MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 12:23 am
Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:58 am
But the question remains for me: was Christianity originally the Antinous cult, or was it merely a derivative of it?
1 To put it another way, what was the relationship between Christianity and the cult of Antinous?
1
... My concern is that the Antinous layer represented a separate development that eventually became integrated with Christianity proper (i.e., the Nazarenes).
... My only reservation is how and why the Nazarenes would adopt aspects of the cult (if indeed they did)
1, when distancing themselves from Aquila/Paul? Perhaps it assured them a better chance at survival, after the Ebionites followed bar Kochba to their deaths.
.
1 If there was a relationship between Christianity and the Antinous cult it may not have been by being a derivative of it
per se. I'm not sure why you tie the cult of Antinous to 'the Nazarenes', partly b/c 'Nazarenes' is a poorly defined group.
Clement of Alexandria's
Letter to Theodore paints the Carpocratians in a way reminiscent of the Antinous cult. Celsus also makes several comparisons between Christianity and this cult particularly.
I've been able to give a rough reconstruction of what the Nazarenes were, or at least where they came from.
Before ca. 125 ad, there was only a single Jewish sectarian community which had connections to Dositheanism and were probably Essenes. (Note: I don't mean that they penned the Dead Sea Scrolls. Just used them). After Lukuas's retreat from Alexandria to Judea, he gained support from Julian and Pappus to continue a proxy revolt. Before his capture and likely execution, he appointed Julian (John, called Shemaiah, that is,
Simon) as the Christ, or leader of the Community, with his brother Pappus (called Ahiah,
brother of the Lord) acting as his second in command.
Keep in mind that at this time there is still no recognizable trace of Christianity. The Community is still effectively Jewish sectarianistic.
Now, around the time of ca. 125 ad, Aquila comes into the fold with the intention to turn the Jews towards Hadrian. (I have an auxiliary theory as to who Aquila was and why he favoured Hadrian, but that's for later). Aquila manages to pacify at least some of the Community, but the others fully reject him. This causes the first seams to appear.
But what really does it in is the introduction of the virgin birth. The
Gospel of Thomas states that when the Community comes to a man who has not been born of a woman, they are to worship him, for he is their father. This is a clear allusion to the virgin birth. Yet Jesus passes off as something to come. Not himself.
And what was the major difference between the Ebionites and Nazarenes? The Nazarenes accepted the virgin birth. The Ebionites rejected it. The reason this prophecy in
Thomas was recontextualized was because Aquila was claiming it for himself. The Community rejected Aquila, but some held onto some of his teachings, only applying it to their Messiah figure, Lukuas. Those who favoured Julian, essentially exiled those who accepted the virgin birth. And so the Ebionites and Nazarenes were born concurrently.
Thus the collapse of the Community was assured. And those who followed Julian, now called Simon bar Kochba, died in the aftermath of the revolt.
The Nazarenes, not wanting to suffer the same fate, allowed a syncretism of sorts with the Antinous cult, wanting to be looked unassumingly by Hadrian. It just so happened that the very man who was helping to promote the Antinous cult in Egypt, was the very man the Nazarenes had rejected some years previously.
So that's really the only defining feature of the Nazarenes. The virgin birth. And they probably wrote
Protoevangelium of James, a text that presupposes a first
Gospel of James, likely
Gospel of the Nazarenes. Any text that favours James, is either Nazarene or Ebionite.
Of course it goes without saying that this purely conjecture and opinion, with solely circumstantial evidence backing it. I fully admit to that. But given how most reconstructions of early Christianity are made, I hope that this is a better case. At least I don't take for granted a Christianity in the first century, because that's impossible.
The title "Nazarene" is 'first found' in the Greek texts of the New Testament as an adjective, nazarenos, (Ναζαρηνός) as used in the phrase apo Nazaret "from Nazareth." Overal, the form Nazoraios or Nazaraios (Ναζωραῖος, Ναζαραῖος) is more common in the New Testament than Nazarenos.
Mishnaic (and modern) Hebrew has notzrim (נוצרים) as a standard Hebrew term for "Christian".
The term "Christians" is said to have been first used at Antioch (Acts 11:26) and Herod Agrippa II is attributed with using it, in Acts 26:28.
"Nazarenes" is used in Acts 24:5, where Paul the Apostle is accused before Felix at Caesarea (the capital of Roman Judaea) by Tertullus.
Epiphanius in Panarion, 29:6,1, says that "the sect of Nasaraeans/Nasaraioi was before Christ and did not know Christ" and distinguished them and the spelling from Nazoraeans.
This is in line with my model, as the Nazarenes evolved into Christianity around the time of Aurelius.
However, Epiphanius saying that Nazarenes existed a hundred years before Jesus (100 bc) or anyone saying that Jesus lived during the time of Alexander Jannaeus, is simply not true. The Community probably had ties to older traditions, especially if it was Essene, but the Nazarenes only emerged as an autonomous group after Kitos, and probably after bar Kochba.
Another view is
The name could have been applied to any strictly law-observing Jewish sect, for the root n -ṣ-r means ‘to keep, observe, guard’ and could have been used as a laudatory term for more than one group of Jewish dissidents, particularly if they had secret teachings.’ Nasoraeans of the Mandaean type ‘keep and observe’ ritual law with zealous fidelity and ‘keep back‘- even from their own laity-mysteries considered deep and easily misunderstood by the uninitiated.
Nasoraean hatred for Jews must have originated at a period at which Nasoraeans were in close contact with orthodox jewry and at a time when the orthodox Jews had some authority over them. All this points to the truth of the
Haran Gawaitla tradition. Heterodox Judaism in Galilee and Samaria appears to have taken shape in the form we now call gnostic, and it may well have existed some time before the Christian era.
http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.netdn ... Gnosis.pdf
Nothing substantial I can add to this at the moment.
The Mandaeans are said to have fled Jerusalem before its fall (70 AD) due to persecution by the Jews (there is commentary in the wikipedia article that "the word Naṣuraiia may come from the root n-ṣ-r meaning 'to keep' since, although they reject the law, they considered themselves to be keepers of Gnosis": I dunno how relevant reference to 'keepers of Gnosis' is). Though -
Jesus appears in the Coptic Christian gnostic manuscripts he is used as a mouthpiece of gnosis. There is no attempt to represent him as an historical figure, although by use of his name the Coptic gnosis is given a Christian aspect.
As above.
The
pdf article cited above notes that "Simon called ‘the Magian’, Dositheus, and Simon’s successor Menander were all Samaritans-and baptists" and, immmediately previously in the same senetnce that "In Samaria, therefore, we have a natural forcing-bed for early gnosticism" and previously in the same paragraph that "Samaritans were usually ready to assist the enemies of the Jews" [all p.100].
Samaritanism likely had association with Dositheanism, making the Community a mix of Jewish and Samaritan beliefs. That's why I classify it as sectarian, because I don't really know what to call it.
The Aquila dimension is interesting. Epiphanius (
De Ponderibus et Mensuris, chap. xiii-xvi.; ed. Migne, ii. 259-264) preserves a tradition that he was a kinsman of the Roman emperor Hadrian, who employed him in rebuilding Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina, and that Aquila was converted to Christianity but, on being reproved for practicing astrology, 'apostatized' to Judaism.
- (I doubt he would have converted to Christianity but he may have belonged to another Christ-tradition.)
Robert M Price noted that the Clementine
Recognitions mentions that Simon Magus had a disciple named Aquila, like Acts’s “John Mark” (Acts 12:12; 15:36-40; 1 Peter 5:13), Aquila leaves the Pauline circle to wind up in the Petrine circle instead. Prices says 'disciples of each apostle are (fictively) traded like ambassadors of two hitherto hostile countries.'
- Price, Robert M. The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul (Kindle Locations 6048-6054). Signature Books. Kindle Edition.
Roman 16:3 mentions Priscilla and Aquila and they are elsewhere referred to as associates of Paul (Acts 18:2, 18, 26; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19). Price says the Acts 18:1-4 scene --in which Priscilla and Aquila take Apollo aside and correct his doctrine by a few tweaks-- might reflect the fact that, from the Marcionite perspective, Apelles, Marcion’s disciple, had in later years strayed a bit from Marcionite orthodoxy. It makes it appear that he was finally brought back into the fold by the Simonian Aquila and the prophesying virgin Philumene, whose revelations and instruction Apelles is known to have sought. It is tempting also to identify this Priscilla with the Montanist prophetess Priscilla.
- Price, Robert M.. The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul (Kindle Locations 6048-6054). Signature Books. Kindle Edition.
Aquila is definitely a crucial figure. My theory is that Aquila = Marcion = Peregrinus Proteus.