What Alternatives Are There to Christianity Being an Ascetic Religion?

[robert j]

In the letters attributed to Paul and addressed to the Galatians and to the communities in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth, one finds an “ecclesiastical hierarchy” that appears to consist only of Paul and a handful of junior partners.

For the sake of discussion, if one takes Paul at his word and the texts as they stand, there was no hierarchical relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem group. Paul claims he went to Jerusalem to compare notes (Galatians 1:18 and again in 2:1-10), but Paul also undercut the authority of the Jerusalemites (Gal 2:6) and claimed he did not yield in subjection (Gal 2:5). Paul concluded the passage with the Jerusalemites ceding the Gentile franchise entirely to him with no strings attached other than Paul should “remember the poor” (Gal 2:9-10).

There is no clear evidence (or tradition) in any NT text of Paul actually having delivered any funds, from the collection efforts for the "saints" mentioned in the Corinthian correspondence, to anyone in Jerusalem (and that includes the assumption by some that Acts 24:17 is a veiled reference).

The “overseers” and “assistants/administrators/servants” mentioned in the letter to the Philippians (1:1) would certainly be expected to have been appointed by the congregation to collect, hold, assume responsibility, and to deliver the several monetary collections of the Philippians mentioned in that letter and in others.

The following is the 2nd part (“Show Me the Money”) of a 3-part OP that I posted on this forum 4 years ago ---

“Paul’s Dog and Pony Show”
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=857

Part Two of Three

Show Me the Money

Monetary compensation was a big issue for Paul. The Philippians appear to have been his primary source of income, and perhaps the Galatians contributed as well. The Corinthians were a much tougher sell for Paul.

When it comes to compensation, Paul’s language becomes flowery and a bit circumspect --- this was likely the polite way to address such issues at the time. Here are some passages regarding compensation:

1 Thessalonians

Paul reminded them that he had previously worked hard for them without compensation,

"For you remember our labor and hardship brothers, working night and day so we would not burden any of you … " (1 Thessalonians 2:9).

But then Paul encouraged them to work hard (1 Thess. 4:11), and to compensate him and his co-workers,

"Moreover we implore you brothers, to remember those who toil among you and lead you in the Lord and admonish you, and to consider them exceedingly in benevolence on account of their work." (1 Thess. 5:12-13).

This is Paul's polite language for soliciting financial support. Paul was gently working the Thessalonians, but it seems this Macedonian franchise hadn't begun to pay off yet.

Galatians

"Now the one who is taught the message must share all good things with the one who teaches." (Galatians 6:6).

Spiritual or financial? I think Paul was saying they must pay him for his work. And I think they had. Such would help to explain, at least in part, Paul's vehement defense of his authority against the threat from the competition, the circumcisers.

Philippians

"I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at last you have revived your care for me." (Philippians 4:10).

"… in the early days of the gospel when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me in the manner of giving and receiving except you alone. For even in Thessalonica, you sent twice for my needs." (Phil. 4:15-16).

These Macedonians were paying Paul again, but they had stopped for a while. Paul sent Epaphroditus, one of his partners, to make another collection from them (Phil. 2:25, see also 4:18).

Paul laid a guilt trip on the Philippians, blaming them for Epaphroditus' near death while he was working hard to,

"… make up what was lacking in your service to me." (Phil. 2:30).

The discussion of compensation occupies most of Philippians 4:10-20.

Corinthians

Paul's authority with the sophisticated Corinthian congregation was tenuous, and, if ever of much significance, it didn't seem to persist (2 Corinthians 3:1). And much to his chagrin, they weren't paying him. Paul had competition and the Corinthians had paid the competitors (1 Cor. 9:11-12). But Paul kept working them pretty hard.

He played the poor-me card,

"At the present hour we both hunger and thirst, we are poorly clothed, mistreated and homeless, we toil, working with our own hands …" (1 Cor. 4:11-12).

Then he continued to lay the guilt trip on pretty thick through more than 14 verses of 1 Corinthians chapter 9;

"… don't we have the right to eat and drink … is it only Barnabus and I who have no right to refrain from working? … who shepherds a flock and does not drink milk from the flock? … if we have sown spiritual things for you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? … ".

Nothing seemed to work, so Paul played his trump card. He made it an order from the Lord, as if he had a copy of the commandments of Jesus in his hip pocket,

"… the Lord has ordered that those who preach the gospel to earn their living by the gospel." (1 Cor. 9:14).

Paul wasn't shy about claiming he spoke for the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37), but even the Lord didn't seem to convince the Corinthians to pay Paul.

Paul (falsely) claimed superiority,

"For we are not like the many peddling the word of God …" (2 Corinthians 2:17).

And regarding his right to compensation for his spiritual work, Paul wrote,

“However, we did not use this right, instead we endure everything so that we will not hinder the gospel of Christ." (1 Cor 9:12)

“But I have used none of these (rights), nor have I written these things to make it happen that way for me. For it would better for me to die than for anyone to deprive me of my boast.” (1 Cor 9:15).

However, Paul’s disclaimer is empty rhetoric. Why would it be so noble to work for the Corinthians without compensation, only to be supported by the Philippians?

"Or did I commit sin… because I preached the gospel of God to you free of charge? I robbed other churches having received support to minister to you … the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my needs ….” (2 Cor 11:7-9).

robert j.

[Secret Alias]

While I am breaking my original 'rules' of discussion here, I think a lot of these strangely 'transparent' mentions of greedy behavior might be related to the influence of Peregrinus who seems - according to Lucian - to have gotten his hand caught in the proverbial cookie jar. But all good points.

[Joseph D. L.]

My own view is that Christianity is a derivative of the Antinous cult, and it's baptism rite was originally a ritual in which the initiate would be annointed with the Holy seamen of "the Christ".

I hope I'm understanding the question correctly.

[MrMacSon]

My own view is that Christianity is a derivative of the Antinous cult, and it's baptism rite was originally a ritual in which the initiate would be anointed with the Holy semen of "the Christ".

Christianity is likely to have been influenced by the the Antinous cult, which persisted long after Hadrian dies, so it was not just a cult that the people of Hadrian's rule had supported out duty to him (as emperor). Christianity certainly put a stop to it in the 4th century (though it was never as large as those of well established deities such as Zeus, Dionysus, Demeter, or Asclepios, or even as large as those of cults which were growing in popularity in the 2nd and 3rd centurys, such as Isis or Serapis; and had also been smaller than the official imperial cult of Hadrian himself).

Antinous died by drowning in the Nile on the day of the festival of Osiris’ passion of death and rebirth, held at Hermopolis on the east bank of the Nile, and, as the priests of Egypt believed that anyone who drowned in the Nile was a demi-god and as his death had occurred during Osiris’ festival, Antinous was immediate syncretised with Osiris as a new Man-God.

Hadrian decreed the establishment of the city of Antinopolis at the very spot Antinous died, nearly opposite Hermopolis. then used Antinous as a symbol of pan-Hellenic unity, founding the Panhellenion in an attempt to erode the feuding endemic to the Greek city-states, while promoting the worship of the ancient gods.

Hadrian also took the opportunity to enshrine Antinous with political and personal loyalties specific to Hadrian.

Hadrain presented Antinous to the Greek lands in a form syncretised with the more familiar deity Hermes: Hermes-Antinous. Elsewhere, he was far more widely syncretised with the god Dionysus. The cult also spread through Egypt, and within a few years of its foundation, altars and temples to the god had been erected in Hermopolis, Alexandria, Oxyrhynchus, Tebytnis, Lykopolis, and Luxor.

Antinous was understood differently by his various worshippers, in part due to regional and cultural variation. In some inscriptions he is identified as a divine hero, in others as a god, and in others as both a divine hero and a benevolent deity. He was also seen as a conqueror of death, with his name and image often being included in coffins.

The Antinous cult was genuinely popular among the different societal classes in the Empire. Part of the appeal was that Antinous had once been human himself, and thus was more easily related to than many other deities (which is probably a reason narratives about Jesus would have gained traction with people).

[John T]

Forget about 'greed' for a moment. Let's suppose that there is no right or wrong with regards to making money. If we take the totality of written documents from the early Church and again not distinguishing between 'deutero-' and authentic texts it becomes clear that there was an ecclesiastical hierarchy from the beginning. Of course we can dispute whether there was always a 'bishop' or overseer. But the point is that taken at face value the texts tells us that the late second century Church - i.e. with a community bound to a tightly regulated ecclesiastical hierarchy - already existed shortly after the crucifixion. The apostles were the original bishops, their disciples functioned as intermediaries with the laity.

The 'primitive Church' is basically a theoretical invention of contemporary scholarship. The documents at the heart of Christianity taken as a totality and again without modern distinctions between 'deutero-' and 'authentic' epistles make it plain that with Jesus death the 'body of the Church' (i.e. the bishops, priests, presbyters ...) was instantly resurrected. One can even argue that 'male' and 'female' distinctions are used to describe the 'marriage' between laity and church officials. My question is what is the evidence that anything else ever existed?

The gospel of Jesus was that the kingdom of God was at hand. That at any moment the angels with the Son of Man would descend on the Temple Mount and liberate the faithful from the oppression of the Roman government and the illegitimate Sadducee priesthood.
As far as the hierarchy, Jesus was going to cleanse the temple and restore the throne of David to the nation of Israel. No genitals allowed.
That was the original plan of the Jesus movement which was to restore the original plan of Moses.

Paul had an expansive plan that allowed the genital God fearers into the Jesus movement. He did this based on the grounds that those who had obtained the holy spirit were also a child of God and must be accepted into the Jewish-Christian family, which was lead by James the Just in Jerusalem.

Neither Christian group (Jewish-Christians nor genital Christians) were accepted by the rabbinic movement. Soon after the Jewish revolt, the Christians were officially cursed in the synagogues as minim and Notsrim by Rabbi Gamaliel II. (Dialogue with Trypho 96.2; cf. 16.4, 47.4 and Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.8.1).

Thus the partings of the ways forced the Christians to create and organize their own leadership and buildings for worship.
With that being said, this new system of a new religion was quite unique unlike most pagan religions of the time.

Greed and lust for hierarchical power had little or nothing to do with the early Christian church.
The membership consisted mainly of the poor, slaves, and women.

John T

[Secret Alias]

My own view is that Christianity is a derivative of the Antinous cult

But again, does any of this change the fact there is no evidence to contradict the basic assumption that 'Christianity' as such had a group of leaders who were supported by or lived off a superstitious majority who did not marry and probably were celibate.

[Secret Alias]

That was the original plan of the Jesus movement which was to restore the original plan of Moses

Two problems with this. Let me start with the one that has nothing to do with the OP. The 'original plan of Moses' is a bit of a red herring. The official state religion of Israel - whether in the former northern or southern kingdoms - was simply a sacrificial religion. There was a recognized priesthood established by blood which spent the day fulfilling the commandments of God as laid out in the Pentateuch. Nothing you speak about had any relevance for this religion.

Getting back to the OP. The Jesus movement as you call it was called 'Christianity' because it had less to do with Jesus than Christ (assuming for the moment the two might have been different things). Whatever Christ was, the religion was about him. The gospel does not make it explicit that Jesus and Christ are one and the same and at least an early or the earliest reading of the gospel of Mark assumed some difference between the two figures.

But getting right to the heart of the matter, all evidence points to a religion which functioned as the supporting mechanism for a group of bishops and priests. That's what I am concerned with right now. Did the religion have eschatological 'superstitions'? Of course it did. But I am looking now at the reality of Christianity as a social movement and asking is there any evidence to suggest that the community wasn't headed by a firm priesthood, an ecclesiastical body? I don't see any evidence for the primitive Church in any of the earliest documents if taken at face value. 'Taking care' of the leadership and a 'leadership body' of various men who made decisions for the community as a whole was always an essential part of Christianity.

[John T]

My own view is that Christianity is a derivative of the Antinous cult

But again, does any of this change the fact there is no evidence to contradict the basic assumption that 'Christianity' as such had a group of leaders who were supported by or lived off a superstitious majority who did not marry and probably were celibate.

Peter had a wife. (Matthew 8:14).
Paul insisted that the church leaders had the right to marry but he chose not to. (1 Corinthians 9:5).

The thinking was, because Jesus would return any second Paul saw no need to be burdened by the obligations of the family life. He was free to move about and preach as he saw fit.

I don't see any evidence that Christian hierarchy was originally designed as ascetic/celibate lifestyle.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

John T

[Ulan]

But again, does any of this change the fact there is no evidence to contradict the basic assumption that 'Christianity' as such had a group of leaders who were supported by or lived off a superstitious majority who did not marry and probably were celibate.

Peter had his whole family live off their believers.

The most crass example for early Christianity being led by rather abusive cult leaders is Acts 5:

5 But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; 2 with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 “Ananias,” Peter asked, “why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us[a] but to God!” 5 Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it. 6 The young men came and wrapped up his body, then carried him out and buried him.

His wife got killed in the next paragraph. Not giving all your money to the apostles and keeping some for yourself was a deed deserving death. If there is any seed of truth in this text, parts of early Christianity may have been one of those really crazy cults.

[Secret Alias]

I don't see any evidence that Christian hierarchy was originally designed as ascetic/celibate lifestyle.

I can't think of an example before Demetrius in Severus of Al-Ashumein's Coptic Church history of a married bishop. And Demetrius seems to have been the exception.