Lenzman: Origine du Christianisme

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Lenzman: Origine du Christianisme

Post by Giuseppe »

I am reading this book:
LENZMAN (J.) L'origine du christianisme Moscou Ed en Langues étrangères 1961.

It is not a novelty to know that the Soviet authors pointed out that:

1)
the Revelation of John was the oldest Christian book

2) the Paulines were forgeries from first half of II CE

3) the emphasis has to be put on economic conditions as opposed to mysticisms etc (it's really boring this part!).

In addition, I learn:

4) what euhemerized the celestial Jesus was anti-Jewish propaganda like:
You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets

(1 Thess 2:14-16)

5) sayings as "Give to Caesar..." and Romans 13:1-7 reveal respectively the late date (from II CE) of both epistles and gospels, since in Revelation the author hates sincerely Rome and this explicit hostility is missing in the apocalypticism of epistles and Gospels, where the coming end of the (generic spiritual) sinners is expected but not more the end of the Romans. Hence the fact that "Mark" is a failed apocalypticist doesn't prove that the his apocalypticism is derived from a historical Jesus, but only that Mark is correcting and mitigating the original anti-Roman apocalypticism of Revelation.

6) the place of origin of Christianity is obscure, given the point 1 and the absence of a historical Jesus. A possibility may be Asia Minor, given the presence there of the 7 churches of Revelation and the genuine witness by Pliny the Younger about the Christians of Bitiny. Obviously, the early Christians were Jews even if outside Israel.

7) the Philippians Hymn comes from early 2° CE since only by that time the Christians had interest to show their Christ as appearing in the form of a "slave", being the new Christian proselites won especially among women and slaves. The Gospels eclipse the image of Jesus as appeared in the image of a slave. It is found in the original separationism of Mark, where the man Jesus is a mere slave of the spiritual Christ possessing him (until to the cross).

8) in Revelation the Lamb is named "Jesus" only in a second redaction of the book, since the Son is distinct from the Lamb in this verse:
Now have come the salvation and the power
and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Messiah.
.... They triumphed over him
by the blood of the Lamb

(Revelation 12:10-11)

The Soviet scholar R.Vipper points out that this is the only passage in all the book where the Christ and the Lamb are named in the same point: but their functions are surprisingly distinct. The Christ is proclaimed Son of God while the Lamb is killed before the creation of the world (13:8). But the Lamb is never called Jesus.

9) the Western mythicists (Drews and Smith in primis) are violently criticized (by Lenin himself) insofar their mythicism has as implicit goal the safeguard of a "more authentic and more spiritual" Christianity, necessary to his survival in a world otherwise condemned to materialism. Hence (as I think the implication is) Soviet scholar have to find allies among progressist Western scholars, even if historicists. Does the apologist McGrath know about this criticism?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Lenzman: Origine du Christianisme

Post by Giuseppe »

The point 7 above is particularly persuasive, from my POV. The ebionites could have called themselves as "the poors" in reaction against the Cerinthians, famous for their contempt of the "slave" Jesus the man (insofar possessed by the spiritual Christ). Jesus himself was "poor" as the "slave" in the form of which the spiritual Son of the supreme god appeared (in the Cerinthian belief). The exaltation of the man Jesus as opposed to deify him as the Christ has to be interpreted as an anti-Cerinthian Judaizing reaction and not as evidence of the ebionite priority.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Lenzman: Origine du Christianisme

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 8:40 am3) the emphasis has to be put on economic conditions as opposed to mysticisms etc (it's really boring this part!).
Giuseppe, can you expand on this a little? I know you said it was the boring part, but it's something I haven't heard before, so I'm interested in understanding what you mean by economic conditions. A couple of sentences would be much appreciated.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Lenzman: Origine du Christianisme

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Does the apologist McGrath know about this criticism?
He does now :cheers:
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Lenzman: Origine du Christianisme

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:53 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 8:40 am3) the emphasis has to be put on economic conditions as opposed to mysticisms etc (it's really boring this part!).
Giuseppe, can you expand on this a little? I know you said it was the boring part, but it's something I haven't heard before, so I'm interested in understanding what you mean by economic conditions. A couple of sentences would be much appreciated.

I mean the emphasis put by Marxist historians on social and economic structures as explanation of dogmas and beliefs. It is not something "I haven't heard before". Only, it is a leit motiv that is repeated so often that it seems almost sickly, especially when it is raised against the emphasis put on the weight of factors that are not attributable prima facie to the economy. If someone has hallucinations of the Risen Christ or he becomes an Islamic kamikaze, it is not always why he is in need of money. Hence I disagree partially with the following criticisms of Drews and Smith:

Let us note here that the answer to the question whether the preacher executed in Jerusalem at the dawn of our era existed or not has to be not considered as the main criterion of Marxist or non-Marxist analysis of early Christianity, what it is frequently done in the popular works on this subject. Suffice it to say that some active proponents of the mythological theory (Arthur Drews, Benjamin Smith) deny the real existence of Jesus for the sole purpose of purging Christianity, as representatives of the Theological School of Tübingen, from its most obvious inconsistencies and thus make it less vulnerable to rationalist criticism. They replace old prejudices with “new prejudices that are even more disgusting and infamous”. That is why Lenin so categorically condemned A. Drews about whom he said: “He is a declared, conscious reactionary ...” At the same time Lenin signaled to the Communists the need for an alliance with the progressive party of historians bourgeois of Christianity.
On the other hand, Friedrich Engels, in all his works on early Christianity, never asks the question of the historical existence of Jesus. A. Robertson, cited above, admits for its part the historical character of the founder of Christianity, which does not prevent him from seeking to solve the problem of the origin of this religion starting from Marxist positions.
The primordial task of Marxist analysis of the question of the origins of Christianity is to study the concrete, real, historical causes of the birth of the Christian religion, to study the modifications undergone by the Christian ideologue on the basis of social and political evolution of the Roman Empire, to determine the class roots of the various groupings within Christianity, to give, finally, criticism of the social principles of this religion which “justified the ancient slavery, magnified medieval serfdom and also agreed, if necessary, to defend the oppression of the proletariat, even if they do so with little sorry airs”. This does not mean that the Marxist researcher is indifferent to the question about whether Jesus really existed; his solution in the light of historical science is a blow to the dogmas of the Church.

(p. 217-218, my free translation, my bold)

It is boring at least for me, since I don't think that economy and politics are sufficient to explain about the early Christians.

Even so, I like a lot the historical reconstruction of the Origins made by the Soviet scholars, as described by Lenzman. I find it very plausible. Even Couchoud, who admitted the authenticity of the Paulines differently from the Soviet scholars, recognized that the Book of Revelation preserves a belief that is older than the pauline creed, since it was the same belief of the Pillars.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Lenzman: Origine du Christianisme

Post by GakuseiDon »

Thanks, Giuseppe.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Lenzman: Origine du Christianisme

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

And speaking of thanks to Giuseppe, Professor McGrath was grateful to hear of your finds (this and the other Soviet-era book you posted recently in a nearby thread). Well done.
Post Reply