Any account of non-Pauline "Christianity"?

[Bernard Muller]

to Secret Alias,

You read this account Bernard and you believe that it actually happened? Really?

The royal welcome near Jerusalem? If so, yes, I believe it happened, 100%.
Did you read my web page about Mark & "king of the Jews"?

Cordially, Bernard

[DCHindley]

I sometimes wonder whether Pliny the Younger was not describing Pauline Christianity but Cerdo's or even Marcion's version of Christianity. I know that Marcion is usually dated to about 140 CE and Pliny was governor of Pontus around 110 CE (que someone who wants to quibble about exact dates for Marcion or Pliny).

Pliny says nothing about Jesus, but a "Christ" who is "worshipped like a god." That sounds like high Christology, but in Pauline letters the High Christology is always coupled with Jesus. Maybe Pliny just didn't give a damn about the exact details.

[GakuseiDon]

You seem to take for granted that it must be historical. I am not so sure. But WHY are you so convinced of this fact?

As I wrote, "I think that a historical Jesus is the best explanation for what we see in the texts coming out of the First and Second Centuries." It's a better explanation in my humble opinion than the other ones I've seen offered. But as I've repeatedly stressed, I'm just an amateur with no qualifications in the topic and with no knowledge of the ancient languages involved. I've read most of the ancient literature in its English translation, and I have an interest in how people thought in those days, and that's about as valuable as my opinion can get on the topic.

Yes mythicists are idiots who should IMHO be banned from the forum for the most part.

That would be the worst thing to do. Mythicists have a perspective that is worth exploring. I debated Doherty a lot over the years, and I learned a lot from that exchange. We need alternate perspectives.

You seem to spend more time being concerned with people's motives rather than with people's arguments. That's not a productive use of mental energy. You keep ascribing arguments to me that I don't hold. Why are you so concerned with motives rather than arguments?

[perseusomega9]

I sometimes wonder whether Pliny the Younger was not describing Pauline Christianity but Cerdo's or even Marcion's version of Christianity. I know that Marcion is usually dated to about 140 CE and Pliny was governor of Pontus around 110 CE (que someone who wants to quibble about exact dates for Marcion or Pliny).

Pliny says nothing about Jesus, but a "Christ" who is "worshipped like a god." That sounds like high Christology, but in Pauline letters the High Christology is always coupled with Jesus. Maybe Pliny just didn't give a damn about the exact details.

Remember the account also indicates two were female slaves (socioeconomic pointers) and were deacons (look at how much ink is/was spilled explaining this away). Contrast with the pastoral requirements.

I think your relative dating is spot on, serious overlap one way or the other.

[rgprice]

From The First New Testament:

Fortunately, however, we have a rare non-Christian source of
information on the state of Christianity in the region in the time
when Marcion would have been a young man there, in a letter of
the Roman governor Pliny to the emperor Trajan, circa 112 ce. Pliny
explains his procedure in enforcing a ban on secret societies, including
Christian clubs. He considered Christianity “a depraved
and extravagant superstition,” which apparently had been present
in the area for as much as twenty years (or at least there were
people brought before him who had been Christians twenty years
earlier, whether locally or in some other place). He also reports that
two women slaves actually held important positions in the church
as ministrae, or deaconesses, who probably distributed the ritual
meal.
...
Pliny’s subtext in providing this description is that the secret activities
of the Christians did not fit the suspicions that lay behind the
ban on secret societies. This was apparently not a criminal or political
organization, as other secret societies were, nor did it entail
religious rites considered outright immoral by Roman standards.
It was, however, having a deleterious effect on traditional religion
in the province and, to Pliny’s grave concern, had spread not only
through the cities, but also the country towns and villages. Several
modern researchers have pointed to features in common between
Pliny’s Christians and Marcion’s brand of Christianity.

These include the absence of Jewish characteristics in the service, the direct
worship of Christ as something like a deity, and the relatively high
position accorded women. What is missing, of course, is any reference
to either the Old or New Testaments, or to any written texts,
which we would have expected to catch Pliny’s interest as a source
of information on the secretive group.

[perseusomega9]

I've read that book multiple times, and still have yet to read the actual textual reconstruction all the way through-which I think is a fool's
errand in thinking it can be reconstructed from what we have.

[billd89]

I agree this is fascinating material.

Paul meets Peter & (a) John in Antioch, if we are to assume, in c.44 AD. Paul still appears to be flexibly heterodox, so his full conversion/meeting 'Jesus on the Road to Damascus' would be dubious - a known version, an opportunistic improvement? - against this later version: his confirmation as a Petrine disciple and acceptance of 'true Christianity' (Jesus Christos) after a dramatic incident at Antioch.

Presumably, Paul was 'worshipping' in the temples of Asclepius & Hygeia or Serapis/Isis, among the Chrestiani (heterodox/ marginally Judaized pagans?) perhaps. But only for converts! In other words, he might have accepted or worked within a common, established and varied (Judaic-) Christos doctrine, yet remained uncertain of the novel Jesus bits. Then Peter's supremacy convinced him, and the doubter was himself fully converted. (If we are to believe this AoP.)

I assume the Chrestiani pre-date the 'Jesus' Christiani.

Is dating the Apocalypse of Peter to c.135 AD acceptable? And please forgive my total ignorance ... who was the Archon of the 'rebel angel cult', Metatron?

Apocalypse of Peter, pp.34+ of pdf, "p.212"+

And we left our place, and he went and met the heads of the city of Antioch and spoke to them what he wished. Then he dispatched a messenger to us and called us to him. The messenger ushered us into the temple of the idols, and we entered and found Paul praying and worshipping before the idols, and suspicion entered into our mind concerning his faith. When he finished his worship he turned towards me and said: "0 man, what is your name ?" And I answered: "Peter." And he said: "Who is your God ?" I answered: "A God, one in nature and three in attributes, worshipped and glorified by His creatures and praised by His myriads. He is the creator of all rational and irrational beings. He is the Feeder, the Giver, and the Provider. He created the created beings, perfected them and endowed them with wisdom and might. He enjoined His worship upon them, but they disbelieved in Him and worshipped the Rebel and injured themselves in their services to the rebellious Archon, because they were all the time worshipping idols. And He showed forbearance to them generation after generation, but they did not fear God, the avenging Lord who fathoms the secrets of the hearts. When, however, many generations passed in this way and Satan drew to himself all mankind, this displeased the jealous Lord, and He sent His Son, the mighty Teacher, who came down to the earth and appeared in a covering which He chose to Himself from light, which He materialised and from which He spoke and performed in His world the things which He wished to Then He ascended into heaven by His power and sent us His disciples,' to all creatures by His will."
And Paul said: " When your master came down from His heaven what pious works did He do which would make Him worthy of headship?" And I replied:"He performed miracles that transcend the minds, and forgave the sins of the ignorant." And he said: "And what did this great and ancient Master of yours give you?" And I replied: He ganted each one of us to perform the wonders which He performed and to cure every man from his diseases and his ailments." And he said: " Show us something from this (power) in order that we may believe in your God Jesus Christ."
...
And Paul answered : "I will relate to you all my story dealing with the religion of Christ." When he had told all his story as narrated above the King said to him: "And what induced you after you had believed in this powerful, ancient and mighty Lord, the master and the maker of the times, to deny Him and to return to the worship of idols?" And Paul said: "I did not worship idols nor did I deny God. I meant in what I did to use a stratagem with you in order that by my soft advice to you the hardness of your nature may be mollified to your advantage. In this the Most High God gave me victory over you as He brought you to the right path."

[MrMacSon]

I think that a historical Jesus is the best explanation for what we see in the texts coming out of the First and Second Centuries.

Why do you think that?

[GakuseiDon]

Why do you think that?

That needs its own thread. I've already derailed this thread enough. Apologies to rgprice.

[davidmartin]

The Romans built a big outpost around Shechem right, a city with temples
When he encounters the woman there, no reference is made to anything except the proper mode of worship, no kingly messianic stuff more prophet-like in the tradition of prophets. no need to see any other reason for people to follow such a person originally. he doesn't appear to be about fighting off the Romans so why attribute that hope to him? can't see why he'd be appealing to anyone who was looking for a kingly messiah, his thing is the proper form of worship and spiritual matters and he's probably not saying he's teaching anything new even from what it looks like here