The syncretistic origins of Christianity.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The syncretistic origins of Christianity.

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:33 pm Elsewhere Justin mentions that the memoirs were written by the apostles and by their followers, and more specifically he also names either "the memoirs of Peter" or "the memoirs of Christ," depending on how you read the sentence. Is that what you are talking about?
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:26 pm Sure, though of course it'd be great if he'd named something 'more known' such as the epistle or even the Gospel of Peter, or perhaps Marks memoirs of Peter ie. the Gospel of Mark, commonly cited to Mark as the hearer of Peter
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:10 pm For whatever it may be worth, I think Mark is what he meant by the memoirs of Peter; but it is possible to disagree with my assessment.
Sure, but I think it's interesting people like Justin do not cement the specifics of this new religion, nor, for a person writing 60-80 yrs after we are told it had key texts, does he show an expected degree of knowledge of those key texts.

nb. my points are relative to the common assertion that the key texts were set and were circulating then.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:10 pm But surely you must be aware that countless church fathers name all the gospels they accept, and even name the ones they do not accept, from Irenaeus through Clement and Tertullian and Origen and Victorinus to Eusebius and beyond. You must also be aware that Papias is quoted as naming texts by Mark and by Matthew (I doubt John and Luke had been written/completed by then). If that is all you are after, I think you are set.
1. I don't believe Papias is a reliable witness of much, or even verified as a reliable witness . I don't believe those quoting him are reliable witnesses.

2. The church fathers that name gospels they accept or reject hardly do so with specific commentary about why they accept of reject them, particularly Justin Martyr. Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian hardly do, either (other than writing screes to reject Marcion).

If you are after one other thing: a frank and open discussion about how that particular church father's community came to accept the gospels it accepts, then I fear you will be disappointed. But why should that bother you?
You keep misrepresenting my propositions and my queries. I am not after 'discussion' about how a "particular 'church father's community' came to accept the gospels it accepts" - I am after evidence particular church fathers even reflect their communities. I am after evidence that those church fathers reflect communities that are engaging texts. All we have are waffling philosophy by the likes of Irenaeus that do not appear to be address to congregations or to any other possible recipients.

The fathers were, one and all, at pains to avoid the impression that they were in any way unique in their choice of gospels; they emphasize and draw out and hammer home the point that all right thinking churches everywhere accept the same gospels they do. To discuss how their own church came to accept those gospels would shatter the mirage.

... what the fathers want you to believe is that the Holy Spirit guided all orthodox churches into accepting the same four gospels; in order to peek behind the scenes at the ecclesiastical pressures and such that may have actually gone into the process we have to read between the lines.
I think it is very likely that the mirage is shaped later. I think it's those who later shaped the church who want us to believe all church fathers, and thus by implication also all orthodox churches, had accepted the same four gospels.

The implication is that it was the eventually agreed upon 'Holy Spirit' that was there all along. But the first 2-3 Ecumencial councils tell us that wasn't the case.
We do have Serapion [of Antioch]:

For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ, but the pseudepigrapha that go by their name we reject, as experienced men, knowing that we did not recieve such things. For I myself, when I was with you, had in mind that you all were bearing into the right faith, and, without going through the gospel borne forth by them in the name of Peter, I said that, if this was all that seems to bring about pettiness for you, let it be read. But having now learned from what was said to me that their mind was holing up in some heresy, I shall hasten to be with you again; wherefore, brethren, expect me in quickness. But we, brethren, taking in of what kind of heresy Marcianus was, who also contradicted himself, not thinking about what he was saying, which things you will learn from the things that I have written to you, were enabled by others who studied this same gospel, that is, by the successors of those who began it, whom we called docetics, for most of the thoughts are of their teaching, using [material] from them to go through and find that most things are of the right word of the savior, but some things are spurious, which things we order out for you.

He discusses why the gospel of Peter is to be rejected (after he had originally thought it harmless). And of course others (Origen, for example) discuss texts they reject, as well.
That's via Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 6.12.1-6.

Certainly this commentary suggests Serapion was discussing things with certain communities - https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1q ... st&f=false - but we don't see that commentary that suggests Irenaeus or other church fathers were doing likewise (and literary licence may being taken in that commentary about Serapion).

I'm not looking for references to texts written to other communities, other than texts that might contain information about the originating community. I'm looking for something that shows a community is (i) using specific texts, or (ii) has created an account of a text or three eg. done their own exegesis, or (iii) has created their own texts or collections.
Your first point is met: we have lots of fathers telling us which texts they (and by extension their churches) accept.
'by extension' doesn't cut it with me.

Your second point is not clear to me, since we once again have lots of church fathers giving us lots of textual exegesis (far more than the accounts of persecutions you said were rampant1), and individuals do exegesis, not communities2 (even today). Your third point is problematic, as described above: no church is going to claim to have written their own sacred texts3, even if that is exactly what they have done; they are, of course, going to say that they got those texts from the apostles and from those who followed them.
1 I've not referred to persecution or persecutions in this thread.

2 Yes individuals do exegesis today. I'd be surprised if these next texts were the domain of one person in communities engaging with a new theology. People would be asking each other things like "What do you make of this?" Perhaps the writings of fathers like Irenaeus reflect that, but i get the impression Irenaeus is often philosophising on his own, without firm conclusions.

Paul's letters tell us he had problems, as does Polycarp -

.
But I have not found any such thing in you [Philippians], neither have heard thereof, among whom the blessed Paul labored, who were his letters in the beginning. For he boasteth of you in all those churches which alone at that time knew God ...
.

3 I wasn't referring to sacred texts. I was referring to texts that could show evolution of the theology: texts that had built on what we are told are texts that are supposed to have existed for a 80-120 yrs ie. 3-5 generations.

One would expect to see evidence of Council of Nicea like events in the mid-late 2nd century (to early-mid 3rd century) if orthodox Christianity had been growing from ~ 80 AD.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The syncretistic origins of Christianity.

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Jan 06, 2018 10:11 am
[in reply to a post by Jax, from another thread]

I am highly sympathetic to syncretistic reconstructions of earliest Christianity. Ideas may have filtered in from all kinds of sources. I am also, however, highly skeptical of suggestions to the effect that Judaism was being appropriated in much the same way that Roman Mithraism may have appropriated a Persian religion: from a distance and with little or no intimate knowledge of the original cult. Or, even more extremely, the way modern practitioners of Wicca have appropriated a (probably completely fallacious) version of ancient Druidism. I do not think our extant evidence is very conducive to that degree of appropriation.

Syncretism can be treated as a spectrum, as it were, with extreme appropriation on one end and simple inheritance of religious ideas from one's forebears on the other. I am not certain where exactly on that spectrum you would set Christianity vis-à-vis either Judaism itself or a Jewish-Christian cult which may have arisen from Judaism, but I have reasons for thinking that the connection between Judaism and Christianity is pretty direct (namely, that sectarian versions1 of the former gave rise to the latter).
.
.
There is indeed a lot of contact with Greek and Roman ideas; but there is also a lot of contact (and, I believe, of a more constitutional nature) with Jewish ideas from before 701. Most notably, the Qumran scrolls frequently provide us with the best, most direct, and most illuminating parallels to the earliest Christian ideas. If Christianity began as a fringe Jewish sect in much the same intellectual milieu as the Qumran sect(s), then this overlap is easily explained. But, if Christianity arose only later, long after 70, and appropriated Judaism as its fictional basis, we would have to devise a mechanism by which those connections were made1.

Same goes for ideas which later found their way into the Mishnah and which were probably never translated from Hebrew or Aramaic until centuries later: strong arguments have been made for various gospel materials having arisen from those Mishnaic streams2, some of which betray a local knowledge of customs peculiar to Palestine. (I think here of Roger David Aus' work on the feeding of the 5000, for example.)

These are positive arguments for a close genetic relationship between Christianity and Jewish sects. The idea (in consonance with the Pauline epistles) that Christianity arose from Jewish sectarianism before 701 explains the data; if there is a better explanation for this data, I am completely open to it ...
1 I don't think it's fully clear what versions of 'Jewish sectarianism from before 70 AD' persisted in key Jewish circles in Judea and Galilee after 70 AD or were discussed by the core tanna'im and others in post-70 deliberations (in writing down the Oral Torah and developing what became Rabbinic Judaism). Perhaps the version that became the basis for Christianity was squeezed out early; perhaps even before 66 AD, in the mini-civil war that had erupted among the Jews, in which the House of Shammai is said to have predominated (which seems to be the opposite of what happened after 70 AD ie. the House of Hillel is said to have dominated then).

2 'various gospel materials arising from Mishnaic [or Tosefta] streams' raises the question of "when?" There are various passages in the NT that have ties to or correlated to passages in the Mishnah which was supposedly not produced until ~185 AD.

Also, if syncretism had a role in the development Christianity, a question arises: what other religious traditions (other than Judaism) might have contributed to the development of Christianity?
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: The syncretistic origins of Christianity.

Post by archibald »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:07 am Also, if syncretism had a role in the development Christianity, a question arises: what other religious traditions (other than Judaism) might have contributed to the development of Christianity?
I'm not sure about Ben, but speaking for myself I don't have much of a problem with the general suggestion that orthodoxy might not have developed as early as suggested by the orthodox texts which have come down to us, or with asking the above question, for which I feel there may be interesting possible answers which would be far from irrelevant considerations and about which I am also curious.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The syncretistic origins of Christianity.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:35 amYou keep misrepresenting my propositions and my queries.
Yes! I know, right?? Well, that is because I do not understand requests like this:
I am not after 'discussion' about how a "particular 'church father's community' came to accept the gospels it accepts" - I am after evidence particular church fathers even reflect their communities. I am after evidence that those church fathers reflect communities that are engaging texts.
It is not that I know what you are looking for and just do not know where to find it. Honestly, I have no idea what you are looking for. What would a piece of evidence look like which was doing this, showing that fathers "reflect their communities," whatever that means? I asked for an example of this from the Mishnah or from the Talmud, since you said that there was some kind of evidence there to this effect, but you postponed that line of inquiry. Maybe you could just invent a piece of evidence, just for the sake of example, rather than trying to describe it...? Otherwise I may be doomed to continue to "misrepresent" your positions out of sheer ignorance of their content.

Also, what would it mean if it turned out that no such evidence exists? I used to think I at least knew what was at stake here, but by now I have no clue. So, if nothing exists that you are looking for, what is the likely inference, in your judgment, to be drawn from that fact?
All we have are waffling philosophy by the likes of Irenaeus that do not appear to be addressed to congregations or to any other possible recipients.
Here again communication breaks down. This sentence sure sounds as if you are saying that we do not possess works by church fathers which are addressed to particular congregations. But, since we have on this very thread discussed works by church fathers which were addressed to particular congregations, I know that cannot be what you are saying. Which leaves me with no viable content to work with in this sentence.
MrMacSon wrote:
Your second point is not clear to me, since we once again have lots of church fathers giving us lots of textual exegesis (far more than the accounts of persecutions you said were rampant), and individuals do exegesis, not communities (even today). Your third point is problematic, as described above: no church is going to claim to have written their own sacred texts, even if that is exactly what they have done; they are, of course, going to say that they got those texts from the apostles and from those who followed them.
I've not referred to persecution or persecutions in this thread.
On page 7 of this thread you wrote:
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:30 pmI'm not aware of many church fathers recounting their local communities; of recounting positive community engagement with the texts or the theology by others. All we seem to get is negative accounts; say, of persecutions.
One would expect to see evidence of Council of Nicea like events in the mid-late 2nd century (to early-mid 3rd century) if orthodox Christianity had been growing from ~ 80 AD.
What exactly happened at Nicaea that you think should have happened earlier? The formulation of the Nicene Creed? The resolution against Arius and Arianism? The ruling on the celebration of Easter? Or what?
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
jferris
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: The syncretistic origins of Christianity.

Post by jferris »

MrMacSon wrote:Also, if syncretism had a role in the development Christianity, a question arises: what other religious traditions (other than Judaism) might have contributed to the development of Christianity?
I've lurked here for a while but haven't contributed as I've felt rather underequipped, but my understanding is that all religion, at all times, is essentially syncretistic. Syncretism is implicit within religion. There is no "if." Disentangling the various strands can be tricky, especially as those strands are, themselves, essentially syncretistic. All religion is a continual, dynamic dialogue. Religions which coexist will always mutually inform one another - one way or another.

To answer the question off the top of my head (and to break down "Judaism" a little):


Caananite polytheism
Second Temple sacrificial cult
"Deuteronomic" tradition
"Enochian" Wisdom/Righteousness
-> Borrows from Mazdaism esp saoshyant, angelology
---> Itself borrows from Assurism in Neo-Assyrian empire
---> Also overlaps with some Vedic/Dharmic practices
Platonism (and middle- and neo-)
Pythagoreanism
--> Vestiges of Buddhism
Stoicism
Cynicism
"Pagan" mystery cults
Roman Imperial cult
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The syncretistic origins of Christianity.

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:59 am
... What would a piece of evidence look like which was doing this: showing that fathers "reflect their communities," whatever that means?
Perhaps something systematic. That fully quotes named passages and verses and does exegesis on . So much of what is in things like the Catholic encyclopedia versions of the church fathers writings imply those fathers knew the verses that appear to be quoted.

them Let me think about this more.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:59 am
MrMacSon wrote:
Your second point is not clear to me, since we once again have lots of church fathers giving us lots of textual exegesis (far more than the accounts of persecutions you said were rampant), and individuals do exegesis, not communities (even today). Your third point is problematic, as described above: no church is going to claim to have written their own sacred texts, even if that is exactly what they have done; they are, of course, going to say that they got those texts from the apostles and from those who followed them.
I've not referred to persecution or persecutions in this thread.
On page 7 of this thread you wrote:
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:30 pmI'm not aware of many church fathers recounting their local communities; of recounting positive community engagement with the texts or the theology by others. All we seem to get is negative accounts; say, of persecutions.
Well, I did do a search of the whole thread for 'persecution' and 'persecutions' before answering there. Without result. Dunno what happened.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:59 am
One would expect to see evidence of Council of Nicea like events in the mid-late 2nd century (to early-mid 3rd century) if orthodox Christianity had been growing from ~ 80 AD.
What exactly happened at Nicaea that you think should have happened earlier? The formulation of the Nicene Creed? The resolution against Arius and Arianism? The ruling on the celebration of Easter? Or what?
Perhaps formulation of a creed. Perhaps council resolutions against Marcion and Marcionism (as well as others deemed heretics eg. Valentinus).
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The syncretistic origins of Christianity.

Post by MrMacSon »

Also,
The religious tension between the Jews and the Samaritans led to the temple on Gerizim being destroyed by either John Hyrcanus in the 2nd century BCE (according to Josephus)[27] or by Simeon the Just (according to the Talmud). The date of the Samaritan temple destruction, the 21st of Kislev, became a holiday for the Jews during which it is forbidden to eulogize the dead [28: "Megillat Taanit"]. However, the mountain evidently continued to be the holy place of the Samaritans, as is mentioned as such by the Gospel of John [John 4:20-24*], and coins produced by a Roman mint situated in Nablus included within their design a depiction of the temple [on Mount Gerizim]; surviving coins from this mint, dated to 138–161 CE, show a huge temple complex, statues, and a substantive staircase leading from Nablus to the temple itself.

Eventually, when Christianity became the state church of the Roman Empire, Samaritans were barred from worshiping on Mount Gerizim [as is also indicated by John 4:21] ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Gerizim


* John 4
19 The woman of [Samaria] said to [Jesus], “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”

21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

25 The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.”

26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.”
So, it would appear a destroyed Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim had either been rebuilt, or was depicted as if it had been.
archibald
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:07 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: The syncretistic origins of Christianity.

Post by archibald »

jferris wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:21 am
MrMacSon wrote:Also, if syncretism had a role in the development Christianity, a question arises: what other religious traditions (other than Judaism) might have contributed to the development of Christianity?
I've lurked here for a while but haven't contributed as I've felt rather underequipped, but my understanding is that all religion, at all times, is essentially syncretistic. Syncretism is implicit within religion. There is no "if." Disentangling the various strands can be tricky, especially as those strands are, themselves, essentially syncretistic. All religion is a continual, dynamic dialogue. Religions which coexist will always mutually inform one another - one way or another.

To answer the question off the top of my head (and to break down "Judaism" a little):


Caananite polytheism
Second Temple sacrificial cult
"Deuteronomic" tradition
"Enochian" Wisdom/Righteousness
-> Borrows from Mazdaism esp saoshyant, angelology
---> Itself borrows from Assurism in Neo-Assyrian empire
---> Also overlaps with some Vedic/Dharmic practices
Platonism (and middle- and neo-)
Pythagoreanism
--> Vestiges of Buddhism
Stoicism
Cynicism
"Pagan" mystery cults
Roman Imperial cult
Personally, I think that your saying that syncretism is at least a very common feature of many religions (I'm not entirely sure about 'all religion, at all times') is a good point.

Working out exactly what form the syncretic aspect of a particular religion took is a tougher question, and not one I am qualified to answer. :)
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The syncretistic origins of Christianity.

Post by MrMacSon »

jferris wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:21 am
MrMacSon wrote:Also, if syncretism had a role in the development Christianity, a question arises: what other religious traditions (other than Judaism) might have contributed to the development of Christianity?
... my understanding is that all religion, at all times, is essentially syncretistic. Syncretism is implicit within religion. There is no "if." Disentangling the various strands can be tricky, especially as those strands are, themselves, essentially syncretistic. All religion is a continual, dynamic dialogue. Religions which coexist will always mutually inform one another - one way or another.

To answer the question off the top of my head (and to break down "Judaism" a little):
  1. Caananite polytheism
  2. Second Temple sacrificial cult
  3. "Deuteronomic" tradition
  4. "Enochian" Wisdom/Righteousness
    • -> Borrows from Mazdaism esp saoshyant, angelology
      • ---> Itself borrows from Assurism in Neo-Assyrian empire
        ---> Also overlaps with some Vedic/Dharmic practices
  5. Platonism (and middle- and neo-)
  6. Pythagoreanism
    • --> Vestiges of Buddhism
  7. Stoicism
  8. Cynicism
  9. "Pagan" mystery cults
  10. Roman Imperial cult
Cheers. I agree that "religions which coexist will always mutually inform one another - one way or another."

I think the big ones for Christianity are -
  • Second Temple sacrificial cult
    • and sectarianism within that, both before and after the first Roman-Jewish War
  • "Deuteronomic" tradition
  • "Enochian" Wisdom/Righteousness
  • Platonism (and middle- and neo-)
  • Stoicism
  • Cynicism
  • "Pagan" mystery cults
    • especially aspects of the Egyptian ones
jferris
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: The syncretistic origins of Christianity.

Post by jferris »

archibald wrote:Personally, I think that your saying that syncretism is at least a very common feature of many religions (I'm not entirely sure about 'all religion, at all times') is a good point.
How do you imagine a non-syncretistic religion emerging or persisting?

What sort of words might you use to characterize a (hypothetical) non-syncretistic religion? Original? Authentic? Undiluted? Pure?
Post Reply