I have an interest in christian origins. It has grown from a more general interest in religion, and christianity. My own studies of christian origins have been broad ranging, and I have learned quite a bit. Unfortunately, the topic is two thousand years in the past, and much has happened to obscure our view into the past. Many sources disagree vehemently, and there are strong personal biases and issues of faith clouding the facts and creating noise in the signal. Like almost everything worth knowing, it is an area of human knowledge that demands one either become extensively knowledgable in order to form ones own opinions. The alternative is to make a cursory perusal, locate some experts in the field whose pedigree you respect, and adopt their views on the subject as a variety of faith.
An important thing to note, when peering into history, is that we are, in the very best case, dealing with extreme simplifications and assembling a picture in our mind. So, as in our regular, daily life, our own editorial perspective will color our mental creation. For persons like myself who only speak and read a single language, most primary sources are translated and colored by yet anothers viewpoint, yielding a complex collection (original + translator + your own) of combined perspectives. In this circumstance, conclusions must be rather tentative, the picture obtained rather vague.
I have developed some rather general beliefs about the likely source of modern christianity. An identifiable group in antiquity using some identifiable extant texts crafted a hellenic-inspired archetypal story within a judaic context. This author likely created both the first Jesus myth/gospel, and the cultic convention of allegorical, archetype laden myth composition.
I think that the original Jesus Myth, a neat synthesis of hellenistic-orphic, egyptian triple-blessed hermes/thoth literature, and messianic YHVH-worship divorced from the jerusalem Temple cult were combined into an earnest, deliberate sycretist creation aimed at providing a more halthy mode of social interaction. Those practicing the religion of Israel in roman Judea-Palestine (and beyond to a lesser degree) suffered greatly over religious laws that, from certain perspectives, made little sense. The impetus behind the creation of the original myth of jesus was to remedy the problem, without losing or giving up cultural identity. An Alexandrian group of judean and samaritan Collegium students, expatriots studying the Torah, greek philosophy, and egyptian metaphysics wind up creating what grows into Gnostic christianity. The creative, ravenous spiritual creation would grow, adapt, adopt and evolve, its eventual offspring consuming its lesser relatives until eventually it becomes the modern christian church(s).
I believe that the central mytholgy was built around an Israelized adaptation of the Dionysos-Osiris rites found in local adaptations around the hellenized world. Platonism and writings by Seneca and Philo of Alexandria were used to craft the first "gospel" story, but the real innovation was the idea of writing a gospel as a pious act. As demonstration of attainment or acts of pious dedication, an aspirant would compose his own contribution to the cannon. In this manner, the wild profusion of Gnostic literature bursts onto the scene, the explosion sending Gnostic gospels and writings out in bewildering number. The corpus of pre-extant literature that served as the common literary spine for these original gnostic christians was easily accessible in Alexandria. The Hellenic and egyptian texts served as a common basis for the innovators and their innovation, allowing Israelized hermetic/hellenist/orphic philosophy to flourish as it never had.
I say Israelized specifically, rather than Judaized. It seems to me a good case can be made for the Samaritan known to history as Simon Magus as the inspiration for the idea of a real, historical Jesus. It also seems more inclusive of the peoples I am speaking about - semitic persons involved in the worship of YHVH, rather than any particular sub group of same. I believe Simon spent time in Alexandria, where he was central to creating and spreading this innovative spiritual paradigm. I believe that living outside of (then) Judea/palestine, Simon would have been at ease among diaspora jews. Certainly, the writings of Philo would have interested the more hellenized Samaritan, even if Philo man himself did not.
The embryonic new cult promoted a corpus of literature and a spiritual path that triggered spiritual experience, in addition to being far less antagonistic to Rome. Part of demonstrating your attainment or committment was composing your own iteration of the myth. Persons were encouraged to contribute to the corpus, in the ways that seemed right to them.
As this group were literate and shared a focus on their common reading list, their compositions share some traits. Their shared experience reading Platos' Republic, in addition to influencing ideas about the nature of the soul, focused the group on the idea of "The Noble Lie". While our original christians were well intentioned, the "Noble Lie" would be revisited by their successors, who had fewer scruples. It is easy, after a cursory view of the literature of Philo and the Hermes Thrice blessed corpus, to see the two streams of composition combine, rsulting in the early Gnostic Gospels. The language of the Gnostics clearly grows from the early-c.e. melting pot of Alexandria.
Again and again in the church literature Simon is referred to as "the father of all heresies". I think, in this case, it may be safe to take them at their word. Simon Magus was in some way a central player in the religious movement that birthed modern christianity. He birthed a stranger, more complex and nuanced creation than later churches would promote, with a unfixed, syncretistic basis. Simon was both the father of the church, and the father of all heresies as well.
I can make a few more claims that I am pretty sure of. The great Gnostic, Marcion, the gnostic patriach who assembled the original "christian bible", promoted a corpus of Pauline writings. These often disparaged documents provide a view of a totally incorporeal otherworldly messiah, and of a Paul substantially different from the Paul of the modern cannonical gospels; Paul and Simons real, historic lives are covered in a thin veil and pressed into service as source material for composing the fiction of a "real live" Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment