Scriptural literacy

[Greediguts]

A lot of this can be seen as early forays into Natural Philosophy, where understanding God can best be done by understanding nature. Although we consider creatures such as the phoenix as mythical these days, I am not so sure the people writing back then viewed it the same way. After all, which sounds more improbable, a giraffe or a phoenix? How about a platypus? I wouldn't call it borrowing myths, but rather trying to incorporate what was then known about the world into a theological perspective.

Excellent point!

I still have yet to read that book. I have read a few others of Erhman's, but not that one. The reading list continues to grow and grow.

My reading list is starting to reach the size of a small town's phone book!

Paul had some serious issues. I have just finished Pagels' Reading the Book of Judas, and it is amazing at just how venomous the early Christians were towards each other. I thought people in the U.S. held atheists in low regard!

That is one of Pagel's I haven't read yet. I'll have to look into that.....

 

[Greediguts]

I just finished reading Peter, Paul, and Mary by Erhman and I came across the most bizarre Eucharist celebration I've ever read. It comes from a book called Panarion written by a man named Epiphanius living in the 4th century. Epiphanius made it his life's work to eliminate Christian heresy and his book was a critique of about 80 different heretical groups. Epiphanius tells of a group called the Phibionites. He indicates when he was younger he was nearly seduced into joining the group, but when he learned of its religious practices, he declined. The sacred writings this group used were The Greater Questions of Mary and The Lesser Questions of Mary. The original texts no longer survive, so we only know of the writings because Epiphanius quotes some text (only from The Greater Questions of Mary, he references no text from the Lesser Questions) in his book. The story...well, before I repeat the story a word of warning for Christians: It involves sex, Jesus, and semen. It is somewhat graphic. It was considered heresy. If you thought the Last Temptation of Christ was bad, it's nothing compared to this! Click below at your own risk. Here's the story:

NSFW - Graphic Story

Epiphanius states that in the text, Jesus takes Mary Magdalene up to a mountaintop. Mary witnesses Jesus miraculously draw a woman from his side (kinda like Eve being born from a rib in Adam's side). Jesus then proceeds to have sexual intercourse with the woman (not Mary). Now as Jesus begins to reach his climax (whose name would he call out?....sorry) Jesus captures his own semen and eats it. Jesus tells Mary "Thus must we do, that we may live." Mary is understandably upset and she faints. Jesus raises her up and says "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"

This then leads into how the Phibionites celebrated the Lord's Supper. After the evening meal, the members would pair off (not with their own spouses of course) and have sex. When the men climaxed, they both would collect it and consume it saying "This is the body of Christ." If a woman happened to be menstruating, they would take some of her menstrual blood and consume it saying "This is the blood of Christ."

Could Epiphanius be stretching the truth here? Absolutely, but Erhman points out that a core belief for some Gnostic groups was nonprocreative sex. Why? If we are to escape this material world, we should not bring any more people into it. Salvation only becomes complete when all souls return to their spiritual home. If you have kids, you are just prolonging the existence of this lesser world. Epiphanius probably read some of their text and let his mind wander creating a very disturbing scenario....

 

[Greediguts]

<----(cautiously sticks head in)

Hello?

So...the last story cleared out the room, eh? Sorry...I honestly didn't post it for a cheap laugh or just for its shock value. As Hokulele noted, early Christians spewed alot of venom at one another, which I do find rather fascinating. If it helps, I apologize and will bang my head on the wall until forgiven....


While I give myself a concussion, I do have a question. For women, what was it about Jesus' message that was particularly appealing to them? I don't see him promising some sort of egalitarian society in his message. When he talked of the coming kingdom, he never promised greater equality of the sexes (in fact, he picked 12 men to help him rule the new kingdom on earth). Yet, the bible always mentions different females following Jesus, and as mentioned before, financially supporting his ministry. Anyone have any thoughts......?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Don't worry. The room's still full. Just haven't had time to come up with anything new and I thought you might be getting tired of just hearing "cool story".

By the way, it was a cool story. Definitely puts a new spin on "remember me when.........."

I guess this might explain why so many people scream out one or more of his avatars in the throes of.........OK better not go there.


As to the issue of women, don't know. I keep playing with different ways of trying to see what the first communities were like. The temptation is always to look to Mark since the gospels come first, but there women play a limited role (I think women finding the tomb empty is more a negative comment on the disciples than anything else). Women are already clearly important in Paul's letters. It might have been a Pauline thing. When the end of the age is coming, I don't think one's sex matters all that much. It might also have been an issue over the Spirit and the fact that at least the early Pauline communities were charismatic. Possibly there was influence from some of the mystery cults where women were allowed as well as men (at least some of them). If the converting gentiles viewed Christianity somewhat along those lines -- like a fused Judaism-lite that they could participate in but from the angle of what their culture had produced (Isis, Cybele, Persephone worship) -- the mystery religions could have played a central role in accounting for women in the early church.

Maybe.

 

[Greediguts]

As to the issue of women, don't know. I keep playing with different ways of trying to see what the first communities were like. The temptation is always to look to Mark since the gospels come first, but there women play a limited role (I think women finding the tomb empty is more a negative comment on the disciples than anything else). Women are already clearly important in Paul's letters. It might have been a Pauline thing. When the end of the age is coming, I don't think one's sex matters all that much. It might also have been an issue over the Spirit and the fact that at least the early Pauline communities were charismatic. Possibly there was influence from some of the mystery cults where women were allowed as well as men (at least some of them). If the converting gentiles viewed Christianity somewhat along those lines -- like a fused Judaism-lite that they could participate in but from the angle of what their culture had produced (Isis, Cybele, Persephone worship) -- the mystery religions could have played a central role in accounting for women in the early church.

Maybe.

In regards to women discovering the tomb being empty, Erhman says, as a historian, he is struck by "a certain consistency among otherwise independent witnesses in placing Mary Magdalene both at the cross and the tomb on the third day" (Peter, Paul, and Mary pg 226). This little bit of info made it into accounts that did not make use of each other. All of the Gospels (including the noncanonical Gospel of Peter) indicate it was Mary Magdalene who discovered the empty tomb. Now each Gospel has Mary with other women or alone, so there are differences, but the one thing that doesn't change is Mary was there and she found the empty tomb first. This could be a tradition that is rooted in some history....

Also, in regards to Mark, the character who is shown to understand what is going to happen to Jesus when he goes to Jerusalem is an unnamed woman. The woman who anoints his body for burial (Mark 14:3-9). Granted, she is unnamed, but the author shows it is a woman who understands Jesus' true mission...

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You know, lately I have begun to doubt many of the assumptions that Ehrman uses to determine the historical Jesus, and I think the criterion of independent attestation is one that is highly suspect.

What evidence do we have, really, that the author of Peter did not have access to the other gospel accounts? We only have a fragment of that gospel. We all seem to think that the author of John was responding at least in part to Mark, but Mark and John are considered independent sources in his and other's scenarios.

So, I don't think I give much credence to Mary being at the tomb as an historical event. I give it credence as a Markan event. Perhaps historical, perhaps one of Mark's stories.

As to the unnamed woman, fully agree. That fits perfectly with the rest of the way Mark tells his story -- unnamed outsiders get it while the disciples don't and run away when the going gets tough.

 

[Hokulele]

Sorry, I am currently working my way through Lost Christianities, so haven't been keeping up with reading the actual bible (shock!). That was a cool story.

Regarding the issue of women in early Christianity, the more I read, the more strongly I get the picture of the religion as heavily apocalyptic at the time. This goes back to the comments you two made earlier about why Jesus never wrote anything down, and the puzzlement of why Mark would bother. This was reinforced by the description of the Acts of Thecla and how her life was dramatically changed by the realization that she was living in the end times (or so she believed). Given this culture, it would make sense to recruit heavily among both genders, as well as allow women leadership roles. The whole point of Christianity was that everyone could be saved (whether or not they would).

I can also see tales of Jesus and his swashbuckling disciples being heavily romanticized, much like pirate stories are these days. Women love this kind of stuff. (Yes, I am over-generalizing. Yes, it does apply to me. Deal with it. )

The early church leaders, particularly the ones with the charismatic groups, would be very willing to trade off romanticism for dollars and success, I believe. After all, the parable from Luke previously discussed showed how willing the disciples were to cash in earthly connections for future salvation.

 

[Toke]

I didn´t know end times have been around that long

(don´t mind me, I haven´t read the bible)

 

[Hokulele]

I didn´t know end times have been around that long

 

[Greediguts]

You know, lately I have begun to doubt many of the assumptions that Ehrman uses to determine the historical Jesus, and I think the criterion of independent attestation is one that is highly suspect.

What evidence do we have, really, that the author of Peter did not have access to the other gospel accounts? We only have a fragment of that gospel. We all seem to think that the author of John was responding at least in part to Mark, but Mark and John are considered independent sources in his and other's scenarios.

So, I don't think I give much credence to Mary being at the tomb as an historical event. I give it credence as a Markan event. Perhaps historical, perhaps one of Mark's stories.

Well, in Erhman's defense, he offers several different arguments, Mary's presence being historically accurate is one. He also presents the argument that using women as observers could be a theologically motivated "memory" of what happened. The salvation that Jesus offers is meant for the oppressed. It's not leaders or even his disciples who realize the salvation he brings...

Erhman also states in Lost Scriptures that we could never be sure if the author of the Gospel of Peter had access to the other Gospels or not. Perhaps the author did...

Sorry, I am currently working my way through Lost Christianities, so haven't been keeping up with reading the actual bible (shock!). That was a cool story.

Regarding the issue of women in early Christianity, the more I read, the more strongly I get the picture of the religion as heavily apocalyptic at the time. This goes back to the comments you two made earlier about why Jesus never wrote anything down, and the puzzlement of why Mark would bother. This was reinforced by the description of the Acts of Thecla and how her life was dramatically changed by the realization that she was living in the end times (or so she believed). Given this culture, it would make sense to recruit heavily among both genders, as well as allow women leadership roles. The whole point of Christianity was that everyone could be saved (whether or not they would).

Yeah, I think you and Ichneumonwasp are right in regards to it being thought of as the "end times" and sex not making a difference.

Of course, as soon as people began thinking Jesus wasn't coming back so soon, then you get writings like 1 Timothy 2:11-15. ("Let a woman learn in silence...")

One thing about the Acts of Thecla though. The actual text of the story doesn't show her to be thinking about the end times, but through her faith she is saved from torture and death. The story finally ends with her moving to a new city, preaching the gospel, making converts, and dying.

Another interesting thing is that the text seems to hint at the Gnostic/Greco-Roman view of human beings and what was perfection. They placed all living things in a kind of succession. Plants at the far end, then animals, then the degrees of humans (children, slaves) then women, then men, and finally gods. The goal was to keep moving up the scale. This is why in some Gnostic texts you find lines like:

Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."(Gospel of Thomas verse 114)

Women were considered to be imperfect men.

In the Acts of Thecla, she cuts off her hair, baptizes herself (in a vat filled with seals that are going to eat her no less!), makes her cloak look like a man's and then receives Paul's blessings to go forth and spread the gospel. She basically becomes a "man".

So women's choices around the time the orthodox chruch was beginning to form were:
a) Be silent, submit to your spouse, make babies, and raise them properly
or
b) don't be a woman.

I can also see tales of Jesus and his swashbuckling disciples being heavily romanticized, much like pirate stories are these days. Women love this kind of stuff. (Yes, I am over-generalizing. Yes, it does apply to me. Deal with it. )

It would be interesting to see Johnny Depp portray Jesus, but still use the voice and mannerisms of Jack Sparrow. The water into wine scene would be hilarious...and Keith Richards could play God.

 

[Hokulele]

<snipped the good stuff>

So women's choices around the time the orthodox chruch was beginning to form were:
a) Be silent, submit to your spouse, make babies, and raise them properly
or
b) don't be a woman.

To be fair, this may have been the teachings of the proto-orthodox church, but it is hard to say whether or not these were the teachings of Jesus and his direct followers.

It would be interesting to see Johnny Depp portray Jesus, but still use the voice and mannerisms of Jack Sparrow. The water into wine scene would be hilarious...and Keith Richards could play God.

Annnnnnnd there's a mental image that won't be leaving anytime soon.

 

[Greediguts]

To be fair, this may have been the teachings of the proto-orthodox church, but it is hard to say whether or not these were the teachings of Jesus and his direct followers.

Oh absolutely! If Jesus was telling everyone that "this generation will not pass away", his followers (male and female) would be concerned with trying to model the appropriate behavior that would be expected in God's kingdom on earth (love one another, feed the hungry, etc.). I'm sure it would continue soon after his death, but as time went on and a church hierarchy started to slowly be established, the Greco-Roman ideal of male domination would begin to creep back in and take over.

Annnnnnnd there's a mental image that won't be leaving anytime soon.

Coming soon! Johnny Depp as Jesus Christ in "Passion of the Christ II: Swashbuckling Disciples of the Mediterranean"

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, in Erhman's defense, he offers several different arguments, Mary's presence being historically accurate is one. He also presents the argument that using women as observers could be a theologically motivated "memory" of what happened. The salvation that Jesus offers is meant for the oppressed. It's not leaders or even his disciples who realize the salvation he brings...

Erhman also states in Lost Scriptures that we could never be sure if the author of the Gospel of Peter had access to the other Gospels or not. Perhaps the author did...

Right. I don't have anything against that criterion per se (and I have nothing but respect for Ehrman, though the more I read the more I can see minor problems in some things he says -- which is completely his fault because he got me started on all this in the first place), but I do think that we need to be careful in the way that it is employed -- much like the criterion of dissimilarity. I think that it is very likely that Mark was available to many, if not all, of the other gospel writers, so it is possible that anything in Mark can only cite Mark as its origin. Now if we had the same idea in Paul's letters (that women were first at the tomb), then I would tend to think that there is an independent source, though even there can we be sure? Paul wrote in the 50s and Mark was written in the late 60s to early 70s, so Mark may have had access to those letters. I don't think we should be so sure that anything that Paul said is independent of the rest, and I really don't think that Mark is independent of any of the other gospels.

As for the criterion of dissimilarity, I can see reasons other than "it must have happened that way because they would have been embarrassed to say that" for the women at the tomb. As you mention, Ehrman states that the women being there could have been a theologically motivated act. It could have been a literary act.

I like the way Ehrman analyzes the accounts, but I wonder how much of his conclusion is what he wants to find. It may be that Jesus was an apocalyptic figure. It may be that he was something else but was turned into an apocalyptic figure after he died.

The more I read this stuff the less sure I am of any of its historical value. Reading Mark along with Jeremiah (as you were earlier reading the gospel accounts along with Isaiah) forced me to see how much of the story was modelled on earlier sources. The theme of Mark is the theme of Jeremiah. Reading Acts along with Paul's letters was a complete eye opener.

I also keep swinging back and forth over Paul's influence. I don't think he created whole-cloth all of the ideas he presents in his letters ("as was handed on to me"), but he may have been one of the primary shapers seeing in Judaic prophecy (what God wants us to speak, know and act) writings what we now call prophecy (what's going to happen in the future) because of his apocalyptic bent.

I often feel completely unmoored trying to get a handle on it all.

 

[Hokulele]

In addition, I would say that various accounts between the gospels may have been tweaked a bit to closer conform to each other by the various translators/transcribers over the centuries. "Oh, I am sure he really meant to say X instead of Y. I will just tidy this up a bit."

I feel like I am reading too much commentary on the bible, that I am starting to lose track of what's in the bible, so I am going back to read Zechariah next. I needs me some prophecy.

And to your last comment, Ichneumonwasp, it helps for me to remember the original intent of the various New Testament writings. They were never intended to be collated and compared as we are now doing. They were stand-alone texts meant for spiritual guidance rather than historical accuracy or consistency. I tend to think that there was a great deal of diversity in thought, and that it may have been encouraged at the beginning (small groups meeting in private homes). Only once enough time had passed without the apocalypse did the early Christians feel like they had to figure out what they were really supposed to be doing. I will go even further and speculate that the early church may have thought that it was their fault the end times hadn't come, because they weren't "doing it right". The development of orthodoxy could have been an attempt to "do it right" and trigger the return of the Messiah (or whatever it was they thought was supposed to happen).

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

In addition, I would say that various accounts between the gospels may have been tweaked a bit to closer conform to each other by the various translators/transcribers over the centuries. "Oh, I am sure he really meant to say X instead of Y. I will just tidy this up a bit."

I feel like I am reading too much commentary on the bible, that I am starting to lose track of what's in the bible, so I am going back to read Zechariah next. I needs me some prophecy.

And to your last comment, Ichneumonwasp, it helps for me to remember the original intent of the various New Testament writings. They were never intended to be collated and compared as we are now doing. They were stand-alone texts meant for spiritual guidance rather than historical accuracy or consistency. I tend to think that there was a great deal of diversity in thought, and that it may have been encouraged at the beginning (small groups meeting in private homes). Only once enough time had passed without end the apocalypse did the early Christians feel like they had to figure out what they were really supposed to be doing. I will go even further an speculate that the early church may have thought that it was their fault the end times hadn't come, because they weren't "doing it right". The development of orthodoxy could have been an attempt to "do it right" and trigger the return of the Messiah (or whatever it was they thought was supposed to happen).

That's a great idea. I really like that. I wonder if we can find evidence of it in the writings? That's got to be worth a PhD thesis if it panned out with evidence.

ETA:

I wonder if that could have played into the emergence of anti-Semitism in the early church? Those Jews got God's message wrong, but we are getting it right......................

 

[Hokulele]

That's a great idea. I really like that. I wonder if we can find evidence of it in the writings? That's got to be worth a PhD thesis if it panned out with evidence.

Aw shucks, but I am sure if I Google it, someone must have thought of it already. Now I am afraid to Google.

It was a thought triggered by one of Paul's letters (Romans? Galatians?). Maybe I will go back through some of those tonight when I have a bit of free time and see if I can find the passage that made me think of it.

ETA:

I wonder if that could have played into the emergence of anti-Semitism in the early church? Those Jews got God's message wrong, but we are getting it right......................

Sounds a bit Marcionian to me.


ETA: Yeesh, re-reading my post in your quote makes me realize I have to do a better job of proof-reading before posting!

 

[Greediguts]

The more I read this stuff the less sure I am of any of its historical value. Reading Mark along with Jeremiah (as you were earlier reading the gospel accounts along with Isaiah) forced me to see how much of the story was modelled on earlier sources. The theme of Mark is the theme of Jeremiah. Reading Acts along with Paul's letters was a complete eye opener.

I'm going to start Jeremiah. I'll keep an eye out for common themes with Mark.

 

[Greediguts]

And to your last comment, Ichneumonwasp, it helps for me to remember the original intent of the various New Testament writings. They were never intended to be collated and compared as we are now doing. They were stand-alone texts meant for spiritual guidance rather than historical accuracy or consistency. I tend to think that there was a great deal of diversity in thought, and that it may have been encouraged at the beginning (small groups meeting in private homes). Only once enough time had passed without the apocalypse did the early Christians feel like they had to figure out what they were really supposed to be doing. I will go even further and speculate that the early church may have thought that it was their fault the end times hadn't come, because they weren't "doing it right". The development of orthodoxy could have been an attempt to "do it right" and trigger the return of the Messiah (or whatever it was they thought was supposed to happen).

In regards to the very early christians, I've read the theory that Paul thought the Messiah would return as soon as everyone had been exposed to the teachings of Christ. This was why he would not waste his time going to areas where other missionaries had gone, and why he was trying so hard to reach Spain and preach the Gospel. Spain would have been the end of the known world for Paul. One he got there and told everyone the "Good News", then no one would have an excuse. Everyone would have heard so then God would appear and close up shop...

I like your theory about how the following generations would view the delay of the Messiah and how orthodoxy developed. That is worth looking into. Has anyone read the writings of the Apostolic Fathers? Maybe some of their early writings would support that idea...?

 

[Hokulele]

I should never have mentioned that speculation, as now I am getting the itch to research it more fully! Hmm, I wonder if our local library has a copy of Eusebius...

Anyway, the only scriptural reference I could find on a quick skim is 2 Peter 3:9.

The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

This seems to be one of the few references to what God himself wants (as a goal, that is) out of the new convenant, which would tie in with the theory of Paul you just mentioned. I haven't read anything by the Apostolic Fathers, but I have a sinking feeling my reading list just quadrupled.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I haven't listened to this yet, but there is a continuing education series I just ran across at the Stanford site on the Historical Jesus.

I hope the link works. It's on itunes, so you have to download itunes first if you haven't done that. Looks like ten lectures and a syllabus. The syllabus isn't much to write home about, but I hope the lectures are good.