Archaeologica.org

OK, I'll ask again: Why are you (and possibly Doherty) dating a piece of fiction to something that happened historically?

I'm going to stop you right there, Ish because there is no point in proceeding from a false premise. Doherty begins (in the introduction) by stating "Once upon a time, someone wrote a story about a man who was God."

There can be no doubt that Doherty (and I) regard it as a work of fiction. The problem is that others thought it was "real." The fact that others, and I have shown you that Ignatius, a bare 30 years later, thought that fiction was reality gives us a starting point for the literalist tradition which, thanks to Constantine, became the orthodox view point and stomped everything else out of existence. That makes it important. It survived and your gnostics did not.

What is interesting in the period...and it is purely an intellectual interest... is how did the two groups with obviously divergent opinions...come to adopt the same character as the boss man? Philo does not attribute anything about jesus to his Essenes. While it is possible to trace the philosophy it is not possible to trace the man or the myth in the first century BC. At some point in history if the Essenes morphed into christians they accepted the notion of JC as the name of their god.

No matter how many times I consider the issue I keep coming back to the end of the Great Revolt as the likely time frame for this transformation.

You can separate mythology from history but you can't separate people from history.

Seeker, you should never tell a woman to relax Don't you know that?

But don't worry, I am relaxed. This is how I relax. Min and I often go on at each other like this .. you should see us when we talk on a certain other forum. It gets much steamier than this.

I guess I'm just sticking to what this thread was set up to do. It was to prove that Christianity began with Gnostic Christianity which can be traced back beyond the first century CE. Min's definition of Christianity is when Literalism begins, which goes against what this thread was set up prove and I believe, has proved.

I hope that makes sense!

Now I'm going to relax some more!

Min's definition of Christianity is when Literalism begins, which goes against what this thread was set up prove and I believe, has proved.

Ish...."christianity" requires a "christ." Your first century BC gnostics don't use that name. There is a metamorphosis somewhere in this timeline.

Ishtar wrote:Seeker, you should never tell a woman to relax Don't you know that?

Granted. What was I thinking?

Ishtar wrote:But don't worry, I am relaxed. This is how I relax. Min and I often go on at each other like this .. you should see us when we talk on a certain other forum. It gets much steamier than this.

I guess I'm just sticking to what this thread was set up to do. It was to prove that Christianity began with Gnostic Christianity which can be traced back beyond the first century CE. Min's definition of Christianity is when Literalism begins, which goes against what this thread was set up prove and I believe, has proved.

I hope that makes sense!

Now I'm going to relax some more!

No problem. We three have the love of a good argument in common even to the point of absurdity as Min and I proved in our WWII argument in another venue.

Minimalist wrote:
There can be no doubt that Doherty (and I) regard it as a work of fiction. The problem is that others thought it was "real." The fact that others, and I have shown you that Ignatius, a bare 30 years later, thought that fiction was reality gives us a starting point for the literalist tradition which, thanks to Constantine, became the orthodox view point and stomped everything else out of existence. That makes it important. It survived and your gnostics did not.

Er ... there's a very good reason for that. Literalist Christianity survived was because it killed Gnostic Christianity, which was its roots.. as I have shown.

If you are going to date Mark from the razing of the temple, that means that Gone With The Wind must have been written directly after the Civil War. It wasn't. It was written 90 years later. Or War and Peace was written directly after the Russian Revolution.... it was written 50 years later.

What is interesting in the period...and it is purely an intellectual interest... is how did the two groups with obviously divergent opinions...come to adopt the same character as the boss man?

They didn’t. Even Eusebius admits that the Literalists stole the clothes of the Essenes who were waiting for a Joshua to make his Second Coming. OK, he didn’t use the word ‘steal’, but in effect, he admits that the Gnostic Essenes had the story (albeit allegorical) before the Literalists.

Philo does not attribute anything about jesus to his Essenes.

As I said before, the Zadokites – who are associated with the Essenes, according to Origen, had a Jesus who was a Righteous Teacher who was betrayed by a Judas and crucified.

According to Hoeller in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian myth:

“The writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls regarded the Teacher of Righteousness as a new Joshua and his teachings as the Second Torah.”

Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 113 entitled: Joshua was a figure of Christ, refers to the Joshua of the OT 38 times in an effort to convince Trypho the Jew that the Hebrew scriptures are full of references to Jesus.

What the Literalists have tried to convince us about is that ‘these were prophecies’. They weren’t ... they were the same mythic story but told differently.

While it is possible to trace the philosophy it is not possible to trace the man or the myth in the first century BC. At some point in history if the Essenes morphed into christians they accepted the notion of JC as the name of their god.

No matter how many times I consider the issue I keep coming back to the end of the Great Revolt as the likely time frame for this transformation.

You can separate mythology from history but you can't separate people from history.

I’m just trying to trace the beginnings of Christianity to before Literalism, which was the purpose of this thread, and I believe that I've done that.

That fact that I have done that also proves without doubt that Jesus was not ever a literal figure.

I don't know why someone like yourself is not supporting that.

Minimalist wrote:

Min's definition of Christianity is when Literalism begins, which goes against what this thread was set up prove and I believe, has proved.

Ish...."christianity" requires a "christ." Your first century BC gnostics don't use that name. There is a metamorphosis somewhere in this timeline.

OK, I can sort that one out for you too. But first of all, I'm going to have my dinner.

If you are going to date Mark from the razing of the temple, that means that Gone With The Wind must have been written directly after the Civil War. It wasn't. It was written 90 years later. Or War and Peace was written directly after the Russian Revolution.... it was written 50 years later.

Simplistic.

Something resembling xtianity was established in Asia Minor by the early second century. It pre-dates the bar Kochba revolt so we cannot assign "Mark" a date after that. The gist of the story is present in Ignatius' epistle c 107...the same story which Mark wrote and which "Matthew" and "Luke" later expanded into their fairy tales. So we have narrowed the range from 70 to 107 which is not a very long time. Frankly, it seems too short for the various doctrines to have sprung up and that means that gnostic groups latched on to the Mark tale. Did it happen in Palestine? I doubt it. "Mark" does not seem to have ever been there and certainly was a little weak on Jewish customs. "Mark" also did not have a "resurrection" tale when first written. That was added on later to make it conform to the others.

So while you're gnoshing on steak and kidney pie....or whatever you Brits eat....you might wonder why a bunch of gnostics living in Asia Minor suddenly ( and 37 years is "suddenly" in historical terms ) decided to adopt the tale which "Mark" wrote and set in Jerusalem in the 30's AD?

That fact that I have done that also proves without doubt that Jesus was not ever a literal figure.

I don't know why someone like yourself is not supporting that.

I do support that. You're talking philosophy. I'm talking politics!

Min, I'm halfway through cooking my dinner which, in fact, pan fried tuna steak.

I have to ask - because I think your point is based upon a false premise. What makes you think that the Asian Gnostics were basing their beliefs on Mark's gospel? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

Ishtar wrote: I’m just trying to trace the beginnings of Christianity to before Literalism, which was the purpose of this thread, and I believe that I've done that.

That fact that I have done that also proves without doubt that Jesus was not ever a literal figure.

I don't know why someone like yourself is not supporting that.

I think there is a confusion of terms here. I could argue, for example, that Gnosticism came from Zoroastrianism but at some point the people who practiced it started calling themselves Gnostics and thought of themselves as distinct from Zoroastrians.

Likewise there was a point where Literal Christians became distinct from Gnostic Christians. There is no doubt that literal Christians borrowed heavily from Gnosticism but at some point a group of people decided to believe the literal story and discard the rest. Personally I think that must have been a point at which Christian leadership became professional and dependent on loyal parishioners to support them

We don't know that but Ignatius hits the high points of Mark's gospel in his letter.

As hinted at earlier....when Pliny questioned his xtians some years later it appears that they told him nothing of the creed...just that they adored christ "as if" he were a god.

Again, we only have parts of the story. One cannot dismiss pieces of evidence because they are inconvenient. We have no indication that mark's story existed prior to his writing it out. Ignatius, in addition to re-capping the Pilate routine and such, also seems concerned with making sure that bishops and deacons are obeyed. THAT sounds like the kind of shit that Irenaeus would have gone for in a heart beat.

Minimalist wrote:We don't know that but Ignatius hits the high points of Mark's gospel in his letter.

As hinted at earlier....when Pliny questioned his xtians some years later it appears that they told him nothing of the creed...just that they adored christ "as if" he were a god.

Well, that could well be your first Gnostic attestation of christ. Pliny is next to useless in what it tells us about these people. But he does provide that they had female deacons – so definitely not Literalists.

They were unlikely to be relying on Mark’s gospel, however, having plenty of their own. If anything, they may have been using the Gospel of Thomas which some scholars have dated to the same time as Mark, whenever that was. Thomas was always much more popular in the Asia.

Again, we only have parts of the story. One cannot dismiss pieces of evidence because they are inconvenient.

Why do you think I’m trying to?

We have no indication that mark's story existed prior to his writing it out.

I don’t think my Gone With The Wind comparison was simplistic. I fail to see how a piece of fictional writing can be dated to an event that it mentions in its fictional story.

So we’re attested Mark now to Ignatius’s letter? How do we know it is the Mark we know today, or even the one Iranaeus canonised? I think that’s unlikely.

Ignatius, in addition to re-capping the Pilate routine and such, also seems concerned with making sure that bishops and deacons are obeyed. THAT sounds like the kind of shit that Irenaeus would have gone for in a heart beat.

Yes, the Essenes and the Theraputae had bishops and deacons too ... and deaconesses.

seeker wrote:I think there is a confusion of terms here. I could argue, for example, that Gnosticism came from Zoroastrianism but at some point the people who practiced it started calling themselves Gnostics and thought of themselves as distinct from Zoroastrians.

You're right - we're quibbling over a name.

I just wanted to show Christianity's roots, and I'd just love if it someone could at least acknowledge that I've done that.

I fail to see how a piece of fictional writing can be dated to an event that it mentions in its fictional story.

The story is fictional but the datable event is the sacking of the temple. It also shows up in Ignatius which gives us a window of 70-107AD. Doherty's case for Mark being first makes sense. "Paul's" writings seem to be of a gnostic saviour existing on another plane. Interesting but no different from the other saviour myths of the time.

I see the end of the Great Revolt as providing the necessary stimulus for people to want to disassociate themselves from any sort of "Jewish" attachment. The Romans had spent a lot of time and money suppressing the revolt. They were not in a good mood and they still had a few more years of cleaning up pockets of resistance...not the least of which was Masada.

The dates I see for "Thomas" are all over the map...from mid first to mid second century. A little more work has to be done there.

Hippolytus wrote in his Refutation of All Heresies 5.7.20:

"[The Naassenes] speak...of a nature which is both hidden and revealed at the same time and which they call the thought-for kingdom of heaven which is in a human being. They transmit a tradition concerning this in the Gospel entitled "According to Thomas," which states expressly, "The one who seeks me will find me in children of seven years and older, for there, hidden in the fourteenth aeon, I am revealed."

The Nazarene sect are first mentioned in the Book of Acts chapter 24 verse 5 ... which I presume you're dating to 40 CE, as it describes the resurrection and so must have been written soon after it? Thus this dates the Nazerenes and the Gospel of Thomas to 40 CE.

Whaaaat?

If you think that's crazy, go back and look at your original reasoning for the date of 70 CE for the Gospel of Mark.

By the way, John the Baptist was a Nazerene - and he was definitely before Christ.