Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

[Ishtar]

Thank you, Seeker. I had no idea that Martin Luther King had written on the subject. I found this quote:

The Greco-Roman world in which the early church developed was one of diverse religions. The conditions of that era made it possible for these religions to sweep like a tidal wave over the ancient world. The people of that age were eager and zealous in their search for religious experience. The existence of this atmosphere was vitally important in the development and eventual triumph of Christianity.

These many religions, known as Mystery-Religions, were not alike in every respect: to draw this conclusion would lead to a gratuitous and erroneous supposition. They covered an enormous range, and manifested a great diversity in character and outlook, "from Orphism to Gnosticism, from the orgies of the Cabira to the fervours of the Hermetic contemplative."[Footnote: Angus, The Mystery Religions and Christianity, p. vii.] However it is to be noticed that these Mysteries possessed many fundamental likenesses; (1) All held that the initiate shared in symbolic (sacramental) fashion the experiences of the god. (2) All had secret rites for the initiated. (3) All offered mystical cleansing from sin. (4) All promised a happy future life for the faithful.[Footnote: Enslin, Christian Beginnings, pp. 187, 188.]

It is not at all surprising in view of the wide and growing influence of these religions that when the disciples in Antioch and elsewhere preached a crucified and risen Jesus they should be regarded as the heralds of another mystery religion, and that Jesus himself should be taken for the divine Lord of the cult through whose death and resurrection salvation was to be had. That there were striking similarities between the developing church and these religions cannot be denied. Even Christian apologist had to admit that fact.

Christianity triumphed over these mystery religions after long conflict. This triumph may be attributed in part to the fact that Christianity took from its opponents their own weapons, and used them: the better elements of the mystery religions were transferred to the new religion. "As the religious history of the empire is studied more closely," writes Cumont, "the triumph of the church will, in our opinion, appear more and more as the culmination of a long evolution of beliefs. We can understand the Christianity of the fifth century with its greatness and weakness, its spiritual exaltation and its puerile superstitions, if we know the moral antecedents of the world in which it developed."[Footnote: Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, p. xxiv.]

The only thing I disagree with King on is that Literal Christianity is an improvement on what went before. I think it's an empty husk now, bereft of its true meaning ... but that's just my own value judgement.

[seeker]

Seeker, I just thought it would be simpler when discussing whether or not Paul was a Gnostic to stick to the seven letters that most people agree are not forgeries - although there is some doubt with even some of those.

However, perhaps I should have been clearer on this, but I didn't mean that they could be used to prove the historocity of Paul or Jesus or anyone. I thought we were just using them just to show how a Gnostic interprets the teachings standing in their own right.

No worries Ish. I do think FM is just feeling a little overwhelmed. You are still my favorite shaman.

[rich]

Are there any actual Jewish writings prior to the Machabees?

[seeker]

That's a real difficult question to answer rich because when we talk about writings we have to speculate whether the oldest manuscripts represent the earliest dates they were written or whether they are simply copies of older texts. Personally I think that the earliest Jewish writings probably come from around the early 5th century BCE when Darius II started to invest in public building in the region.

That's a big part of the reason for the whole minimal-maximal debate is that you can make the case for a broad range of possible dates for authorship of various parts of the bible

[rich]

So - hmm - basically we can't really say the OT the way "we" know it is anything other than re-written during a greek influence - in other words it could even be made up or rewritten to suit the greeks from that time. We don't really know what - if any - was really Jewish mythology prior to that time.

[Minimalist]

That's a definite. The Book of "Daniel" was almost certainly written...or at least re-written in 167 BC while Antiochus IV was messing with the temple.

[rich]

So we don't really know (also) what the Jewish ideas of a messiah were - if any. Even their whole history could have been made up at that point and related to the Caananites.
The possibilities exist for them to have had the same idea for a messiah, no idea for a messiah, or a totally different idea for one.
And - without any actual manuscripts prior to that time - it lends all the more possibilities to it being reworked by gnostics or a culture leaning toward gnosticism. Or at least a re-interpretation of what their actual ideas were.
Soooo- if there was an actual messiah at the time of Jesus - and that is a big IF - it is possible to have been gnostic - OR - even a different mystic (and I mean mystic in the way of unexplainable - not scifi type) type belief system that would have enough similar beliefs to only appear as gnostic but yet actually be different.

[Ishtar]

I think it's all too easy to get distracted by all that stuff about demiurges, archons and aeons - it was a metaphor that meant something to people at the time, as was the story of the christ.

Martin Luther had it down when he said:

These many religions, known as Mystery-Religions, were not alike in every respect: to draw this conclusion would lead to a gratuitous and erroneous supposition. They covered an enormous range, and manifested a great diversity in character and outlook, "from Orphism to Gnosticism, from the orgies of the Cabira to the fervours of the Hermetic contemplative."[Footnote: Angus, The Mystery Religions and Christianity, p. vii.] However it is to be noticed that these Mysteries possessed many fundamental likenesses; (1) All held that the initiate shared in symbolic (sacramental) fashion the experiences of the god. (2) All had secret rites for the initiated. (3) All offered mystical cleansing from sin. (4) All promised a happy future life for the faithful.[Footnote: Enslin, Christian Beginnings, pp. 187, 188.]

What the Literalists deny is that there was a secret rite for the initiated for Christians, even though Jesus referred to it twice in Mark and so does Paul if you read him the way the Valentinians did. John the Baptist (an Essene) also referred to it when he said that he could only baptise with water, but one greater than him was coming who would baptise with fire.

In the Gnostic teachings, the first initiation is water and is called pyschic. The second initiation is fire, and is called pneumatic.

Rich - you said:

So - hmm - basically we can't really say the OT the way "we" know it is anything other than re-written during a greek influence - in other words it could even be made up or rewritten to suit the greeks from that time. We don't really know what - if any - was really Jewish mythology prior to that time.

We know Moses and the christ existed in their stories before 1 CE because it was at the core of Philo of Alexandria's teaching.

[rich]

Ishtar wrote:

We know Moses and the christ existed in their stories before 1 CE because it was at the core of Philo of Alexandria's teaching.

True - but we do not know what was written about Moses in the OT was actually written that way in the original writings. We can only know what was written after the Machabees - what manuscripts did they copy it from?? Or did they write it down from memory? Or make it up?
And further - you can have different beliefs based on "secret" knowledge - but that doesn't mean it is the same "secret" knowledge as the gnostics. It could just as easily be based on a different set of "secret" knowledge.
Even what Philo wrote was only what he believed and he could have been trying to "make peace" between the 2 concepts.

Understand Ish - I'm not saying this is so - only saying it is a possibility that we should be aware of until or if we ever find manuscripts earlier.

[seeker]

rich - We do have a few clues. For example one standard is to take the latest events referred to as an earliest possible date for the writing. This tends to lead to a fairly moderate time line similar to what Minimalist might advocate and actually the current mainstream.

A more controversial technique but one that is gaining ground is the minimalist notion of evaluating the political point of view the text advocates as a way of determining who wrote the bible. This leads to a fairly late timeline with most of the bible written in the Hasmonean period.

[seeker]

Ishtar wrote:

We know Moses and the christ existed in their stories before 1 CE because it was at the core of Philo of Alexandria's teaching.

True - but we do not know what was written about Moses in the OT was actually written that way in the original writings. We can only know what was written after the Machabees - what manuscripts did they copy it from?? Or did they write it down from memory? Or make it up?
And further - you can have different beliefs based on "secret" knowledge - but that doesn't mean it is the same "secret" knowledge as the gnostics. It could just as easily be based on a different set of "secret" knowledge.
Even what Philo wrote was only what he believed and he could have been trying to "make peace" between the 2 concepts.

Understand Ish - I'm not saying this is so - only saying it is a possibility that we should be aware of until or if we ever find manuscripts earlier.

Basically I agree though I do think we have some clues scattered around there is nothing definite, especially before the Maccabees

[Ishtar]

Do you guys totally reject the assessment of linguists like Frank Moore Crosse with their J and E writers?

[Minimalist]

What the Literalists deny is that there was a secret rite for the initiated for Christians,

Of course, in the first century there were Mystery Cults all over.

The Mysteries were thus cults in which all religious functions were closed to the non-inducted and for which the inner-working of the cult were kept secret from the general public. Although there are no other formal qualifications, mystery cults were also characterized by their lack of an orthodoxy and scripture.

Mithras (Sol Invictus) Isis, Adonis, Tammuz, etc. You see what we cannot know is whether or not the gnostic groups were equally "mystery based" in the first century...or before...and only later wrote their stories down as a reaction to the "scriptures" being produced by other groups. Before Constantine this would have been a free-for-all, roughly analogous to modern protestantism where there are competing sects which pay lip service to a central idea which have distinct differences between them.

[seeker]

Thank you, Seeker. I had no idea that Martin Luther King had written on the subject. I found this quote:

The Greco-Roman world in which the early church developed was one of diverse religions. The conditions of that era made it possible for these religions to sweep like a tidal wave over the ancient world. The people of that age were eager and zealous in their search for religious experience. The existence of this atmosphere was vitally important in the development and eventual triumph of Christianity.

These many religions, known as Mystery-Religions, were not alike in every respect: to draw this conclusion would lead to a gratuitous and erroneous supposition. They covered an enormous range, and manifested a great diversity in character and outlook, "from Orphism to Gnosticism, from the orgies of the Cabira to the fervours of the Hermetic contemplative."[Footnote: Angus, The Mystery Religions and Christianity, p. vii.] However it is to be noticed that these Mysteries possessed many fundamental likenesses; (1) All held that the initiate shared in symbolic (sacramental) fashion the experiences of the god. (2) All had secret rites for the initiated. (3) All offered mystical cleansing from sin. (4) All promised a happy future life for the faithful.[Footnote: Enslin, Christian Beginnings, pp. 187, 188.]

It is not at all surprising in view of the wide and growing influence of these religions that when the disciples in Antioch and elsewhere preached a crucified and risen Jesus they should be regarded as the heralds of another mystery religion, and that Jesus himself should be taken for the divine Lord of the cult through whose death and resurrection salvation was to be had. That there were striking similarities between the developing church and these religions cannot be denied. Even Christian apologist had to admit that fact.

Christianity triumphed over these mystery religions after long conflict. This triumph may be attributed in part to the fact that Christianity took from its opponents their own weapons, and used them: the better elements of the mystery religions were transferred to the new religion. "As the religious history of the empire is studied more closely," writes Cumont, "the triumph of the church will, in our opinion, appear more and more as the culmination of a long evolution of beliefs. We can understand the Christianity of the fifth century with its greatness and weakness, its spiritual exaltation and its puerile superstitions, if we know the moral antecedents of the world in which it developed."[Footnote: Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, p. xxiv.]

The only thing I disagree with King on is that Literal Christianity is an improvement on what went before. I think it's an empty husk now, bereft of its true meaning ... but that's just my own value judgement.

Sorry, didn't see this one.

I agree with you in the sense that the literalists lost all of the hopefulness if personal growth, preferring instead to believe that man is wretched and can do nothing without god's help

[rich]

Not rejecting - just saying the possibilities exist. Also - their assessments do indicate that there was more than one writing - don't they?