An Abstract Mythicist Hypothesis

[Mcreal]

I am not interested in a teacher but in a partner in this forum. I think that I am “educated” enough.

In other words you are not interested in new ideas but cosying up to someone with the same ideas as you. That's closed-minded.

Maybe I know some things about Socrates that you ignore.

Maybe, but so what? This thread is not about Socrates. Perhaps stay on-topic (Christian origins), or perhaps go elsewhere.

 

[Craig B]

I have no interest in engagement with such persons.

I have no interest in wasting time with straw man responses.

That is a pity, for it seems to exclude the possibility of constructive engagement. Ah, well.

 

[Mcreal]

Please stay on-topic for this thread:

Discuss the opening post

Discuss alternate theories of early Christian development

Discuss or Argue against theories of early Christian development already posted​

 

[vridar]

The name "Sadduc" is apparently a reference to "Sadducee", or even "Zadok"/"Zadokite" a reference to the OT Priestly caste who had been supplanted from the Temple Priesthood by the cronies of Herod. These last were not from the traditional "Priestly Families" but were political appointees and allies of Herod and his family.

Thanks for setting out your argument, Brainache. I initially wanted to wait till you had completed the posts before commenting, but think it might not go amiss at this point to let you know of an early query:

Does not Josephus in Antiquities 18 say that Sadduc was a Pharisee and his “fourth sect” was identical with that of the Pharisees except with respect to his “fanaticism” against the idea of paying taxes to Rome?

I have other questions but this one seemed most pertinent at this early stage.

 

[Brainache]

Thanks for setting out your argument, Brainache. I initially wanted to wait till you had completed the posts before commenting, but think it might not go amiss at this point to let you know of an early query:

Does not Josephus in Antiquities 18 say that Sadduc was a Pharisee and his “fourth sect” was identical with that of the Pharisees except with respect to his “fanaticism” against the idea of paying taxes to Rome?

I have other questions but this one seemed most pertinent at this early stage.

Yes he does, but Josephus seems to be a bit slippery on how he uses the term "Pharisee". According to Robert Eisenman:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/confusions-of-pharisees-a_b_4675877.html

... In fact, these terminologies have tended to slide around quite a bit depending on who was using them and how; and nowhere is this lack of precision more evident than in Josephus’ own works...
(...)
Let us now apply this idea of terminological confusions between “Pharisees” and “Essenes” to several other examples. In The Antiquities, Josephus tells us about one “Sadduk a Pharisee” — obviously “Zadok”, itself a contradiction in terms and by which he clearly means “Sadduk a Purist Essene” or, as we shall see, “Sadduk a Zealot”, a Leader of those he accuses of “Innovation” (i.e., “Revolution”) and who, along with Judas the Galilean (also c. 4 BC-7 CE) the son of that that “Hezekiah” mentioned above as being executed by Herod. Both of these are Founders of Josephus’ so-called “Fourth Philosophy”, a “Philosophy”, as just intimated, one must designate simply as “Zealot” or “Sicarii”, though Josephus never uses these actual terms until much later in his works (and which I would also designate “Messianic”)...

I should say here that much of my "non-mythicist, non-abstract hypothesis" is based on my understanding of Eisenman's work.

Thanks for the chance to clarify this. I'll get started on the third part soon.

 

[Mcreal]

Relevant to the propositions & arguments for or against a real, human Jesus of Nazareth is non-biblical references to Him or his followers in the first or 2nd centuries a.d. (c.e.).

To this end, Kapyong's List(s) of Early Writers Who Could Have Mentioned Jesus Christ thread is pertinent, as an argument from silence can be valid, especially if one might expect mention of a person or event, & particularly if they are deemed to be worthy of mention. Kapyong broke the list into several posts on his thread:

1. Writers Contemporary with Jesus
   • Philo (20 BCE - 50 CE)
   • Seneca The Younger (4 BCE - 65 CE)
   • Pliny The Elder (23 - 79)
   • Petronius (c. 27 - 66)
   • Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella (4 - c.70)
2. Mid 1st C. (34 - 66)
   
3. Late 1st C. (67 - 99)
   • Plutarch (c. 46 CE - 120 CE)
   • Justus of Tiberias (late 1st C.) - wrote a 'History of Jewish Leaders in Galilee' in late 1st century. Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not mention anything: "He [Justus of Tiberias] makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did."
4. Early 2nd C. (100 - 133)
   • Epictetus (55 - 135) - known for several books of Stoic religious and philosophic discourses in the early 2nd century. One of his disciples was Arrian, and thanks to him much of Epictetus' works are extant. Epictetus did apparently mention "the Galileans", which could be a reference to the early Christians, or the revolt under Judas the Galilean in early 1st century. Either way, this shows quite clearly that Epictetus could refer to a figure such as Jesus.
5. Mid 2nd C. (134 - 166)
6. Lost Works Which Apparently Did Not Mention Jesus

Seutonius mentioned a 'Chrestus' and Christians in two separate passages in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars - Divus Claudius 25 and Nero 16, respectively (but no mention of Jesus). Tactius's Annals 15.44 is well known to most people for it's mention of Chrestians and 'Christ', and Pilate & Tiberius.

Pliny the Younger, as the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus wrote a letter to Trajan around 112 AD (Epistulae X.96) mentioning disturbances by Christians & asking how to deal with them.

 

[Craig B]

Relevant to the propositions & arguments for or against a real, human Jesus of Nazareth is non-biblical references to Him or his followers in the first or 2nd centuries a.d. (c.e.).

To this end, Kapyong's List(s) of Early Writers Who Could Have Mentioned Jesus Christ thread is pertinent, as an argument from silence can be valid, especially if one might expect mention of a person or event, & particularly if they are deemed to be worthy of mention. [<List of non-mentioners snipped>] ... Suetonius mentioned a 'Chrestus' and Christians in two separate passages in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars - .Divus Claudius 25 ...

I think in reality that is another "non-mention"

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.​

Nobody at all believes that any living historical Jesus was physically located in Rome during the reign of Claudius (41-54 CE), engaged in inciting unrest among Jews in that city.

 

[Mcreal]

Irenaeus thought that Jesus was crucified ~ 49 a.d.

 

[Craig B]

Irenaeus thought that Jesus was crucified ~ 49 a.d.

And that he did a stint of rabble-rousing in the Jewish quarter of Rome before getting whacked?

 

[Brainache]

Part Three of my speculative non-abstract, non-mythicist hypothesis of Christian origins...

Continuing with John The Baptist (JTB), I think it is important to note that his popularity (enough to make Herod the Tetrarch nervous, according to Josephus) may have had something to do with the fact that he was offering an alternative to Temple sacrifice. His dunking ritual didn't cost anything, but making sacrifices in the Temple was too expensive for much of the population.

Contrary to popular (Christian) belief, Temple sacrifices were (mostly) not for personal atonement or absolution from "sin". That kind of absolution was only achieved by repentance and acts of contrition, charity, righteous behaviour etc:

Contrary to the common pejorative doctrine pertaining to the Old Testament held in some Christian groups that Jewish qorbanot were for sins, which is a well known fallacy, their use was far more complex—only some qorbanot in mostly one rare restrictive circumstance were used to atone for unintentional sins, and these sacrifices only accompanied the important required core means of atonement to be ever considered legitimate. Besides this one exception, there were the overwhelming majority of other purposes for bringing qorbanot, and the expiatory effect is often incidental, and is subject to significant limitations. Qorbanot are brought purely for the purpose of communing with God and becoming closer to him. Also, they were brought for the purpose of expressing thanks, gratitude, and love to God.[14]

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

The Dead Sea Scrolls Community also had an alternative to Temple Sacrifice:

...When these things obtain in Israel, as defined by these provisions, the Holy Spirit will indeed rest on a sound foundation; truth will be evinced perpetually; the guilt of transgression and the perfidy of sin will be shriven; and atonement will be made for the earth more effectively than by any flesh of burn-offerings or fat sacrifices. The 'oblation of the lips' will be in all justice like the erstwhile 'pleasant savor' on the altar; righteousness and integrity like the free-will offering which god designs to accept. At that time, the men of the community will constitute a true distinctive temple-a veritable holy of holies-wherein the priesthood may fitly foregather, and a true distinctive synagogue made up of laymen who walk in integrity...

http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

As noted previously, like JTB they also required that: "No one is to go into water in order to attain the purity of holy men. For men cannot be purified except they repent their evil."

So they were building their own Temple. It wasn't a physical temple made of stone like the one in Jerusalem, it was a metaphorical temple built of the "righteousness" of the members of the community. The only sacrifices in that spiritual temple were of this type: " receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips"
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea+14&version=NIV

Let's not forget that someone else used the "Community-as-temple" metaphor too:

... Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple...

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+3&version=NIV

...And on that bombshell, I'll end part three here. Stay tuned!...

 

[David Mo]

Telling you to study the arguments is not arguing from authority. (It is interesting that you should confuse the two.) I came here looking for exchanges where some of my ideas can be tested and to gain new insights and perspectives. But when it is plainly evident that someone rejects an idea outright on grounds that clearly indicate a preformed opinion, however disingenuously framed, I have no interest in engagement with such persons.

Asking for more information is to reject "an idea outright on grounds that clearly indicate a preformed opinion". You have a strange idea of what is a debate.

You have sent us to a couple of books and articles of difficult access. My normal activity is not discussing about Jesus Christ and the early Christianity. This is a hobby. These texts are not available in the library of my university. They are neither available on line and I don't want to spend my money in buying everything that is recommended in this forum. In a normal debate you could present a short summary of the ideas that you are defending. Not here. Not you. What a pity.

I shall continue to consult the Vridar blog. Perhaps Isaiah 22 will appear there some day .

 

[GDon]

I think in reality that is another "non-mention"

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.​

Nobody at all believes that any living historical Jesus was physically located in Rome during the reign of Claudius (41-54 CE), engaged in inciting unrest among Jews in that city.

I agree. My own crazy idea -- for which I have no evidence at all -- is that this is talking about Paul. Paul wrote in Gal 2:

20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.​

Maybe people thought that Paul was speaking on behalf of a living Chrestus, or maybe people called Paul "Chrestus", perhaps encouraged by Paul as though a god spoke through him, in the same way that emperors like Caligula, Nero and the later Commodius took on the names of Roman gods. It's only speculation of course.

 

[vridar]

Thus placing Paul in Rome in the 40s.

 

[Mcreal]

I think in reality that is another "non-mention"

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.​

Nobody at all believes that any living historical Jesus was physically located in Rome during the reign of Claudius (41-54 CE), engaged in inciting unrest among Jews in that city.

I agree. My own crazy idea -- for which I have no evidence at all -- is that this is talking about Paul. Paul wrote in Gal 2:

20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.​

Maybe people thought that Paul was speaking on behalf of a living Chrestus, or maybe people called Paul "Chrestus", perhaps encouraged by Paul as though a god spoke through him, in the same way that emperors like Caligula, Nero and the later Commodius took on the names of Roman gods. It's only speculation of course.

I also agree that nobody believes a human Jesus of Nazareth was physically located in Rome during the reign of Claudius (41-54 CE).

Chrestus did not mean Christ, however.

Chrestus χρηϲτοϲ was usually an adjective, & usually meant good or useful; often applied to slaves (France, 2006), but not exclusively. It may have been used as a name.

Christ (Χριστός Christos / Khristos / kʰriːstós / Xristos) meant anointed as in what was literally done to Kings or High Priests (& possibly Emperors).

R. T. France. The Evidence for Jesus. (2006) Regent College Publishing ISBN 1-57383-370-3. p. 42

 

[Mcreal]

Contrary to popular (Christian) belief, Temple sacrifices were (mostly) not for personal atonement or absolution from "sin". That kind of absolution was only achieved by repentance and acts of contrition, charity, righteous behaviour etc ...

Were there ever any Temple sacrifices by Christians?

Continuing with John The Baptist (JTB), I think it is important to note that his popularity (enough to make Herod the Tetrarch nervous, according to Josephus) may have had something to do with the fact that he was offering an alternative to Temple sacrifice. His dunking ritual didn't cost anything, but making sacrifices in the Temple was too expensive for much of the population.

I wonder if John the Baptist was from a religion other than Judaism.

 

[Craig B]

Chrestus did not mean Christ, however.

Then either it's a mistranscription of the still to him unfamiliar word Christos by Suetonius, or it's not evidence for Jesus at all.

 

[Brainache]

Were there ever any Temple sacrifices by Christians?

I doubt it. Going by my hypothesis (spoiler alert) the earliest christians were the community led by James in Jerusalem. They weren't called "Christians" at that time or place. They were "The Poor" or followers of "The Way" and I would argue "Zealots". I think they were the very same community that left (at least some of) the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I wonder if John the Baptist was from a religion other than Judaism.

Not as described in any of the sources that I know of. I think it is the kind of thing that Josephus might have mentioned...

 

[Mcreal]

Originally Posted by Mcreal:
I wonder if John the Baptist was from a religion other than Judaism.

Not as described in any of the sources that I know of. I think it is the kind of thing that Josephus might have mentioned...

[edited] Even if JtB was initially from a pagan religion, any evidence would be scant, or would have been removed.

 

[Brainache]

[edited] Even if JtB was initially from a pagan religion, any evidence would be scant, or would have been removed.

Well, maybe, but the evidence we have indicates that JTB was Jewish:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-5.html

... Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness...

If you know of any reason to suppose that JTB was anything other than Jewish, please share it.

 

[Mcreal]

If you know of any reason to suppose that JTB was anything other than Jewish, please share it.

Antiquities 18.5 doesn't say John the Baptist was Jewish, it just says he

was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism ...