Chrestians/Christians, Paul, the War, Titus, Valliant, etc.

[mlinssen]

If Jesus did indeed “return” to punish the Jews...then he must have returned as Vespasian and Titus.

• Blasphemy!

That wasa quote from Vaillant's book of course

[yakovzutolmai]

Valliant and Atwill seem fixated on some idea that there was some real Jesus person and he was a rebel, etc., blah, blah, blah.

I think that's all nonsense. However, they may have hit upon something that may have some merit. Namely, the idea that "Christianity" as we know it developed out of a pre-war militant messianic movement that was reformed into a peaceful messianic movement after the war.

A pre-war expectation of militant messiah who would come from heaven that was changed into the idea that this heavenly messiah was a bringer of peace.

My thinking has evolved out of this, so whatever its merits let me share where I now stand in relation to this idea. For and against.

My current thinking and genealogical construction of Christian beliefs is discussed here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10294

Nowhere do I mention the Flavian influence on Christianity, though there is room for it.

I perceive an Egyptian-Babylonian syncretism in the Transjordan active from the 30s-45AD. This period is ended by a distinct political crisis, which pivots around the death of Theudas. I would define "Christian" to mean the revelation of an eschaton, and the need for ritual purity in preparation. Thus, in the 30s and 40s, the people of Transjordan orient toward a messianic expectation. I suspect it wraps up around Theudas, who is succeeded by James and Simon.

The Egyptian element proposes a royal High Priest who might serve as the avatar of Metatron, and bring about unity between the rule in heaven and on Earth. The Babylonian element discusses the Watchers, "bad angels" and nations which worship them as gods, being the source of all problems in the cosmos, along with the warrior god being tasked to deal with these bad angels (Babylonian imperialism being the ongoing responsibility of Marduk - who is equivalent to Melchizedek - in keeping the bad angels down so the world may be ruled in an orderly way). Combined, you have the union of law and ritual with good order. The righteous High Priest who promotes the Law of Moses, shall inherit the power to deal with the bad angels. With the Jewish element, the Danielic messiah, a prophesied Jewish Alexander, you now have the eschaton.

What I have now realized is that the source of the "Christian" element: the revelation of the righteous priest-king, was pulled away from the East in a factional realignment, and brought West. This is the 45 AD defeat of Herod Agrippa, Lazarus Boethus and Theudas. So where the Boethus element lived within the Babylonian paradigm, now it moves over to the paradigm of the Alexandrian Jews. These latter are Middle Platonists, who inherit skepticism toward the material world, and see salvation in philosophy which reveals the spiritual.

Inserting the Christian element into Philonism creates a discrete and epochal revelation of spiritual truth, which is now not merely useful for spiritual growth, but enabling of a spiritual kingdom which, through proselytization, can heal the world and repair it spiritually.

This leaves two strains of latter Christianity: Gnostic and Western, eschatological and Eastern. These two eventually synthesize into Catholicism, one way or another.

What's notable is that the Eastern branch doesn't get on its own independent feet until the Kitos War catalyzes it in 116. The Western branch cuts ties with Judaism after bar Kokhba in 136.

This leaves us with the period of 45-116. For this period, I assume that the aftermath of 45 creates Jamesianism. Sicarii/zealot radical messianic Judaism. I also perceive that this system persists until its defeat during Kitos.

What's notable about Jamesianism, which is not a feature of post-116 Eastern Jewish Christianity (Elchasaitism, for example), is its association with a historical messiah. I perceive that Jamesianism developed from 50-65AD, and venerated Theudas specifically as the anticipated messiah. With a good argument that Bazeus and Helena were interpreted as a celestial couple (Joseph and Asenath; Joseph and Mary), Izates being the celestial son.

In order to explain this without sounding nutty, I note the robber kingdom of Anileus and Asineus, mentioned by Josephus, given a general geographical and temporal locus that appears believable. I would suggest this is the same as the territory of Izates and Munbaz after their embrace of radical Judaism. Thus, Jamesianism is almost the pseudo-state religion of this pseudo-state of zealot "robber" Jews of Mesopotamia. Hence the proclivity to identify the messiah come.

I have not mentioned what happens post 45 in the West, as the "Christian" element integrates with Philonism. I do propose this creates a lineage which ends in Rome in 136 with the writing of the gospel texts, the purpose of which is to cut ties with Judaism. The implication being this lineage considered itself Jewish.

It's perfectly consistent with all the evidence. This is the belief system of the Alexandrian Jews who do not require circumcision, promote gentile proselytes, and seek to promote Judaism as the universal religion of Rome and Middle Platonism. A Gnostic Judaism where the revelation of Christ is a special dispensation of Gnosis that will enable the building of an ecstatic spiritual kingdom focused on philosophy, amid the Roman polity.

Here is the space for the Flavians.

Titus and the Herodians, along with Tiberius Alexander, essentially package this particular interpretation of Judaism for Roman consumption. I think I could be convinced the gospel of Mark comes from this period and is meant as a clarion call for Jews (many of whom were attracted to the many Christian ideas of the time) to come over to this correct, Roman school which the remaining Herodians and Sadducees, elders of Alexandria promote as correct.

The project, of course, being interrupted by divine bad luck in the form of Vesuvius. Seeing that Domitian was obviously not interested in it.

Then, Mark becomes a basis for what eventually happens in 136. I assume that Mark never became widespread because it was meant to attend a dual effort by the Alexandrian Jews with the Roman state.

So, two conclusions visavis your original premise:

• The only branch of Christianity which identified a historic incarnation of the eschaton was Jamesianism, which was a flash in the pan and died in the Kitos War at the latest. There would be no theological bearing of this identification on the other sects, although I suspect it might have been relevant to the religion of Hatra.
• The Christianity we know derives from two separate branches, neither of which identifies a particular historical figure as the messiah. The Western describes Jesus as a flighted spiritual entity. The Eastern builds out a new revelation of the end times and proposes to wait until then.

Then, the abortive attempt at Roman universal Judaism takes an accidentally historical Jesus, and later uses him to claim an authoritative lineage distinct from the Jews. It's Tatian in particular who emphasizes historicity, bringing this Jesus to the East. I suppose the rest is history.