A book on first and second century Christian communism using David Graeber's work

316 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dave B
Offline
Joined: 3-08-08
Jun 8 2017 18:58

As to the oil thing it was probably meant to be symbolic.

In Judaism, the Jewish Messiah "the anointed one"),often referred to as "King Messiah" [7] is expected to descend from King David and accomplish the unification of the twelve tribes[8] into a re-established nation. The Jerusalem Temple's rebuilding will usher in a Messianic Age[9] of global peace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah

I seem to remember from the old testament that the kings of Israel or whatever were anointed with oil as part of the ceremony?

I think it is likely that Judas was given the name Iscariot later from the term Sicarii.

Ie Judas the back stabber etc?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii

the sins of the fathers also appears in;

Numbers 14:17

18The LORD is slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generations.'…

http://biblehub.com/numbers/14-17.htm

Deuteronomy 5:9

9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+5:9

I think there is some pull back from that in Ezekiel.

But there is no shortage of contradictions in the old testament.

As to the acts 5 thing; yes that is in my top five of crappy things in the gospel and acts list.

Without wanting to seem to ‘apologise’ for it; it is more interesting that they didn’t or resisted going as far as blaming or crediting God for it which must have been an almost irresistible temptation.

I also don’t want to go so far as saying that some of Roman’s Jesus movement didn’t include people who understood it in the context of a national liberation movement.

As with previous Old Testament tradition.

With the resistance to Hellenisation.

That is the Hellenisation and Greek culture that never existed in Palestine according to Roman?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabees

Actually old testament stuff on the afterlife, heaven, hell and Satan compared to Gospel stuff was a bit patchy and non central; although you can find it if you look hard enough.

The general idea was the concerns with earthly here and now materialism suck up to the jealous god and he will reward you or if not shit on you.

Which wasn’t that different a perspective to the ‘Hellenic’ pagan thesis.

The pagan ‘Hellenic’ take on Judaism was understanding.

The Judaic god was just one of many local national deities in the pantheon.

The Jews were thus confused as a result of national chauvinism.

Otherwise they liked and respected as a better literally documented religion than most.

Hence Vespasian picked up on it.

The killer when it comes to dating the gospel material is the prophesy that JC would come back within a generation.

That never happened and even though early Christians were stupid you could say you don’t write down prophesies that never happened.

You write down a prophesy when it was still possible.

There is connected material on that in ‘Peters’ epistle that excludes Peter as the author.

And the addendum to the gospel of John which suggests that it was also without the addendum 1st century.

My take on it is that the original version of the prophesy was about that would happen within a generation of the re-establishment of the Jewish state- the fig tree thing that is still wrapped around it.

That would also be more consistent with orthodox second temple Old Testament stuff.
Or in other words it was re written in the 1st century to keep spirits up.

I must admit I am embarrassed.

You see these Christians banding about there battered well thumbed bibles to demonstrate their faith etc.

Mine is falling to bits.

As is ‘my’ volume III of capital.

I borrowed volume III of capital an volume II, unread of course, from someone in 2003 and the git has moaned to someone else that I kept it and wants it back!

Volume II is still in pristine condition; it is shit.

I have just tipped a glass of wine over the keyboard so am going to send whilst I can.

Dave B
Offline
Joined: 3-08-08
Jun 8 2017 19:25

It looks like I am still ok a bit?

So we have something else as well!

12"In that day I will carry out against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. 13"For I have told him that I am about to judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knew, because his sons brought a curse on themselves and he did not rebuke them.…

http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/3-12.htm

when it came to the justification of slavery in the southern US in the 19th century they used something like this.

Can’t remember exactly what it was; I might try and findd it later.

Probably going to OCR the SPGB library copy of Wietling and get around copyright problems.

Dave B
Offline
Joined: 3-08-08
Jun 8 2017 20:52

muy key b0ord is shit off line njkw

gdd has punishek n6ee

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Jun 9 2017 07:18
Noa Rodman wrote:
I guess you refer to the Damascus document. Just googling it brought me to a book by Ole Filtvedt (p. 139 The Identity of God's People) that argues, as you acknowledge, that "renewal" means something different than "new".

I speculated that a part of the gentiles (inspired by diaspora Jewish communities) could have preferred that their new religion stay closer to the original Judaism, ie they would tailor what Jesus said according to their agenda. They might even have considered themselves to be Jews, like some English did I think in the 17th century.

For the theologians the ones Iisted publish almost exclusively in history and NT scholarship, not academic theology. But I mean I could basically list everyone in historical Jesus and early christianity studies and they will ALL dissmiss mythecist theories as rediculous.

The actual Word used is "New" as far as I can tell, by the way, it's not only the Damascus document, it's in other Jewish literature as well. By the way, renewal is also, if you read it closely, the theology of Paul as well.

I do find it strange however that a bunch of gentiles were privy to all the pharisaic arguments that were only written Down later in the Mishnah? Which Jesus was obviously privy to and took part in?

Your conspiracy theory is getting stranger and stranger; what that means is that the writers of the gospels were geniuses in understanding Judaism, AND they wanted to keep Judaism, but they kept undermining themselves all over the gospels as well.

The gospels record Jesus' teachings and actions and then tailor them, which ends up With some tensions ... why would they ADD those tensions in and then try and smooth them over if they were just making it up?

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Jun 9 2017 07:37
Dave B wrote:
One; is Roman’s theological argument, and that is I think that the Jesus movement was an evolutionary development out of pre-existing Judaic ideology?

And ‘my’ position that is was not that; but a revolutionary overturn and rejection of pre-existing Judaic ideology triggered by new realities for which the old pre-existing Judaic ideology could no longer satisfy as a ‘rational’ analysis.

The standard Marxist approach on that is, as with Fred, is that in those circumstances there are two possibilities.

One is to ditch the whole set of the old pre-existing ideologies and start with something completely new.

The other more common approach is to re work, re-interpret or re-frame things whilst still drawing on old stuff.

My approach is NOT a theological approach, it's based on the best evidence we have from the earliest documentation.

It was evolutionary out of Judaism, Jesus was a jew, he worshiped at the temple, he quoted Jewish scripture ALL the time, his framework was based on Torah, eschatology, and righteousness traditions. There is no way around that, unless you just ignore the evidence.

Whatever Your approach is based on it must FIRST be based on the evidence, then afterwords you can examine the evidence through whatever framework.

I have no problem With historial Jesus scholars using the Tools of Marxism, I have done so some times (using early Marx's commodity Fetishism is a great tool for some of Jesus' teachings for example).

The problem With Your approach is you basically have to throw out all of Q and Mark, i.e. the best and earliest evidence we have.

Quote:
So my hypothesis is that JC did in fact turn old Judaic ideas on their head but you needed an ideological framework to invert in the first place.

So I am going to go where Roman is, and do a theological analysis?

I hope he is not going to say I have not read enough books on the subject.

So Roman says I think that the Jesus movement was rooted in Jewish Nationalism.

[But there is the JC movement and JC as understood by others.]

Mattew 28

14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Mark 13:10
And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all the nations.

There are some others but that will do for the moment.

Quite to the contrary from theological reading of JC himself he was not Judaic centric?

In fact, from my perspective, the Jews would get offered the first bite of the cherry as these things went and would reject it and be cursed like the fig tree.

Roman seemed to accept that interpretation; and there is the parable about the putting new wine [ideas] into old wine skins [Jews] was at least a favourite meme of Marcion.

But it runs much deeper and ‘turn on its head’ stuff than this.

The Judaic god was a tyrannical ‘tough love’ parent child abuser; a projection and ‘transference’ of parent child relations that is all too familiar to people hacked off with modern Christianity.

In fact modern Christianity is a return to its prototype old testament forms.

If you were oppressed or suffering or even physically ‘Ill favoured’ in one way or another it was God’s punishment, as a loving parent that is.

So we have;

Exodus 34:6-7New International Version (NIV)

6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

People who are familiar with this kind of thing directly or indirectly, without projection or transference understand it well enough!

Whilst being thrashed, or stoned, by someone out of ‘abounding in love’, to save them from themselves.

So then was JC of this kind of ilk, and Marcion incorrect, in saying that JC was not hypocritical in his ‘abounding in love’.

It is clear I think that people hacked off by their inferior social position didn’t like the idea that it was their own fault or the fault of their parents.

We actually have the same ideas now.

So if you are a grunt and refuse collector it is because you parents were shits and spent too much time in the pub and you didn’t try hard enough in school etc.

We have an ‘economic’ meritocracy to explain suffering and oppression whilst the Judaic religion had a theological meritocracy.

Just as Marxism overturned the concept of capitalist meritocracy and raised the oppressed to the status of heroes.

JC raised the status of the oppressed to the ‘blessed’ and subject of God’s love.

That was the real blasphemous shit as far as the Judaic state religion was concerned.

The healing of the sick etc is just looked at as some extraneous impressive ideological magic.

Theologically, if you believe it which is neither here nor there, for the Judaic religion it was worse than claiming to be the son of god as it was undoing God’s punishment.

Doing it on the Sabbath day was just rubbing salt in the wound.

There were probably loads of seminal stories of working class struggles running around at the time; and I think this one just kicked off and we know about it because it ticked ‘all the boxes’.

You are right about Jesus kind of doing a "turning on the head" of some ideas from Judaism; however we have to be careful here.

The "to the nations" part is still a part of Judaism, you'll remember that Abraham was to "bless the nations" through his offspring, and that in later Prophetic tradition the nations were to follow the Jews and turn to Yahweh (Zechariah 8:23 is a good example of this).

The saying of Jesus is just that, the "gospel" i.e. the message that the Kingdom of God that is going to destroy the Powers and rulerships of this world and establish a New order of justice is hear, will be proclaimed to everyone.

Aslo there was no ONE Picture of God in Judaism, the God of the Priestly traditions was different than that of the Dueteronomic tradition, the God of Isaiah was different than the God of the Kings.

Jesus spoke of Gods vengence and destruction of the unrighteous, you may not like it, but that's IN the historical material, now YOU may choose to reject it, but that's not something you can bring into historical Jesus studies.

You can't assume there was one Judaism, there wasn't; Compare the Mishnah, to Joesphus, to the DDS, to Philo, to the Wisdom literature ... it's all different, there are Things tying them together sure, but they don't have ONE Picture of God.

Marcion rejected the vengeful God, but it's obvious Jesus didn't, it's also obvious that Jesus core material was based on the Old Testament. Jesus' favorate books were Isaiah, Deuteronomy and the Psalms ... so if you want to figure out what Picture of God Jesus liked, that would be a Place to start .... Not Marcion; not proto-Gnostic neo-platonism.

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Jun 9 2017 08:12

We have to be VERY careful to not let what we want Jesus to be to cloud how we reconstruct history ... we must stick to a Critical examination of the evidence; there may be Things we like about him, somethings we don't, but if we are doing history we have to stick to history.

I like the story about the women caught in adultary ... it's a beautiful story and it has a beautiful Message; but it's not historical ... at least it cannot be taken as historical, the fact that I like it and it fits with a good theology doesn't make a difference.

I'm the Christian here btw, (the only one I think, if I'm not mistaken) tongue.

Dave B
Offline
Joined: 3-08-08
Jun 10 2017 10:04

Perhaps Roman can provide us with the gospel quotes he would like to use on gods vengeance on earthlings.

It is important, if I were to presume that the gospel material is a theological/political expression and creation of the oppressed rather than that of the ruling class.

The old testament is quite straightforward as regards a theological/political expression of the ruling class.

God punishes earthlings for misdemeanors often trans generationally and thus potentially as class.

And god favours or rewards earthlings often trans generationally and thus potentially as class.

Thus if you are doing badly, the oppressed, your under gods punishment and if you are doing well, the ruling class you are under gods blessing.

It is thus a theological class analysis, although perhaps not an attractive one, for an oppressed class.

It has a non theological economical mirror in the claimed meritocracy of capitalism.

As to the deferred gratification for the oppressed in the gospel material re revolutionary judgment day when the rich will be thrown into the burn pit etc.

Some of us of a more Bolshevik, Paris Commune or radical ‘Spanish’ anarchist persuasion would have them put up against the wall and shot.

The standard revision of ‘early christianity’ back to the old testament view is outlined below.

…. asserting the absolute sovereignty of God, arguing that everything eventuates as a result of God’s holy decree.

God’s sovereign governance over creation, including the plans of humanity.

https://thoughtsofalivingchristian.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/critical-analysis-of-calvins-doctrine-of-providence-and-pastoral-application/

Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jun 10 2017 12:26
Rommon wrote:
strange however that a bunch of gentiles were privy to all the pharisaic arguments that were only written Down later in the Mishnah? Which Jesus was obviously privy to and took part in?

Your conspiracy theory is getting stranger and stranger; what that means is that the writers of the gospels were geniuses in understanding Judaism, AND they wanted to keep Judaism, but they kept undermining themselves all over the gospels as well.

The gospels record Jesus' teachings and actions and then tailor them, which ends up With some tensions ... why would they ADD those tensions in and then try and smooth them over if they were just making it up?

Not geniuses, just a bit familiar with Judaism, since they went to the synagogues, lived near the Jewish communities in the diaspora. These gentiles were "god-fearing". Some converted to Judaism, I mentioned one who even translated the Torah into Aramaic. But perhaps some did not convert to Judaism, and for whatever reason mixed their appreciation/understanding of Judaism with their own philosophies. Think of it as cultural appropriation. That would be fine. But when they then tried to win over the rest of the god-fearing gentiles in the synagogues and even Jews, then perhaps some Jews did not like that introduction of foreign philosophies. Perhaps these gentile Christians were no longer welcome. And some Christians would try to stay closer to Judaism, but other responded from an initial love- to a hate-relation (wrt Judaism). In a love-hate relation you have tensions.

My speculation explains why all Christian writings are in Greek and how Christianity spread in the non-jewish world.

Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jun 10 2017 18:03

On Gamaliel II, head of the Yavne assembly since 80 AD (wikipedia):

In Rome, as at home, Gamaliel often had occasion to defend Judaism in polemical discussions with pagans, and also with professed Christians. In an anecdote regarding a suit which Gamaliel was prosecuting before a Christian judge, a converted Jew, an appeal to the Gospel and to the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17 is made, with one possible reading of the story indicating that it was Gamaliel making this reference.

(Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.")

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6495-gamaliel-ii :

Especially interesting are the accounts of the debates which the scholars held with unbelievers in Rome, and in which Gamaliel was the chief speaker in behalf of Judaism (ib. p. 85). Elsewhere also Gamaliel had frequent opportunities to answer in controversial conversations the questions of unbelievers and to explain and defend the teachings of the Jewish religion (ib. p. 76). At times Gamaliel had to meet the attacks of confessors of Christianity; one of these was the "min," or philosopher, who maliciously concluded from Hosea v. 6 that God had completely forsaken Israel (Yeb. 102b; Midr. Teh. to Ps. x., end; most completely reproduced from the old source in Midr. ha-Gadol to Lev. xxvi. 9, in Bacher, "Ag. Tan." 2d ed., i. 83). There is a satirical point in a story in which Gamaliel with his sister brings a fictitious suit concerning an inheritance before a Christian judge and convicts him of having accepted bribes; whereupon Gamaliel quotes Jesus' words in Matt. v. 17 (Shab. 116a, b). The sect of believers in Jesus, which was ever separating itself more distinctly from all connection with Judaism, and which with other heretics was classed under the name of "minim," led Gamaliel, because of its tendencies dangerous to the unity of Judaism, to introduce a new form of prayer, which he requested Samuel ha-Katon to compose, and which was inserted in the chief daily prayer, the eighteen benedictions (Ber. 28b; Meg. 17b).

--

It's actually doubtful whether "minim" refers to Christians in the 18 benedictions (apparently composed around 85AD - though remember that the Talmud was written down only later). And only in a Medieval Talmud copy (found in Cairo) we see added specifically "and notzrim" (which itself can even be questioned to whom it refers). Also some say Gamaliel II lived to around 140 AD, so not clear when his debates with the pagans and Christians in Rome was held. Differences aside, would be interesting to research this Rommon.

Dave B
Offline
Joined: 3-08-08
Jun 12 2017 20:57

One of the central themes in intellectualised Marxism is called ‘alienation’.

It should then be of some interest you would expect as to where and when the term originated and in what context etc etc.

It would seem to have originated from Ludwig Feuerbach’s The Essence of Christianity (1841).

Actually it didn’t, it first appeared in the general context in which it is ‘understood in a Marxist socio economic sense, albeit theologically in Tertullian’s Against Marcion.

But more on that later.

Quote:
Karl Marx expressed the Entfremdung theory, of estrangement from the self, in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (1927). Philosophically, the theory of Entfremdung relies upon The Essence of Christianity (1841), by Ludwig Feuerbach, which states that the idea of a supernatural god has alienated the natural characteristics of the human being.

Moreover, in The Ego and its Own (1845), Max Stirner extended Feuerbach's analysis that even the idea of "humanity" is an alienating concept for individuals to intellectually consider in its full philosophic implication; Marx and Engels responded to these philosophic propositions in The German Ideology (1845).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation

The question is what the hell does that mean?

I will try and keep it simple by referring to children’s stories and the wisdom of ‘fools’.

Quote:
“They face many obstacles in their path; from rivers to irritable people, but nonetheless, they struggle bravely on, until they finally reach home.”

Bodger tires easily; but he is a brave, loyal, persevering, and tenacious companion…

Tao is a tireless, bold, and loyal animal. Tao is probably the best equipped of the three to survive in the wilderness, and has no difficulty surviving on his own when separated from the two dogs; despite this, he spends all his time seeking to rejoin them, a testament to the bond between the animals.

Luath: Luath is a young Labrador Retriever. His fur is red-gold, his eyes are brown, and he is strongly built. Of the Hunter's three pets, he is the most recent addition. He is also the most determined to push forward and reach home and the Hunters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredible_Journey

What we have then here is an [anthropogenic] projection of idealised human value systems onto non human ‘objects’ so we can look upon them with a sense of admiration, love and respect etc.

Whilst in fact it is nothing more or less than creating an unblemished mirror image of the better, desired side of ourselves.

So we can gaze on it in narcissist self love.

It doesn’t matter that much whether it is hobbits like Frodo, "Sam" Gamgee,
Scottish dwarfes or feminine welsh speaking elves.

Or for that matter pre-pubescents trying to discover the positive side of their personality and indentify the negative as in Harry Potter.

Adult intellectuals might not understand that but they do.

So according to Feuerbach early Christianity was a fictional representation of the trials, tribulations, concerns and value systems of those early Christians that liked it.

Thus it represented something real and experienced.

The real power of Harry Potter novels is that it is a reflection of adolescent school
experience for those that can still remember it.

It is often dished as a public school thing, but I went to an inner city comprehensive and a less than intellectual adult that told me to read it went, as a person of colour who went to a to a secondary modern in a more racist 1970’s.

Stirner responded that he had a humanity as well but it was a self serving individualistic one.

And thus rather than early Christianity getting back in touch with a co-operative social instinct etc it was alienating him and his humans in general from the real nature or essence of their humanity eg egotism.

That didn’t exclude co-operation or a ‘union of egotists’ or even for that matter ‘love’ of others; but he skipped over the second point with the idea that you get an egotistical buzz from ‘kissing the troubled brow’ of others without dwelling on it.

For the early Christian Marcionite Christians the idea of;

God’s sovereign governance over creation, including the plans of humanity…

Was as alien to them as was their economic position to it.

Thus from Tertullian;

What would you have the blind man's faith to have been? That Jesus was descended from that (alien) god (of Marcion), to subvert the Creator and overthrow the law and the prophets? That He was not the destined offshoot from the root of Jesse, and the fruit of David's loins, the restorer also of the blind? But I apprehend there were at that time no such stone-blind persons as Marcion, that an opinion like this could have constituted the faith of…………

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm

Why, however, may it not be more suitable for the Creator to have delivered His own Son to His own curse, than to have submitted Him to the malediction of that god of yours—in behalf, too, of man, who is an alien to him?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03125.htm

As to Roman’s vindictive JC, he has gone quiet I ‘rebuke’ him and we have;

53But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward Jerusalem. 54When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” 55But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”] And they went on to another village.

http://biblehub.com/nasb/luke/9.htm

I appreciate from personal experience that this trick cyclist shit about projection sounds a bit dodgy.

I came to it from the Marxist Erich Fromm and the proto feminist Karen Horney; they were shacked up together for a while and he influenced her.

But she became more important as a neo Freudian.

She as a bit of an anti-intellectual, which is why she is not liked and ignored too much said don’t believe me just see it in good fiction.

George Eliot was a master of it and translated feuerbachs essence of Christianity.

She was also an erudite political commentator in her novels despite her squishy love stories over-layed onto it.

George Eliot as a Psychological Novelist
Psychological Novel: Its Nature

http://neoenglishsystem.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/george-eliot-as-psychological-novelist.html

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Jun 13 2017 08:22

Just finished recording an interview With https://progressivespirit.net/ on my book, I'll let you guys know when it's out.

Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jun 15 2017 14:19

The satirical point of the Matthew-reference (chapter 5:verses 13-17) in the Talmud (here, the passage starts at "Imma Shalom, R. Eliezer's wife, was R. Gamaliel's sister.") was according to Moritz Güdemann the following:

There was a pre-Matthew gospel in Hebrew (btw this would go against my theory) in which Jesus said that: 'A son and a daughter inherit equally', but this cannot be found anymore in the later Greek official gospels. So the Talmud/Gamaliel (already around 70-80) brought up this saying of Jesus in order to expose this self-suppression of the Christians. Matthew 5:15 reads: "Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a basket." To which the Talmud story/Gamaliel quips: 'Let thy light shine forth like a lamp.' 'An ass came and knocked the lamp over!' (the "ass" here is likely just a result of confusion of words in Hebrew).

Dave B
Offline
Joined: 3-08-08
Jun 15 2017 20:09

You might find the following of some interest Noa.

Even if it is a bit of a minefield.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

Included in it appears to be some support of the idea that the woman caught in adultery thing that Roman wants to redact was early material.

Actually that in my opinion is the most radical passage in the gospels in that it negates the [state] judiciary and retribution for ‘anti social’ crimes that might be even too left wing for many ‘Anarchists’.

It is also consistent with other stuff like ‘judge not so you will not be judged’.

I think we can probably take most of the stuff in the Papias link ‘seriously’ as it wasn’t really in the interests of 4th century Christians to over play the existence of multiple versions.

I seem to remember that Jerome briefly believed he had found a copy of the gospel of the Hebrews but later changed his mind in that what he had was a Hebrew translation or version of an earlier Geek one?

As with contra celsum I think the hostile stuff eg coming from Judaic material albeit of uncertain provenance is the most interesting.

Some of it has JC being “hung” from a tree; which might not exclude being crucified on a tree.

Another one had the guy with the withered hand as a mason who had had an industrial accident.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+3%3A1-6&version=ESV

I suspect that JC was also a savvy political operator and knew how to play the suffragette sisterhood card as well.

That seemed to have run even into the ruling class as well as he seems to have had some upper class women on his side in; not only amongst the ‘Jewish’ ruling class but maybe even Pontius Pilates wife as well?

Just got and hacked my way today through Joel Carmichael’s “libertarian Marxist?” unriddling of Christian origins.

It has some interesting background stuff in it but whilst presuming the historicity of JC data mines and is selective in pushing his idea of a him being a national liberation anti imperialist figure.

What I got most out of it was a warning, to myself, of the trap of data mining and prejudicial selection of material.

I suspect I am going to have to go back again to the gospel material again and do a more thorough analysis of the content.

I sort went forward from it to gathering ancillary contemporary material a few years ago at that before dropping it.

This is like a revisit for me.

I don’t know exactly what Roman is interested at the moment but it sounds a bit like re rape of eve etc like the really cranky stuff in the book of enoch that it appears some of the early Christians liked.

And was in the essene dead sea scroll collection.

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Jun 16 2017 12:15

.

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Jun 16 2017 12:15
Dave B wrote:
Included in it appears to be some support of the idea that the woman caught in adultery thing that Roman wants to redact was early material.

It wasn't in the gospel of John, we know that. The earliest fragment of Papias, in Eusebius, does not include that story ...

All it says that in the gospel of the Hebrews (a Ebionite/Nazarean Version of Matthew) there was a story of a woman accused of many sins.

I think it is probably not a Reference to the woman caught in adultery but rather to the Woman in Matthew 26:6-13.

But it was in the 10th Century that People started saying that Papias was talking about the woman caught in adultary.

But who knows.

Quote:
I think we can probably take most of the stuff in the Papias link ‘seriously’ as it wasn’t really in the interests of 4th century Christians to over play the existence of multiple versions.

Papias was 1st/2nd Century.

Quote:
I don’t know exactly what Roman is interested at the moment but it sounds a bit like re rape of eve etc like the really cranky stuff in the book of enoch that it appears some of the early Christians liked.

And was in the essene dead sea scroll collection.

Not at all .... the "rape of eve" stuff from the website I linked to is from an interview the radio show did With a woman who studies gnostic materials. My interview is going to be released soon, probably within the month, and it's on my book.

I don't know much about the gnostic writings, I've only really read Thomas, from the secondary materials I've read I don't really consider them to be originating from Christianity or really having anything to do With Christianity.

What I'm working on now is dealing With the sermon on the plain from Q/Luke in light of modern anthropology and within the context of Pharisaic Halakha rulings found in Mishnah/Tosefta, as well as it's early interpretation and how it would be understood in light of Greek philosophy and how it would have been understood by Palestinian peasants.

Here's a little sneak peak

https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/jesus-against-hillel-on-usury-by-roman-a-montero/

Dave B
Offline
Joined: 3-08-08
Jun 16 2017 17:48

I know papias was supposed to be 1st and second century but I think most of the stuff on him comes from commentary from people a lot later like Eusebius who is highly questionable on a lot of things and needs to read cautiously?

https://danielbwallace.com/2013/06/26/where-is-the-story-of-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-really-from/

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Jun 19 2017 07:59
Noa Rodman wrote:
Not geniuses, just a bit familiar with Judaism, since they went to the synagogues, lived near the Jewish communities in the diaspora. These gentiles were "god-fearing". Some converted to Judaism, I mentioned one who even translated the Torah into Aramaic. But perhaps some did not convert to Judaism, and for whatever reason mixed their appreciation/understanding of Judaism with their own philosophies. Think of it as cultural appropriation. That would be fine. But when they then tried to win over the rest of the god-fearing gentiles in the synagogues and even Jews, then perhaps some Jews did not like that introduction of foreign philosophies. Perhaps these gentile Christians were no longer welcome. And some Christians would try to stay closer to Judaism, but other responded from an initial love- to a hate-relation (wrt Judaism). In a love-hate relation you have tensions.

My speculation explains why all Christian writings are in Greek and how Christianity spread in the non-jewish world.

1. Diaspora synagogues didn't include Pharisaic rabbinic arguments on halacha, especially halacha that was only relevant in palestine.

2. Nor did they get into the debates of the Saducees and the Pharisees, and the revolutionaries within Palestine.

3. Nor did they know palestinian Aramaic idioms.

For Your speculations to be true, however, EVERYONE would have to be lying in the first 2 centuries of christianity (and Beyond) and no one caught them.

All the writings we have are in greek because what reason would there be for scribes to Write in Aramaic/Hebrew outside of palestine? Also most of the earliest Galilean/Judean Groups were oral, and what we have from them is the edited Version found in Q/Mark which adjusted for a gentile audience. It's not a mystery why all hte documents are in Greek.

As to why it spread in the non-jewish world, you have to know the world back them, Mystery religions were blowing up, "god-fearers" were growing, an Christianity offered all the perks of Judaism without the downside.

Anyway. The problem With Your speculation is it requires one to ignore all the textual evidence.

Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jun 19 2017 18:58
Quote:
1. Diaspora synagogues didn't include Pharisaic rabbinic arguments on halacha, especially halacha that was only relevant in palestine.

There does appear some corroboration of the oral Torah tradition in the NT ('Research Overview' pp. 135–206 in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, 2010). I don't think this tells us much new/reliable about Judaism at the time or proves your point. The oral tradition supposedly dates back many centuries BCE (at least to the time of Ezra). Surely the diaspora Jews were not totally ignorant of oral tradition customs (like talit and tefillin). But it's one of the better arguments for historicity I'd say if one could elaborate on it.

Quote:
3. Nor did they know palestinian Aramaic idioms.

In Antioch the lower-status groups mainly spoke Aramaic, so gentiles there could have understood the "rabbinic" tradition which was in Aramaic. Some argue that since these earliest Christian communities in Northern Syria were bilingual they could easily have translated the words of Jesus into Greek (pp. 171–72 Jesus and Gospel Traditions in Bilingual Context, Sang-Il Lee 2012), ie they were the bridge to the non-Jewish world.

Quote:
EVERYONE would have to be lying in the first 2 centuries of christianity (and Beyond) and no one caught them.

Hardly anyone in a gentile audience could "fact-check" on Paul or the gospel of Mark (or the NT would surely mention an instance where in Paul's audience some Jew stands up who himself saw Jesus and begins an argument with Paul). Clearly the audience hadn't heard anything yet about a Jesus of Nazareth, and they are often just convinced by the miracles of Paul et al. All we have is Josephus' mention of James the brother of Jesus and Carrier argues that is an accidental interpolation.

Dave B
Offline
Joined: 3-08-08
Jun 19 2017 18:59

Roman

I suspect that you are missing Noa’s point.

The reality as we can witness now is that religious systems as practiced by the masses is often a fusion of separate religious systems.

As people pick and mix material from former and present systems.

So in central America and Africa for example paganistic ideas are often fused into the more modern Christianity.

And that happened in northern Europe as well as can be seen more from the archaeological evidence with Christian crosses being overlaid with overtly pagan material.

A lot of it was trashed in the protestant revival.

Catholic missionaries could be more tolerant and permitted a fusion; Graham Greene introduced the subject in some of his novels set in Africa.

We still have in fact winter solstice stuff [Christmas], easter eggs and Christmas trees etc.

The south eastern Asians still celebrate Hindu festival days as do the monothesistic Sikhs.

It is often a complete anathema to the orthodox priest class and isn’t talked or written about; but that is not to say it doesn’t happen.

I think it is highly likely that the same thing was going on 2000 years ago not only with Judaism but with early Christianity; particularly as regards the integration of Platonist ideas as some kind of valid prototype of both.

With Christianity post Origen the orthodox church set about redacting that kind of idea from the record and sending the material down the memory hole.

And thus what was preserved of Origen and Justyn the Martyr became top shelf material.

Just as the Catholics in charge of the dead sea scroll material didn’t like what they saw as it called into question the originality of Christianity and gave it a precedent.

Intellectual orthodox Christians from the 4th century on wanted to expunge ‘Platonism’ as precedent for Christianity.

And disliked that for the same reasons as Roman dislikes the gospel of John for it’s Hellenism.

I seem to remember that there is archaeological evidence of special seating arrangements for ‘Jews’ at the theatre at Sepphoris; which would suggest that they were going to watch Greek plays.

The problem ‘now’ is that Judaism portrays itself as basically an ethnic, nationalist and essentially racist and non proselysing religion?

And if that is taken as standard; it is difficult, jumping into that vat of tripe again, trying to work out where all theses blonde blue eyed ‘non Semitic’ ‘Jews’ came from let alone the ‘Ethiopian’ ones.

Unless it had been a proselysing religion?

I think Roman wants to have his cake and eat it as well, with his preaching to the nations of the earth as well as it being a narrow ethnic based religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism

The basic idea is quite simple; the creator ‘old testament’ god is a complete maniac and a shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jun 19 2017 20:20
Quote:
Unless it had been a proselysing religion?

Abram Leon notes this:

Quote:
Jewish proselytism took on increasingly imposing proportions toward the beginning of the Christian era. “To be members of so widely ramified and prosperous a commercial organization was a prospect that must have been enticing to not a few.” [75] As early as 139 B.C., the Jews were banished from Rome for recruiting proselytes. At Antioch, the larger part of the Jewish community consisted of converts.

btw, re: Christianity on the natural economy, Abram Leon says Christianity became indeed its ideology, but insofar as this goes along with the decay of the Roman commercial relations, that's not a progressive thing:

The revolutionary religion of the popular masses is changed into a religion of consolation for these same masses. Kautsky compares this phenomenon to social democratic revisionism. It would be more accurate to compare this evolution to the fascist phenomenon which we are experiencing at the present time. Fascism also attempts to make use of “socialism” in order to strengthen the rule of finance capital. It unhesitatingly uses the most brazen falsehoods to deceive the masses, to represent the rule of the tycoons of heavy industry as the “rule of labor.” Nevertheless the “fascist revolution” also has a certain economic and social content. It definitely closes the liberal epoch and inaugurates the epoch of the complete domination of monopoly capitalism, the antithesis of free competitive capitalism. Similarly, it is inadequate merely to say that Christianity became an instrument for deceiving the poor classes. It also became the ideology of the class of landed proprietors who seized absolute power under Constantine. Its triumph coincided with the complete triumph of a natural economy. Simultaneously with Christianity, feudal economy spread all over Europe.

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Jun 20 2017 17:57
Noa Rodman wrote:
There does appear some corroboration of the oral Torah tradition in the NT ('Research Overview' pp. 135–206 in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, 2010). I don't think this tells us much new/reliable about Judaism at the time or proves your point. The oral tradition supposedly dates back many centuries BCE (at least to the time of Ezra). Surely the diaspora Jews were not totally ignorant of oral tradition customs (like talit and tefillin). But it's one of the better arguments for historicity I'd say if one could elaborate on it.

What evidence is there that the Rabbinic arguments were going on outside of Palestine? I'm not aware of any at all ....

Nor is there any evidence or the Oral Law going back to Ezra, the earliest attestation IS the new testament, and then we have the mass of it in the Mishnah.

Quote:
In Antioch the lower-status groups mainly spoke Aramaic, so gentiles there could have understood the "rabbinic" tradition which was in Aramaic. Some argue that since these earliest Christian communities in Northern Syria were bilingual they could easily have translated the words of Jesus into Greek (pp. 171–72 Jesus and Gospel Traditions in Bilingual Context, Sang-Il Lee 2012), ie they were the bridge to the non-Jewish world.

Palestinian idioms? Also Palestinian politics, culture, religious debates, geography, economy and so on?

Let's get real here.

Quote:
Hardly anyone in a gentile audience could "fact-check" on Paul or the gospel of Mark (or the NT would surely mention an instance where in Paul's audience some Jew stands up who himself saw Jesus and begins an argument with Paul). Clearly the audience hadn't heard anything yet about a Jesus of Nazareth, and they are often just convinced by the miracles of Paul et al. All we have is Josephus' mention of James the brother of Jesus and Carrier argues that is an accidental interpolation.

Carrier is the only one that I know of that argues that, it's completely Ad Hoc and basically in place so he can get rid of the non-redacted Jesus part of Josephus.

Yes, they could fact Check Mark, for example was there a Jesus of Nazareth who had a following that was killed by the state? Remember the main Church was IN Jerusalem (this is from our earliest documents, i.e. the Pauline letters).

BTW, we do know that people argued with Paul about him not having been with Jesus when he was alive, because Paul, in his letters, get's rather touchy about that subject.

The amount of evidence you have to write off, and the amount of twisting and turning you have to make to make your theory even possible (forget plausable) reaches up to 911 truther level.

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Jun 20 2017 18:18
Dave B wrote:
I think it is highly likely that the same thing was going on 2000 years ago not only with Judaism but with early Christianity; particularly as regards the integration of Platonist ideas as some kind of valid prototype of both.

With Christianity post Origen the orthodox church set about redacting that kind of idea from the record and sending the material down the memory hole.

Not likely, certain, we KNOW elements of Judaism (especially Alexandrian Judaism) was heavily influenced by Judaism, Philo, much of the later wisdom literature and so on.

The same with late christianity, starting with the Johanian literature and onward.

The earliest Christianity (Q, Mark and Paul), was not influenced much by platonism, Q was thurougly Galilean peasant sayings, Mark was narrative, and Paul was a mixed bag. The Didache and Epistle of Barnabas and James also were quite devoid of Hellenistic philosophical influence.

Quote:
Intellectual orthodox Christians from the 4th century on wanted to expunge ‘Platonism’ as precedent for Christianity.

And disliked that for the same reasons as Roman dislikes the gospel of John for it’s Hellenism.

What are you talking about Platonism was huge in Christianity even post 4th century, After constantine it was saturated with Platonic and Aristotilian categories.

I don't "dislike" the gospel of John, I love it, it's theologically beautiful. I just agree with most historical Jesus scholars that it isn't of much use historically ... it's NOT primarily an ancient biography in the same way matthew mark and luke were, I don't think that the fact that it is not a primary historical source for Jesus lessens its value at all. I love the gospel of John.

Quote:
Unless it had been a proselysing religion?

As Noa points out, rightly, elements of Judiams did proselatize outside Judea.

Quote:
The basic idea is quite simple; the creator ‘old testament’ god is a complete maniac and a shit.

that's fine; and also 100% irrelevant to doing the history of early Christianity and Christian Origins.

Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jun 20 2017 21:15
Quote:
What evidence is there that the Rabbinic arguments were going on outside of Palestine? I'm not aware of any at all ....

Nor is there any evidence or the Oral Law going back to Ezra, the earliest attestation IS the new testament, and then we have the mass of it in the Mishnah.

The Written and Oral Torah: A Comprehensive Introduction, Lopes Cardozo 1998, p. 84:

...the Aramaic Elephantine Papyri of Yeb (fifth century B.C.E.) cite the laws of the ketubah — the marriage contract — as well as many Pesach observances that are not obvious from the text of the written Torah. Demetrius, an author who lived in the second century B.C.E., mentions that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve only applies to cattle, and Pseudo Aristeas (second century B.C.E.) describes the halachot of tefillin, tzitzit, and mezuzah in detail. All of these laws are dependent upon the orally transmitted Torah for their clarification.

Fwiw, check footnote 4 here on A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Segal 1927) which argues that it is a direct lineal descendant of the spoken Hebrew of the Biblical period, as distinguished from the literary Hebrew of the Biblical period.

(Just in defense of oral tradition, it is often pointed out that even just to read the Hebrew bible requires a knowledge of the vocalization and thus reliance on the oral tradition.)

Also, as you know, diaspora Jews visited Jerusalem and Judean scholars traveled abroad (even Jesus himself is said to have visited Tyre and Sidon).

You'd have to show specific "rabbinic" arguments in the NT that definitely could not be known to a diaspora Jewish community eg in Antioch.

Quote:
Palestinian idioms? Also Palestinian politics, culture, religious debates, geography, economy and so on?

Do not be afraid to bring up specific phrases or data. Just some general things like the group of Sadducees and Pharisees, the name of Pontius Pilate, etc. could be known also to someone not from that time/area. What are the specific economic, geographic etc. things in the NT that could be known only to someone from that area?

Kautsky wrote:
they [the evangelists) report that the Jews were accustomed to having Pilate release a prisoner to them at Easter, and when he now offered them the release of Jesus, they answered, “No, we should rather have the murderer Barabbas.”

It is strange that nothing is known of such a custom anywhere but in the Gospels. It is contrary to Roman institutions, which did not give governors any right to pardon. And it is contrary to any orderly law to give the right to pardon not to some responsible body but to a crowd that has happened to come together. Legal conditions of this kind can be taken at face value only by theologians.

Rommon's picture
Rommon
Offline
Joined: 23-03-17
Jun 21 2017 07:54

The washing hands tradition, The specific debates on what is and is not allowed on the sabbath, gleaning on the sabbath, the tradition of the seat of moses being for the rabbis, these are all culturally and religiously contingant You also have the geographical data which many scholars have shown (Bauckham is the latest person I've read that has shown that); the mistakes in geography are explainable by taking a local peasant perspective.

The knowledge of the Sadducees and Pharisees are not the only thing, who they are, what they did, which class they appealed to, where they were located, what their theology was, the political situation of revolution being in the air, and so on.

Either the Gospels were the best frauds ever, that had crafted even their mistakes to make it seem like there was a historical Jesus ... or the entire Field of New Testament Scholarship, Christian Origins, and history is correct.

Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jun 21 2017 11:31

Carrier's quick response to this argument of verisimilitude: http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10935#verisimilitude

An article by McCowan he references on Gospel geography, incidentally mentions some things Luke gets wrong, just an example:

As he "translates" the Palestinian custom of sitting crosslegged at meals into the Hellenistic fashion of reclining (7 38) and mud house roofs into tiles (5 19),"2 so he changes the house built on a rock to one with foundations dug deep (6 48) and the thin soil of rocky ground (7rerpc$ecs) of the parable of the sower to rock (Tr&rpa, 8 6). The southwind (v6roS) which brings heat (12 55) is not Palestinian. It is the east wind in both Hebrew (qadhim) and Arabic (Serqtyeh) which does so. His location of the great "sermon" which begins with beatitudes and woes on a plain illustrates his ignorance of the character of the mountain slopes by Lake Gennesaret (6 17).
....
Other examples of Luke's geographical ineptitude may be cited. The alteration in the "little apocalypse" where he adds to Mark to make it a warning not only with Mark to "those in Judea to flee into the mountains," but also to "those in the lands not to enter into her" is an outstanding blunder (21 21). It more than underlines the absurdity of the Marcan saying. The discovery of "the brow of the mountain" on which Nazareth was built would be possible only to one who had never seen it. Bethsaida is not in a lonely place (9 10, 12). Jerusalem is 120, not 60 stadia from Emmaus ('Amwas) (24 13) and a very long walk to take twice in one day.

Dave B
Offline
Joined: 3-08-08
Jun 21 2017 17:49

I think the author of the gospel of John seems to have a much more detailed knowledge of pre 70AD Jerusalem.

The gospel of john also comes across as much more first hand as well.

Another curiosity about John is he talks about ‘there IS this or that in Jerusalem as if it still existed .

You would only do that if you had actually known it before 70AD and were perhaps reminiscing afterwards even though the place had been since blitzed.

Or it had been written before 70AD.

It is possible I suppose that someone was plagiarising the 60AD version of the rough guide to Jerusalem.

On JC being an Egyptian trained magician as in contra celsum; there is another early reference to that in Justyn the Martry circa 140AD

Where bascically he briefly says that that was an accusation made by the ‘Jews’ before hand waving it away and moving on.

If it was a straw man fiction you would have expected him knock it down rather than put the pernicious idea in people’s heads, like mine.

There is something similar in Acts, deconstructing it? where a magician bod is so impressed by the ‘christian’ magic circle that he makes an offer to buy he way into it.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:9-24

It is obviously interesting in other respects ie buying your way into the club and pay to play etc.

Maybe it is my scientific brain; it is just easier to set predicates and working hypotheses etc and just have JC as a historical communist Darren Brown.

Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jun 21 2017 20:55
Dave B wrote:
Maybe it is my scientific brain; it is just easier to set predicates and working hypotheses etc and just have JC as a historical communist Darren Brown.

It's pointless speculation. The real question is as Engels said:

Quote:
if almost nothing from the whole content of the Gospels turns out to be historically provable — so that even the historical existence of a Jesus Christ can be questioned — Bauer has, thereby, only cleared the ground for the solution of the question: what is the origin of the ideas and thoughts that have been woven together into a sort of system in Christianity, and how came they to dominate the world?

And I propose we look at ground zero, Antioch, pretty much as the Church history itself holds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Antioch :

The Church traces its origins to the Christian community founded in Antioch by people of the period known by a variety of names, including "Followers of the Way," and later recognized by the Apostles in Jerusalem and sent Barnabas to organize the new church (see Acts 11:19-25) (see Early centers of Christianity) was one of its leading members. It later became the Patriarchate of Antioch as one of the five major patriarchates – that is the Pentarchy – of the state church of the Roman Empire.

According to Acts 11:19-26, the Christian community at Antioch began when Christians who were scattered from Jerusalem because of persecution fled to Antioch. They were joined by Christians from Cyprus and Cyrene who migrated to Antioch. It was in Antioch that the followers of Jesus were first referred to as Christians.

A main point of interest, however, is connected with the progress of Christianity among the non-Jewish believers. Tradition holds that the first Gentile church was founded, Acts 11:20-21, where it is recorded that the disciples of Jesus Christ were first called Christians Acts 11:19-26. It was from Antioch that St. Paul started on his missionary journeys.[1]

In the dispersion of the original Church at Jerusalem, during the troubles ensuing on the bold action of Stephen, certain Cypriote and Cyrenaic Jews, who had been brought up in Greek communities and who had different perspectives on the world than the Palestinian Jews[citation needed], came to Antioch.

--

The Jewish community in Antioch lived in a quarter called Kerateion. It had its own magistrature (for some references see Cummins 2001, p. 144, Paul and the Crucified Christ in Antioch).

Dave B
Offline
Joined: 3-08-08
Jun 22 2017 20:12

Well you might want to look at this kind of material; it has an economic angle re silk in the correct time frame and I think I can see Buddhism as an analytical methodology in Christianity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarmanochegas

Greco-Buddhism in the West

Intense westward physical exchange at that time along the Silk Road is confirmed by the Roman craze for silk from the 1st century BC to the point that the Senate issued, in vain, several edicts to prohibit the wearing of silk, on economic and moral grounds. This is attested by at least three authors: Strabo (64/ 63 BC–c. 24 AD), Seneca the Younger (c. 3 BC–AD 65), Pliny the Elder (23–79 AD). The aforementioned Strabo and Plutarch (c. 45–125 AD) also wrote about Indo-Greek Buddhist king Menander, confirming that information about the Indo-Greek Buddhists was circulating throughout the Hellenistic world.
Zarmanochegas (Zarmarus) (Ζαρμανοχηγὰς) was a monk of the Sramana tradition (possibly, but not necessarily a Buddhist) who, according to ancient historians such as Strabo and Dio Cassius, met Nicholas of Damascus in Antioch while Augustus (died AD 14) was ruling the Roman Empire, and shortly thereafter proceeded to Athens where he burnt himself to death.
Buddhism and Christianity[edit]
Main articles: Buddhism and Christianity and Buddhist influences on Christianity
Although the philosophical systems of Buddhism and Christianity have evolved in rather different ways, the moral precepts advocated by Buddhism from the time of Ashoka through his edicts do have some similarities with the Christian moral precepts developed more than two centuries later: respect for life, respect for the weak, rejection of violence, pardon to sinners, tolerance.
One theory is that these similarities may indicate the propagation of Buddhist ideals into the Western World, with the Greeks acting as intermediaries and religious syncretists.[42]
"Scholars have often considered the possibility that Buddhism influenced the early development of Christianity. They have drawn attention to many parallels concerning the births, lives, doctrines, and deaths of the Buddha and Jesus" (Bentley, "Old World Encounters").
The story of the birth of the Buddha was well known in the West, and possibly influenced the story of the birth of Jesus: Saint Jerome (4th century AD) mentions the birth of the Buddha, who he says "was born from the side of a virgin,"[43] and the influential early Christian church father Clement of Alexandria (died AD 215) mentioned Buddha (Βούττα) in his Stromata (Bk I, Ch XV).[36

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism#Buddhism_and_Christianity

Dave B
Offline
Joined: 3-08-08
Jun 23 2017 18:25

I think most people are probably justifiably confused about Buddhism as there are more varieties of it than there are within the ‘Abrahamic’ religions.

Eg Judiaism, Christianity and Islam.

I believe that the secular Buddhists are more authentic and original and as such would have been radically different to western 1st century religious systems.

Just not believing in intercessionist god(s) on its own was radically different enough.

http://secularbuddhism.org/faq/

It is as such a personal approach as regards self improvement and materialistic.

I think the ‘popular’ synopsis of Buddhism as ‘shit happens’ is not to far from the truth.

But it has a positive, and proselytising programme, you could argue that it overlaps with the Marxist false consciousness idea and people like the Marxist trick cyclists Erich Fromm got into it on that basis.

I think when it arrived in and fused with the Hellinised world it led to stoicism and cynicism.

Stoicism was for the rich who liked the talk of the general idea but didn’t fancy walking the walk.

And especially with the cynics, it wasn’t just about how to live etc but the general ‘cranky’ way of looking at things.

I think when it sort of arrived in force and hit Judaism the fusion produced Christianity.

So for instance you have this; which isn’t a casual data mine of Buddhist crap.

They had study as their wealth and grain. They guarded the holy life as their treasure.
§ 284-285

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

That is central theme in the gospel material; we did it here with the parables on the accumulation of wealth and it is the ancillary left wing epistle of James.

As with other JC and Buddhist material about seeds and plants re personal growth etc.

And thus you may have, independently

Stoic- Buddhism

Cynic- Buddhism

And

Judiac-Buddhism = Christianity?

And when they remix again later they have something in common as they share the same root?

And thus you have the Cynic-christianity argument that roman admits has legs.

And the better known Stoic- Seneca- Pauline thesis.

Thus there were arguments about Seneca plagiarising Paul whilst modern opinion is that it was the other way around.

Although with that kind of argument you are in danger of becoming an ‘idealist’ with the idea of modes of thought spontaneously arising outside of socio economic bases and being taken on board because they are just intellectually clever and cerebral.

I guess then we are pushing the argument back to the socio economic base of Buddhism and maybe we could diverge into an argument as to the historicity of Buddha?

I think the problem with New Testament scholars is they live in a hermitically sealed ‘theological’ bubble as they claim JC did.

Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jun 23 2017 22:01

The forged gospel "Talmud of Jmmanuel" even has Jesus travel to India... Again, we can avoid such wild theories by concentrating on the NT writers/composers and their environment. And then it's unlikely that a brief visit by a single Indian in Antioch could determine their environment.

A better approach is eg Magnus Zetterholm's The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach that stresses the legal situation in Antioch faced by Jews/Christians to explain their separation. Or Cummins' book, that highlights the Maccabean legacy in Antioch. Those are just examples of more realistic approaches, but still very tendentious.