After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Giuseppe »

John2,

Even if I doubt about the presumed ''christianity'' of the epistle of James, I will follow with interest your line of research about (if I understand you well) the essenic Origins of Christianity.

I imagine that you are historicist. About the topic of HJ and essenism, I would be curious to know the ''case for a historical Jesus'' that Russel Gmirkin has promised to made in future.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

I imagine that you are historicist. About the topic of HJ and essenism, I would be curious to know the ''case for a historical Jesus'' that Russel Gmirkin has promised to made in future.
Oh man. I'd be interested in hearing Gmirkin's input.

But to give my own input regarding the post heading (even though it wasn't directed at me): something I'm thinking about is that there were effectively two--possibly more--proto-Christianites prior to Kitos. One, in the Syria and Phrygian area; the other, in the Judea and Alexandria area. Both had commonalities, but they also had stark differences. They probably used two different Torahs; the one in the north had syncretized with the surrounding Attis/Sabazios mystery cults; and the one in the south had eschatological anxiety, due to both Jewish Temples being destroyed in 70 ad and 73 ad respectively. The one major difference between the two however was...

... the one in the south had a leader of a community, who was executed in accordance with Deut 21:22.

This community was the community of James. It was also this community whom Peregrinus Proteus would latter fall in with and be ranked as a lawgiver and a god. And Peregrinus, being originally from the northern region of Phrygia, and perhaps already influenced by this denomination of Judaism, and infuse it into the Jamesian Jews.

A hindrance most (read: practically everyone) have is in thinking of Marcionism has wholly distinct and opposing to Judaism. But everything about his theology was dependent upon it. The only difference is that 1) he used the Evangelion in favour of Torah, and 2) supported Hadrian's policies regarding Jewish customs. Besides those two, he was well in line with the Judaism of his day. If Philo can still be called a Jew, then Marcion can still be Jewish.

And on the history question: dubito vita Iesu.

That said I think there were historical components that went into the Jesus figure; but as for the man in the Gospels: I don't think so.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:33 pm
I imagine that you are historicist. About the topic of HJ and essenism, I would be curious to know the ''case for a historical Jesus'' that Russel Gmirkin has promised to made in future.
Oh man. I'd be interested in hearing Gmirkin's input.

But to give my own input regarding the post heading (even though it wasn't directed at me): something I'm thinking about is that there were effectively two--possibly more--proto-Christianites prior to Kitos. One, in the Syria and Phrygian area; the other, in the Judea and Alexandria area.

I hope you read the criticism to the presumed priority of the Gospel of the Hebrews here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3629&p=78447#p78447

I am inclined to think that there was only a Christianity before the 70 CE ( Paul wasn't his founder). Galatians was written very much late, in 68 CE, just before the death of Paul. Only towards the 70 CE some Jews of Jerusalem (the Pillars) became interested about the Jesus preached by apostles as Paul and Apollos. Galatians reflects the threat of the aggressive, recent proselitism by these new apostles from Jerusalem called Judaizers. In other terms, Peter wasn't the real founder, but apostles like Paul were.
The community of Jerusalem acquired influence because the Judaizers became more and more aggressive (=zealously pro-Torah) preachers after the 70, and the same mainstream Judaism condemned hardly the marginal sects before only tolerated.

Possibly even Paul was killed by a Judaizer.

About Marcion, frankly I don't like who ''judaizes'' him in recent times in order to give him a more prominent role in the formation of the Gospels. I like Detering because he argues for a falsified Paul assuming that the earlier authors of the epistles were Gnostic Gentile Christians, not Jews. Marcion could write a Gospel even as fully gentile.

The Gnosticism is a phenomenon too much universal (just as the Problem of Evil) to consider it a Christian branch or a Jewish branch. It was simply necessary and inevitable that the gentile Gnostics had to become Christians, as well as interested to co-opt (and de-ethnicize) any other previous Myth.
The consensus recognizes already the Gnostic interest for Christianity after the 115 CE. I wonder if there were Gnostic Christians even before that date. Surely Philo's ''cainites'' is evidence that there were in Alexandria some Jewish haters of the Jewish God already in his time.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

I hope you read the criticism to the presumed priority of the Gospel of the Hebrews here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3629&p=78447#p78447
I have read it and I don't agree with it. Nor do I agree that Christianity was predominantly Gentile and was only later Judaized.

What I do think is that the Judaism in the region of Phrygia had been syncretized with the cults of Attis and Sabazios, but was still Jewish in identity. Just as Philo had been influenced by Platonism, but was still a Jew.
I am inclined to think that there was only a Christianity before the 70 CE ( Paul wasn't his founder). Galatians was written very much late, in 68 CE, just before the death of Paul. Only towards the 70 CE some Jews of Jerusalem (the Pillars) became interested about the Jesus preached by apostles as Paul and Apollos. Galatians reflects the threat of the aggressive, recent proselitism by these new apostles from Jerusalem called Judaizers. In other terms, Peter wasn't the real founder, but apostles like Paul were.
I reject these dates completely. All the Pauline letters are post-Kitos, as their author (Marcion) was enforcing the policies of Hadrian. But even he acknowledges that John, James and Cephas came before him, meaning that he was a founder insofar as his own teachings.

The community of Jerusalem acquired influence because the Judaizers became more and more aggressive (=zealously pro-Torah) preachers after the 70, and the same mainstream Judaism condemned hardly the marginal sects before only tolerated.
This is circular reasoning.
]Possibly even Paul was killed by a Judaizer.
No. He died by his own hand in 157 ad.
About Marcion, frankly I don't like who ''judaizes'' him in recent times in order to give him a more prominent role in the formation of the Gospels. I like Detering because he argues for a falsified Paul assuming that the earlier authors of the epistles were Gnostic Gentile Christians, not Jews. Marcion could write a Gospel even as fully gentile.
Then I disagree with Detering here, because Marcion shows a clear reliance on Judaism. Even the more consensus version, which I think is wrong, depends upon Marcion having in some way a Jewish understanding.
The Gnosticism is a phenomenon too much universal (just as the Problem of Evil) to consider it a Christian branch or a Jewish branch. It was simply necessary and inevitable that the gentile Gnostics had to become Christians, as well as interested to co-opt (and de-ethnicize) any other previous Myth.
But what of Gnostic Jews?
The consensus recognizes already the Gnostic interest for Christianity after the 115 CE. I wonder if there were Gnostic Christians even before that date. Surely Philo's ''cainites'' is evidence that there were in Alexandria some Jewish haters of the Jewish God already in his time.
Jewish haters... who were still Jewish. (Possibly Dosithean).
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:42 am
I hope you read the criticism to the presumed priority of the Gospel of the Hebrews here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3629&p=78447#p78447
I have read it and I don't agree with it. Nor do I agree that Christianity was predominantly Gentile and was only later Judaized.
Rylands thinks that Christianity started as Jewish sect before the 70 CE, already with a strong proselitism among the gentiles before the 70. The fall of Jerusalem changed the pacific cohabitation between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles, the former becoming more and more aggressive and radical in judaizing the latter (just as the mainstream Judaism was aggressive and radical in the condemnation of any marginal Jewish sect). Therefore, as anti-Jewish and anti-Judeo-Christian reaction, the Gentile Christians euhemerized Jesus with a DNA typically anti-Jewish (the fact that the 12 Jewish apostles are idiots and the fact that Jesus is killed by ''the Jews'' are sufficient, for me, as evidence of anti-Judaism).

The rivarly about the Torah was especially a post-70 phenomenon.

My dilemma is which Gospel came first: a form of proto-Mark, or Marcion's Gospel?

My interest about your views is precisely about who, in the your opinion, euhemerized Jesus on earth and why he did so, and which Gospel is for you the Earliest to be written.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Rylands thinks that Christianity started as Jewish sect before the 70 CE, already with a strong proselitism among the gentiles before the 70. The fall of Jerusalem changed the pacific cohabitation between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles, the former becoming more and more aggressive and radical in judaizing the latter (just as the mainstream Judaism was aggressive and radical in the condemnation of any marginal Jewish sect). Therefore, as anti-Jewish and anti-Judeo-Christian reaction, the Gentile Christians euhemerized Jesus with a DNA typically anti-Jewish (the fact that the 12 Jewish apostles are idiots and the fact that Jesus is killed by ''the Jews'' are sufficient, for me, as evidence of anti-Judaism).
I haven't read Rylands's book (looked it up on Amazon and it was unavailable) so I don't know the full extent of his argument. But it sounds as if it is still adherent to beliefs about Christianity that no longer seem functional, such as there being a Christianity prior to the Temple destruction, or Jewish-Christians, which is redundant.

That the Apostles appear ignorant of Jesus's true nature does not mean that it was anti-Jewish, or even anti-Apostles. Nor is it sufficient to suppose that it is anti-Jewish because the Jews ordered for his execution. The Romans would be just as culpable in that they were the ones to actually put him to death.
The rivarly about the Torah was especially a post-70 phenomenon.
But how can we be sure of this? It could very well be that this question over the Torah created the perfect soil for Christianity to emerge.
My dilemma is which Gospel came first: a form of proto-Mark, or Marcion's Gospel?
Mark as far as I'm concerned is much later and obscure book with little relevancy. The question of Marcion is made problematic because we don't actually know what his text consisted of. Was predominantly Luke material? Was it a Johannine text? Did it contain all of the Synoptics and John? We don't know.
My interest about your views is precisely about who, in the your opinion, euhemerized Jesus on earth and why he did so, and which Gospel is for you the Earliest to be written.
I don't think in such terms. There was a preeminent adherence to a Logos/Metatron figure, but there was also a real figure who was seen as fulfilling the Taheb role. Who this was, either Yeshu ben Stada, or Lukuas-Andreas. Yeshu ben Stada became Simon Magus, and Lukuas-Andreas became the Egyptian mentioned in Acts 21. That Paul is questioned as being him (why even think it?) may imply a deeper connection between Marcion and Lukuas-Andreas. It also shows that the Acts author was utilizing Josephus to pad out his work, and may even have confused first century figures for early second century figures.

Kind of digressed there. But I think the earliest Gospel composed was either Johannine or Jamesian. I think all of our Gospels in their current form did not exist until Irenaeus/Zephyrinus. Before that I don't know. Maybe a proto-Matthew or Secret Mark.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by MrMacSon »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:46 am ...I think the earliest Gospel composed was either Johannine or Jamesian.
If Johannine, I wonder if there was Nero-the-AntiChrist component to it ... or a Nero-the-AntiChrist v a Nero-Revividus dynamic.

Joseph D. L. wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:46 am I think all of our Gospels in their current form did not exist until Irenaeus/Zephyrinus.
Maybe ~65-75% of their current form (?)
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

If Johannine, I wonder if there was Nero-the-AntiChrist component to it ... or a Nero-the-AntiChrist v a Nero-Revividus dynamic.
It's possible, though I assume that the Johannine layer was an adaptation of a previous eschatological tradition involving Nero and Vespasian, the eclipses of 59 ad and 71 ad, and the Temple destruction.
Maybe ~65-75% of their current form (?)
Difficult to be exact. That seems like a fair assessment. At the very least half of it.
Post Reply