Ignatius As The Spark Behind Marcionism? Late Christianity? 165-175 CE

[yakovzutolmai]

I have a problem with the idea that there was any church structure prior to the late second century. Both Tertullian and Origen seem to be guessing and operating in a partial leadership vacuum. Only one generation later, there are abundant traces of actual church structure as well as a sense of orthodoxy. This indicates that Christian-as-we-know-it literature has only entered the stage by around 175-180 CE. The evidence contradicting this is the church's own history. Vague references to Papias and Polycarp. Insistences about Peter in Rome that don't exactly fit the evidence of the Flavian household and Titus Flavius Clemens. It almost seems like Polycarp is a fake character, developed specifically to create an apostolic succession where there really is none at all. Because of this, I have tried to develop an alternative hypothesis about early church history, to try and see if a very late dating works. Where Tertullian and Origen really are among the first generation outside of Asia to see any of this.

The anchor point for this hypothesis is a specific catalyzing event: the Roman conquest of Nisibis in 165 CE.

I have been tracing the importance and background of the Assyrian geopolitical and cultural presence in Judea of the first century as a catalyst for Jewish Gnosticism. Specifically, the presence of the Nisibis Jews in Bathyra.

One conclusion related to this premise comes from the idea that the Nisibis Jews included "lost tribes" Israelites who had preserved Israelite polytheistic mythology, and were able to translate it directly into concepts of Jewish mysticism. For example, Ba'al Hadad fighting Yaw, like Jacob wrestling the angel, and overcoming so that he may ascend to become king of heaven. Or the Phoenician "Ieoud", the only-begotten of Cronus, whom he crucified to the axis mundi world tree in order to hold up the celestial dome as would Atlas. We see this in the concept of Adam Kadmon or even the pillar terminology of the mystical Zaddik.

I have studied the relationship between Buddhism and Shinto in Japan, marveling at the harmony between the two faiths. What I have learned is that this paradoxical relationship has a very mundane explanation. When Buddhism first entered Japan, there was a full century of conflict between the priests of the two systems, until finally Buddhism won. Other than the obstinate Shinto philosopher, Shinto was interpreted through a Buddhist theological lens until the time of the Meiji Emperor.

I suspect the Aaronite priesthood, with its golden calf worship, was likely worshipping Ba'al Hadad. We see that Ba'al gets a temple built of gold and cedars, with the help of a craftsman god, paralleling Solomon and Hiram Abiff. We also see Hadad promised a "kingdom without end" like David. One wonders if "Israel" has more of the meaning of "El Sarah", the god who prevailed over Yaw and his Leviathan. Yet, with the Levite priesthood and Nehushtan, there is evidence of Yaw worship.

Perhaps the Levite and Aaronite priesthood would have at first conflicted just as much as one would expect given the conflict between their gods. Given Omri's promulgation of the Yahweh cult and Yahweh's appropriation of Hadad and Dagon's traits, we should assume that the Levites were the victors and, like the Japanese Buddhists, had to incorporate the Aaronite tokens into their system. We certainly, even in the Tanakh, see the resurgence of Baal worship and abandonment of Yahweh in the Northern Kingdom.

In the first century CE, the content of the Enochian literature certainly supports the hypothesis that some sects of Jews felt as if the Jerusalem system of worship was perhaps inverted from the correct form. An emphasis on solar primacy ties this to a remnant memory of Hadad worship.

This leads me to speculate that the first Christians were promoting a system of Judaism that consciously promoted this Christ or Joshua figure as a champion against Yahweh. The Elchasaite and Simonian doctrines support a different form of Christ. It's almost as if it were Joseph and Mary, like Hadad and Atargatis, who serve as the chief figures of worship. Logos and Sophia. With "Jesus" in the role of a Horus.

This may be the original form of Christianity, taken East to Nisibis and Arbela (beyond the Roman border) after the calamity of the Jewish War.

IGNATIUS

I propose that Christianity's popularity in Rome peaked, per Pliny the Younger, during the reign of Titus. I would also propose, for the sake of argument, that Christianity was more or less indistinguishable from the Judaism of Philo. Teaching of personal salvation, Logos, and the Trinity. Consciously Jewish, not requiring circumcision.

I would also propose that members of Titus's household had converted to this faith, per James S. Valliant and Warren Fahy.

Finally, again for sake of argument (meaning, helpful in clarifying the relationships assumed by the hypothesis, but not essential to it), I would propose that the earliest version of the Gospel of Mark began as a stage play (Danila Oder). This is supported by mimesis criticism (MacDonald).

The purpose of this play could have been a celebration of the faith, with consciously inaccurate portrayals due to the literary requirements for the composition. However, I'm more inclined to think that this is a parody.

I would propose that the "Flavian Christians" were following Philonic Judaism, as it were, and the competing messianic hysteria of the Babylonian Jews was seen as radically heretical. They are mocking the idea that these known individuals could possibly be agents sent to build the kingdom come. Yet, it is a parody in the form of a tragedy rather than a comedy.

Nevertheless, the last Flavian Christians are exiled to Pontus.

Now consider the story of Ignatius and his journey through Asia. I would propose that there was a real person, with a real journey, who is directly responsible for "igniting" the popularity of Christianity in the Roman Empire.

I began this post by discussing the influence of Eastern ideas on evolutions of the Jewish faith. I claimed that Christianity (let's say, of the original adherents) was relegated to Nisibis and Arbela.

We see that Rome conquers Edessa and Nisibis in 165 CE. Although Nisibis is not formally annexed, a permanent garrison is established. I would mark this as the event which draws Ignatius to Rome.

Nisibis was called Antioch of the Mygdonia, and it could be that many biblical references to Antioch may have meant this city rather than the Syrian capital. This may have been the Antioch of Ignatius. The Jews of Nisibis had been a problem for Rome, particularly during the Kitos War. Thus Ignatius is not a prisoner, but a state hostage. A dignitary being brought for inspection in Rome. A captive who is nonetheless permitted some liberties as he travels back with an army. This would explain the unsual course through Asia, rather than a direct transport aboard a boat.

Let us imagine that this Elchasaite apostle inspires a renewed interest in Christianity in Asia. Let us imagine that one of his primary teachings is that Christ came to defeat Yahweh, to burn the world, so the world would be renewed. Now let us imagine remnant Philonic Jews and converts who are quite unhappy with this new fad taking away members of their own congregations.

This is when a copy of the "Mark" parody script is released into the public sphere, with a hope that it would deflate the impact of Ignatius's spark. The explanation for the origins of the church lies in the concept that the proto-Mark document, rather than deflating "Ignatian Gnosticism", instead acts as an accelerant.

What Mark does to change Gnosticism is that it grounds it in a historical context. It adds a cast of characters. The dream of salvation isn't simply a hazy vision, there were alleged real miracles that happened in place names that are known. And so, this revitalized Gnosticism of Ignatius takes the name of the document which is helping (inadvertently) to spread it. Mark, the evangelist Marcus, John to the Hebrews. So, John Mark, Mark John - take your pick - is the prophet of the new Gnosticism. Marcionism. In this way, the Pontic origins of the document (the location of the Flavian Christian exile) become the origin of the character "Marcion". Let us say, for now, that he was a later invention. The historical Ignatius, bearing Igantius's story and not Marcion's, is nevertheless our best historical founder of Marcionism.

The Philonic Jewish converts are horrified that a religion which proposes a Christ come to overthrow Yahweh, which paints Yahweh as a Satan, is spreading. Particularly among the ethnically Jewish elements of the Philonic remnant.

Thus begins a decade of further fabrications. Marcionism is the enemy. Luke-Acts is a product of this effort. As is Matthew. Perhaps even the release of Pauline letters into wider circulation. We can assume, given that Marcion's gospel is associated with Luke, that Luke-Acts was appropriated by the Marcionites just like Mark was.

The idea is that the Philonics are producing Luke-Acts and other documents, but the Marcionites are quicker at promulgating them. Therefore, the Marcionites are able to claim the documents, and subvert the efforts of the Philonics.

The goal of the Philonics becomes to establish a concept of apostolic succession. For example, by fabricating the works of Polycarp. This would work for them since their presence in the Roman world goes back to the time of Christ, whereas the Marcionites are a novel cult. The difficulty is that the Philonics had not embraced the narrative of Jesus of Nazareth during the past. Instead, they had preached Logos.

Thus, the conflict concludes with the development of the Johannite literature. Consider the key statement of it: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

It is Jesus Christ as Ba'al Hadad, come to condemn the world of Yahweh, to overthrow the powers. It is Christ of the Babylonian Jews who ascended (as in Ascension of Isaiah, perhaps remembered in Muhammed at the rock) to heaven after first being a mortal man.

The Johannite Christ is eternal, he is no incarnation of Logos, but is Logos itself. He is a personal savior, a la Philo's theology, not the god who prevails over Yaw.

It is perfectly obvious what it is that John is arguing against. The Christ of the East, of the Elchasaites.

The Marcionites can't use John. We see also how contained this conflict would have been. Only Iraneaus emerges outside of Asia, chasing the heresy, and specifically at a merchant port full of Asian sailors. The evidence of the gospel texts being developed over time to combat ascendant Marcionism would not exist outside of Asia, and not outside of ca. 165-180.

Finally, and much later, once the Roman See is ascendant and trying to establish its own apostolic authority, only then is the period of 135-165 revisited. Marcion and even Ignatius are backwritten into the reign of Antoninus Pius. Because there was no Christian activity from the era, there are no texts to contest Rome's fabrications of their own activity during the time.

That's the theory.

It also explains Islam to a certain degree.

I have highlighted Nisibis and Arbela as centers of the "original" Christianity. This Christianity would have identified specific, historical characters as ascended Jewish mystics and reigning Christs in heaven, there to contend against Satan's rule, there to lend material support to conquering armies on Earth. In my personal opinion, this was the national cult of Jewish Adiabene. I believe we can see it preserved in the Yazidi sect in Northern Iraq, in that they honor a Sheik Adi and a Sheik Ezid (Addai or Thaddeus/Thomas, and Izates).

Thus, the Arab Army was a confederacy of followers of many diverse forms of this "original" Christianity. It seems that the Sassanid and Roman conquests pushed the peoples of Assyria from Arbela and Hatra into Arabia and Armenia.

We also see the pressure (after 200 CE and the conversion of Abgar The Great of Edessa to Christianity) of "New Testament" Christianity upon the East, leading to sects such as Nestorian Christianity - which is a likely hybrid that attempts to reconcile the different versions. Syriac Christianity is called, in the ancient literature, "Marcionite".

With the rise of Byzantium, Greek orthodoxy is enforced upon the Syrian hybrid Christianities, Jews are persecuted, and there's heavy admixture of Jewish and "Israelite" tribes with Arabs in the desert trade cities.

Thus, I believe the Arab Empire was a confederacy of all non-Byzantine Christians and Jewish Gnostics against Byzantium. Being ungovernable, the Abbasids eventually consolidated popular texts and hadiths into what we know as Islam, about two hundred years later.

The point being that Mohammad who ascended from the rock of the temple was originally a vestige of Christ. In John Chapter 3, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." John proving that this vestigial belief was partly responsible for the writing of John in the first place.

[Giuseppe]

I hope you can collect all your (interesting) views in a final form possibly in a book.

About this your precise point:

Let us imagine that this Elchasaite apostle inspires a renewed interest in Christianity in Asia. Let us imagine that one of his primary teachings is that Christ came to defeat Yahweh, to burn the world, so the world would be renewed. Now let us imagine remnant Philonic Jews and converts who are quite unhappy with this new fad taking away members of their own congregations.

This is when a copy of the "Mark" parody script is released into the public sphere, with a hope that it would deflate the impact of Ignatius's spark. The explanation for the origins of the church lies in the concept that the proto-Mark document, rather than deflating "Ignatian Gnosticism", instead acts as an accelerant.

Mythicist Jean Magne proposed something of similar, with Apollos of Acts playing the role you assign to "Mark". By writing the gospel of Mark, Apollos would have mitigated a previous anti-demiurgism (=anti-YHWH) along lines more comfortable to Jews.

What do you see as particularly anti-anti-YHWH in Mark?

[Giuseppe]

I remember that Detering argued for Galatians being directed against Elchasaites, the only Christians who are said to adore the astronomical signs, etc, the precise polemical target of the apostle in that epistle.

It follows, assuming Detering is correct and assuming that Mark is based on Paul, particularly on Galatians, that the point of Mark also is against the Elchasaites's claim that the signs matter.

[Giuseppe]

Interesting also when you say:

Consider the key statement of it: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

It is Jesus Christ as Ba'al Hadad, come to condemn the world of Yahweh, to overthrow the powers. It is Christ of the Babylonian Jews who ascended (as in Ascension of Isaiah, perhaps remembered in Muhammed at the rock) to heaven after first being a mortal man.

that is, you think that the divine figure sent 'to condemn the world' is precisely the Ignatius' Jesus, whereas the Jesus who saves the world is his theological reaction.
The same Johannine passage was used by Turmel having the destructor as the Jewish Messiah (Bar-Kokhba?) and the savior as the Marcionite Jesus.
Robert Stahl used the same passage to argue that the destructor was the Jesus of Revelation.

[Giuseppe]

The causal sequence:

Elchasaites ----> pseudo-Paul (Galatians) -----> Mark

...is the strongest point of your argument, indeed.

[yakovzutolmai]

What do you see as particularly anti-anti-YHWH in Mark?

Mark I see as 80s CE composition, a playscript written for Flavian "Christians", whom I believe were converts to Philo's Judaism. In Philo's Judaism, which Paul seemed to be advocating, Christ is Logos, and the spirit of personal salvation and healing. It would have been the community of James, who had Christ incarnate as a known historical figure, whose purpose was to overthrow the powers.

Thus, Mark may be mocking the James community Christ. Seeing as how the great conqueror is crucified in the end. Perhaps we can speculated about the ending of the original Mark. Maybe the defeated Jesus admits in the end that Paul was right, or at least espouses that doctrine. As in, the false messiah is converted by the Logos spirit. Or maybe he simply dies. There was a later need to add different endings to Mark, implying that the original ending is somewhat unsatisfying to Christians.

I am saying that the Gospel of John is anti-anti-Yahweh. Christ wasn't sent to condemn Yahweh's world, but was sent by Yahweh to save the world.

[yakovzutolmai]

The causal sequence:

Elchasaites ----> pseudo-Paul (Galatians) -----> Mark

...is the strongest point of your argument, indeed.

It is more like

Elchasaites ----> pseudo-Paul (Galatians) -----> Marcion

Again, I am perceiving Mark as a tragic parody of proto-Elchasaite doctrine written by Paulinite (Philonic) Jews. Because it's a tragic parody, and not a comedy, Mark has the pathos to serve the purposes of Marcionite doctrine.

I am proposing that the Pontic Philonic Jews released Mark and the Pauline epistles to try and argue against the Elchasaite beliefs, and in the process they were appropriated to the cause of a historical martyred messiah. The texts helped spread the beliefs better. Even until the 19th century, even very liberal Christians would argue that historical evidence of a miraculous resurrection is one reason to take Christianity seriously.

170-180 CE being a sort of "Book of Mormon" moment in Asia, launching "New Testament" Christianity of Jesus of Nazareth.

[Giuseppe]

It would have been the community of James, who had Christ incarnate as a known historical figure, whose purpose was to overthrow the powers.

so do you think that the original Elchasaites were strictu senso the community of James, and that their Jesus was a historical person in the real past? Who are you thinking about ?
If he lived, then he was already crucified: what need there of a parody if the real History had already him mocked by Romans on a real cross?

I remember that the Elchasaite Christ was not a historical figure at all: he was a colossal giant.

[yakovzutolmai]

It would have been the community of James, who had Christ incarnate as a known historical figure, whose purpose was to overthrow the powers.

so do you think that the original Elchasaites were strictu senso the community of James, and that their Jesus was a historical person in the real past? Who are you thinking about ?
If he lived, then he was already crucified: what need there of a parody if the real History had already him mocked by Romans on a real cross?

I remember that the Elchasaite Christ was not a historical figure at all: he was a colossal giant.

I think that the introduction of Assyrian Israelites (Babylon Jews) from Nisibis to Galilee (Bathyra - "The lands around Damascus") led to an explosion of theological speculation due to the reintroduction of Israelite beliefs which the Jewish monotheizers had redacted over the centuries.

The Samaritans were also involved.

The John the Baptist movement being akin to a Great Awakening, involving Dosithean, Assyrian Israelite, Enochian, Essene and so forth beliefs. I speculate that "Nazorean" comes from "Nasara" a pseudonym for either Bathyra or a town nearby settled by the same set of colonists. The Simonian beliefs overlap with the Elchasaite beliefs, and are acknowledged as Samaritan in origin. Remember also Josephus's Samaritan Prophet of the 30s. I think this Samaritan Prophet would be more akin to a "Dositheos" rather than a "John the Baptist". Nevertheless, it spurred a Great Awakening and syncretism of many mystical beliefs from the various Jerusalem outsider groups.

The giant of the Elchasaites is a version of Adam Kadmon, and simply an expression of Jewish myticism. The Phoenician Ieoud was the "only-begotten" of Cronus. He was crucified by Cronus to the axis mundi (or world tree), to uphold the celestial dome (like Atlas). I think this is the mythic archetype being expressed by Jewish mysticism's "pillar" language.

I refer to the Gospel of John, to clarify. That Jesus was a mortal man, an incarnation of this world-soul Christ spirit, who later in life ascended into heaven to be enthroned (like Enoch). John argues against this, saying that Christ must have first come from above in order to go back.

In Simonian beliefs, this man is Simon Magus, and his consort Helen the whore. They do ascend, become giants, Logos and Sophia. This parallels, clearly, what I believe was the original doctrine.

I think that one product of the Great Awakening history attributes to John the Baptist, is the progenitor of Christianity.

In my opinion, it is what I would call the "national religion of Jewish Adiabene", in which the King Bazeus and Queen Helena are deified after death, using Jewish mystical concepts.

The James community would have been adherents of this cult. I think it has survived to a degree in the modern day Yazidi faith.

I cannot say whether the Elchasaites are exactly the same as this "national cult", but I would say that the "national cult" is responsible for the general belief system of the various "Jewish Christian" sects of the Transjordan and Upper Mesopotamia. That is, the Elchasaite beliefs should be seen as an expression of the beliefs of the James community.

[Giuseppe]

I think that the introduction of Assyrian Israelites (Babylon Jews) from Nisibis to Galilee (Bathyra - "The lands around Damascus") led to an explosion of theological speculation due to the reintroduction of Israelite beliefs which the Jewish monotheizers had redacted over the centuries.

Interesting. Does this introdution date to second century ?

I refer to the Gospel of John, to clarify. That Jesus was a mortal man, an incarnation of this world-soul Christ spirit, who later in life ascended into heaven to be enthroned (like Enoch). John argues against this, saying that Christ must have first come from above in order to go back.

Good point. It makes sense.

In Simonian beliefs, this man is Simon Magus, and his consort Helen the whore. They do ascend, become giants, Logos and Sophia. This parallels, clearly, what I believe was the original doctrine.

Hence do you think that Simon Magus was the original historical Jesus? (I am assuming that you are adopting an instance of the historicist paradigm, after all: from the man to myth).

I think that one product of the Great Awakening history attributes to John the Baptist, is the progenitor of Christianity.

Can you explain better this point, please? Are you saying that John the Baptist is the historical Jesus?

I cannot say whether the Elchasaites are exactly the same as this "national cult", but I would say that the "national cult" is responsible for the general belief system of the various "Jewish Christian" sects of the Transjordan and Upper Mesopotamia. That is, the Elchasaite beliefs should be seen as an expression of the beliefs of the James community.

is there evidence of the name 'Joshua' being first used for the deity adored by this cult?
If they were anti-YHWH, how did they deal with the meaning of Joshua as 'YHWH-saves'?

Thanks in advance for any answer.