Archaeologist: "Jesus" predated Jesus

[Suraknar]

I think it is Cybele or Magna Mater, the cult came to Rome from Pessino in Phrygia.

[Adrian II]

I think it is Cybele or Magna Mater, the cult came to Rome from Pessino in Phrygia.

I think it must be, although I found no reference to the Pessino stone being black.

From Livy [29:10 and 29:11]:

(..) Owing to the unusual number of showers of stones which had fallen during the year [205 b.C. - Adrian II], an inspection had been made of the Sibylline Books, and some oracular verses had been discovered which announced that whenever a foreign foe should carry war into Italy he could be driven out and conquered if the Mater Idaea were brought from Pessinus to Rome. The discovery of this prediction produced all the greater impression on the senators because the deputation who had taken the gift to Delphi reported on their return that when they sacrificed to the Pythian Apollo the indications presented by the victims were entirely favourable, and further, that the response of the oracle was to the effect that a far grander victory was awaiting Rome than the one from whose spoils they had brought the gift to Delphi. They regarded the hopes thus raised as confirmed by the action of Scipio in demanding Africa as his province as though he had a presentiment that this would bring the war to an end. In order, therefore, to secure all the sooner the victory which the Fates the omens and the oracles alike foreshadowed, they began to think out the best way of transporting the goddess to Rome.

[29.11]Up to that time the Roman people had no allies amongst the communities in Asia. They had not forgotten however, that when they were suffering from a serious epidemic they had sent to fetch Aesculapius from Greece though they had no treaty with that country, and now that King Attalus had formed a friendly league with them against their common enemy, Philip, they hoped that he would do what he could in the interest of Rome. Accordingly, they decided to send a mission to him; those selected for the purpose being M. Valerius Laevinus who had been twice consul and had also been in charge of the operations in Greece, M. Caecilius Metellus an ex-praetor, S. Sulpicius Galba, formerly aedile, and two who had been quaestors, Cnaeus Tremellius Flaccus and M. Valerius Falto. It was arranged that they should sail with five quinqueremes in order that they might present an appearance worthy of the people of Rome when they visited those states which were to be favourably impressed with the greatness of the Roman name. On their way to Asia the commissioners landed at Delphi, and at once went to consult the oracle and ascertain what hopes it held out to them and their country of accomplishing their task. The response which they are said to have received was that they would attain their object through King Attalus and when they had conveyed the goddess to Rome they were to take care that the best and noblest men in Rome should accord her a fitting reception. They went on to the royal residence in Pergamum, and here the king gave them a friendly welcome and conducted them to Pessinus in Phrygia. He then handed over to them the sacred stone which the natives declared to be "the Mother of the Gods," and bade them carry it to Rome. M. Valerius Falto was sent on in advance to announce that the goddess was on her way, and that the best and noblest man in Rome must be sought out to receive her with all due honour. (..)

[Adrian II]

Since I can not say anything that will change your mind AII due to the fact that your english is better than mine and my attention span is horredously short. I leave with this. You best not be talkin bout my jesus..boy

Indeed, I don't think we are talking of the same Jesus. But I started this thread with an open mind, professing that even if I don't believe in God I certainly believe in the bible.

Lo and behold, as I was browsing the weekend papers I hit upon this piece in the TLS. Now that is the good stuff. Must have that book.

All the form-critical assumptions to do with the role of the early Christian communities in the formation of the synoptic tradition would have to be abandoned in favour of decisive personal contributions by recognized and authoritative eyewitnesses.

Just .. wow.

[Suraknar]

Very nice peace Adrian :)

I found a mention of black stone from an archeological progect in Itally.
Magna Mater Project

[...] The Temple of the Magna Mater was built on the Palatine Hill between 204 and 191 BC, for purposes of receiving and housing the revered Black Stone, transported to Rome from the Asian city of Pessinus, where it was worshipped as a simulacrum of Cybele, the name by which the Magna Mater was known in this city. During the Second Punic War, the Sibylline Books advised the Romans to search in Pessinus for this Black Stone representing the Mother of the Gods, as a means of recovering the support and protection of the Gods they felt they had lost, because of the profound negative impact of this war on Rome.

The Black Stone was received by Publius Scipio Nasica, then considered the 'best man' of Rome, who went to greet this simulacrum of Cybele in a ship. The vessel, which nearly sank, and became stuck in mud close to Rome, was assisted safely to shore with the aid of a Vestal, Claudia Quinta, who prayed to the Goddess for divine assistance in this matter, and afterwhich used her garment belt as a means to help pull the ship out of peril. A sudden gust of wind of paranormal velocity is said to have blown the ship, and the Magna Mater, safely into the arms of Rome.

The Black Stone was initially housed in the Temple of Victory (Aedes Victoriae), built in 294 BC by Consul Lucius Postumius Megellus. Later, in 193 BC, Marcus Porcius Cato added a place dedicated to the Victoria Virgo.

In April of 191 BC, the Romans completed and consecrated this temple on the Palatine Hill to the Magna Mater. [...]

[Adrian II]

Magna Mater Project

Woot!1! Great find, brother Suraknar.

"The cult gradually grew to entertain a rather large following right up until the time of the interdiction of Paganism."

I think brother Brenus has been royally served.

[Suraknar]

Back on Topic,

Personally, I do not doubt the existance of a Historical Jesus.

We often seem to forget the Essenes, historian Flavius Josephus, who described Judeans in to three main groops. Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes.

Essenes, members of a small Jewish religious order, originating in the 2d cent. B.C. The chief sources of information about the Essenes are Pliny the Elder, Philo's Quod omnius probus liber, Josephus' Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, and (possibly) the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient leather and papyrus scrolls first discovered in 1947 in caves on the NW shore of the Dead Sea.

The sect consisted of adult males and celibacy was encouraged. The Essenes lived as a highly organized community that held possessions in common. Ceremonial purity entailed scrupulous cleanliness, the wearing of only white garments, and the most strict observance of the Sabbath. The Essenes believed in the immortality of the soul. Their practice, common among many Jewish groups, of purification through ritual immersion may have been a significant influence on the development of the rite of baptism in the early Christian church. They condemned slavery and prohibited trading because it led to covetousness and cheating; they avoided luxury, abhorred untruthfulness and forbade oaths, with the one exception of the oath a new member took after two years of probation. In this oath, the member pledged piety toward God, justice to men, honesty with fellow Essenes, preservation of the sect's secrets, and proper transmission of its teachings. The Essenes subsisted by pastoral and agricultural activities and handicrafts; they avoided the manufacture of weapons.

There is evidence of Persian and Hellenistic influences in the sect's thought. The Essenes' belief in several Messiahs is thought by some to have been a major influence in the development of Christianity. The sect ceased to exist sometime in the 2d cent. A.D.

Bibliography: See D. Howlett, The Essenes and Christianity (1957); A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (tr. 1961, repr. 1967); M. A. Larson, The Essene Heritage (1967); G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls (1978); P. R. Davies, Behind the Essenes: History and Ideology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1987).

It has even been suggested and many now accept that the Historical Jesus was Essenian as well.

Now the Essene sect is first being reported around 2nd century BCE. The Ideas many of which made their way in to Christianity, of cource predate Jesus himself, I wonder if Thompson takes this under account in his analysis.

[Suraknar]

Woot!1! Great find, brother Suraknar.

"The cult gradually grew to entertain a rather large following right up until the time of the interdiction of Paganism."

I think brother Brenus has been royally served.

Thank you brother Adrian

[Adrian II]

Now the Essene sect is first being reported around 2nd century BCE. The Ideas many of which made their way in to Christianity, of cource predate Jesus himself, I wonder if Thompson takes this under account in his analysis.

In the 1950's Qumran appeared to be an isolated enclave. Since then, excavations have revealed that Qumran was originally an integral part of the Hasmonean royal estate, so it has become harder to maintain that they were a reclusive sect. On the other hand, those same excavations have corroborated what Josephus and others wrote about the Essene lifstyle.

Your concluding remark seems most relevant to me, though. The Redeemer of the Essenes shares many characteristics with the many sun-gods of the wider region. Why else would Christian churches be built with an eastward orientation? St. John of Damascus wrote: 'When ascending into heaven, He rose towards the East, and that is how the Apostles adored Him, and He will return just as they saw Him ascend into heaven, as the Lord has said: “Just as the flash of lightening rises from above and then descends downward, so will be the arrival of the Lord.” Waiting for Him, we adore Him facing East.' Go figure: Mithras, Horus and Christ were all born on 25 December, they had 12 companions, performed miracles, were killed and rose from their graves after three days. Horus was called The Anointed One, so were Mithras and Jesus. Thompson only drives home a point that is so evident we shouldn't belabour its principle, only its application. The Essenes, the Gnostics and the early Church all referred to various inspirational figures whose life-stories were cast more or less in the same mold, Simon the Magician no less than the one called Iesous Christos.

What fascinates me no end in the Bauckham book (to which I referred above after seeing the review in the TLS) is the idea that there may have been a historic Christ whose words and deeds can be reconstructed by turning the Gospels inside-out, as it were, and regarding them as a collection of (explicit or unattributed) testimonies from persons mentioned in them.

Civic journalism from AD 25! Mind you, this would go a long way toward explaining many of the inconsistencies between the Gospels that couldn't be sufficiently explained until now.

I haven't read the book, I have only just learnt of its existence. But assuming for a moment that its thesis is true (or plausible), it would mean that we could, by eliminating the familiar and 'worn' tropes from the Gospels' accounts, discover in what ways Christ taught something different from the usual doctrines derived from the old sun-god cults. We might discover that there was indeed a historic person who made the leap of faith from the old, outwardly oriented cults to a new cult of internalized divine light.

It sounds too good to be true, but in the field of biblical research one should never say never.

Must. Have. This. Book.

[Watchman]

Eh, everyone knows Jesus was in India being taught by gurus 'fore he started preaching. Where do you think he learned to walk on water ?

[Brenus]

Thanks guys, very well served indeed… However, my memory didn’t serve me well, because this cult of Cybele was before Christ…
Back to topic, the confusion of two Christ is an hypothesis I read about two years ago, during the Da Vinci Code period. I had to do some research about the Gnosis and I found some text about this. I will try to find it again, but I think it was removed.
Anyway, and I am not an expert on this period, I remember that the Christ times were full of new prophets, and the Jewish Community was in full debate. Christ being only one of the debating intellectual movements…

[Adrian II]

I believe that between us (and the sources we have quoted) we have covered just about every Jesus-theory there is, bar 'Jesus was an alien' of course. Although Ockham's razor gives short thrift to most of them, I think even the most eccentric Jesus-stories share a common motif with most of modern theology. The common motif being that we no longer accept, for our time, the reified or even ossified Jesus of ecclesiastic tradition.

[Pindar]

Even if Mark was written first (as the reviewer has it), it does not necessarily follow that it is the 'most historically important' of Synoptic Gospels.

If Mark's Gospel were indeed 'closest in time' to a historic Jesus episode, then this proximity, in addition to the nature of the text, would certainly make this the most important Gospel. But it is precisely the historicity of that episode which remains to be proven. Or rather: shown to be plausible, since that seems to be the highest measure of proof attainable for any statement in this entire field, given the nature of the available sources. In any case, Mark's chronological proximity to what was possibly a non-event does not speak to its veracity.

An alternative view on relative importance of the Gospels might be that all four primarily or even uniquely reflect the preoccupations of the authors' own place and time, cast in the mold of the familiar Near Eastern tropes and centered on a legendary or even mythical Christ. If seen in this way, John -- being the bistro intellectual of the bunch and given to abstractions and sweeping statements -- may actually represent these concerns more eloquently than the other three. Hence John would be the most historically important.

I think you missed the thrust of the potential criticism: the issue is that standard scholarly opinion has Mark as the Synoptic text on which Matthew and Mark depend. Thompson's work (based on the review) treats each as independently sourcing to a larger oral tradition. Much of his argument appeals to assumed tropes from Mathew and Mark. If there is a literary dependence then that would undercut his thesis at an early stage of analysis. Thompson does not appear to engage the conventional view. This is problematic.

[Adrian II]

I think you missed the thrust of the potential criticism: the issue is that standard scholarly opinion has Mark as the Synoptic text on which Matthew and Mark depend. Thompson's work (based on the review) treats each as independently sourcing to a larger oral tradition. Much of his argument appeals to assumed tropes from Mathew and Mark. If there is a literary dependence then that would undercut his thesis at an early stage of analysis. Thompson does not appear to engage the conventional view. This is problematic.

I think you are mixing up Gospels here, but I get your point anyway. Thompson's answer would be, I guess, that all Gospels draw on previous sources. Besides, scholarly opinion often assumes that the later Gospels draw on Mark + 'Q' instead of on Mark alone. And then of course there is the issue of Paul's preceding letters. I think one would have to read Thompson's book to see what he makes of all of this in detail.

[Sigurd]

I have in my hands the William Whiston translation (1732) of a book called The Works of Flavius Josephus. My copy is printed 1875

Flavius Josephus (37 – 100 AD), Antiquities of the Jews XVIII, iii 3.


Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man , if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Now, I get the feeling that this section of Josephus has been tampered with and some encyclopaedias agree. This is a man who studied all directions of Judaism and chose to be associated with the Pharisees. The canon does give the impression that Jesus and the Christians were not really in a good light with the Pharisees.
This section found in the middle of Josephus’ history concerning the procurator of Jerusalem; Pontus Pilate, speaks of a man called Jesus and connects him with the title Christ and his followers the Christians.

I believe it has been tampered with and as such should be taken with a grain of salt. But the fact that it has been tampered with suggests that something else was written concerning Jesus of Nazareth; probably not favourable towards the Christian faith. I only speculate of course and it is claimed that it was 3rd century scholars that did the editing. This gives an interesting idea of other texts being tampered with.

Considered, Josephus a first century non Christian historian mentions Jesus in a first century text (93 AD).

[Adrian II]

Now, I get the feeling that this section of Josephus has been tampered with and some encyclopaedias agree.

There are three extant texts of the book in Greek, dating from the eleventh century. Apart from the part you quoted these texts also mention 'James, brother of Jesus'.

The passage you quote has long been disputed because Josephus, as a known non-believer, would hardly call Jesus 'The Christ' (i.e. 'The Anointed' or 'The Messiah').

There is one Arabic version dating from the tenth century. The latter is far more restrained in its mention of Jesus than the three Greek versions.

Isn't our best bet to suppose that Josephus must have had information on Jesus and his brother James based on contemporary hear-say about the then incipient Jesus-sect?

[Suraknar]

The passage you quote has long been disputed because Josephus, as a known non-believer, would hardly call Jesus 'The Christ' (i.e. 'The Anointed' or 'The Messiah').

Another way to look at it, instead of a non-believer it can be that Josephus simply was a traditional jew, and to accept Jesus as Christ was something that only Christians did.

Isn't our best bet to suppose that Josephus must have had information on Jesus and his brother James based on contemporary hear-say about the then incipient Jesus-sect?

And even eye witness account of that incepient Jesus-sect.

What strikes me is these words in the passage:

"if it be lawful to call him a man"

To me this represents a respectfull mention, since, he knows that what he writtes will be equally read by Christian Hebrews as well as non Christian Hebrews, the fact that he does make an effort to not insult some people is indication that these whom he seeks to avoid insulting are very near him, living around and amongst.

On the other hand, it also may mean that the person who wrote it in Greek, was Christian himself.

EDIT: I found a translation from the arabic version, that was written by Agapius in the 10th Century.

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders"- Shlomo Pines' translation

[Adrian II]

Another way to look at it, instead of a non-believer it can be that Josephus simply was a traditional jew, and to accept Jesus as Christ was something that only Christians did.

Sure. Like Sigurd said Josephus was more of a Pharisee and confirming Jesus' divine status ('if it be lawful to call him a man') and accepting him as Messiah ('and he is The Anointed One') would be anathema for him. I called Josephus a 'non-believer' because that is what a later bishop (I believe it was Irenaeus) called him, meaning of course he was non-believer in Christ.

EDIT

Somehow I had hoped this thread would turn out to be a little more spiritual. There is so much to be learned from evaluating and re-evaluating many of the Ancient sources mentioned - enough to last one a lifetime, really. The study of the Axial Period is worthwhile because it reveals issues that are of prime importance today. This should be common ground where believers and non-believers can meet.

René Girard, for one, has done just that. He claims that Jesus (or the ones writing Gospels on his behalf) developed a crucial insight in the mechanisms of human conflict and its resolution: mimetic desire and the scapegoat principle. A later Prophet, Mohammed, came very close to this insight as well, and he can even be seen as an early Protestant bent on reviving the original spirit of sacrifice that imbued Christ.

This brings Girard to some original and interesting views on the present terrorism issue:

The error is always to reason within categories of "difference" when the root of all conflicts is rather "competition," mimetic rivalry between persons, countries, cultures. Competition is the desire to imitate the other in order to obtain the same thing he or she has, by violence if need be. No doubt terrorism is bound to a world "different" from ours, but what gives rise to terrorism does not lie in that "difference" that removes it further from us and makes it inconceivable to us. To the contrary, it lies in an exacerbated desire for convergence and resemblance. Human relations are essentially relations of imitation, of rivalry.
What is experienced now is a form of mimetic rivalry on a planetary scale. When I read the first documents of Bin Laden and verified his allusions to the American bombing of Japan, I felt at first that I was in a dimension that transcends Islam, a dimension of the entire planet. Under the label of Islam we find a will to rally and mobilize an entire third world of those frustrated and of victims in their relations of mimetic rivalry with the West. But the towers destroyed had as many foreigners as Americans. By their effectiveness, by the sophistication of the means employed, by the knowledge that they had of the United States, by their training, were not the authors of the attack at least somewhat American? Here we are in the middle of mimetic contagion.

Link

I guess my final point would be the one I started this thread with. There is a process of thorough demystification of religious sources going on right now. What Thompson and many others are doing for Christian sources, Israel Finkelstein and others are doing for Hebrew history and the Saarbrücken seminar and others (Hans Jansen being one of them) are doing for Mohammed and early Islam. They are breaking out of the traditional mould of the established religions, re-drawing the boundaries between them or even erasing them altogether in order to establish new historic relationships and layers of meaning that go against the received wisdom of centuries.

This process of demystification can give us, believers and non-believers alike, new insights into the true intellectual achievement of the Axial Period. Mohammed is being demystified to the point where we can reasonably assume that his creed was a version of early Christian teaching. Christ's teaching built upon the earlier Hebrew Prophets (particularly the 'minor' ones) who, in turn, may not have been Jewish in any real sense and drawn their inspiration from the Indus civilisation and early Hinduism. If you read the fifth Gospel, the Thomas Gospel that was found intact in Egypt, you can hardly miss the parallels with Atman.

These are interesting times, gentlemen, but they fade in comparison with the Axial period.

[Suraknar]

Sure. Like Sigurd said Josephus was more of a Pharisee and confirming Jesus' divine status ('if it be lawful to call him a man') and accepting him as Messiah ('and he is The Anointed One') would be anathema for him. I called Josephus a 'non-believer' because that is what a later bishop (I believe it was Irenaeus) called him, meaning of course he was non-believer in Christ.

Yup Yup!

Now, I had to look harder for the following, even if I speak modern Greek, but I think its worth it. :)

This is the original Josephus Greek text, (Well with some of the accents missing due to font issues) :

"Γίγνεται δε κατά τούτον τον χρόνον Ιησούς, σοφός ανήρ ει γε άνδρα αυτόν λέγειν χρη. Ήν γαρ παραδόξων έργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ανθρώπων των ηδονή ταληθή δεχομένων. Και πολλούς μεν Ιουδαίους, πολλούς δε και από τού Ελληνικού επηγάγετο. Ο Χριστός ούτος ην. Και αυτόν, ενδείξει των πρώτων ανδρών παρ' ημίν σταυρώ επιτετμηκότος Πιλάτου, ουκ επαύσατο οι το πρώτον αυτόν αγαπήσαντες. εφάνη γαρ αυτοίς τρίτην έχων ημέραν πάλιν ζων, των θείων προφητών ταυτά τε και άλλα μύρια θαυμάσια περί αυτού ειρηκότων. εισέτι τε νυν τών Χριστιανών από τούδε ωνομασμένων ουκ επέλιπε το φύλον" (Ιουδαϊκές Αρχαιότητες XVIII 3, 3).

Note: Ancient Greek and Modern Greek are not really Allien to one another, it is the same alphabet and someone speaking Modern could understand 65% of Ancient and with the help of a Modern-Ancient dictionary get the full meaning aswell.

And this is the Greek translation of the Arabic text of Agapius:

"Εκείνο το καιρό ήταν ένας σοφός που ονομαζόταν Ιησούς. Και η συμπεριφορά του ήταν καλή, και ήταν γνωστός ως άνθρωπος αρετής. Και πολλοί από τους Ιουδαίους και από τα άλλα έθνη έγιναν μαθητές του. Ο Πιλάτος τον καταδίκασε να σταυρωθεί και να πεθάνει. Και εκείνοι που έγιναν μαθητές του δεν εγκατέλειψαν τη διδασκαλία του. Αφηγήθηκαν ότι εκείνος εμφανίσθηκε σε αυτούς μετά τη σταύρωσή του και ότι ήταν ζωντανός. Aρα, ίσως να ήταν ο Μεσσίας για τον οποίο οι προφήτες είπαν θαύματα".

This translates as:

Back in that time there was a wise man, called Jesus. And his behavior was good, and he was known as a man of vitrue. And many amongst the Jews as well as people of other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and die. And those that were his disciples did not abandon his teachings. And proclaimed that he came back to them after his crusifiction and he was alive. Thus, maybe he was the Mesiah that the prophets said so many miraculus things about.

Now Historians are of the opinion that the original that we have in greek, is actually an edited version by Eusebius in the 3rd century.

The contested parts of the paragraph are these:

"Γίγνεται δε κατά τούτον τον χρόνον Ιησούς, σοφός ανήρ (ει γε άνδρα αυτόν λέγειν χρη. Ήν γαρ παραδόξων έργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ανθρώπων των ηδονή ταληθή δεχομένων). Και πολλούς μεν Ιουδαίους, πολλούς δε και από τού Ελληνικού επηγάγετο. (Ο Χριστός ούτος ην.) Και αυτόν, ενδείξει των πρώτων ανδρών παρ' ημίν σταυρώ επιτετμηκότος Πιλάτου, ουκ επαύσατο οι το πρώτον αυτόν αγαπήσαντες. (εφάνη γαρ αυτοίς τρίτην έχων ημέραν πάλιν ζων, των θείων προφητών ταυτά τε και άλλα μύρια θαυμάσια περί αυτού ειρηκότων.) εισέτι τε νυν τών Χριστιανών από τούδε ωνομασμένων ουκ επέλιπε το φύλον" (Ιουδαϊκές Αρχαιότητες XVIII 3, 3).

So if we were to remove them, this would most probably be what Josephus really wrote originally, translated in Modern Greek.

"Εκείνο το καιρό ήταν ένας σοφός άνδρας ο Ιησούς. Και πολλοί από τους Ιουδαίους και από τα άλλα έθνη τον ακολούθησαν. Ο Πιλάτος τον καταδίκασε να σταυρωθεί και να πεθάνει, καθ υπόδειξιν ανδρών δικών μας εξουσίας, αλλά εκείνοι που τον αγάπησαν από την αρχή, δεν σταμάτησαν. Από τότε, δεν έπαψε η γενιά αυτών των ονομασμένων Χριστιανών".

Which translates in english as:

Back in that time there was a wise man, Jesus. And many people of the Jews and other nations (In ancient Greek it says Jews and Hellenes) followed him. Pilate condemned him to die on the cross, following our own evidence, but the ones that loved him from the begining, did not stop doing so. And from then on exists this generation of the ones known as Christians.

And coincidently, looks more "in line" with the arabic version.

In one version or another however, this only says that independently of Dogma, Jesus did exist, and his message was very sound, in an attempt to end all the violence and hate of the time. At least it is how I see it personally.

[Suraknar]

I guess my final point would be the one I started this thread with. There is a process of thorough demystification of religious sources going on right now. What Thompson and many others are doing for Christian sources, Israel Finkelstein and others are doing for Hebrew history and the Saarbrücken seminar and others (Hans Jansen being one of them) are doing for Mohammed and early Islam. They are breaking out of the traditional mould of the established religions, re-drawing the boundaries between them or even erasing them altogether in order to establish new historic relationships and layers of meaning that go against the received wisdom of centuries.

This process of demystification can give us, believers and non-believers alike, new insights into the true intellectual achievement of the Axial Period. Mohammed is being demystified to the point where we can reasonably assume that his creed was a version of early Christian teaching. Christ's teaching built upon the earlier Hebrew Prophets (particularly the 'minor' ones) who, in turn, may not have been Jewish in any real sense and drawn their inspiration from the Indus civilisation and early Hinduism. If you read the fifth Gospel, the Thomas Gospel that was found intact in Egypt, you can hardly miss the parallels with Atman.

These are interesting times, gentlemen, but they fade in comparison with the Axial period.

Indeed, a noble endeavor. The more we know (demystify) the more we can understand about our selves through our religious origins and the more we can understand about eachother as well.

As for influences, in all three Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions from past religions the evidence is plentifull.

Proto-Monotheism itself, with Akhenaton & Nefertiti of Egypt, and preceding Moses, is not negligeable. Hellenic influences upon Christianity, Judaism and even Bhudism are not negligeable. Mesopotamian influences to Judaism are neither, to say nothing of suspected influences of Bhudism upon Christianity.

And even when I was looking around for Brenus I stumbled upon this passage, of Egyptian ritual:

The Osirian Sacrament

Although there were ethical and ceremonial considerations none of these could compare to the power of the divine eucharist, since it was literally believed to be the body (bread) and blood (ale) of the god. Since the ancient Nilotics believed that humans were whatever they eat, this sacrament was, by extension, able to make them celestial and immortal. The doctrine of the eucharist ultimately has its roots in prehistoric cannibalism, whose practitioners believed that the virtues and powers of the eaten would thus be absorbed by the eater. This phenomenon has been described throughout the world.

One of the oldest of the Pyramid Texts is the Unas from the 6th Dynasty (circa 2500 BC). It shows that the original ideology of Egypt commingled with Osirian concepts. Although ultimately given a high place in heaven by order of Osiris, Unas is at first an enemy of the gods and his ancestors, who he hunts, lassoes, kills, cooks, and eats so that their powers may become his own. This was written at a time when the eating of parents and gods was a laudable ceremony, and this emphasizes how hard it must have been to stamp out the older order of cannibalism. “He eats men, he feeds on the gods…he cooks them in his fiery cauldrons. He eats their words of power, he swallows their spirits…. He eats the wisdom of every god, his period of life is eternity…. Their soul is in his body, their spirits are within him.” A parallel passage is found in the Pyramid Text of Pepi II, who is said to have “seizeth those who are a follower of Set…he breaketh their heads, he cutteth off their haunches, he teareth out their intestines, he diggeth out their hearts, he drinketh copiously of their blood!”. Although crude, this was a core concept, the conviction that one could receive immortality by eating the flesh and blood of a god who had died became a dominating obsession in the ancient world. Although the cult of Osiris forbade cannibalism, it did not outlaw dismemberment and eating of enemies, and practiced the ritual rending and eating of the sacred bull, symbolizing Osiris.

Although this sacramental concept only originated once in history, it spread throughout the Mediterranean area and became the dynamic force in every mystery cult. It was only by this sacerdotal means that the corruptible deceased could be clothed in incorruption and this idea appears again and again in infinite variety. The scribe Nebseni implores: “And there in the celestial mansions of heaven which my divine father Tem hath established, let my hands lay hold upon the wheat and the barley which shall be given unto me therein in abundant measure”. Nu corroborates that this is the eucharist by saying: “I am established, and the divine Sekhet-hetep is before me, I have eaten therein, I have become a spirit therein, I have abundance therein.” Again Nu states: “I am the divine soul of Ra…which is god…I am the divine food which is not corrupted”. The ancientness of the concept is again reaffirmed in the Pyramid Text of Teta (2600 BC) where the Osiris Teta “receivest thy bread which decayeth not, and thy beer which perisheth not” In the Text of Pepi I we read: “All the gods give thee their flesh and their blood…. Thou shalt not die.” In the Text of Pepi II the aspirant prays for “thy bread of eternity, and thy beer of everlastingness”.

Bread and Wine my friends, bread and wine, sounds familiar? ;)

I really like this tone actually, if people dont understand that there is only one race of Humans upon this earth and that we are all brethren through the science of genetics (Genographic Project), mayhap they will through understanding their own beleifs!

[Adrian II]

In one version or another however, this only says that independently of Dogma, Jesus did exist, and his message was very sound, in an attempt to end all the violence and hate of the time. At least it is how I see it personally.

Shlomo Pines who translated the Arabic text has it thus:

For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders".

All in all, I think you are right that Josephus tells us of two separate things: (1) of the man Jesus who was wise and virtuous and who was crucified on Pilate's orders; and (2) of the sect of Christians and their (post-crucifiction) belief that this Jesus was the Messiah). So I stand corrected. The passage is not just hearsay from the Jesus sect.

It is an interesting thought that Jesus' status as Messiah would have been recognized only after his death and supposed resurrection.

BTW The bishop I mentioned above was Origen, not Irenaeus. His claim that Josephus was a non-believer in Christ has been attributed to the words that follow directly on the Jesus passage: 'And at this same time another sad tragedy put the Jews into disorder (..) [XVIII, iii:4 - italics mine]'. Those words could imply that the Jesus-episode was a tragedy for Jewry. This could be a simple misunderstanding on Origen's part. After all, the first tragedy is likely to be the Jewish sedition against Pilate described in iii:1. However, Josephus makes his sympathy for the Pharisees very clear, and from that perspective he would have found any sedition (including that of Jesus) ill-advised.

[Adrian II]

Bread and Wine my friends, bread and wine, sounds familiar? ;)

I really like this tone actually, if people dont understand that there is only one race of Humans upon this earth and that we are all brethren through the science of genetics (Genographic Project), mayhap they will through understanding their own beleis!

Nice find, and well said. You made this a worthy Easter thread indeed.


P.S. Oh, and that would be Bread and Beer. According to Herodotus the Egyptians were great beer drinkers; the Belgians of the Middle East!

[KARTLOS]

P.S. Oh, and that would be Bread and Beer. According to Herodotus the Egyptians were great beer drinkers; the Belgians of the Middle East!

surely further evidence that egyptian civilization must have been founded by (rolling drunk) nordic supermen?

[KARTLOS]

I really like this tone actually, if people dont understand that there is only one race of Humans upon this earth and that we are all brethren through the science of genetics (Genographic Project), mayhap they will through understanding their own beleis!

they seem to give a very recent date for a common ancestor (60 000). the most commonyl given date is older than that (at least ~100 000rs ago) and even then there is no consensus.

you should be aware that are strong political reasons for people to favour as recent a date as possible. pretty much along the lines of what you said:

recent ancestor = we are all closely related (not enough time for signifigent differences to be acquired along racial lines),

Therefore - no scientific rational for racism.

[Adrian II]

surely further evidence that egyptian civilization must have been founded by (rolling drunk) nordic supermen?

Drunk Nordic supermen are the stalwarts of civilisation.

[KARTLOS]

Drunk Nordic supermen are the stalwarts of civilisation.

burp!

[Pindar]

I think you missed the thrust of the potential criticism: the issue is that standard scholarly opinion has Mark as the Synoptic text on which Matthew and Mark depend. Thompson's work (based on the review) treats each as independently sourcing to a larger oral tradition. Much of his argument appeals to assumed tropes from Mathew and Mark. If there is a literary dependence then that would undercut his thesis at an early stage of analysis. Thompson does not appear to engage the conventional view. This is problematic.

I think you are mixing up Gospels here, but I get your point anyway. Thompson's answer would be, I guess, that all Gospels draw on previous sources. Besides, scholarly opinion often assumes that the later Gospels draw on Mark + 'Q' instead of on Mark alone. And then of course there is the issue of Paul's preceding letters. I think one would have to read Thompson's book to see what he makes of all of this in detail.

Ahh, I see what you mean by mixed up: I typed Mark when joining it with Matthew when I meant to type Luke. Even so, this apparent failure of Thompson to address the standard position of Synoptic construction, particularly given he seems to reply on the latter dependent texts, undercuts his argument. If one argues C and D lead to conclusion E, but the standard is to see C and D as dependent on B then one would need to engage the alternate standard. If the review is correct, this is a critical failing.

I guess my final point would be the one I started this thread with. There is a process of thorough demystification of religious sources going on right now. What Thompson and many others are doing for Christian sources, Israel Finkelstein and others are doing for Hebrew history and the Saarbrücken seminar and others (Hans Jansen being one of them) are doing for Mohammed and early Islam.

A secular assumption will always lead to a secular conclusion. Choosing one's trope makes all the difference.

[Adrian II]

Even so, this apparent failure of Thompson to address the standard position of Synoptic construction, particularly given he seems to reply on the latter dependent texts, undercuts his argument.

There is no standard position. The synoptic problem as such is recognized by alll scholars, but solutions vary widely. Most Catholics adhere to the Augustine hypothesis that Matthew preceded Mark and Luke. Many Protestant scholars prefer Markan primacy or a Mark + 'Q' soluton (that is, Mark plus a hypothetic fifth text called 'Q'). Among North American Protestant scholars the Two Gospels Hypothesis is popular, which says that Matthew came first, Luke next, and Mark third, while Mark essentially copied Matthew except when he disagreed with Luke, in which case he followed Luke. And then there is the originally British Farrer-hypothesis, the Jerusalem-hypothesis, &cetera.

Looking at the review again, Thompson is quoted directly on the Synoptic Problem:

After establishing the existence of a trope referring to the children and the kingdom, Thompson then turns to the Gospel versions:

"Of the six occurrences of the trope Crossan calls "kingdom and children" sayings, four are classified as independent and two dependent. Only the authority of scholarly tradition of the primacy of Mark supports the judgment that the very close variations of the saying "Let the children come to me and do not hinder them; for to such belong the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 19:14) and "Let the children come to me and do not hinder them; for to such belong the kingdom of God" (Lk 18:16) are dependent on the similar saying in Mark: "Let the little children come to me; do not prevent them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Mk 10:14). This saying, nearly identical in all three gospels, clearly offers a common trope, but the primacy of Mark's version, including the phrase "kingdom of God" he shares with Luke, does not stand on its own merits. The assumption that Mark is the source for the versions of Matthew and Luke is unprovable. Similarly, that the saying in Mark is the most likely original can be shown to be without merit."(p76)

There the quote from the book stops. Is Thompson about to reveal the reason why the notion is without merit? If we want to know the answer we had better read the book.

I would be interested to hear your own views on some of the other topics we touched upon in this thread. With your background as a Mormon you should be more than familiar with some of them.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Perhaps slightly off-topic, but what is Thompson's view on the "bible extras", i.e. the non-canonical gospels and other texts written approximately at the same time as the canonical gospels, but not included in the bible?

For example:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretmark.html
http://tuttotempolibero.altervista.o...elOfJudas.html
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

Some quotes from these texts, which certainly give a different view of Jesus than the bible does:

"Jesus said to them, 'If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits."


"Jesus said, 'When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father.' "


"Jesus said, 'Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.' "


"Jesus said, 'Congratulations to those who have been persecuted in their hearts: they are the ones who have truly come to know the Father.' "


"Jesus said, "Seek and you will find.

In the past, however, I did not tell you the things about which you asked me then. Now I am willing to tell them, but you are not seeking them."


"His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?

It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."


"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."


"Jesus dialogues with his disciples: The prayer of thanksgiving or the eucharist One day he was with his disciples in Judea, and he found them gathered together and seated in pious observance. When he [approached] his disciples, [34] gathered together and seated and offering a prayer of thanksgiving over the bread, [he] laughed. The disciples said to [him], “Master, why are you laughing at [our] prayer of thanksgiving? We have done what is right.” He answered and said to them, 'I am not laughing at you. are not doing this because of your own will but because it is through this that your god [will be] praised.' They said, 'Master, you are […] the son of our god.' Jesus said to them, 'How do you know me? Truly [I] say to you, no generation of the people that are among you will know me.'

When his disciples heard this, they started getting angry and infuriated and began blaspheming against him in their hearts. When Jesus observed their lack of [understanding, he said] to them, 'Why has this agitation led you to anger? Your god who is within you and […] [35] have provoked you to anger [within] your souls. [Let] any one of you who is [strong enough] among human beings bring out the perfect human and stand before my face.' They all said, 'We have the strength.' But their spirits did not dare to stand before [him], except for Judas Iscariot. He was able to stand before him, but he could not look him in the eyes, and he turned his face away. Judas [said] to him, 'I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo. And I am not worthy to utter the name of the one who has sent you.' "


"Judas said to Jesus, 'Look, what will those who have been baptized in your name do?' Jesus said, 'Truly I say [to you], this baptism [56] […] my name [—about nine lines missing—] to me. Truly [I] say to you, Judas, [those who] offer sacrifices to Saklas […] God [—three lines missing—] everything that is evil. 'But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me. Already your horn has been raised, your wrath has been kindled, your star has shown brightly, and your heart has […]. [57] 'Truly […] your last […] become [—about two and a half lines missing—], grieve [—about two lines missing—] the ruler, since he will be destroyed. And then the image of the great generation of Adam will be exalted, for prior to heaven, earth, and the angels, that generation, which is from the eternal realms, exists. Look, you have been told everything. Lift up your eyes and look at the cloud and the light within it and the stars surrounding it. The star that leads the way is your star.' Judas lifted up his eyes and saw the luminous cloud, and he entered it. Those standing on the ground heard a voice coming from the cloud, saying, [58] […] great generation […] … image […] [—about five lines missing—]."

[Adrian II]

Perhaps slightly off-topic, but what is Thompson's view on the "bible extras", i.e. the non-canonical gospels and other texts written approximately at the same time as the canonical gospels, but not included in the bible?

I am very sorry, but I haven't the faintest idea what would be Thompson's view of them.

What is yours?

[Suraknar]

Shlomo Pines who translated the Arabic text has it thus

The translation above is directly from what I read in Greek brought in to english. With only gramattical repositioning.

I found it interesting that there is some interesting differences in these texts.

For instance, Josephus in the original ancient Greek, Talks of "Jews and Greeks", not "Jews and Gentiles"...I think the change from Greeks to Gentiles is a modern change.

I understand why this was done, yet, this represents evidence pointing to intentional editing.

Second, in the Arabic translation in greek there is no mention of the "3 days", it is why I did not mention either what was not there. It simply says "after his crusifiction". I think again that is an addition from the original translator in to english.

I guess, finding the original Arabic Passage from Agapiuswould be helpfull. Provided someone here can give a more direct (un-styled, un-biassed) translation.

In adding to the tone of the thread, on demystification, I found some interesting passages here:

Link: History of the Christian Church, by Calvin College. (Chapter I)

The literature of the ancient Greeks and the universal empire of the Romans were, next to the Mosaic religion, the chief agents in preparing the world for Christianity. They furnished the human forms, in which the divine substance of the gospel, thoroughly prepared in the bosom of the Jewish theocracy, was moulded. They laid the natural foundation for the supernatural edifice of the kingdom of heaven (...)

"The Greeks, (...) were called to the noble task of bringing out, under a sunny sky and with a clear mind, the idea of humanity in its natural vigor and beauty, but also in its natural imperfection. They developed the principles of science and art. They liberated the mind from the dark powers of nature and the gloomy broodings of the eastern mysticism. They rose to the clear and free consciousness of manhood, boldly investigated the laws of nature and of spirit, and carried out the idea of beauty in all sorts of artistic forms. In poetry, sculpture, architecture, painting, philosophy, rhetoric, historiography, they left true masterpieces, which are to this day admired and studied as models of form and taste.

All these works became truly valuable and useful only in the hands of the Christian church, to which they ultimately fell. Greece gave the apostles the most copious and beautiful language to express the divine truth of the Gospel, and Providence had long before so ordered political movements as to spread that language over the world and to make it the organ of civilization and international intercourse, as the Latin was in the middle ages, as the French was in the eighteenth century and as the English is coming to be in the nineteenth. "Greek," says Cicero, "is read in almost all nations; Latin is confined by its own narrow boundaries." Greek schoolmasters and artists followed the conquering legions of Rome to Gaul and Spain. The youthful hero Alexander the Great, a Macedonian indeed by birth, yet an enthusiastic admirer of Homer, an emulator of Achilles, a disciple of the philosophic world-conqueror, Aristotle, and thus the truest Greek of his age, conceived the sublime thought of making Babylon the seat of a Grecian empire of the world; and though his empire fell to pieces at his untimely death, yet it had already carried Greek letters to the borders of India, and made them a common possession of all civilized nations. What Alexander had begun Julius Caesar completed. Under the protection of the Roman law the apostles could travel everywhere and make themselves understood through the Greek language in every city of the Roman domain. (...)

The Grecian philosophy, particularly the systems of Plato and Aristotle, formed the natural basis for scientific theology; Grecian eloquence, for sacred oratory; Grecian art, for that of the Christian church. Indeed, not a few ideas and maxims of the classics tread on the threshold of revelation and sound like prophecies of Christian truth; especially the spiritual soarings of Plato,73 the deep religious reflections of Plutarch,74 the sometimes almost Pauline moral precepts of Seneca.75 To many of the greatest church fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and in some measure even to Augustine, Greek philosophy was a bridge to the Christian faith, a scientific schoolmaster leading them to Christ. Nay, the whole ancient Greek church rose on the foundation of the Greek language and nationality, and is inexplicable without them. (...)

I found the complete First section very interesting from an Historic point of view.

----

Perhaps slightly off-topic, but what is Thompson's view on the "bible extras", i.e. the non-canonical gospels and other texts written approximately at the same time as the canonical gospels, but not included in the bible?

I think it is on topic :) this is great!