Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

[Ishtar]

That's interesting Seeker. So if I'm reading you right, the very earliest forms of Christianity were not Jewish (I meant the race of the Hebrews, btw, not the religion) at all but more sort of Mediterranean/Mespotamian/Egyptian? Have I got that right? That would account for the story of the dying and resurrecting godman called Jesus that is written about by Paul in the mid first century - but no other biographical details about him until much later. Also Paul didn't preach in Jerusalem although he famously went there and had a row with the Ebionites who were adoptionists. Even Marcion (a Docetist) said that his views were closer to what Paul really meant.

[Minimalist]

The "travels" of "Paul" are starting to look more and more fictional.

The whole idea of a "Jew" from Tarsus being sent to Damascus to persecute christians is pretty lame from the outset.

[Ishtar]

The "travels" of "Paul" are starting to look more and more fictional.

The whole idea of a "Jew" from Tarsus being sent to Damascus to persecute christians is pretty lame from the outset.

So what do we think of the following claim from dear old Iranaeus? I must say I'm beginning to have as much trust in anything than came out of that man's mouth as I did in Nixon.

Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185, stated that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would be in the 60s, and Luke was written some time later.

I think there's no evidence of either for them being in Rome, which puts the kybosh on that dating for Matthew and Mark. Am I right, Min?

[Minimalist]

Irenaeus is using legend to support legend. Not a solid tactic to my mind.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that anyone was "preaching" in Rome in the first century. Certainly, though, every mystery cult active at the time would have had some presence in the capital. What later morphed into christianity could well have been one of those.

Recall that the earliest fragmentary manuscript of "Paul" is the P46 papyrus and that dates from the late 2d - early 3d century AD...well after the time of Marcion.

[seeker]

That's interesting Seeker. So if I'm reading you right, the very earliest forms of Christianity were not Jewish (I meant the race of the Hebrews, btw, not the religion) at all but more sort of Mediterranean/Mespotamian/Egyptian? Have I got that right? That would account for the story of the dying and resurrecting godman called Jesus that is written about by Paul in the mid first century - but no other biographical details about him until much later. Also Paul didn't preach in Jerusalem although he famously went there and had a row with the Ebionites who were adoptionists. Even Marcion (a Docetist) said that his views were closer to what Paul really meant.

It also accounts for some of the bizarre geographical mistakes the the Gospels, like setting it in places that didn't exist in the first century. I think Paul's letters were really more about a failure to convince Jews that Christianity was a continuation rather than a corruption of their religion.

The Ebionites are a part of what must have been a very interesting phenomenon. When Christians co-opted the OT and started re-interpreting it some of those Christians decided that they could be even more sacred by following both religions (kind of like trying to lose more weight by being on two diets at the same time).

[seeker]

Irenaeus is using legend to support legend. Not a solid tactic to my mind.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that anyone was "preaching" in Rome in the first century. Certainly, though, every mystery cult active at the time would have had some presence in the capital. What later morphed into christianity could well have been one of those.

Recall that the earliest fragmentary manuscript of "Paul" is the P46 papyrus and that dates from the late 2d - early 3d century AD...well after the time of Marcion.

Mark references the destruction of the temple in 70AD which suggests he is at least that late. I've read arguments that actually date it after 135 and suggest that the reference was to the Bar Kochba revolt.

Paul could quite easily be fictional but I'd suggest that the absence of reference to the Synoptic gospels at least makes the 'Pauline' letters predate Mark. That still leaves a range from 70CE to as late as 135CE

[Minimalist]

Assuming that the letters of Ignatius of Antioch are not later forgeries, or at least tampered with... ( a very big assumption) the basics of the claims were established by 110 AD, some 25 years before Hadrian got pissed.

"Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, his Father having raised him up, as in the same manner his Father will raise up us who believe in him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_Trallians

[seeker]

Assuming that the letters of Ignatius of Antioch are not later forgeries, or at least tampered with... ( a very big assumption) the basics of the claims were established by 110 AD, some 25 years before Hadrian got pissed.

"Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, his Father having raised him up, as in the same manner his Father will raise up us who believe in him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_Trallians

It's a long way from that to the Gospel of Mark though. You have stated there the basics of Gnostic Christiandom (born of a virgin, eucharist, betrayal, death and resurrection). In the words of George Bush, "Where are the hookers?"

[Minimalist]

"Paul" never says anything about Pilate or virgins or David. Ignatius (who WAS on his way to be executed ) probably didn't have a lot of time to expand on things but the story is recognizable from what is in "Mark" as opposed to "Paul."

[Ishtar]

Assuming that the letters of Ignatius of Antioch are not later forgeries, or at least tampered with... ( a very big assumption) the basics of the claims were established by 110 AD, some 25 years before Hadrian got pissed.

Assuming that they are not later forgeries, you say. But it is difficult to trust anything about these letters, especially your extract which could have been purpose written by anyone wanting to discredit Marcion and the Docetists, or even the Gnostics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

By the 5th century, this authentic collection had been enlarged by spurious letters, and the original letters had been changed with interpolations, created to posthumously enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age, while the purported eye-witness account of his martyrdom is also thought to be a forgery from around the same time.

A detailed but spurious account of Ignatius' arrest and his travails and martyrdom is the material of the Martyrium Ignatii which is presented as being an eyewitness account for the church of Antioch, and as if written by Ignatius' companions, Philo of Cilicia, deacon at Tarsus, and Rheus Agathopus, a Syrian. Though Bishop Ussher regarded it as genuine, if there is any genuine nucleus of the Martyrium, it has been so greatly expanded with interpolations that no part of it is without questions. Its most reliable manuscript is the 10th century Codex Colbertinus (Paris), in which the Martyrium closes the collection. The Martyrium presents the confrontation of the bishop Ignatius with Trajan at Antioch, a familiar trope of Acta of the martyrs, and many details of the long, partly overland voyage to Rome.

And this extract from his Letter to the Magnesians is a pointed criticism of the Ebioniites, which could have been interpolated for the same reasons:

Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace.... If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny ... how shall we be able to live apart from Him? ... It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity — Ignatius to the Magnesians 8:1, 9:1-2, 10:3, Lightfoot translation.

[seeker]

"Paul" never says anything about Pilate or virgins or David. Ignatius (who WAS on his way to be executed ) probably didn't have a lot of time to expand on things but the story is recognizable from what is in "Mark" as opposed to "Paul."

That or he represents the beginnings of elaboration of the story (or its a later forgery). That's the problem with fragments like this, the references could be to a completely different document that presented a completely different picture but coincided on these things.

When you really think about it though, Christianity really starts with Paul, not Jesus...

[Ishtar]

That or he represents the beginnings of elaboration of the story (or its a later forgery). That's the problem with fragments like this, the references could be to a completely different document that presented a completely different picture but coincided on these things

Interesting fact from Bart Ehrman that ties in with Seeker's quote:

When John Mill, the Fellow of Queens College, Oxford, examined 100 Greek manuscripts of biblical texts in 1707, ranging in date from 2nd - 16th century, he found 30,000 variations. That's 30,000.

However, since then, more Greek manuscripts have been discovered - around 5,700. That's 57 times more than Mill examined in which he found 30,000 variations. And that's not even considering all the Latin Vulgate ones, plus those of the Eastern Orthodox church, plus those of all the early Church fathers ....as Ehrman says (with my bolding):

With this abundance of evidence, what can we say about the total
number of variants known today? Scholars differ significantly in their
estimates—some say there are 200,000 variants known, some say
300,000, some say 400,000 or more! We do not know for sure because,
despite impressive developments in computer technology, no one has yet
been able to count them all. Perhaps, as I indicated earlier, it is best
simply to leave the matter in comparative terms.

There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are
words in the New Testament.

[seeker]

Wake me when we get to the Synod of Hippo in 393CE

[Ishtar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo

The Synod of Hippo refers to the synod of 393 A.D. which was hosted in Hippo Regius in northern Africa during the early Christian Church. Additional synods were held in 394, 397, 401 and 426.

Some were attended by St. Augustine. The synod of 393 is most known for two distinct acts. First, for the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a canon of Sacred Scripture that corresponds to the modern Roman Catholic canon, including the deuterocanonical books classed by Protestants as "Apocrypha". The canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage pending the ratification of the "Church across the sea". Previous councils had approved of similar, but slightly different canons. Second, the council reaffirmed the apostolic origin of the requirement of clerical continence and reasserted it as a requirement for all the ordained.

OK Seeker .....go!

[Minimalist]

When you really think about it though, Christianity really starts with Paul, not Jesus.

Does it?

I'm not so sure that "Paul" ever existed. At best, he might be a composite figure. The whole thing seems to get pulled together in the mid second century. Marcion might be more responsible than anyone else.