Did the Church Fathers / early Christians care about historicity?

[Leucius Charinus]

Nestorius. 1. [Some] of them in fact say that the Incarnation of our Lord Christ took place in fiction and schema and in order that he might appear unto men and teach and give the grace of the Gospel unto all men. And, as he appeared unto each one of the saints, so in the last times he appeared unto all men.

If the author had been writing about Jesus in terms of being part of a "fictional story", you might have a point. But, as I pointed out a few times, he was writing about a fictional body and associating it with illusion.

Well I still don't understand that. If some people were to say that the incarnation of you or I is taking place in fiction and schema ( "shape", "figure", "outward, visible form") then what would that actually mean? What does a fictional body mean? What does a phantasmal body mean to an historical researcher?

In context we have Nestorius writing in the 5th century about the opinions of people on the incarnation of Jesus Christ who was long dead. Aside from public opinions, these opinions were formed based on a judgement of the contents of the NT story book. A book which had a century earlier become the holy writ, and who's orthodox followers had been written into the law codes of the Graeco-Roman state. Do you expect there to have been controversies over the Jesus figure during the 4th and 5th centuries?

Are the incarnations of any other figures of the ancient world described as "taking place in fiction and schema"? If so who are they and how do we understand their incarnations as compared to the NT Jesus figure?

So we are on the same page with history, fiction and myth in the ancient world, here is a provisional summary that I am using at the moment:

History = an exposition of true things that actually happened

Fiction = an exposition of things that did not happen (falsehoods) but could have

Myth/Fable = an exposition of things that could not have happened - remote from history and fiction - remote not only from the truth but also from the appearance of truth

[Jagd]

'he formerly spoke in parables'

He is eventually portrayed as speaking in parables.

Many of those parables are the same as or versions of the parables in the Gospel of Thomas.

Crossan mentions this (quoted by Carrier), something like: parables by Jesus become parables about Jesus.

If the earliest form of Christ was some kind of divine being, one that imparts divine wisdom and is some kind of salvific figure (in the mold of the salvific mystery religion figures) then the myths naturally sprout from this earliest form. These earliest stories seem to be basic episodes of him leading by example for the followers/initiates: speaking in parables, healing/exorcizing, being baptized, etc.

It was from this earliest form when we get the mystical Thomasine sayings (part of them, anyway - these were likely subject to edits as well, esp. to keep up with the Judaization) and the basics of the mystical Johannine Christology, which is why there's so much Hellenic thought and mystery religion elements in there. Logia + Acta, as Giuseppe puts it:

So I think that we find here the Papias's reference to logia meant, as Ken explained in past, not as mere Logia, but as Logia + Acta (possessive genitive: of the Risen Jesus).

The narratives were probably wildly nascent at this point. Following some evidence brought up by Giuseppe, it is possible that if there were any ending to these old stories, it would end with a transfiguration-apotheosis (a simple unveiling of divinity).

Over time, he is historicized (or, euhemerized) and Judaized (that is, fit into Judaic scripture, with the mystery religion features being remade into some eclectic messianism, and the simple mystery of salvation turned into a huge redemptive event based on "prophecies"). Paul seems to be in active around this time, penning Christ into relevancy within Judaism, while seemingly giving little importance to any historical reality or details surrounding Christ. The docetic, gnostic, and "proto-Orthodox" branch out from here.

Side-note: I am also fairly convinced that the pre-Judaized Christ was Khrestos/Khrestus (good, kind, useful, graceful). Notable to point out that the word χρηστός (khrēstós) is related to χράω (khráō), the latter meaning: "to consult a god or oracle, to inquire of a god or oracle, consult them". This seems to directly connect with the oracular nature of the Logia, esp. those that remain in Thomas.

[neilgodfrey]

Isn't that at least in part because 'he formerly spoke in parables'? Not sure you could openly 'solve' the mysteries that Jesus set forth.

The only "similitudes" or "parables" Justin speaks of are those of the Holy Spirit as it "revealed" the "story of Jesus" in the Jewish Scriptures. It was those Scriptures that hid the "truth" in parables. Justin has Jesus speaking very plainly to the apostles.

[gryan]

The Alexandrian early Christians seem to care much more about the incarnation of Christ as a divine being much more than him as a historical man. One of my friends just shared a quote from Clement, saying the Christ was neither male nor female lol.

Good you give a source for this claim about Clement please ?
It seems more like a paraphrase than something Clement actually says.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew, did you ever find an answer to your source question?

I'm interested too. Googling, I found this on wikipedia (but did not follow up on the citations):

Clement argues for the equality of sexes, on the grounds that salvation is extended to all humans equally.[37] Unusually, he suggests that Christ is neither female nor male, and that God the Father has both female and male aspects: the eucharist is described as milk from the breast (Christ) of the Father.[38][39] Clement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_o ... 2004184-39

[mlinssen]

The Alexandrian early Christians seem to care much more about the incarnation of Christ as a divine being much more than him as a historical man. One of my friends just shared a quote from Clement, saying the Christ was neither male nor female lol.

Good you give a source for this claim about Clement please ?
It seems more like a paraphrase than something Clement actually says.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew, did you ever find an answer to your source question?

I'm interested too. Googling, I found this on wikipedia (but did not follow up on the citations):

Clement argues for the equality of sexes, on the grounds that salvation is extended to all humans equally.[37] Unusually, he suggests that Christ is neither female nor male, and that God the Father has both female and male aspects: the eucharist is described as milk from the breast (Christ) of the Father.[38][39] Clement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_o ... 2004184-39

That's extremely interesting

Miscellaneous Coptic texts in the dialect of Upper Egypt
by Budge, E. A. Wallis (Ernest Alfred Wallis), Sir, 1857-1934; British Museum

https://archive.org/details/miscellaneo ... 0/mode/2up - line 15-14 from the bottom

BMis141_Crum.jpg (473.5 KiB) Viewed 1181 times

And the translation

BMis718_Crum.jpg (460.61 KiB) Viewed 1181 times

"...and my breasts became full of milk".
This is the exact Coptic word in Thomas: ⲥⲁ(ⲉ)ⲓⲣⲉ, that sits in logion 96 - the parable of the leaven first-milk

[andrewcriddle]

The Alexandrian early Christians seem to care much more about the incarnation of Christ as a divine being much more than him as a historical man. One of my friends just shared a quote from Clement, saying the Christ was neither male nor female lol.

Good you give a source for this claim about Clement please ?
It seems more like a paraphrase than something Clement actually says.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew, did you ever find an answer to your source question?

I'm interested too. Googling, I found this on wikipedia (but did not follow up on the citations):

Clement argues for the equality of sexes, on the grounds that salvation is extended to all humans equally.[37] Unusually, he suggests that Christ is neither female nor male, and that God the Father has both female and male aspects: the eucharist is described as milk from the breast (Christ) of the Father.[38][39] Clement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_o ... 2004184-39

I suspect the ultimate source is this

And the one whole Christ is not divided: “There is neither barbarian, nor Jew, nor Greek, neither male nor female, but a new man,” transformed by God's Holy Spirit

Andrew Criddle

[davidmartin]

Milk from the breast is everywhere in the earlier writings, across the board. I vote that it wasn't strange or unusual

Not just Clement, the Odes

they shall drink my holy milk and live by it

1 Peter

long for the pure milk of the Word, that you may grow thereby

"
Gnostics

He will drink from the milk of the mother, in fact. He will speak in parables; he will proclaim the aeon that is to come, just as he spoke in the first aeon of the flesh, as Noah

heck even Simon Magus was in on it

The second book has the title Exodus, for everyone who is born must travel through the Red Sea and across the wilderness, the red denoting blood, and taste the bitter water at Marah. This bitterness is that of the water beyond the Red Sea, referring to the painful, bitter path of learning we walk through life. But when it is transformed by Moses, really by the word, what was bitter becomes sweet. This is attested even by secular source, as witness the poet: “Its root was black, but the flower was like unto milk. Moly, the immortals name it. How hard for mortal to dig up, but for the gods all is child’s play.” What the gentiles say here is enough to give knowledge of the whole thing as long as one has ears to hear.

I think Revelation alludes as well with the pregnant woman about to give birth, next comes the breast feeding!
PS This maternal theology is very common and maybe it is a Jewish philosophical idea if the cerebral Greeks liked their perfect abstract forms Jews seem more earthy and happy to relate everything to the body we're familiar with to get the message across?

[mlinssen]

Milk from the breast is everywhere in the earlier writings, across the board. I vote that it wasn't strange or unusual

Not just Clement, the Odes

they shall drink my holy milk and live by it

1 Peter

long for the pure milk of the Word, that you may grow thereby

"
Gnostics

He will drink from the milk of the mother, in fact. He will speak in parables; he will proclaim the aeon that is to come, just as he spoke in the first aeon of the flesh, as Noah

heck even Simon Magus was in on it

The second book has the title Exodus, for everyone who is born must travel through the Red Sea and across the wilderness, the red denoting blood, and taste the bitter water at Marah. This bitterness is that of the water beyond the Red Sea, referring to the painful, bitter path of learning we walk through life. But when it is transformed by Moses, really by the word, what was bitter becomes sweet. This is attested even by secular source, as witness the poet: “Its root was black, but the flower was like unto milk. Moly, the immortals name it. How hard for mortal to dig up, but for the gods all is child’s play.” What the gentiles say here is enough to give knowledge of the whole thing as long as one has ears to hear.

I think Revelation alludes as well with the pregnant woman about to give birth, next comes the breast feeding!
PS This maternal theology is very common and maybe it is a Jewish philosophical idea if the cerebral Greeks liked their perfect abstract forms Jews seem more earthy and happy to relate everything to the body we're familiar with to get the message across?

Thank you David! That is very welcome. Any ideas on whether those distinguish beteen regular breast milk and colostrum, the very first breast milk that lasts only 1 to 3 days in humans?

[MrMacSon]

the word 'colostrum' applies to all mammalian first milk ie. cows, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats, etc.

[mlinssen]

the word 'colostrum' applies to all mammalian first milk ie. cows, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats, etc.

Yes indeed it does, but it lasts 1-3 days in humans or 2-5 depending on which source you rely on, but I wouldn't think that other mammals are of particular relevance in this context - yet I stressed that use nonetheless with that last phrase

To no avail, apparently