for being more aware of your spiritual side and no real eternal life or afterlife or any tangible reward?

So it’s not imitation of a man’s behavior but trying to shut down the voice in your head that is the goal or are they trying to induce a particular vision of a spiritual savior for the people to believe in? What about a vision that the messiah has come confirming that maybe?
I’d be interesting in looking at how they get amalgamated but maybe we want to consider how important this point is still before either of us put too much work in.
They don’t know who wrote it for sure but it’s attributed to Paul. Here is another even though I’m not sure if you are pushing a Gnostic Paul anymore.

1 Cor 8:1 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God.

I’m not really sure what you’re saying the difference between the orthodox understanding of faith vs the mystic in the text is. I think the faith for the orthodox is trust, it’s just passed between people without the need of a visionary experience for each conversion. The necessary experience is meeting someone with faith or for the extra kick seeing someone willing to sacrifice their life like Christ.
Wouldn’t Galatians 4:6 be more about freedom because of faith in Christ (spiritual from your POV) not imitation of the spirit? The reason the spirit calls out father is because of faith in Christ makes us all the son’s of god. (3:26)

I’m not saying there weren’t early Christians connecting to a preexisting spiritual element, they just thought that spiritual element was personified in a particular man who was crucified and that faith and imitation of him would help connect them to the same spirit he was connected to in a way.

I don’t know anything about inner moral compasses but the idea is common, though it seems a little off track for what we have been discussing. You think they were teaching a form of mysticism that connected them to a spiritual element that helped them be moral and that is what attracted followers to the religion? Or was it something other than morality?
It’s not a mythological figure IMO it’s a man with faith which some of the Jews saw as being a source of power like mind over matter. Jesus’ miracles didn’t make him a half god anymore than Moses parting the sea or Elijah calling down fire, it’s a display of real faith, the kind that moves mountains. Even the miraculous virgin birth if you go from Luke is a story about a girl having a vision and then faith in the vision gets her pregnant. Now we may think in today’s society that is impossible but back then it was possible and a suitable filler if the real father was unknown. Not a mythological tale but an urban legend about a working class messiah.

The evidence for the man may be weak but the blowing out of proportion in what he did in life (as seen in the gospels) should be completely expected for a group of people trying to exalt a working class messiah who was killed so not something that can be reasonably used for evidence of non existence.

Yes I think it’s a reasonable move to read the gospels in the context of reality and cutting or interpreting what can’t be physically possible. I don’t believe you should do that with all texts because all texts aren’t meant to be understood as historical accounts such as most comic books, where the point is to just tell a story with maybe a moral. And if I pulled Matthew out of the sand without knowing any of the history around the movement or Paul’s letters/John then I would probably be more considering to the idea that it was a piece of fiction. But when you know this story started a huge movement then it looks more like a tale of how that movement/faith started with one guy’s sacrifice exaggerated. It’s an attempt to give a historical account of how the faith started which varies between the gospels. This seems obvious to me but that’s because I don’t throw the gospels out because there was some impossible feats attributed to him.

Sure if you found a single comic without the front page that says story by so and so then yea you could make the mistake that a work of fiction was based on a historical figure that was exaggerated especially because we live in a time when people believe in aliens. If the comic was seriously trying to prove that he was an alien or aliens existed then it would be more likely for me to make a mistake that someone was trying to base it off reality or what they thought was reality than if it was just a simple bad guy gets defeated story. The smaller the sample of evidence to work from the easier it is to make mistakes. And that’s what I think you are doing in that you are limiting the amount of evidence you consider in order to manufacture the mistake you want to make.
It doesn’t matter they are the earliest they aren’t the only texts we have. You can’t just exclude the historical accounts in forming your understanding of Christianity because they have miracles you don’t consider possible.
I wouldn’t argue against Paul being involved in some kind and probably a variety of forms of mysticism but I, (unlike you apparently), think that was common place back then. I agree that visions confirm ideas for us but I just don’t think that mystic ability or practice was seen as such a big deal back then. I don’t think the mystical practices is what was generating the buzz in the religion, I think it was too old hat to really get people motivated in itself. It has to be what the mystical revelation is saying or said that is generating the buzz, some kind of good news as they would have said I guess.
Does Paul or anyone cite the scripture that reveled(hidden in) to them that he had already been? So they didn’t connect to the spiritual element to learn this, they just saw it in scripture initially and the Simon guy said you can learn about it via mystical connection also? And all they are learning here is that the messiah has already been? No morality, no gnosis, no awareness increase?

No idea about spiritual apocalypticism and its relation to Gnosticism. I see Gnosticism as Plato for the masses and his recollection of forms being packaged for consumption and the mystics being maybe more like Plotinus and reunification via the intellect for its salvation.

How do you think they thought it was possible for the messiah to have spiritual victory and what does him having already been here have to do with it?
So you’re going with the holocaust denier argument and the martyrdom deal never went through Rome helping solidify the faith? Just something the orthodox conspiracy unit made up because the truth about how the faith became so popular was too embarrassing?
I think it reads exactly like a man with faith not like mythological being at all. The baby of a sky daddy isn’t a very good reading of the texts IMO.
I think you are assuming a conspiracy here and I’ve been there but sometimes it’s not all a big cover up by the authority. The martyrdom of a man making an impact on his followers makes sense for how the faith started and I don’t see the reason to put the energy into the idea that it wasn’t a man who started the faith with his sacrifice but a vision that was confused for an actual sacrifice. There is no evidence or reason to believe that. You’re left with having to rewrite history “What-if” style to explain how the movement really started with no evidence to support your position while at the same time demanding undeniable proof of historical existence before considering the other possibility.

Sheew.. they need a wiping sweat from brow smiley... getting long.

aa5874

You are the one who is actually re-writing the Jesus story. No Canonical Jesus story claimed Jesus was just a man on a suicide mission.

You are the inventor or promoter of "Suicide" Jesus.

If you examine the Canon, it was the supposed actual resurrection of Jesus that REVIVED the Jesus movement.

The disciples have already abandoned "Suicide Jesus", they fled when Suicide Jesus was arrested. Peter had denied any association or even knowing Suicide Jesus.

If Suicide Jesus did not resurrect it would be all over. The disciples were hiding in a house, their faith drained and depleted, waiting for Suicide Jesus to resurrect but his body had vanished.

Now, if you claim Suicide Jesus did not resurrect, then your theory have suffered the same fate.

mountainman

One only needs to reject Eusebius.