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

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.

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.

muy key b0ord is shit off line njkw

gdd has punishek n6ee

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-ana...

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.

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.

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.

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’.

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-psycholog...

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).

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.

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-ca...

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.

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.

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.

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

Abram Leon notes this:

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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.