Nasaraeans, Mandaeans, Enochic Judaism, & Christianity.

[Ben C. Smith]

Line 8: IES P-NAZORAIOS MESSIAS
Line 9: IES P-NAZORAIOS
Line 11: NAZARENOS MESSIAS
Line 14: NAZARA (...) P-NA
Line 15: ZARENOS
Line 16: P-NAZARENOS IS

Is this really saying 'truth'?
isn't the Coptic for truth ME where is that?

The word the text is using for truth is actually a Coptic loanword from Greek, ἀλήθεια. You can see it on lines 14 (penultimate word) and 15 (antepenultimate word) of the image that Martin supplied, with a T in front of it (as the direct article, I believe).

I was reading the Wisdom of Solomon, the description of wisdom in here is very similar to the prologue of John isn't it? Except wisdom has become Jesus
Could it be that wisdom speculation was the source, explaining the comparison of Jesus to wisdom in a few places

Oh, I think that wisdom speculation was definitely in the mix. I have a thread from four years ago laying out many of the texts which speak to the descent and ascent of wisdom.

Christianity emerged from a wisdom tradition independent of hellenism? sure, why not. the source materials are all there and agree far better than Qumran community comparisons do except for a Matthean/Ebionite redactive phase (the so called pillars) which wasn't original?

That highlighted bit depends, I think, at least partly on what level of comparison you mean. If you mean only the purely sectarian literature at Qumran, then there are still rather many comparisons to be made, but admittedly not nearly as many as if you include the literature from Enochic Judaism at large. I think that the Qumran community was an offshoot of Enochic Judaism; and Enochic Judaism was seemingly no stranger to wisdom speculation:

1 Enoch 5.8: 8 And then there shall be bestowed upon the elect wisdom, and they shall all live and never again sin, either through ungodliness or through pride: but they who are wise shall be humble.

1 Enoch 42.1-3:

1. Wisdom found no place where she might dwell;
Then a dwelling-place was assigned her in the heavens.
2 Wisdom went forth to make her dwelling among the children of men,
And found no dwelling place:
Wisdom returned to her place,
And took her seat among the angels.
3 And unrighteousness went forth from her chambers:
Whom she sought not she found,
And dwelt with them,
As rain in a desert
And dew on a thirsty land.

1 Enoch 91.10: 10 And the righteous shall arise from their sleep, and wisdom shall arise and be given unto them.

[davidmartin]

Ben i just could see a wisdom base that later got influenced by other trends within Judaism and the former was of a more radical variety and the latter less so and more accommodative to mainstream thought. if you could separate the branches within wisdom literature they won't be homogenous even within the same overall theology, and some of the most diverse differences can be found within the same school of thought it seems to me. i think that somehow diverse groups came to influence the development of Christianity that earlier would have nothing in common or even be of the same school of thought at all. something has to explain this massive disconnect. but i think the stuff seen in Matthew and Revelation is a later influence that get associated with the 'pillars' Peter and James and there is a wisdom tradition underneath it. The reason is that the early church wanted to appear completely orthodox in thought to the Judaism they were attracted to and the 'pillars' gave them this legitimacy. So the earlier Jewish phase is very obscured which the Odes represents. that's how i see it

[Ben C. Smith]

i think that somehow diverse groups came to influence the development of Christianity that earlier would have nothing in common or even be of the same school of thought at all.

For clarity, can you give an example of what you mean? Two or more diverse groups which influenced Christianity but which had nothing in common with each other?

[davidmartin]

i think that somehow diverse groups came to influence the development of Christianity that earlier would have nothing in common or even be of the same school of thought at all.

For clarity, can you give an example of what you mean? Two or more diverse groups which influenced Christianity but which had nothing in common with each other?

I guess i'm just a believer in the diversity of early Christianity that's visible in the 2nd c. went all the way back to it's roots
So you might have a bunch who leaned toward mainstream Judaism and others who maybe were not coming from such a background
Originally they'd have nothing in common when they were independent but once they started influencing Christianity they end up as different branches of the same religion. maybe this doesn't really help much

[mlinssen]

I guess i'm just a believer in the diversity of early Christianity that's visible in the 2nd c. went all the way back to it's roots
So you might have a bunch who leaned toward mainstream Judaism and others who maybe were not coming from such a background
Originally they'd have nothing in common when they were independent but once they started influencing Christianity they end up as different branches of the same religion. maybe this doesn't really help much

I think it's very wrong to think that there was one single perfectly homogenous and uniform version of Judaism, in fact it's highly unlikely that such was the case at any given point in time.
Name me one religious movement today that doesn't have dozens of offshoots?

It's evolutionary that diversity exists, that goes for any system. The only time when there's uniformity is at the moment of creation, birth, when we witness the coming into being of something that is such an extraordinary "offspring" that it's something new entirely

Take sports, politics, science, biology; different rules there because sports is very strictly regulated, politics not at all, and so forth. Religion? Take a look at Latin America and Africa and witness what happens to Christianity when you just dump it - it gets mixed with everything and everything mixes in a bit of it

So yes, diversity. Lots

[davidmartin]

I guess i'm just a believer in the diversity of early Christianity that's visible in the 2nd c. went all the way back to it's roots
So you might have a bunch who leaned toward mainstream Judaism and others who maybe were not coming from such a background
Originally they'd have nothing in common when they were independent but once they started influencing Christianity they end up as different branches of the same religion. maybe this doesn't really help much

I think it's very wrong to think that there was one single perfectly homogenous and uniform version of Judaism, in fact it's highly unlikely that such was the case at any given point in time.
Name me one religious movement today that doesn't have dozens of offshoots?

It's evolutionary that diversity exists, that goes for any system. The only time when there's uniformity is at the moment of creation, birth, when we witness the coming into being of something that is such an extraordinary "offspring" that it's something new entirely

Take sports, politics, science, biology; different rules there because sports is very strictly regulated, politics not at all, and so forth. Religion? Take a look at Latin America and Africa and witness what happens to Christianity when you just dump it - it gets mixed with everything and everything mixes in a bit of it

So yes, diversity. Lots

Yes exactly so in the NT itself various streams are seen
I'm not sure the earliest incarnation of the 'Jesus movement' directly wrote any of the NT texts
This explains the wide diversity of positions found in the NT and other early witnesses
I think the kind of theology exemplified by Matthew and Paul's opponents (the pillars) wasn't the original form, but Paul is closer to it
If that is so, then why is the former portrayed as the original form from what is seen in Acts, Galatians?

[mlinssen]

I think the kind of theology exemplified by Matthew and Paul's opponents (the pillars) wasn't the original form, but Paul is closer to it
If that is so, then why is the former portrayed as the original form from what is seen in Acts, Galatians?

I go to dance events. A lot. Well, I used too, before Corona: at least 10 days a year was the norm, but the more the merrier, with the epitome every year being a 5-day festival, https://www.psy-fi.nl/beautiful-people-2017. Gawds, that would have been only a few weeks ago

This festival right here is an execption to the rule: it is very carefully kept in the same place, it won't grow (only 15,000 people) and everything stays essentially the same. Last year was the first year that everything was strictly vegetarian, but that is it

Other festivals have come and gone, and witnessed the typical cycle of life: start small, grow big, explode, die out.
They start small, cheecky, with new music, new acts, new settings, new whatever. We have tons of festivals every weekend, likely every day, 365-a-year, and the Netherlands produce big names, big festivals, so if you want to stand out here - you better stand out

I visit new festivals every year, and some stick. Some don't. And some... go mainstream

Evolutionary is what happens next: they grow larger, from 5,000 to 10,000 to 20/25,000, popular DJ's suddenly appear to also be able to make the new kind of music, and I quickly find myself moving on to other places. Because it's shit, it's mediocre, it's grey, what it turns out to be: music for the masses, and it gets compromised-to-death

So, the same happened to Christianity: it went mainstream. With a bit of trial and error they shaped it for maximum purpose, maximum return-of-investment, maximum sex appeal. That took a few centuries, and then dogmas. Originality? What did that have to do with the price of tea in China

[MrMacSon]

I guess I'm just a believer in the diversity of early Christianity that's visible in the 2nd c. went all the way back to it's roots

I am too: at least I'm a believer in a highly diverse, pre-Irenaeus pre-Christianity ...

I'm not sure it had roots before the Marcion to Irenaeus period.

I think it's very wrong to think that there was one single perfectly homogenous and uniform version of Judaism, in fact it's highly unlikely that such was the case at any given point in time.

Yes exactly so in the NT itself various streams are seen
I'm not sure the earliest incarnation of the 'Jesus movement' directly wrote any of the NT texts
This explains the wide diversity of positions found in the NT and other early witnesses ...

So, the same happened to Christianity: it went mainstream. With a bit of trial and error they shaped it for maximum purpose, maximum return-of-investment, maximum sex appeal. That took a few centuries, and then dogmas.

I doubt Christianity was ever mainstream before the very end of the 4th century; before 385 AD/CE, at least; and even then probably only in Constantinople and surrounds, and maybe in the remnants of the olde Rome and a few other places in the East, eg. Asia Minor.

Key texts that have survived, eg. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Lactantius, & a few other 2nd and 3rd century texts, give the impression there was a Christianity before Eusebius,a and most if not all of the texts attributed to them [and others] are likely doctored to further 'the impression'.

^a as well as the many, many, many tropes about them since.

[mlinssen]

I doubt Christianity was ever mainstream before the very end of the 4th century; before 385 AD/CE, at least; and even then probably only in Constantinople and surrounds, and maybe in the remnants of the olde Rome and a few other places in the East, eg. Asia Minor.

Key texts that have survived, eg. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Lactantius, & a few other 2nd and 3rd century texts, give the impression there was a Christianity before Eusebius,a and most if not all of the texts attributed to them [and others] are likely doctored to further 'the impression'.

^a as well as the many, many, many tropes about them since.

I doubt along right with you. Mainstream happens when the management gets a very tight and firm grip.
Group - individual dynamics are interesting, everyone wants to be the alfa male. Among groups among groups (sic) they act the same: every group wants to be the alfa male

They establish their primary position by stressing their primary position (sic) and do that by claiming that they're strongest, smartest, oldest, etc

Good wine needs no bush, is a fine rule of thumb. And the infant Church is decorating themselves with so much bush that you can't see the forest for the trees

[EDIT: I'll pay closer attention to my fat fingers, too many typos, sorry]