What Alternatives Are There to Christianity Being an Ascetic Religion?

[Giuseppe]

Obviously this model for 'gnosticism' - my argument connecting Irenaeus's Marcosians to ancient Judaism - has something your theory does not have - EVIDENCE that it existed, EVIDENCE that communities in antiquity functioned this way. The fact that Christian gnosticism understood there to be two gods hardly excludes it from being Jewish.

You are deliberately ignoring two things:

1) Philo's polemic against contemporary despisers of the Torah (with the same violent tones of a Father of the Church) from which you can infer the existence of not-Christian Gnostics (in the sense I use the term).

2) the fact that, EVEN if the dualism I am talking about (you are free to call it gnosticism or not) has entirely Jewish origins, the evidence remains all that it was a DUALISM (hate against the Creator) and not your vanishing ditheism.

[Ben C. Smith]

This is pretty similar to what I think happened. I think after the historical Jesus died (I'm open to the idea of there being no historical Jesus but I just go with the consensus) at least some of his followers or maybe people who weren't his original followers turned him into a savior/mystery god.

I have hypothesized that there was actually a Jewish mystery cult devoted to Yahweh in the form "Yahweh saves" (= Yehoshua = Yeshua = Joshua/Jesus), just as Zeus was sometimes worshiped as Zeus Soter (= Zeus the Savior); that this mystery cult preceded any historical Jesus, and that the legend of a sign prophet (for lack of a better term) named Joshua/Jesus who was executed in Jerusalem as a troublemaker was combined with the cult; and that this combination accounts both for the very low Christologies and for the very high Christologies which seem to have been present right from the start. Link: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3125. (Please realize that many of the details have changed upon reflection since I wrote that up, but I still think the overall idea very much worth pursuing.)

This Jewish mystery cult would have owed much to the cults of Ba'al and of Inana. Yahweh is well known to bear many similarities to Ba'al in particular. Links: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3139 and viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2183.

Jesus and Ba'al can even be compared more directly in many ways. Link: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3153.

So can Jesus and the Hebrew hero Joshua. Link: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3076.

These deities share similar descending and ascending patterns. Link: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3125&p=69666#p69666.

The similarities between Inana, Ba'al, and Yahweh on the one hand and Dionysus and other gods on the other hand owe themselves to deep cultural concepts which trace back to primeval times. It was easy for many cults to map their own gods onto Jesus (and vice versa) because the patterns were so similar and familiar.

He was deified sometime after he died, kind of like Antinous and others in the ancient Near East.

On my hypothesis (to which I am committed only in the sense that I came up with it and think it is viable), a god Yahweh/Yehoshua/Jesus and a man Jesus were combined on the strength of a core set of minor coincidences: the mode of execution (hanging/crucifixion), the locale (Jerusalem or at least Israel), and the name (Jesus). Neither figure (the god or the man) developed into the other; they met each other fully formed, with the man coming to be thought of as the avatar (so to speak) of the god in some way.

That quote "This is my beloved son with whom I'm well pleased" from 2 Peter that is said during the transfiguration and that is also said in Matthew 3:17 during his baptism is very similar to what you find in the ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. When the deceased/sun god/son of god enters the underworld this is said by the gods:

How happy is Teti [the deceased king/son of god] that his father Geb[a god] is content with him.

The deceased king(identified with the sun god) then goes through the 12 hours of the night in the underworld where he goes through a baptism and a "transfiguration" or "spiritualization" and also a death and resurrection, just like Jesus.

That is a good correspondence. Thanks. On the other hand, Matthew 3.17 and its parallels are universally recognized as an allusion to Isaiah 42.1. To me, this is an example of how similar the various ancient religions could be, and how easy it is to exchange elements from one to another.

[Ben C. Smith]

Robert M. Price has a very interesting hypothesis of his own about Jesus having originated as the resurrected form of John the baptist. Link to first page of the essay: http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2012/10/ ... price-pt-1. I have been mentally fiddling with a parallel variation on my own hybrid hypothesis in which the historical figure was actually John and not some otherwise unknown troublemaker named Jesus. But I have no real conclusions yet.

[Secret Alias]

Giuseppe,

I don't see how any of this matters. Your problem, fundamentally, is methodology. As you plainly confess you see your 'scholarship' as basically engaged in defending a position - a position which happens to argue for a 'mythicist' origin for Christianity. Basically you start with a thesis and then arrange whatever evidence you can find to support the thesis. So for instance by your methodology you wanted to prove that Jesus Christ was a sandwich - if that was starting point - as a 'scholar' you would look for all evidence of things related to sandwiches which come up in the gospels, the writings of Paul and other early Christian documents and put a systematic effort together to prove that Jesus Christ was a sandwich.

I admit that this sort of 'deliberate' arrangement of evidence to marshal support for a particular theory is one way of approaching the problem of Christian origins. But I don't think it is a particularly valuable one. The likelihood that you could start with a thesis and then make the evidence fit the theory and the resultant could some how 'figure out' history seems rather low. It would be similar if I set out in the other sciences with a thesis rather than start with observation and then develop a theory from observable phenomena. The best way it would seem (at least to me and virtually everyone else) is if your theory followed the evidence not the other way around.

In this case we've been questioning what 'gnostic' and the like means. You've perhaps assumed that when Irenaeus describes 'the false gnostics' (the other title of Against Heresies) and their beliefs that Irenaeus equates 'gnosticism' with dualism or something similar. That's not at all accurate. As the title implies - these dualistic or polytheistic sects represent 'false gnostics.' That's an important distinction. Yes the Valentinians and before them Carpocrates styled themselves 'gnostics.' But Marcellina can only be dated to the middle of the second century. The Carpocratians were the first to style themselves 'gnostics' according to Irenaeus. That means that this kind of 'false gnosticism' that Against Heresies/Against the False Gnostics is reporting on doesn't go back to Philo or at least the use of the specific Platonic terminology is rather recent.

And Philo's mention of contemporary groups that have bad or wrong ideas is never equated with 'gnostics' or that specific terminology. The issue that he objects to or that they promote is the idea that the world is not eternal. To jump the tracks and say that this has something to do with Christianity or the kind of gnosticism that was later described by Irenaeus is wholly untenable. Surely in any religion at any time there are different factions, different sects who interpret doctrines differently. Whether or not Christianity can or can't be traced back to this group, the loose use of terminology on your part can only make the connection with 'gnosticism' through sleight of hand. It is wholly reckless and not worth discussing at this point because you have no evidence.

I am not even sure what this does for your theory given the fact that the group described by Philo is presumably Jewish or related to Judaism. But that's another question for another discussion.

The real point at hand is that your methodology which is hostile to Judaism at the outset, your habit of 'thesis first and then arrange evidence to support thesis' causes you to ignore the one actual piece of evidence which helps us understand the origins of Christian gnosticism. The fact that Irenaeus makes mention of the followers of Marcus calling themselves the maskilim from Daniel chapter 12 while maintaining a familiar ecclesiastical structure (i.e. with priests and laity clearly defined) follows a pattern which I have demonstrated scholars acknowledge existed at Qumran. Now I am not going to engage in speculation as to what the Qumran community was (I think they were Sadducaic). But clearly we have the basis for a historical model which helps suggest that Christian gnosis developed from Jewish and presumably Samaritan notions of community.

I don't even know why I continue to argue with you as I have already said your methodology precludes you from being enriched by any discussion. I've had these sort of futile situations with various posters here. The value of coming to a forum like this is precisely because it is assumed that most people are supposed to be led by the evidence and act in what is called 'good faith.' So for instance given that the only evidence brought forward about the origins of gnosticism is Irenaeus saying that the Marcosians called themselves 'maskilim' (or perhaps the Greek equivalent although his citations of prayers and incantations of this groups presumes that they worked in Semitic language) and maskilim and its root are the Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent for 'gnostic/gnosis' it would appear that without bringing forward actual evidence my model is the only viable one.

Yet given your methodology again which doesn't even bother to control or check theory and theory-making you continue to simply say 'I take gnostics to be dualists.' But that isn't an argument! There isn't any evidence here. You haven't demonstrated for instance that the Greek terminology was ever used this way in the first, second or even third centuries. So really at the bottom there is no point continuing to participate in the forum. You're basically saying that each of us should just act as propagandists for random theories based on nothing more than will. I am not into that.

[Secret Alias]

With you I just see drama. For you, the job of a researcher being to basically make 'an appeal' to forum members. 'Hear me, hear me I think Christianity was mythicism, believe what I say!' If the members of the forum 'believe in you' then you see yourself as succeeding. I, on the other hand, couldn't care less whether forum members agree with my working hypothesis. I care more about what the evidence says. Your complete lack of interest in taking into account 'what the evidence says' is appalling and should convince me to ignore you. What possible hope is there is engaging with someone who doesn't care about evidence which contradicts his hypothesis or who merely sees it as requiring a rebuttal. Never at any point in watching you engage with people at this forum have I ever felt that any evidence could get you to give up your hypothesis. So what's the point of discussing anything with you?

[Giuseppe]

And Philo's mention of contemporary groups that have bad or wrong ideas is never equated with 'gnostics' or that specific terminology. The issue that he objects to or that they promote is the idea that the world is not eternal. To jump the tracks and say that this has something to do with Christianity or the kind of gnosticism that was later described by Irenaeus is wholly untenable.

Do you realize that you are going against an authority in Gnostic matters, like prof DeConick, who writes:

The earliest Sethian communities represent the initial collision of Gnostic spirituality with the Jewish Bible, before Christianity began to form in the Mediterranean. Once Christianity began emerging, some Sethian communities started to engage Christian perspectives and scriptures, too, blending them with their received Sethian views. In these cases, forms of Christian sethianism grew alongside non-Christian Sethian communities, as Gnostic spirituality absorbed both Jewish and Christian versions of the Bible.

(Gnostic New Age, p. 91)

Given what DeConick already argues (hence no need by me of inventing again the thing), my hobby in this forum is only to show sometimes a possible reconstruction where, in the precise moment when these “Sethian communities started to engage Christian perspectives and scriptures”, someone of them was so genial to write the Earliest Gospel (de facto euhemerizing the first time the mythological Jesus). This idea may seem crazy for you, but isn't it argued basically by prof Markus Vinzent? Wasn't it argued by Couchoud?

Frankly, I see no need of an inquiry in the your speculations. What is necessary to know from you (from my poor POV) is in short that the Earliest Gospel was a Jewish midrash from OT scriptures, where the higher god who is meant is only and always the creator. Once accepted it, forgive my (sincere) lack of interest for the rest. It is not that I are opposed to the idea: it is that I like to believe, in that case, that Marcion was a forger of Luke rather than believe that he was only a name for a Jewish sect adoring YHWH. All here.

I don't try to persuade others to my view. I report only my current opinion.
Given this precedent, I should give up to write in the threads started by you. This doesn't mean that I don't read your posts, when interesting.

[Secret Alias]

Given that academia is not monolithic and quite literally scholars hold countless different positions you are going to disagree with someone. I for instance go against the various Marcion scholars for the same reason - the evidence simply isn't there or because I believe they haven't been rigorous enough in their analysis of the evidence. I should say that I think the practice of writing papers as a way of advancement in academia tends to open up new fields of study - i.e. 'Marcionism.' But what can really be said about Marcion with any certainty? Not much I am afraid which is why I view 'the study of Marcion and Marcionism' with a great deal of suspicion.

So too with the use of 'gnostic' and 'gnosticism.' Yes Pagels and DeConick use the term 'gnostic' in an unfortunate way. The term was used by people in the nineteenth century to mean something like 'theosophist.' By late antiquity it might already have taken on this meaning and entered into our vocabulary with this meaning. Nevertheless it did not mean 'dualist' at the time of Irenaeus. We can see that from Against the False Gnostics quite clearly. In point of fact the 'great Church' could and likely did describe its mysteries as 'gnostic' if they believed that at least some Christians were meant to go beyond mere faith. Clement certainly did and used the term. It would imply of course that the person speaking and the people he was writing to were of an educated background as gnostikos would make no sense to a lay person.

In this case the question is - what is the origin of the term 'gnostic'? Quite clearly as I said earlier, Irenaeus (from the Pastoral Epistles) speak of 'false gnostics.' So what he is describing in 'Against the False Gnostics' is not 'gnosticism' (if he would ever have used this term seems debatable to me) but 'false gnosticism' or better yet the false knowledge that these teachers/leaders bring their laity into acquaintance with. There is no debate about this. Yes as 'false gnostics' they are at once 'gnostics' or 'gnostic.' But again since the knowledge is false in their specific case, those who bring into acquaintance to true knowledge could and did describe themselves as 'gnostic' (as Clement and Macarius did). It just requires the right people 'on the other end' to use this type of terminology (i.e. educated people).

[Secret Alias]

And again DeConick is using 'gnostic' in what we might call a 'modern' manner. It means to her and society in general as something like 'the early heretics described by people like Irenaeus.' But Irenaeus did not use the term 'gnostic' as an equivalent to 'heresy.' This came later when - to be frank - Christianity became less erudite and no longer understood the Platonic context behind the terminology.

[robert j]

Which came first, the notion of historical witnesses to Jesus or the notion of mystical witnesses to Jesus? Did 2 Peter know of the "eyewitnesses," say, of Luke 1.1-4 and turn them into mystagogues for the benefit of Greco-Roman people interested in mystery cults? Or did the mystagogues come first and somebody later turned them into historical witnesses? ...

It seems possible to me that the Transfiguration is a remembrance of Peter's visionary experience; at any rate, this event is associated with Peter in particular in 2 Peter 1.16-18 (along with an anonymous "we") ...
...

The mountain may be literal or it may be figurative. The quote from heaven is from Psalm 2.7. It is not my contention that 2 Peter predates the merging of the cultists with the former seditionists; rather, if I am right, it merely preserves something more original than either the synoptic version or the apocalyptic version of the tale.

The direction I’m leaning for 2 Peter is this ---

I think the author of 2 Peter framed of the NT Gospel version(s) of the transfiguration with Mystery-religion concepts and language --- in the name of Peter no less --- because he thought it would appeal to his intended audience. An affectation. We’ll probably never know if the intended audiences were impressed or not --- or even if such groups in Asia Minor would find such concepts and rhetorical machinations appealing.

I get the impression, and it’s just an impression, of an avowed Christian author of 2 Peter --- one that may not have known much about Mystery-systems beyond the gossip of his acquaintances, cultural exposure, and what he read in Greek and Roman sources like in Plutarch like the two passages you (Ben) cited.

I don’t’ think Christianity emerged from Greek Mystery-religion sources. Rather, I think it was Paul bringing his Jewish-scripture-based system (with its Canaanite and Babylonian baggage) into Greek settings in which Mystery systems and temple deities were well-entrenched. Like any smart promoter in foreign territory, Paul incorporated a number of Greek religious concepts, paradigms and rituals into his system to appeal to his local converts and patrons.

For example, in 1 Corinthians and by the author of Romans 16:25-26, the salvific death of Paul’s Jesus Christ is characterized as ---

“… a mystery (μυστηρίῳ), the wisdom of God having been hidden, which God foreordained before the ages for our glory.” (1 Cor 2:6)

“…the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery (μυστηρίου) having been kept secret in times of the ages, but now having been made manifest by and through the prophetic Scriptures …” (Romans 16:25-26)

Paul encouraged some level of peaceful co-existence and tolerance towards the sacrificial and honor systems of the temple deities ---

If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat anything set before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone tells you, “This food was offered to idols,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience, the other one’s conscience, I mean, not your own … If I partake in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God. (1 Cor 10:27-31)

However, Paul was clear about his position on honoring the temple deities ---

Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak to reasonable people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? … I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot partake in the table of the Lord and the table of demons too. (1 Cor 10:14-21)

It’s hard to know how much Mystery-system influence may have permeated some Pauline-oriented Christian groups in Asia Minor in the intervening century or more before 2 Peter was written.

The author of 2 Peter does seem to know quite a bit about the various heresies rejected in chapter 2. It may be tempting to parse the words and try to identify “known” heresies and heretics. But it seems to just boil down to ungodly and immoral behavior and the error of apostasy. Maybe the author had just heard lurid stories. For the error of apostasy see the colorful language in 2 Peter 2:19-22 and compare with Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26, all drawn from various passages in the Jewish scriptures.

I see the over-arching intent of the author of 2 Peter as making a pitch for new patrons --- an attempt to gain authority over others. The intent is, I think, best represented in these passages --- Paul’s legacy is prominent ---

Knowing this first that any prophecy of Scripture is not of its own interpretation. For no prophecy at any time was brought by the will of man, but men spoke from God, being carried by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

… just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom having been given to him, as also in all his letters, speaking in them concerning these things, among which some things are difficult to be understood, which the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, as they do also the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

The subtext is clear. The writings (and interpretation) of the Jewish scriptures are inspired only by men under the influence of the Holy Spirit --- and the “scriptures” of Paul are hard to understand and have been distorted like the other scriptures --- but we’re the ones to tell you what they really mean.

[Ulan]

Regarding Marcion: I even read once that the story about Marcion's arrival in Rome and the returned donation is remarkably similar to a an earlier story about someone else. I can't find the reference again though, so I guess I can't dig into whether that was just some bullshit.

I'm aware that this post is rather useless. I just hope someone else may be able to give me a pointer.