Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

[Minimalist]

How then can you compare anything it says to anything that happened in the real world and then make that a basis for attestation?

Because the Great Revolt DID happen and the Romans DID sack and burn the city of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Mark, in the guise of a "prediction" recounts the destruction of the temple. That's the start point...the earliest date when his story could have been written. Ignatius mimics the observations of "Mark" regarding Pilate and Mary and such and was executed c 107 AD. I'm following Doherty's theory that 'Mark' was first to lay this story out and that means that Ignatius' ideas had less than 40 years to develop. The ideas that Ignatius lays out are the basis for the literalist interpretation so that is the latest date.

Pliny gives us no idea what the group he questioned believed in. He tells us what they did not what they thought which he unfortunately dismissed by referring to it as "pernicious superstition." Had he elaborated a bit we might have known if he was dealing with a literalist or a gnostic group. But he didn't and we can only work with what we have.

[Ishtar]

We already know Mark didn't reach a final form until quite late, I think that some editor just basically hung events around a few supposed sayings and attributes to build Mark into the form we see now. Matthew and Luke just copy and embellish Mark while John appears to have copied Mark while drunk.

But there's a whole other theory that Luke and the Acts were written by Marcion ... of course, it's just as copper bottomed as any other theory about who wrote which gospel when ... in other words...not!

The whole subject area's a can of worms, if you ask me!

[Ishtar]

How then can you compare anything it says to anything that happened in the real world and then make that a basis for attestation?

Because the Great Revolt DID happen and the Romans DID sack and burn the city of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Mark, in the guise of a "prediction" recounts the destruction of the temple. That's the start point...the earliest date when his story could have been written. Ignatius mimics the observations of "Mark" regarding Pilate and Mary and such and was executed c 107 AD. I'm following Doherty's theory that 'Mark' was first to lay this story out and that means that Ignatius' ideas had less than 40 years to develop. The ideas that Ignatius lays out are the basis for the literalist interpretation so that is the latest date.

Does Ignatius quote the specific reference to the temple? I'm still suspicious about which version of Mark he had. Apparently, the two oldest copies we have of Mark are very different in places.

Pliny gives us no idea what the group he questioned believed in. He tells us what they did not what they thought which he unfortunately dismissed by referring to it as "pernicious superstition." Had he elaborated a bit we might have known if he was dealing with a literalist or a gnostic group. But he didn't and we can only work with what we have.

He calls them the Therapeuts in the essay I took them the extract from.

http://www.geocities.com/rabbishlomo/THEREPUTHAE.HTM

Nevertheless we must make the endeavour and labour to attain to this virtue; for it is not right that the greatness of the virtue of the men should be a cause of silence to those who do not think it right that anything which is creditable should be suppressed in silence; (2) but the deliberate intention of the philosopher is at once displayed from the appellation given to them; for with strict regard to etymology, they are called therapeutae and therapeutrides, {1}{from therapeuoµ, "to heal."} either because they process an art of medicine more excellent than that in general use in cities (for that only heals bodies ...

[Ishtar]

Here's some more about their spiritual practises from the same essay:

And the interval between morning and evening is by them devoted wholly to meditation on and to practice of virtue, for they take up the sacred scriptures and philosophise concerning them, investigating the allegories of their national philosophy, since they look upon their literal expressions as symbols of some secret meaning of nature, intended to be conveyed in those figurative expressions. (29) They have also writings of ancient men, who having been the founders of one sect or another have left behind them many memorials of the allegorical system of writing and explanation, whom they take as a kind of model, and imitate the general fashion of their sect; so that they do not occupy themselves solely in contemplation, but they likewise compose psalms and hymns to God in every kind of metre and melody imaginable, which they of necessity arrange in more dignified rhythm. (30) Therefore, during six days, each of these individuals, retiring into solitude by himself, philosophises by himself in one of the places called monasteries, never going outside the threshold of the outer court, and indeed never even looking out.

Thus they were Gnostic.

[Ishtar]

Here's an interesting extract from Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library ... 1_15_8.htm

The extensive commerce of Alexandria, and its proximity to Palestine, gave an easy entrance to the new religion. It was at first embraced by great numbers of the Theraputae, or Essenians, of the Lake Mareotis, a Jewish sect which had abated much of its reverence for the Mosaic ceremonies. The austere life of the Essenians, their fasts and excommunications, the community of goods, the love of celibacy, their zeal for martyrdom, and the warmth though not the purity of their faith, already offered a very lively image of the primitive discipline. It was in the school of Alexandria that the Christian theology appears to have assumed a regular and scientific form; and when Hadrian visited Egypt, he found a church composed of Jews and of Greeks, sufficiently important to attract the notice of that inquisitive prince. But the progress of Christianity was for a long time confined within the limits of a single city, which was itself a foreign colony, and till the close of the second century the predecessors of Demetrius were the only prelates of the Egyptian church. Three bishops were consecrated by the hands of Demetrius, and the number was increased to twenty by his successor Heraclas. The body of the natives, a people distinguished by a sullen inflexibility of temper, entertained the new doctrine with coldness and reluctance; and even in the time of Origen, it was rare to meet with an Egyptian who had surmounted his early prejudices in favor of the sacred animals of his country. As soon, indeed, as Christianity ascended the throne, the zeal of those barbarians obeyed the prevailing impulsion; the cities of Egypt were filled with bishops, and the deserts of Thebais swarmed with hermits.

I don't know why these writers from previous centuries didn't use paragraphs. Had they not been invented then?

[seeker]

The ideas that Ignatius lays out are the basis for the literalist interpretation so that is the latest date.

Just playing devil's advocate here but the details Ignatius gives are very sparse. His Mark may not have been the same as ours.

[Minimalist]

He calls them the Therapeuts in the essay I took them the extract from.

http://www.geocities.com/rabbishlomo/THEREPUTHAE.HTM

That essay is by Philo, not Pliny. Pliny is merely seeking to make sure that whatever the group he was questioning was that they were not DOING anything which was against the interest of the Romans. He does not seem to care about what they may have THOUGHT. He did not regard their meetings as inherently criminal activities and as long as they swore allegiance to the emperor he did not give a rat's ass about them.

I believe Ehrman deals with the (much) later denigration of women in the movement. Pliny does furnish proof that the early xtians were not quite the sexist bastards that they later turned into.

[Minimalist]

Does Ignatius quote the specific reference to the temple?

No, no....Ignatius says

CHAPTER 9
9:1 Be ye deaf therefore, when any man speaketh to you
apart from Jesus Christ, who was of the race of David,
who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and
drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was
truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven
and those on earth and those under the earth;

These ideas appear nowhere in the letters of "Paul" who was supposedly writing in the 50's....(but that is not convincing at all.) Doherty attributes them to Mark and other than the other gospels we have not a clue of anything earlier. Since we don't know when the other gospels were written either, the fact that Ignatius spells out the literalist position suggests strongly that Luke was written early enough to have spread to Turkey within 37 years (maximum.)

[Minimalist]

The ideas that Ignatius lays out are the basis for the literalist interpretation so that is the latest date.

Just playing devil's advocate here but the details Ignatius gives are very sparse. His Mark may not have been the same as ours.

Certainly likely, given the fact that "Mark" had to have the last dozen verses tacked on later. I wouldn't bet a nickle that the versions we have today bear any resemblance to the originals. Ehrman is fairly convincing on that score.

[Ishtar]

Sorry Min. I thought you said Philo.

I agree and as I said before, Pliny's sighting is next to useless.

[Ishtar]

Does Ignatius quote the specific reference to the temple?

No, no....Ignatius says

CHAPTER 9
9:1 Be ye deaf therefore, when any man speaketh to you
apart from Jesus Christ, who was of the race of David,
who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and
drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was
truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven
and those on earth and those under the earth;

These ideas appear nowhere in the letters of "Paul" who was supposedly writing in the 50's....(but that is not convincing at all.) Doherty attributes them to Mark and other than the other gospels we have not a clue of anything earlier. Since we don't know when the other gospels were written either, the fact that Ignatius spells out the literalist position suggests strongly that Luke was written early enough to have spread to Turkey within 37 years (maximum.)

But no temple being razed to the ground.

[Minimalist]

For your purposes, yes. For the historical perspective he does indicate that there were people calling themselves xtians in Turkey in the early second century and that some of them claimed to have a long association with the group.

It also indicates that xtianity was not known outside of Turkey and points East at that time which really does re-write the record book.

[Ishtar]

We've been here before. We're going round in circles.

I said that most Christians in Asia were Gnostics, according to what we know.

Well possibly. But most of Christianity in Asia was Gnostic.

As Paul is made to say in forged letters by the Literalists: "All Asia is against me." Gibbon wrote in the Decline and Fall that "the Gnostics covered Asia and Egypt, established themselves in Rome, and sometimes penetrated into the provinces in the West."

Also Smyrna is where Polycarp, about the same time as Ignatius, was railing against the Gnostics thus:

"The great majority of Christians embrace the idea of Jesus not living in the flesh."

I think, as I said earlier, is that you need to attest Literalist Christianity to when they started kicking the Gnostics out - seemingly about 140 CE, although Origen managed to hold on for much longer. But until the split with Valentinus and Marcion, there was no separate Literalist Christianity.

According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, Marcion was the son of the bishop of Synope and a consecrated bishop himself before his excommunication, and after that was hugely influential in Asia with masses of followers.

Valentinus was a follower of Theudas and Theudas, apparently, was a follower of Paul.

So this is all pretty mainstream - and they were allowed to remain in the fold until the split around 140 CE. So that should be the date for the start of Literalist Christianity, I'd say.

[Ishtar]

It also indicates that xtianity was not known outside of Turkey and points East at that time which really does re-write the record book.

I don't understand your reasoning on that.

[Minimalist]

Pliny does not seem to have heard of them prior to beginning his governorship at least with any specificity.

Prior to that his career had been as a lawyer in Rome (where apparently he never heard of any cases involving "christians") and, even more curious, in the early 80's he served as a military tribune in Syria. This would have been in the aftermath of the Great Revolt which was put down by the Syrian legions and yet, again, when he gets to Bithynia he hasn't a clue what to do with these people, hence his letter to the emperor.

Even more telling is Trajan's very measured reply.

Trajan to Pliny

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

Now, I ask you to look at it logically. Does this sound as if Trajan as a Roman aristocrat, has any idea that christians in the early 2d century were the crazed arsonists portrayed in Tacitus' Annals? Tacitus and Pliny were friends. Suetonius was a member of Pliny's staff. Tacitus either writes...or is made to write by later forgers...that there were multitudes of christians in Rome who were blamed for burning down the city during the reign of Nero.
You've already seem some of Ken Humphrey's work in dismantling the myths of "Paul" travelling to thriving xtian communities in Greece. I submit that if there were scads of christians in Italy and if they were rumored to have been implicated in the fire, that neither Pliny or Trajan would be quite so hesitant about cracking down on them. In particular, the italicized sentence would have been out of character. If they were truly suspected of being radicals the Romans would most definitely have figured out a way to write a "fixed standard" to dispose of them. Trajan was a military man. He was not a ninny.