Zamaris the Babylonian Jew, ca. 20 BCE (Antiquities XVII 1:1-3)Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:53 amInteresting. Does this introdution date to second century ?yakovzutolmai wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:42 am 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.
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.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:53 amHence 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).yakovzutolmai wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:42 am 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.
My current hypothesis is complicated. First I will explain the theological evolution, then I will talk about the historical persons.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:53 amCan you explain better this point, please? Are you saying that John the Baptist is the historical Jesus?yakovzutolmai wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:42 am I think that one product of the Great Awakening history attributes to John the Baptist, is the progenitor of Christianity.
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.
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.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:53 amis there evidence of the name 'Joshua' being first used for the deity adored by this cult?yakovzutolmai wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:42 am 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.
If they were anti-YHWH, how did they deal with the meaning of Joshua as 'YHWH-saves'?
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.