How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

So let's start over again. Why is it better to identify the origin of Christianity with 'Hellenists' (IMO a meaningless term because members of a tradition can speak many different languages and co-exist with many different cultures) rather than the 'only the ten commandments' group = the People of the Land? I agree with you in essence that Acts identification of the kind of followers that were first attracted to the religion of Jesus means something (= idiotai). I just approach it in a slightly different way. I think that even liars have to develop their lies according to some pattern of truthfulness in this case that Christianity developed from the kind of people who only knew the ten commandments. I don't think you have to go all the way to accept Acts as actual history to accept that it portrays a 'peasant movement' as you like to say.

Similarly I think that the gospel was written in such a way that the Pharisees take Jesus to be an idiot because of the kinds of arguments he is spouting (or at least one who accepted only the ten commandments). John however makes the connection with the Samaritans who also held to this POV. So I think we can go in a lot of different directions with identifying which Jewish or Israelite group the religion of Jesus emerged from. I just don't see why there is a strong argument for 'Hellenism' as such as the argument for 'only the ten commandments' seems to have been a native Palestinian association specifically with peasants (as you like to call them) - i.e. the People of the Land. Perhaps you can explain to me why Hellenism is so important to understand earliest Christianity.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

In fact - upon reflection - I think that 'Galilean peasant' (again using terminology you like to use) and 'Hellenist' are mutually exclusive terms. Paul might have been a 'Hellenist' but he certainly wasn't a peasant. I think you've taken two things you've read or learned and fused them together not recognizing that they are pretty much mutually exclusive groups. Galileans peasants like Samaritan peasants and Jewish peasants certainly fell under the umbrella of what is known as 'People of the Land' in rabbinic literature. When the same rabbinic tradition speaks of 'Epicureans' and people hiding Homer in their robes (= Hellenists) they don't mean 'People of the Land.' They are in fact referencing 'the learned' class who knew the Pentateuch intimately and were supposed to be adhering to its observances. People of the Land by contrast = idiotai.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

So if this situation is basically acknowledged - i.e. that the followers of Jesus were for the most part derived from People of the Land the next question is what is left for Jesus to be. Here are the choices I come up with off the top of my head:

1. a fellow idiotes with the other idiotai of earliest Christianity (i.e. all people of the land)
2. the god who gave the heavenly Torah to Moses (= the ten commandments) that is the fiery law-giving angel coming again to his people
3. a magician (i.e. a human being who claimed to his followers to be divine)

(1) doesn't work in the debates over the proper interpretation of the Pentateuch in the gospel (because this was outside of the realm of knowledge for ignorant idiotai). So you are left with (2) or (3). I happen to find Smith's arguments that such magicians were widespread among the People of the Land unconvincing. So I keep going back to (2) acknowledging as I do that the original gospel(s) are lost and what retain are consciously reworked forgeries of these lost texts. I would be interested in hearing why you think (1) or (3) are better candidates for identifying who Jesus was or if there is another category of person I am forgetting in contemporary Jewish life.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by outhouse »

Secret Alias wrote: the Pharisees take Jesus to be an idiot

Which Pharisees?


Were they not divided, some favoring Hellenism and its Judaism, and others mirroring Zealots a more traditional Judaism if you will?



Not only that, these jesus traditions in text, as far as I'm concerned DO NOT deal with any context of a tradition tied to Jesus, they mirror the elements and theology of the Hellenistic authors. Told through the lens and context that he argued with them. Content of said argument's are unknown and specifics added by the unknown authors.

(IMO a meaningless term because members of a tradition can speak many different languages and co-exist with many different cultures)

Agreed. But in context this movement was factually, a Hellenistic divorce of cultural Judaism.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by outhouse »

Secret Alias wrote: rather than the 'only the ten commandments' group = the People of the Land?

.
I need to clarify this.


Do you really think the common born and raised oppressed Aramaic Israelite peasant was ignorant of the text of Judaism?

Do you think if one took over an Aramaic peasant based version of apocalyptic Judaism, who spoke and healed and baptized in peasant villages, was ignorant of text in Judaism?

You think these illiterate Aramaic Jews only circulated the 10 laws in oral traditions?





Dude, I don't mind you throwing ideas at the wall to see how well they stick. I have no problem shoving your imagination in the Hadron collider to sift through the wreckage to see what evidence may or may not exist.

It is the level of certainty your claiming where I have issue.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by outhouse »

Secret Alias wrote: that the followers of Jesus were for the most part derived from People of the Land

.
No and Yes.


Aramaic students of Johns apocalyptic movement, as well as Aramaic jews we "may be" able to label as ZEALOTS. As you know Zealots is a Hellenist title given to Aramaic Jews of Galilee.


But it must be noted that these people have no connection with the movement after a perceived martyrdom at Passover.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

Which Pharisees?


Were they not divided, some favoring Hellenism and its Judaism, and others mirroring Zealots a more traditional Judaism if you will?
I don't know what the actual situation in antiquity was. No one does. The fact that they were originally identified as 'separatists' or 'deviants' (= persahin) means that they came after and were separate from the mainstream Sadducean orthodoxy (which after all was the traditional priestly group). But the fact that the gospel writer can make a blanket reference to 'Pharisees' time and again means there must have been some identifying characteristic which was general enough to identify the group. My assumption is that the Pharisees were the most active in establishing converts from among the People of the Land, converts to an acceptance of the Pentateuch as a/the heavenly Torah. It doesn't seem as if the People of the Land saw any good reason to maintain dietary restrictions (and so are much like most self-confessed 'Jews' in the world and 'many' in Israel) and perhaps even didn't bother to get circumcised (again because famously circumcision wasn't important enough to be included among the ten commandments). Christianity then would naturally come as part of a rallying call to the 'peasants' in the aftermath of the destruction of the temple that God was on their side all along.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

a Hellenistic divorce of cultural Judaism.
But you recognizing that only the ten commandments came from God (ignoring or rejecting the Pentateuch) allows one to co-exist with any culture quite easily. Were there formerly law-abiding priests in the aftermath of the destruction who were persuaded to embrace the position that only the ten commandments were holy? I am absolutely certain of that especially given the fact that it is highly probable that many or most of the captured Jewish holdouts in Jerusalem were castrated when put into chains, thus excluding them forever from the priestly ranks. This is the simplest explanation for why sacrifices were summarily dropped after the destruction. The Samaritans never entirely ended the sacrifices despite losing their temple.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

Do you really think the common born and raised oppressed Aramaic Israelite peasant was ignorant of the text of Judaism?
Yes.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Post by Secret Alias »

You think these illiterate Aramaic Jews only circulated the 10 laws in oral traditions?
The ten commandments weren't circulated. It was publicly displayed in every synagogue and in the temple as we often see today in synagogues and Jewish places of worship. The scrolls stay locked and out of the hands of the people. Of course we have printing presses and the internet today. But the average Jew throughout the ages knew very little about his religion. Yes the Pentateuch was read (just like Acts was read in many Christian services). But was it necessarily a holy text or just a narrative about the giving of the holy text?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply