DECEMBER 25th CHRISTMAS QUESTION

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
21

My research tells that me Anai Bendai is correct in the areas I have examined.

  1. Gnosticism as a movement predated Christianity. It greatly influenced Second Temple Judaism, i.e., the Judaism in which Jesus was located. Gershom Scholem’s books on Talmudic Mysticism, and many later books, verify this.

  2. Jews in the second temple period were not “anti” astrology. They felt that astrology was not deterministic, but definitely felt the stars had influence. Know the common phrase “mazal tov”? Mazal means “constellation of stars” – literally, it means “good stars” or "good constellation.

I cannot assess other aspects of A-B’s arguments, but I will keep an open mind and peruse those books. Thanks, A-B, for those references. And do not lose heart – those who read these postings can read who is being irrational and who is being rational.

Lynwood Slim

22

And another possiblility for Christmas being on 25 Dec:

Channukah falls 25 Kislev, the Hebrew month that most closely parallels December. Could this be evidence of the early Church rooting another of their holidays in the Jewish tradition – like Passover and Easter, Pentecost and Shavu’ot?

23

The Nag Hammadi books weren’t found at Qumran. They were, as the name suggests, found at Nag Hammadi, in Egypt. What was found at Qumran were the Dead Sea scrolls, which predate Christianity and were written by a communal Jewish sect called the Essenes.

And I don’t think anyone here is saying that Gnostic Christianity didn’t exist. It certainly did. But, it didn’t make up all of early Christianity, or even a majority.

24

I’m terribly sorry about confusing the Qumran findings with the Nag Hammadi library. I am of course aware of the differences and have no excuse for doing that except to say that my mind has been a little scattered lately due to some personal/family problems I’m dealing with. But that’s completely beside the point…

Specifically - what I was referring to are the gnostic texts recovered at Nag Hammadi as well as some of the other apocryphal (or heretical) gnostic texts which have always been known about by religious scholars.

These gnostic gospels work on two levels - a surface level of literal interpetation and a deeper level of symbolic interpetation. “To those with eyes see. To those with ears listen.”

There are the OUTER Mysteries (the literal, historical interpretation) and the INNER Mysteries (the symbolic, personal interpretation).

25

A very scholarly work on the subject of early Christianity

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/002-7429715-0587219?v=glance&s=books&vi=customer-reviews

26

Well, first of all, welcome to all you new posters to the SDMB!

How exciting to have a thread bring out three brand new registered posters! And all of them defending an extremely marginal alternative view of history! What a coincidence! Welcome!

You’re all wrong!

Some of us are already educated in Christian history as well as the history of Western civilization.

Anyone with background in history knows that when you compare the age of two documents, it does not necessarily follow that the older physical copy of one document means that its text is older than the other other text on a younger copy.

Your historical methodology is false. Or, to put it another way, as has already been mentioned, bullshit.

If you’re so sure of the validity of your statements, I’m sure you’ll be able to point us to a cite of a scholarly article in a peer reviewed historical journal that defends your “alternative” history.

We’ll all be waiting, put up or shut up.

All ‘three’ of you.

Peace.

27

It’s interesting that the posters who are defending the alternative history are the ones who are actually posting facts, relevant and factual or otherwise. Meanwhile, the ones who are clearly in favor of the status quo view can offer nothing but insults. It speaks volumes.

I’d advise you to go defend creationism somewhere. Your tactics are typical of those zombies.

28

First let me say that I hope your family problems resolve themselves…that’s always difficult to deal with.

And, you are of course, right, that one of the doctrines of gnosticism was that there existed “hidden” knowledge in texts, that only an elite segment of the population could understand.

Where I differ with you, I think, is that you seem to be suggesting that original Christianity was itself gnostic, until some force, be it the Catholic Church, or the Emperor Constantine forcibly suppressed gnosticism and dictated what would go on to become mainstream Christianity.

I think, if that’s what you believe, you’re overestimating the strength and size of the Gnostic movement in early Christianity. Yes, it did exist, and yes, it was suppressed by “mainstream” Christianity, but it never was a majority view. In fact, I’d argue that Gnosticism could probably never have become, even under different circumstances, the dominant strain of Christianity, because by its nature, it is restrictive and elitist. The majority of the population, according to the gnostics, are unable to understand the truth. Only a small group, blessed by God, can. That doctrine doesn’t lend itself to mass popularity.

I apologize if this sounds consescending, or if I am insulting you. It isn’t my intent. In fact, the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library was fascinating, and gave us a lot more information about early Christianity than we had. But we have extant documents older than the Nag Hammadi documents. And the Nag Hammadi documents seem to have been redacted by the Gnostics themselves. The Gospel of Thomas found at Nag Hammadi, for example, shows textual changes to make it more “Gnostic”, than earlier fragments of the Gospel of Thomas we have. So, if, for example, the Gospel of Luke we know of now has changes from the original Gospel of Luke, the Gospels at Nag Hammadi also have changes from those Gospels when originally written.

29

“It’s interesting that the posters who are defending the alternative history are the ones who are actually posting facts, relevant and factual or otherwise.” (TheBitterTruth)

Allow me to interject some facts then.

“Every 2,160 years the pole points to a new constellation in the Zodiac, thus marking a new “age”.” (Anai_Bendai)

The constellations of the Zodiac are all (roughly) along the ecliptic plane, and the poles of the Earth are pointed roughly 90 degrees from any Zodiac sign. Currently, the north pole points towards Ursa Minor, and will rotate to Vega over the course of the next 13,000 years. There is no way that the poles will every point towards a Zodiac sign.

More likely, you meant that the intersection between the celestial equator (the plane in which the Earth rotates around the Sun) and the ecliptic (the plane perpendicular to the Earth’s rotation) passes through a different Zodiac sign every 2,000 years. Technically, the intersection of the planes passes through two Zodiac signs, as the line points in either direction. On the spring (vernal) equinox or the autumn equinox, the Earth looks directly out to the two Zodiac signs, respectively.

“Roughly 2000 years ago the earth’s pole was beginning to point at the constellation of Pisces the fish.” (Anai_Bendai)

Substituting “vernal equinox” for “earth’s pole”, I’d say that’s pretty much right.

Is there a reason astrologers consider the vernal equinox more important than the autumnal equinox? Why Pieces, rather than Virgo/Leo (not sure which one is directly across from Pieces)?

30

Because it’s spring, that’s why!

When a young man’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love. And, according to 2 Samuel 11:1, when kings go off to war. (They go off to war every spring, I guess. If they don’t, they probably get antsy and start chopping off the limbs of their serfs for entertainment.)

31

Not really. The oldest manuscript “scraps” date to the second century. The oldest relatively complete manuscriots, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, date to the fourth century with Alexandrinus dated to the fifth century, but there are certainly fragments that are earlier. The oldest, P[sup]48[/sup], is a fragment of John’s Gospel dating to around 125. We also have texts that were translated into Syriac, Coptic, and other languages that date back long before Constantine that, in translation, say basically the same things as the extant Greek texts. The idea that Christianity somehow “reinvented” itself for the benefit of Constantine is merely wishful thinking on the part of people who need to find conspiracies and mysteries where none exist.

Beyond that, even if we do not have physical copies, we can examine and date the texts of the Christian writings pretty thoroughly using other methods. Paul opposed Gnostic teachings as early as 1 Corinthians (54 - 55). However, it was not until his letter to the Colossians (56 - 58) that we see a serious dispute between Gnostic and non-Gnostic beliefs among Christians. Given that Paul does not address the Gnostics in his letters to the Thessalonians, Philippians, Romans, or Galatians, it is fairly clear that Gnosticism was not part of the original Christianity, but was adopted by some Christians as Christianity and Gnosticism began to reach some of the same prospective adherents. In fact, there is a pretty steady line of interaction, in which any anti-Gnostic preaching is more likely to appear more regularly as the text is dated closer to the second century. This would indicate that the Gnostic intrusion into the Christian community was a later development.

If early Christianity “was Gnostic” and only later was Gnosticism purged, then we should find more Gnostic belief among the writings of Irenaeus, Clement, the works attributed to Barnabas and Hermas, etc. Instead, we find that Gnosticism tends to appear (usually as a belief to be argued against) only in limited locations around the Eastern Mediterranean. Tertullian has some Gnostic-like commentaries, but he only remained a Christian for ten years before wandering off in other directions. The four Gospels accepted as canonical are in direct opposition to Gnostic belief, with their assertion the Jesus was truly human, yet they make no overt effort to deny Gnostic beliefs. In other words, they did not even consider Gnosticism a competing theme to be argued against, but simply laid out their own stories in ways that were wholly incompatible with Gnosticism.

32

  1. Neither I, nor any of the ones arguing against you, believe in or defend creationism. Where did you pull that one from?

  2. You decry our insults and then use insults yourself. That is not how you take the high road.

  3. The ‘facts’ you are posting are unsubstantiated. You and the ‘other two’ are making extraordinary claims that fly in the face of established history and historical methodology. The burden of proof is on you to prove your alternative history is correct. It is not our responsibility to show how every new and wild theory is wrong.

Peer reviewed historical journals. Look into them.

Peace.

33

Can anyone prove this, or will it simply stand as an unverified claim?

Make with the cites, people. Make with the cites.

34

I’m not sure how strongly all Christians or Jews opposed astrology, but there were certainly incidents of conflict between astrologers and the early church. In the first quarter of the second century Aguila Ponticus was expelled from the church for promoting astrological views. After Constantine embraced Christianity, he ordered astrologers and “magi” to leave the empire or face death.

While I do not know of any explicit conflict between astrology and Judaism, I do note that while some small groups (definitely out of the mainstream) messed around with numerology (particularly gematria), I cannot recall any interaction between Jews and astrologers.

35

The best I can do off the top of my head is cite the Bible, including the first creation story in Genesis, which would make it Genesis 1.x There is a verse that makes a statement along the lines that stars are just sources of light. I once read the Genesis book in some huge series, which I know is standard and know that I’ll never remember the name of, that the Israelites took that as an indication that astrology was bunk.

In other books, such as Isaiah and Daniel, astrologers, and their cohort magicians, sorcerers, etc., are matched against the eponymous Israelite, and shown to have no real power. Presumably, these passages served the purpose of reminding the people to rely on Yahweh, not charlatans. (Deuteronomy has a couple of references to not worshipping the stars, but that is slightly different.)

Sorry, but I do not have access to historical texts here at work. However, to the best of my knowledge JWK is correct in his claim.

36

OK. First of all, I have not offered any opinion on the question at hand. So, saying that I am for or against any particular viewpoint is erroneous. My point was that those posters who are suggesting the truth is not what doctrinal Christianity says it is, are the only ones who really are offering evidence. You can argue whether you think that evidence is credible. Go back through the thread. A number of responses consisted of insults, suggesting the evidence was not credible, but offering nothing to back it up.

As for me, this is what I know and believe. Some of it is fact, some is conjecture based on supporting evidence. I would argue that there is absolutely no way to present any “history” of Christianity without having to make some conclusions based on conjecture.

It is an established fact, backed up by the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scrolls, that there were many “Gospels” written in the early days of Christianity. Furthermore, it is also well-established that there were MANY factions of Christianity, including the so-called, Gnostics. I cited an excellent book on this subject in a post. Those groups, and those writings, offered very different perspectives on the life of Christ. Most importantly, they focused on Jesus’ humanity, and not some cult-like vision of him being divine. In addition, they reveal important details, such as his marraige to Mary Magdalene, that would eventually not fit with the established doctrine. When the Council of Nicene rolled around, Gospels were PICKED and CHOSEN for their content in the Bible based on how well they fit within the established doctrine. Make no mistake, the Council of Nicene made decisions about how and what was supposed to be believed. Anything that did not fit was deemed heretical. So we have a book (the Bible) that supposedly presents the absolute truth about Jesus’ life and teachings, but that book takes only into account certain specific viewpoints, which by the way, were molded by the politics of the day?

Finally, I took an admittedly cheap shot by saying these folks should go argue creationism somewhere. The point I was making was that the tactics being used were similar. Creationists have a tough time arguing their position based on the facts. They are only capable of taking some scientific evidence and twisting them into pseudo-science to “support” their central argument which is one entirely based on faith. So, their other primary tactic is to viciously attack Darwinism as being only theoretical, despite all the evidence (which they argue is flawed anyway). The tactic is to counter by saying that sice Darwinism can’t be completely proven, you can’t completely dismiss Creationism out of hand either. But again, they can offer little concrete evidence to support their basic position.

37

“When the Council of Nicene rolled around, Gospels were PICKED and CHOSEN for their content in the Bible based on how well they fit within the established doctrine. Make no mistake, the Council of Nicene made decisions about how and what was supposed to be believed.”

The Council of Nicene made a lot of subjective decisions, but the decision about which Gospels to use was not one of them. Regarding the Gospels, the Council simply included the Gospels that were already widely circulated among the Christian community. That is, the Christian community chose which Gospels to use and which to reject, and the Council simply formalized that decision.

Liken it to a school board choosing which science textbooks to include in the cirriculum – is it fair to say a school board will not include a textbook with controversial or marginal views on science? Yes. Is it fair to blame them for that? No. By and large, the “mainstream” and “marginal” views are determined by the scientific community at large, not the small panel who formalize decisions.

There are definitely books whose inclusions were controversial (Hebrews and James, for instance), but the Gospels were already picked.

“Anything that did not fit was deemed heretical.”

The definition of heresy stems from formalizing church doctrine; this statement is redundant. Anything that fit was, by definition, not heretical and anything that did not fit became, by definition, heretical.

38

Wasn’t the inclusion of that acid trip known as The Revelation to John also considered controversial?

39

As noted, Nicene (325) did not establish any part of the canon. Later, the existing canon (arrived at through general acceptance, rather than through a council) was confirmed repeatedly by synods at Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (393, 397, 419). However, the canon was reported (in whole or in part) by numerous authors from the middle of the second century (in reaction against Marcion) through the late fourth century. That there were individual proponents and opponents of various books throughout that period is no secret, but the general lists (both of accepted works and of rejected works) were quite consistent, overall. When the canon was closed, the church did not declare that all the “rejected” works were heretical; Shepherd, Barnabas, Clement, the Didache, etc., were declared to have not been inspired by God, but they were not condemned.

With the possibly remote exception of the “Gnostic” Gospel of Thomas, none of the overtly rejected works can be dated as early as any of the accepted works. (It is possible that the Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, and a couple of other works were written before a couple of the pseudonymous Epistles attributed to Paul and Peter, but the “heretical” works do not demonstrate that age.)

We actually have a fairly coherent, even if incomplete, picture of the development of the canon. The idea that dozens of books (and authors) battled it out for supremacy within the church, with the eventual winners simply being picked and chosen and declared at a council is not supported by the evidence.

40

Yes, there are plenty of books by widely-respected authors (e.g., university professors) about the emergence of orthodox/catholic Christianity in the first 350 years. Interested readers should, for example, look into Henry Chadwick’s book, “The Early Church.” Chadwick was a professor of church history at Oxford at the time he wrote the book in 1967, more than two decades after the discovery of the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. Jaroslav Pelikan, a professor emeritus at Harvard, has written a five volume set, and the first volume, called “The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition” would be quite instructive here, I believe. It was published in 1971. Or there is a little paperback published in 1997 by Rodney Stark, a sociology professor at the University of Washington, entitled, “The Rise of Christianity.” In it, he looks at some sociological principles involved in the expansion and rapid growth of Christianity prior to Constantine. It is a very interesting read (if you’re interested in this formative period in Christian history).

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library are really not “new” to Biblical scholars. They were discussed when I was in seminary back in the 1970’s. I recall reading the Gospel of Thomas back then. Personally, I was not impressed by the “wisdom” offered by the Gnostic Jesus. I don’t know what anyone else’s impression might be, but my impression was that the Gnostic Gospels offered a much more “otherworldly” Jesus than the “catholic” Gospels. But read them yourself and compare, and see what you think.

One more thought (and I say this at the risk that anyone who favors the “conspiracy theory”–in which Christianity started out as Gnostic but was highjacked by Constantine or the Roman Empire or something else–will respond to this last thought rather than to the massive evidence in the books I have suggested, as well as many other books which I could also have suggested). Here’s a problem I see with this approach (and I’m going to exaggerate to make my “one more thought” more palpable): suppose I proposed that the moon is actually made of green cheese, but at some point someone came along and outlawed that point of view. Ever since that time, proponents of the green cheese perspective have been harassed and silenced. Those who say otherwise have simply been coerced or duped into their point of view, so they can’t be believed.

My question is: who, now, has become the most credible source of evidence? The green cheese proponents? Or NASA scientists who hold a more widely-accepted point of view?

I mean to make my point with evidence, not with logic. That’s why I hesitate to voice my “one last thought.” (And by the way, the first ecumenical council of the church was held at Nicea, not “Nicene.” It did initiate the Nicene Creed…but that didn’t reach its final form until the Council of Constantinople in 381.)

Just for informational purposes, I would like to say that I am neither an Orthodox nor a Roman Catholic Christian.

Best regards,
Dave Miller
(who was going to stay out of this discussion…and who may still do that!)