Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

[Ishtar]

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.

But Polycarp is one of the earliest Church Fathers, and he detested Marcion and called him the devil.

[Minimalist]

Polycrap died in 155....right in the period I'm talking about.

Besides, these fuckers always call each other "devil" or "antichrist."

Pay it no mind.

[seeker]

Where shall I start? Up until the Synod of Hippo different Church's used their own bibles, collections of books but also books that the Church considers heretical now. Only after the Synod of Hippo were Gospels now regarded as Gnostic like the Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary et al actually excluded. In fact it was entirely possible to have a bible that consisted of only Gnostic gospels. Irenaeus used a bible called the Tetramorph. Marcion used some of Paul's letters and a Gospel (possibly an early version of Mark), he did not include the Hebrew bible.

Of course that only set the New Testament canon for the Western Church, the Eastern Orthodoxy didn't adopt the same canon until they had a revelation in the 5th century (bet you can't guess which book they added). Of course there was still the Church of England, Calvanists, Lutherans, and Greek Orthodox who all had slightly different canons.

The bottom line is that the bible you think of as the base for 'mainstream Christiandom' doesn't even exist until 393CE if you are Roman Catholic, if you are Protestant you have to wait for the Thirty Nine Articles in 1563.

[seeker]

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.

In the doctrinal sense Paul is the beginning (I agree he is probably fictional). When there is a conflict between what Jesus said and what Paul said, guess who wins.

[Minimalist]

James Bond always wins in the end, too.

WTH, its a novel, he has to win.

[Forum Monk]

The continued idea that Jews do not understand their own bible is ridiculous and borders on antisemitism. Since no two Christians interpret the bible the same, please give Judaism the same courtesy. /rant

Pattylt. You are putting words in my mouth as I never said they did not understand their own bible. To claim that the jews failed to recognize christ is hardly antisemitism. It is even more ridiculous since it is not I who said, it but Paul - a jew:

Rom 11
7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day."[d] 9And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever."

2 Cor 3
14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

2 Cor 4
3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake.

I'm not making this up as we go along. Interesting, though how you assert the jews knew and understood their scriptures. Many, many people forget that basic fact when they claim that many OT texts were allegorical or mythological when the jews themselves do not believe they were.

[Ishtar]

The fact is, there is no trace of orthodox Christianity within the borders of Israel until the fourth century. This is surprising considering that the basis of the Christian belief system is and was centred around a godman who was supposed to have lived and died and risen again in the part of Israel then known as Judaea.

Ignatius was in Antioch (Turkey) Polycarp was in Smyrna (Turkey), Justin Martyr was in Rome, Clement was in Alexandria and Iranaeus was in France. And Paul, if he did exist, wandered around mainly in Asia Minor and only allegedly visited Jerusalem once (but even this we're not sure about as his travels are recorded in letters that are known to have been forged in places - if not completely - and some of his stories are anachronistic.)

So the literary basis (purporting to be historical) for a Messiah-figure in Judaea called Jesus was put together by people based in Europe, Asia Minor and Egypt, and it was formally codified more than 300 years' after Jesus's supposed existence in Africa, by the Synod of Hippo.

Eusebius finally brought it 'home' to Israel on behalf of the Roman Emperor Constantine in the early fourth century, when he wrote the history of the Christian Church from his base in Caesarea on the coast of Israel between Haifa and Tel Aviv.

But even Eusebius — dubbed the Father of Church History — was most likely not from Israel. We don’t know where he was born, but his first mentor was Dorotheus of Tyre who he met in Turkey. And his next teacher was Pamphilus of Caeserea who only came there by way of Lebanon and Alexandria.

So the only group who seem to have been in Judaea at the time in question, when Jesus was supposed to have been there, or at least shortly after it, were the adoptionist Ebionites — whom second century Literalist Christians (like Ignatius in Turkey and Iranaeus in France) attacked in their polemics against them.

Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

[Ishtar]

I'm not making this up as we go along. Interesting, though how you assert the jews knew and understood their scriptures. Many, many people forget that basic fact when they claim that many OT texts were allegorical or mythological when the jews themselves do not believe they were.

But that's only the same as today's Christians, who also can't see any allegory or mythology in their scriptures, despite the fact that they can see from the gospels that Jesus taught in parables (another word for allegory) and he even explains in Mark why he did so.

It doesn't prove anything as, imo, the last people to understand their own religion are those that are in it.

They have to take so much on blind faith that it hardly puts them in a good position to argue objectively. How can they analyse the manuscripts thoroughly and dispassionately when they are told that the Bible is the Word of God? And how can they see their religion within the context of the known history of the geographical area when they have been told that they are special and unique?

Here's a little parable for you, Monk:

It's like the colour green. The colour green is made up of yellow and blue. But once the yellow and the blue are mixed up, the colour becomes green and there is no trace of the yellow or the blue.

Your whole argument so far has been based on the fact that no-one can see any yellow or blue in the colour green - therefore, you say, it was never there....even though we have historical evidence for yellow and blue in Judaea and close by at that time but, funnily enough, no evidence for the colour green.

[seeker]

I think what makes it so difficult for believers to really examine these questions is that they've invested so much in apologia in order to maintain their beliefs that setting all of those layers of rationalization aside is next to impossible.

[pattylt]

My apologies for the misunderstanding, FM. I have been told so many times that the Jews couldn't understand their own bible (ex-Jew here) that it is sore spot.

I actually believe that many Jews of that time were re-interpreting many passages of the bible and that mysticism was being greatly explored by many Jewish sects. The whole story of Jesus (not Paul's version) would not have been very unique or upsetting to many of the Priests of the region. Nor was he the only one espousing these ideas.

I think Kabbalah is a byproduct that survived from these sects, as is Christianity. The destruction of the Temple and the diaspora that resulted was a very strong influence on what ideas survived and which died out. Rabbinic Judaism that we have today is a product of this in ways similar to Paul's "version" of Christianity being the surviving product.

Jews may have always been somewhat dispersed but the post 70CE era radically changed Judaism, too. The "oral traditions" that accompanied the Torah was finally written down for a canon of beliefs to solidify Jewish belief just as the NT was. The group that canonized the Mishna determined modern Orthodox Judaism just as the canonization of the NT solidified the Christian Church.

Who really knows what was thrown out?

[seeker]

...or added in. The earliest complete manuscript of the Torah dates from the 4th century

[Minimalist]

How do we know that the Jews weren't written into the story in the mid second century to serve as the "bad example?" After the bar Kochba revolt, Jews were pretty easily the most vilified group in the empire.

As Celsus says:

"You are fond of saying that in the old days this same most high god made these and greater promises to those who gave heed to his commandments and worshipped him. But at the risk of appearing unkind, I ask how much good has been done by those promises have done either the Jews before you or you in your present circumstances. And would you have us put out faith in such a god? Instead of being masters of the whole world, the jews today have no home of any kind."

[seeker]

All manner of changes, redactions etc could have been introduced. The one thing we do know is that this is an era when Christians controlled almost all publishing and copying of manuscripts

[Ishtar]

And it would also explain why the Holy ROMAN Catholic Church had Pilate the barbarous tryant painted as a fair but slightly weak minded individual who had his hand reluctantly forced by the demands of the Jewish mob and the Sanhedrin.

The Romans even forged an Acts of Pilate (also known as the Gospel of Nicodemus)at one point, before everyone saw through it and chucked it out. Purporting to be an eye witness account of the trial, some of the scenes were lifted straight from The Iliad, with Pilate as Achilles and Joseph of Arimithea taking on the role of good old Priam begging the body of Hector.

[Minimalist]

Joseph of Arimithea taking on the role of good old Priam begging the body of Hector.

I always found it highly amusing that the same bunch of Jewish priests who broke every rule in the book by holding a trial on Passover would then be overly concerned about burying the body before sundown!

I mean really. Priorities, people!!