I have been doing some reading on Jesus

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Jesus was almost certainly not real, and rather a sort of geographical negotiation between Alexandria and Antioch during Jewish emigration (a time period that didn't really happen all at once but was more of a gradual progression from when the temple burned and the failed bar khoba revolt)

a) The landmark philosphical breakthrough on christianity was that of Philo in Alexandria 50 BC. At the time, Alexandria was a Greek possession with roughly a quarter Jewish possession. This time period in question was extremely important in that the Greek regime collapsed and was replaced with a Roman one.

Philo's thoughts were a very novel development of Judaism at the time in that they sought to replace the angry and spiteful god of the old testament with a newer feminine spirit (something that is ubiquitous in nearly all gnostic texts)

b) Given this philosophical underpinning for a new judaic religion, the Romans saw what was happening and had some dignitaries and other upper echelon legal scholars get involved in Alexandria specifically. My understanding is that any reference to Paul or Pauline thought can be thought of as the official Roman take on what path christianity should take.

c) This still leaves the important question of what role Antioch and Peter played. I ignore Rome (basically where all the retconning happened) and their Luke/Acts concoction since the 2nd century is where most, if any, truth can be seen in the motivation for christianity.

Ignatius was the big player in Antioch and was likely responsible for Johannine authorship. His view also has the express-written approval of Rome so we can view Ignatius (85CE - 135CE) as the dominant Pauline force in Antioch who essentially started what most perceive as early christianity.

Peter (who I suspect to have been Cerinthus) was by far the most interesting character and likely the most prominent gnostic of early christianity, atleast who had any sort of meaninful role in the bible. By the same logic, he was the closest motivation for a real actual Jesus (aside from some small-time rebel rousers in Jerusalem such as Theudas) and never really made it up to Antioch as far as I can tell, dying around 105 near Jerusalem. Again, the Bae Khoba revolt had not even happened yet, so the gravity of how necessary christianity would be for the survival of jewish culture was not even apparent. I suspect Cerinthus had his own gospel which likely didn't live see the light of day, and was permitted a narrative role in the bible only insofar as it portrayed Pauline thought in a better light.

[–]bootylicious 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Jesus was almost certainly not real

Good arguments about this (in agreement) are by Rudolph Bultman, summarised in his, 'Jesus Christ and mythology':

https://archive.org/details/jesuschristmytho00rudo

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

There are also very good books on the historical Jesus. I like Bultman's approaches as well as the assessments of the historical Jesus, as we can consider that there were various preachers tortured to death for heresy (sometimes against the Scribes and Pharisees) c. 1 c. BCE - 3 c. CE.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

we can consider that there were various preachers tortured to death for heresy (sometimes against the Scribes and Pharisees) c. 1 c. BCE - 3 c. CE.

Sure. Whether they were tortured for some sort of heresy against the old testament god or for simply being anti-establishment would be an important distinction. I doubt that Philo's logos had made it to Jerusalem that quickly, and personally believe that the early gospels represent the first canonization of such, albeit after 80CE.

I think a lot of troublemakers would have motivated gnostics in Jerusalem towards a more literal interpetation of the logos. In terms of interesting people who were actually persecuted and actually maintained literal gnosis of the logos - Cerinthus was far and away the most impactful, especially on Ignatius.

[–]bootylicious 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think Jewish merchants in Alexandria, Jerusalem, Damascus, and around Mediterranean provided opportunities for the sharing of ideas and literature before and during the Roman empire, and that Philo's approaches were known especially among Hebrew scholars. Philo and some others at the time addressed the moral significance of one's logos and ingenium (root of 'genius') because these were intermediaries between the divine and human, and were part of the soul. Applying a moral purpose to one's ingenium (to beget, to begin) in this way would foreshadow Christian claims that there were good and bad angels. One's logos and ingenium in this new hermeneutic had a moral dimention that could be used to control what was considered one's legitimate logos or ingenium, thereby potentially controlling information on religious terms. (Part of this is discussed very briefly in the book, 'Logodaedalus' (Pittsburgh, 2018)).

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Perhaps they were aware, but I doubt Philonic thought was anything more than a curiosity. Pauline effort would have been the only sufficient motivation to have sustained the logos for two to three generations before it even became relevant - and they obviously did this without foreknowledge of the bar khoba revolt.