What Alternatives Are There to Christianity Being an Ascetic Religion?

[Secret Alias]

But the last few posts get at the reason I started the thread. These are nice ideas. I wouldn't even call them theories because they have no evidence to support them in terms of providing us with an actual model for a living existential community called 'Christianity.' The only model for Christianity that we have really is that what survived - i.e. a community with a bishop, priesthood and laity all attached to some mystery regarding the crucifixion of Jesus. Why it is that people at this forum go into all this and that - things for which we have no evidence at all perplexes me. It's almost as if they are really kind of lazy fiction writers. Instead of having the ability to write a Lord of the Rings kind of tale they pretend they are scholars and piece together various odds and sods that don't really add up to a real historical example. For instance, Christianity might have been LIKE the cult of Antinous in some way but it wasn't the cult of Antinous. It might have resembled the cult of Mithras but it wasn't the cult of Mithras. It just baffling the way the people at this forum 'will go along' with the fantasies of one member in order to expect license for others to go along with their nonsense. Show me evidence that something other than the surviving Church ever existed. Please show me actual evidence.

[MrMacSon]

But the last few posts get at the reason I started the thread. These are nice ideas. I wouldn't even call them theories because they have no evidence to support them in terms of providing us with an actual model for a living existential community called 'Christianity.' The only model for Christianity that we have really is that what survived - i.e. a community with a bishop, priesthood and laity all attached to some mystery regarding the crucifixion of Jesus. Why it is that people at this forum go into all this and that - things for which we have no evidence at all perplexes me. It's almost as if they are really kind of lazy fiction writers. Instead of having the ability to write a Lord of the Rings kind of tale they pretend they are scholars and piece together various odds and sods that don't really add up to a real historical example. For instance, Christianity might have been LIKE the cult of Antinous in some way but it wasn't the cult of Antinous. It might have resembled the cult of Mithras but it wasn't the cult of Mithras. It just baffling the way the people at this forum 'will go along' with the fantasies of one member in order to expect license for others to go along with their nonsense. Show me evidence that something other than the surviving Church ever existed. Please show me actual evidence.

There is, as you will be well aware, a plethora of information about many, many things to do with the period 1 AD/CE to 350 AD/CE, and there would have been even more information that is no longer available. We are all constantly uncovering snippets of new information; sometimes about 'a tree' or two, sometimes about 'the forest' or a part of 'the forest'. Some of it is contradictory. It will take time to even know if we have a jigsaw.

When do you first think there was "a community with a bishop, priesthood & laity all attached to some mystery regarding the crucifixion of Jesus"?

Did "a community with a bishop, priesthood and laity all attached to some mystery regarding the crucifixion of a Christ" come beforehand?

When do you think there first was "a living existential community called 'Christianity" ?? Where?

I think it's very likely there were several if not many different Christian & even pseudo-Christian communities from the start, as there still is.

I think aspects of Jörg Rüpke's Feb 2018 book Pantheon: A New History of Roman Religion, excerpts of which I have posted, provide a good framework from which to work from -eg. --

the 2nd post in this thread http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 931#p90931

the first excerpt in the thread about the book - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 570#p90570

the 2nd excerpt in the book thread http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 696#p90696

the 3rd in the book thread http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 713#p90713

the fourth in the book thread http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 778#p90778

and the book review comments by Kyle Harper - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 515#p90515

[Joseph D. L.]

You're question amounts to--and if I'm misunderstanding this then please correct me--what was Christianity before it was Christianity? Or, what evidence do we have for this proto-Christianity?

The problem we have is that our best (original?) evidence for Christianity proper doesn't come about until the second half of the second century. So the closest we can get at for an actual church is then--mid to late second century.

Lucian stating that Peregrinus joined a community of "Christians" I have always felt was a misnomer. While there may have been Christians in his day, there wasn't when Peregrinus first traveled to Palestine. They were still Jews, albeit of their own particular persuasion.

If you consider Pliny's account of Christians to Trajan, then Christianity, at least in this remote part of the empire, was on par with that of the cults of Attis and Sabazios, and may be related in some way.

Because I don't view Christianity as being apart from its culture or time, the only issue for me is when and where that was and is. Despite the fact that the church fathers seem to appear out of thin air, that could be the result of temporal retrofitting.

Yes, I consider the Antinous cult as a proto-Christianity. But also the Nazarenes as proto-Christians. But how far back do we have to go? Isn't that the same thinking Justin indulged in? That Christianity can extend as far back to Moses and Abraham? When does it end? When does it begin?

Even in the early church's history, what it means to be Christian still being debated and argued, so it's just as fair to say that Christianity never existed because it's always reinventing itself. (I've actually had a religious friend who was a Calvinist tell me that Christianity as a fulfilled idea won't be realized until the day of Judgement, essentially making Christians Christians in training until they become "real Christians". I don't know if that's a typical Calvinist belief, but that's what he thought). Christianity today, at least here in America, is not even the same as Christianity twenty years ago. Because culture has changed. That's all religion is. A reflection of the culture.

If you're concern is with the Christian church proper, then we can agree that it's late. As for Christianity as an abstract idea, then we need to define what is and is not allowed as 'Christian'.

All religions are fluid; all religions evolve. But unlike dinosaurs, it doesn't leave behind convenient fossils to dig up. The transitional fossils are harder to identify. I could argue to the best of my ability that Christianity back in the year 200 ad was a synthesis of varying religious and philosophical views, but then the question would be where did these come from? That's why I have a set starting date and ending date in regards to Christianity: 59 ad, to ca 400 ad. Anything before that period I don't care about; and anything after that period I don't care about. Christianity begins and dies for me here. That's how I simplify it.

And yes, I do have pretentions of being a writer and dabble in fiction writing and am trying to get my own novel of the ground (hence why my book on Peregrinus has been put on indefinite hold). I study this as a hobby. Something to pass the time. But I do see understanding where Christianity comes from as understanding culture and how it develops along with humanity. That's why I think anthropologists are the best authorities of religion. They understand the subtleties and nuances that is needed. Unlike your typical religious scholars who think in black and white.

So there you go. If you can make any sense out of this then God bless you.

[MrMacSon]

http://www.jjmjs.org/uploads/1/1/9/0/11 ... e_term.pdf

[Secret Alias]

But we have to recognize that scholarship is essentially - the book-making business. People have as their livelihoods the task of writing and the writing of books, as we know from the good book, is without end. So what we have is:

1. the original ancient books (Church Fathers) which make reference to this or that 'insane' belief or practice by the 'heresies/sects'
2. the source which has survived down to us (Church Fathers) which preserves the insane belief or practice of said 'heresy/sect'
3. the pre-modern scholar who takes seriously what he has read in (2)
4. the modern scholars attempt at deconstruction/critical scholarship of (3) and (2)

So this is the world we live in. In the case of Marcionism for instance I am not sure we have properly distinguished between (1) and (2). Most of us think for instance that Tertullian is a (1) when he is clearly (2). Epiphanius is (2) despite claiming in his little pamphlet that he is (1). His pamphlet is clearly a compilation of things said about the Marcionite gospel built around Irenaeus's lost work against Marcion which survives to us as (2) in Tertullian.

But that's just an example of what we are dealing with. Lucian's work on Peregrinus is clearly a (1) albeit not by a Church Father. My point - as always and this doesn't seem to sink in - is that I don't believe all these radical 'revaluations' of what Christianity must have been like as a religion. It strangely takes the Church Fathers too seriously in my mind, like they were good sources of information about the sects. I always go back to the difference between a (1) and a (2) are under-appreciated by modern scholarship. They think Tertullian is a (1) when he is clearly a (2). But this extends to the Valentinians too. Irenaeus might well be a (1) with regards to the Valentinians. I have a hard time getting around that one. But the bottom line still is that we have very little actual evidence about variant forms of Christianity save for the Church Fathers 'sensational' (National Enquirer-like or World Weekly News-like) reporting. I just don't buy it. I think ALL forms of Christianity resembled the 'great Church' (as Celsus called it). I don't see any evidence for small groups of 'gnostics.' Even gnosticism took place within the confines of a 'great Church-like' Church.

[Secret Alias]

I guess what I am asking is whether most of us would be involved in the act of 'theorizing' various beliefs and practices - beliefs and practices which for the most part have NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE beyond the crazy things that appear in the Church Fathers (and for many of the posters here even things NOT ACTUALLY SAID by the Church Fathers) - if an angel from heaven came down to us and took us back in time and showed us - 'no, none of this shit ever actually happened before.' We count on massive possibilities being possible because basically we want to be imaginative. We want to imagine that things were different and there were all these interesting an various 'species' walking around, fish with legs, snakes with wings, when in fact we have to admit that it is highly like that if we had an actual time machine and went back to ancient Christianity we'd probably find the mostly 'same same' boring 'Church' that we found in the third century. Yes the gospel would have been different. Maybe the Pauline letters were shorter. Maybe this and that PARTICULAR thing. But Christianity as a whole likely exhibited a remarkable consistency ON THE OUTSIDE.

Isn't a lot of what goes on this forum amount to being little more than a creative writing workshop?

When I was young I thought the same way as many of you. I can remember being in H S Harris's Hegel class (for post-graduates) https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlu ... /10315/883 and writing my paper on Dionysus and Christ in a Hegelian context and I thought Christ was just a form of Dionysus. I got an A on the paper and I started reading more Christian writings, trying to maintain this stupid theory. The more I read, the more I labored until finally I just had to admit, there wasn't much to go on. It was either my theory or the evidence and unfortunately for my theory I conceded defeat. But I kept at it, with this or that theory. In the end, at my advanced age now I am much more interested in deconstructing the Church Fathers than building upon them in any way. Maybe it's safer, maybe I have grown cynical in my old age. But I don't think we're going to find a unicorn at the start of a lost history of Christianity.

[MrMacSon]

... I don't believe all these radical 'revaluations' of what Christianity must have been like as a religion. It strangely takes the Church Fathers too seriously in my mind, like they were good sources of information about the sects.

None of what I have recently posted in this thread refers to 'Church Fathers'.

Note how Korner opens his paper -

.
In late antiquity, the political mission of Christ-followers reached its zenith when, in 380 C.E., Theodosius I issued an edict that all subjects of the Roman Empire should worship the Christian God. Some, such as Daniel Boyarin, claim that this represents the birth of “religion” as a separate social category² ... This “religion” [Christianity] was institutionally represented in “the Catholic Church”⁴ (katholikē ekklēsia),⁵ whose almost exclusively Gentile congregants gathered in purpose-built structures called “churches.” This fourth century conception of ekklēsia as a religious organization and as religious buildings (“church”), however, was worlds apart from how the concept of ekklēsia (“assembly”) was understood from its inception in the late sixth century B.C.E. up to, and including, the first century C.E.
http://www.jjmjs.org/uploads/1/1/9/0/11 ... e_term.pdf

I think that might be a bit melodramatic, especially as an opening to a paper of that topic and nature, but he backs it up with elaborate footnotes (and the fact they are so elaborate -and seem to have to be- is what makes it noteworthy)

I think ALL forms of Christianity resembled the 'great Church' (as Celsus called it).

Yet there are now many scholars contradicting that view (and don't dish up crap in response such as 'but they only write these things b/c have to publish', etc) eg. see Nongbri on the Concept of Religion (underlining mine) -

.
...one of the central problems with applying the concept of religion to ancient evidence is that it tends to focus attention on belief as a mental state that precedes actions.⁷⁰ The problematic status of “belief” in historical studies has been well established, both in the fields of philosophy and anthropology and of religious studies.⁷¹ Arnal and McCutcheon note that, among other specific problems it causes in the study of early Christianity,

• the centrality of belief ... has served to reify the [Christian] tradition, leading us to think in terms of the identity, consistency, and continuity of Christianity over time and in different circumstances. As a result, we often neglect the ways in which the tradition is divided and conflicted . . . we also make the mistake of assuming that the same texts or creeds function in the same ways in different historical periods or social contexts and begin to posit fanciful lines of continuous “tradition” that serve as communicative vectors for these allegedly persistent ideas.⁷²

I don't see any evidence for small groups of 'gnostics.' Even gnosticism took place within the confines of a 'great Church-like' Church.

There's evidence that gnosticism took many forms and probably involved elements of pagan/mystery religions or Judaism before or as it began to involve Christianity. Pagels and deCornick show that, as do other commentators.

[Secret Alias]

But what am I debating? You don't have any actual evidence for your assumptions.

[Joseph D. L.]

You bring up good points (as always), but it's important to keep in mind that Christianity didn't just pass through a membrain from one reality to ours; that it was just here one day. It was an emerging phenomenon, with some of it being a natural, organic process, and some of it being coopted and manipulated.

We could ask the same question regarding other religions. We don't have evidence of the process in which Osiris and Dionysus were syncretized with each other. All we have is evidence that they did, which presumes a period of growing synthesis between the two. Christianity, I view, as the same thing. The only evidence that we could have is in the minds of those who were witnessing it. Unfortunately we do not have excess to this information, so we have to make due with what we have.

[nightshadetwine]

When I was young I thought the same way as many of you. I can remember being in H S Harris's Hegel class (for post-graduates) https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlu ... /10315/883 and writing my paper on Dionysus and Christ in a Hegelian context and I thought Christ was just a form of Dionysus. I got an A on the paper and I started reading more Christian writings, trying to maintain this stupid theory. The more I read, the more I labored until finally I just had to admit, there wasn't much to go on. It was either my theory or the evidence and unfortunately for my theory I conceded defeat.

I'm curious about what changed your mind about the Dionysus and Jesus connection. The more I read about other religions the more I'm convinced Christianity was influenced by them. Even scholars are pointing out similarities between Jesus and Dionysus and other saviors/heroes. Both Jesus and Dionysus were sons of a god or born to a mortal woman that was impregnated by a god, both were descendants of a king, both had to be hidden away when they were young because their lives were in danger, both turned water into wine, both died and resurrected, both offer salvation to their followers etc. and you find all these motifs in most of the other myths about heroes/saviors. There's just too many similarities for it to be a coincidence. Some of the earliest writings we have on Christianity compare Jesus to heroes like Dionysus, Hercules, Asclepius, etc. Something doesn't have to be exactly the same to be influenced by something. It's not logical to think there would be no Greco-Roman influence on Christianity.