Ignatius As The Spark Behind Marcionism? Late Christianity? 165-175 CE

[yakovzutolmai]

I think that the introduction of Assyrian Israelites (Babylon Jews) from Nisibis to Galilee (Bathyra - "The lands around Damascus") led to an explosion of theological speculation due to the reintroduction of Israelite beliefs which the Jewish monotheizers had redacted over the centuries.

Interesting. Does this introdution date to second century ?

Zamaris the Babylonian Jew, ca. 20 BCE (Antiquities XVII 1:1-3)

In Simonian beliefs, this man is Simon Magus, and his consort Helen the whore. They do ascend, become giants, Logos and Sophia. This parallels, clearly, what I believe was the original doctrine.

Hence do you think that Simon Magus was the original historical Jesus? (I am assuming that you are adopting an instance of the historicist paradigm, after all: from the man to myth).

For now, I think that Dosithean and Nazorean faiths mingled during the "Baptizer" movement, and Simonianism is a Samaritan mimicking of what we call "Elchasaite Christianity". As if the Samaritans are paralleling the theological development. I think Simon Magus is either inserted into Acts late, to explain Simonianism away, or else he was simply a Samaritan copycat of the James community.

I think that one product of the Great Awakening history attributes to John the Baptist, is the progenitor of Christianity.

Can you explain better this point, please? Are you saying that John the Baptist is the historical Jesus?

My current hypothesis is complicated. First I will explain the theological evolution, then I will talk about the historical persons.

I think there was no "John the Baptist", but rather some version of the Essene's allegorical teacher becomes the symbol of the Great Awakening. I think it was a Great Awakening since I think the Samaritan mystics, the Nazoreans, the Essenes all contributed to it. Also, there was never one single sect in control of it. I think it had to do with political frustration over the temple in Jerusalem and both the Herods and the Jewish elites who controlled it. Old Israelite theology was invoked in some cases to even say the temple used the wrong calendar, or even worshipped the wrong being.

Proto-Christianity, let's call it the James community, arose out of the region between Galilee and Damascus, among Babylonian Jewish settlers, as their community's response to the "Baptizer" awakening. That's my hypothesis.

As for John the Baptist, I actually do think he was the historical Jesus. As I said, I don't think there was a John the Baptist leading the awakening. Rather, I think it is Theudas who is the historical Jesus. My reason for saying this is most closely supported by identifying Theudas as the only historically known candidate who could be the brother of James and Simon - who are historically identified as the sons of Judas of Gamala. The hagiography has Jesus, James and Simon as sons of Alphaeus.

The simple version of my hypothesis is that Theudas had Jesus's ministry (including the geography and content of the teachings), but John the Baptist's death. The synoptic Jesus had Simon bar Giora's crucifixion - and this Simon may have been the same third son of Alphaeus. As for why Theudas's story was moved to the 30s - politics. Theudas's movement is caught between the rule of Herod Agrippa and Tiberius Alexander. It may have represented a power struggle. I think the Herodians and Flavians are responsible for Mark, and they would have moved the story to the 30s where the disgraced Antipas and Pilate could be villains.

In the history we have Theudas -> James -> Simon. If Jesus is Theudas/Simon, and is moved back to the 30s, then "John the Baptist" is invented to do something with Theudas's own historical death. I think the John character already existed in allegory, not historically, so they made him real and gave him Theudas's death when writing Mark.

I cannot say whether the Elchasaites are exactly the same as this "national cult", but I would say that the "national cult" is responsible for the general belief system of the various "Jewish Christian" sects of the Transjordan and Upper Mesopotamia. That is, the Elchasaite beliefs should be seen as an expression of the beliefs of the James community.

is there evidence of the name 'Joshua' being first used for the deity adored by this cult?
If they were anti-YHWH, how did they deal with the meaning of Joshua as 'YHWH-saves'?

Marcionism is slandered as anti-Yahweh. I'm assuming we have to look at Valentinian Gnosticism, which took Greek ideas such as the Demiurge and associated it with God or the gods of the world. Perhaps later Marcionism may have merged Valentinian beliefs with Elchasaite beliefs, using synoptic or Pauline texts for context.

I wouldn't think the Elchasaites are anti-Yahweh. Rather, to them Yahweh is old news, with the world reflecting the governance of a new Adam and so forth.

As you have said, what is relevant is that the Gospel of John comes across as anti-anti-Yahweh. This does not mean there was a consistent anti-Yahweh doctrine, but it does mean that these sects did not recognize Yahweh as the monotheistic supreme god.

Finally, as for the term "Elchasaite", it comes from Western ignorance of the faith. The context for the faith is missing, and one cannot say if it is a sect, a doctrine, or simply a label. There is a book of Elchasai, but might it not have been simply another pseudepigraphical text for Jewish Christians, rather than a core doctrine?

I use the term loosely, meaning "the Eastern Jewish Christianity derived from what we see in the James community." I speculate it was the national religion of Jewish Adiabene. I say this because it appears as if Osroes I - a Parthian usurper - was an Adiabenian King. And the Jews of Mesopotamia rose up against the Army of Trajan during the Kitos war to support the reign of Osroes. This is remarkable. Perhaps he was "Jewish" or rather, Elchasaite.

The term is interesting. It could almost mean "El Chi", or "The Crucified God". The prophet Elchasai being Christ. That, however, is the purest of speculation.

[Giuseppe]

As for John the Baptist, I actually do think he was the historical Jesus. As I said, I don't think there was a John the Baptist leading the awakening. Rather, I think it is Theudas who is the historical Jesus.

in this, you have a precursor: Georges Ory.

they would have moved the story to the 30s where the disgraced Antipas and Pilate could be villains.

good point.

I think the John character already existed in allegory, not historically, so they made him real and gave him Theudas's death when writing Mark.

do you think that this previous allegorical John was someway connected with an anti-YHWH figure ("anti-" even meant in a more mitigated form)?

Only a question (by now): What do you think about Paul (person + epistles) ?

[yakovzutolmai]

As for John the Baptist, I actually do think he was the historical Jesus. As I said, I don't think there was a John the Baptist leading the awakening. Rather, I think it is Theudas who is the historical Jesus.

in this, you have a precursor: Georges Ory.

I would disagree with Ory. Notice how I use the term Great Awakening. I think the movements are in parallel, sharing the same setting and time, sharing each other's enthusiasm and some ideas, but that the Samaritan movements are distinct from the proto-Christian. Nevertheless, Ory's hunch that this is where the truth must be found is something I'd have to agree with.

they would have moved the story to the 30s where the disgraced Antipas and Pilate could be villains.

good point.

I think the John character already existed in allegory, not historically, so they made him real and gave him Theudas's death when writing Mark.

do you think that this previous allegorical John was someway connected with an anti-YHWH figure ("anti-" even meant in a more mitigated form)?

No, I think John is a composite of the Samaritan "Taheb" and the Essene "Teacher of Righteousness". I don't think there was a historical John until Mark applied Theudas's death to this allegorical character.

Taheb might be anti-Yahweh. I believe the ancient Israelites worshipped Ba'al Hadad. I think Solomon is based on Hadad myths. I think "Israel" is even a name they used for Hadad. He would also be the earliest type that later becomes Christ of the Elchasaites. What I think probably happened was that the Levites had a competing priesthood of Yaw, and after a conflict with the Aaronites, the Levites won. They incorporated the Aaronite priesthood into their own system, and created Yahweh so that Yaw could share elements with Hadad, Dagon, Koze and so forth. The clash between these priesthoods may be why Judaism became monotheistic, in that the Levite's compromise was to say that every god was Yaw. It's exactly what Buddhism did when it encountered Shinto in Japan.

I don't think the Samaritans or the Israelites had a Moses. I think that was exclusive to Jerusalem temple, which was a junior temple to Shechem and had experienced more direct contact with Egyptian administration in the past.

Thus, the Samaritans, although forced to accept the Pentateuch (in the same way Christians were forced to embrace Mark) by its popularity, didn't have a Moses. Rather, a Taheb. Perhaps Aaron was a precursor. Maybe this is why the Pentateuch writers made Moses and Aaron into brothers.

So, if Aaron is a Taheb representing Hadad, who is in conflict with Yaw, then Samaritan mysticism might be expected to have anti-Yahweh elements.

However, I think the entire concept of anti-Yahweh is more relegated to the conflict in Asia between Marcionism and what we call orthodoxy. In the first century, Jews probably accept the Pentateuch (if not, then they would just worship Hadad and Atargatis directly, as did the Arabs). So if they embraced the folk elements of Israelite religion, it would probably have been through mysticism.

In this sense, the mystical tradition is not "anti-Yahweh" inasmuch as it is a secret path to become like Yahweh. We do see that this group was playing games with the Metatron character in terms of arguing that secretly Metatron was God, and that Yahweh's throne was otherwise and empty chair.

Only a question (by now): What do you think about Paul (person + epistles) ?

This is not something I am so familiar with. My ideas come from a study of the East and its relationship to Judea.

I have a few reasons to think the Pauline epistles - the authentic ones - were written after 70 AD. Paul speaks of James as if Paul's audience already views James in a mystical role of Christ. For instance, the use of the word "pillar", according to Eisenmann, relates to Jewish mysticism. I relate it to this Christ-like figure who literally upholds reality through mystical power. I would believe that James was a political and not a religious figure, that there wasn't a Jerusalem church at all. I think James was given a mystical role after his death, and then his life was reimagined as a religious leader. I also thing this whole debate about Aretas might imply that Paul's letters depend a little on Josephus's history.

Right now I feel as if Paul was written in the 80s or 90s as a reaction to Ebionite beliefs. And that the Pauline letters are successful in persuading the Jews of Asia and Rome against believing in them. Again, this is why I think Ignatius is important as the one who brings back these beliefs. Christianity was pushed out of Asia by the Pauline letters, but Ignatius brought it back and the Philonic Jews were forced to embrace Paul as a compromise position.

I don't have a full understanding of these characters, but Tertius and this kind of person strike me as the actual authors. I think they are pretending to be Ananus ben Ananus. Jesus ben Ananus would be the "Banus" of Acts.

What the Pauline letters are trying to do is make Ananus - who killed James - come off as more sympathetic and reasonable. But then, in the end, although Paul makes concessions to "Ebionite" doctrines, he brings it back into a frame that supports the ideology of Philo which I believe the Ananians supported.

In other words, Paul is pretending to be Christian, in order to convince Christians not to be Christian. It is people in the 90s saying, "Hey look we found these documents from the 50s and look what they say. Paul wasn't such a bad guy after all, and it turns out the Ebionite understanding is wrong."