Talk:Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism - Definition and Overview

Archives

/Archive 1 CheeseDreams 23:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

issues arising from the wording, including need for context or adjustment and additions, including 72 reading 70 in some manuscripts, Harpocrates image looking different to later Mary+Jesus imagery, the origin of the harpocrates image, the time period that demotic was used in, etymology of Set, Seb, and Seth, when in Aramaic, pronunciation of Osiris' name as Azer, Set's villany, variaties of Horus , origin of the Horus Nativity Image, origin of Meri, the number of gods in the egyptian pantheon, latria and hyperdulia ("veneration of Mary") vs. hairsplitting ("worship of Mary"), whether a pentegram contains 72 degree angles

Hair

I seem to remember that the distinction between latria, and dulia, are considered by non-catholics & non-orthodox to be nonsense invented by the catholic church to counter claims they were hypocrits by worshipping the saints as gods but not allowing others to worship other gods.

The case of the BVM being so ridiculous that an extra term had to be invented ("hyperdulia") so that it could explain how it wasn't latria despite being above and beyond dulia

The only difference in fact between these things being that one is called latria and the other dulia or hyper-dulia, and even then, only by Christians. CheeseDreams 20:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

W.r.t The Holy Ghost, the example that Wesley gives (the Trisagion) is completely insignificant compared to the Magnificat - you only have to look at the history of choral music to see that the Magnificat was the most important thing in Vespers - see [[this article to see a particular example of the attention given to the Magnificat compared to the remainder.

Of course they have "in nomine patri, et filii, et spiritui sancto" at the end, that's just a statement of dogma, and is the standard formula for prayer. It has more to do with stating what the church believes it believes than the content of the prayer. Most prayers have "in saecula saeculorum" in them as well (Anglo-catholics translate this "world without end", where as evangelicals usually translate this "forever and ever"), but that doesn't mean that your opinion of whether you want to pray that thing will not ever change.

Pentecostals (and Anglicans, for that matter) don't really count. We are discussing the development of the cult of Mary in early christianity, not what happens now. CheeseDreams 20:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The distinction between latria and dulia was spelled out by the Seventh Ecumenical Council in the eighth century chiefly to explain that icons are venerated, not worshipped. It expressly forbids worship of icons or saints. I'm not sure who originated the term 'hyperdulia', but I suspect it's a later Roman Catholic innovation.

Regarding the Trisagion versus the Magnificat, all I can tell you is that the Trisagion is a standard component of every vespers, matins, and Divine Liturgy service in the Orthodox Church, as well as many other prayers. The Magnificat is not included nearly so often, by comparison. I don't know whether this is true of the Roman Catholic church or not, but I do know the Romans give even more honor to Mary than do the Orthodox, as in the 19th century dogma of the Immaculate Conception and some mumbling about possibly declaring her to be "comediatrix" with Christ or some similar title. I think they use the Magnificat a bit more often, certainly when praying the rosary. 17th century choral music says very little about the cult of Mary in early Christianity, which is what we were talking about, right? Wesley 05:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Premature babies

When did Christians believe in a seven month pregnancy? Eastern Orthodoxy celebrates the Annunciation on March 25, exactly nine months before Christmas. I won't deny this may have changed, but I'd be interested to know when it changed, and when the seven month pregnancy was celebrated or taught. Wesley 04:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Catholics celebrate the same date. Apparently it was celebrated at that date since Ephesus, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Mpolo 09:01, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Its some early christian wierdness thing. Ill check out when it changed. CheeseDreams 19:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was right, its an early christian wierdness. It's recorded in the Gospel of the Hebrews (in a surviving fragment). CheeseDreams 00:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The present Gospel of Hebrews article suggests that the Gospel of the Hebrews was chiefly used by the Ebionites. It is highly debatable that these people were Christians at all; more likely they were an entirely different sect. Further, the present article says that this gospel omits the infancy narratives entirely, which would seem to suggest that it wouldn't mention the length of her pregnancy at all. I wonder, how can you be so sure that some surviving fragment belongs to the 'Gospel of Hebrews', when you seem so uncertain that a surviving early fragment of the Gospel of John could belong to that gospel? or that a mere two paragraphs could be part of some hypothetical Secret Gospel of Mark? Sounds like double standards, chosen to suit your argument. Wesley 12:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Ebionites thought they were Christian, which is all that matters. The phrase "some early christians thought that" holds true if some people who thought they were christians did think that thing, which IS the case.

Bishop Melito of Sardis went to discover the Jerusalem Church finding only the Ebionites.

The church father Eusebius states that they are descended from the Jerusalem church christians, but their views (which he considers heretical) are according to him due to the entire church of Jerusalem (and everyone that was in it) became apostate from the correct view (despite having been founded by the apostles themselves), unlike, of course, the church he supported (n.b. this is the best explanation he ever came up with, which just goes to show how much clutching at straws it is).

It is odd that the present G.o.t.Hebrews article says this, though this MAY be due to POV or lack of knowledge of the Gospel. The gospel only really exists as a series of fragments of various lengths. I think they basically piece the lengths together. I think however what is meant by "omits the infancy narratives" is that it doesn't go "well, there was mary and joseph (a carpenter), annunciation, census, no room, birth in a stable in a manger, wise men, hiding in egypt to avoid slaughter of innocents by herod", rather than it says nothing at all about Jesus as a baby/pregnancy.

The two paragraphs you refer to are stated by the letter they are quoted in (i.e. the letter they survive in) as being in the "Secret Gospel of Mark", which is why they are given the name. It happens to tally with the known-to-exist-and-with-known-content Secret books of other Apostles, such as the Gospel of Thomas which actually itself states it is the "Secret Gospel of Thomas".

CheeseDreams 20:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The name

Why so complex?--Josiah 23:28, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Because Jesus and Syncretism doesn't cover Mary, or church practices, etc.

And Christianity and Syncretism covers too much - e.g. Christmas trees, easter bunnies (which believe it or not are ancient pagan, deriving from fertility symbols, which oddly were believed to lay eggs, and Eostre is a pagan goddess), people syncretising with Christianity, e.g. Saint Thomas Christians etc.

So, this was the best I could come up with to describe what this article is about. CheeseDreams 02:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the present title does a good job of matching the contents of the article. Wesley 03:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks CD. I was thinking it was a bit too complex, but your explanation makes sense.--Josiah 00:40, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

However, wouldn't it be simpler just to use "Pre-4rth century Christianity and Syncretism"?--Josiah 00:40, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Disputed

Schools of philosophers developed in the first millenium BC in the Hellenic sphere of influence. One of the most radical was that of which Pythagoras was a member, holding that deep and holy meaning existed within geometry above all else. The philosophical meaning (the inner mystery) was not allowed to be mentioned to outsiders, though some were allowed to know about the geometrical properties of things (the outer mysteries)—to the extent that there are tales of some being killed for revealing the inner mysteries to outsiders. Many observations were tied in with astronomy, which had formed the basis of many tales in mediterranean religions. Some of the esoteric and mystic ideas of the Pythagoreans also spread and influenced the religions of the region, and some scholars think that the founding of Christianity was one of those thus influenced.

• Which scholars think that the founding of Christianity was influenced by Pythagoreans? I note there is an inline comment that's been in there for ages but no-one has clarified. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams wrote the section (or the whole article, better). I toned it down a little bit, removing demonstrably false statements, and put the questions there in the comments. Cheese says that there is no need to identify the scholars because the reader can sift through the whole Bibliography to find out. (By the way, the Bibliography sort of tells you what the POV of this page is -- I think there's one Christian source, and that just because I added it to justify my changes.) Mpolo 15:43, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Its actually a bit indirect. Basically the Pythagoreans founded-in-some-way (it was quite a secretive movement, so its history is really very vague) the religious movement that became Osiris-Dionysus, together with Mathematics, and other things. And it is that (Osiris-Dionysus) that is alledged to have influenced/created Christianity, retaining elements of pythagoreanism amongst many other syncretisms.CheeseDreams 00:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There should be more than that, I copied the bibliography from the Historicity of Jesus page. And added about 3 more references, I think (it might have been more). CheeseDreams 02:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.s., TBSDY, the whole point about syncretism is that it is about knicking bits and pieces, and distorting things to integrate pre-existing beliefs, rather than being the whole origin. The argument about pythagoreanism is that of influence of the mystical nature of numbers and geometry (as held by the pythagoreans), encoded into the texts of the bible. It isn't that 100% of the bible is a code for pythagoreanism.

It is the argument that things such as Matthew's deviations from Mark, for example, are due to syncretism, i.e. Matthew attributing ideas to Jesus that were not actually there, and derive from elsewhere. This is common. See the gnostic texts. For example, the Gospel of Thomas actually attributes quite a few of Aesop's fables to Jesus, amongst other things.

The syncretism argument is that the otherworldly things about Jesus (e.g. the unusual nativity, the specialness that warrented slaugter of the innocents, magi, crucifiction, resurrection, etc.) as opposed to the human things (e.g. rabbi, teacher, parables, journeys, etc.) are actually copied from other religions, either (in the case of the Jesus-is-another-mystery-religion arguments) because they encode mystical esoteric teachings like the others, or (in the case of the Jesus-was-nothing-special arguments) because they were folk memories that Christians attributed to Jesus to give him weight, authority, and to go "ah, that's Jesus you are telling a story about, let me tell you something else...", or simply by accident, and chinese whispers.

As to how much of Jesus was a syncretism, and how much not, that depends on how willing you are to consider the evidence. Some think only some bits, others think that Jesus was entirely a result of syncretisms, and in fact never existed (as would be the case if Jesus was a mystery religion). As one scholar put it, the evidence suggests that if someone called Jesus did exist, it wasn't the Jesus of Christianity, but someone else, by the same name CheeseDreams 21:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon off it. The stuff in this article is a gigant stretch. Try reading it again and then look at my comment down the bottom of this page. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The question asked at the beginning of this section was, which published scholars have drawn a connection between Pythagoreanism and the Gospel texts? There has been complete silence on that point for over a month. Therefore I'm deleting the section on pythagoreanism as original research. Wesley 05:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article continues to use numerous "weasel words" such as "some scholars" or even "some" rather than any form of real attribution, which suggests it may contain a large quantity of original research. It frequently presents the opinions of "some" as established fact when in fact they are opinions and speculations, and in many cases disputed ones at that. Therefore I've added the npov tag until these things can be cleaned up a good bit. Wesley 04:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Important bit of research missing.

Pythagoras' theorem involves triangles, they have three sides. Christianity believes in the Trinity, therefore this is evidence of syncretism. Sheesh. You people just aren't digging far enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pythagoreans didn't assign a significant mystic meaning to triangles in pythagoras' theorem. They did to 153, and the pentagram (which they used as their symbol), and to spheres.

Trinities have existed in many many ancient religions, for example, the goddess Demeter is a trinity. Demeter is her daughter Persephone and the old crone Hecate. (This mystery was the source of the ancient and world famous Eleusian mysteries - which I have likely spelt wrongly).

It is thought that this is the origin for the idea of a witches coven having the hag, maiden, and mother, when combined with the fact that the celts had a female trinity godess as well, becoming mixed into mediaeval english beliefs (in which Hecate was seen as a name of the queen of witches).

Trinities are easy to find. The point is to find the one thats likely, Osiris-Horus-Isis is eminently plausible for a variety of reasons. CheeseDreams 00:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That trinity is very different to the Christian idea of the trinity. I would suggest that these are tenuous links and not at all supported by most serious historians. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Genuine information missing

Ive just realised that I forgot to point out in the article that Annu is the standard egyptian name for Heliopolis (the greek name) - it derives from the name of the original settlers (the Anu people). Heliopolis was the city of the sun, of Horus, and of the dead. This really ought to be in the article to explain why Annu is the house of the dead, as Annu tends not to be mentioned as the city of the dead in texts about egyptians, people either calling it Heliopolis or referring to the other version of the underworld (which's name I have forgot). CheeseDreams 00:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prometheus isn't a very good example, there are much better ones. One of the greek myths has something about a garden with apples in that are forbidden. CheeseDreams 20:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Citations or Original Research?

Which scholars draw a connection between Horus and Jesus? Which scholars draw a connection between Osiris-Dionysus and Jesus? There's a long list of people at the bottom, but not every one spoke to every point here, and I wonder whether any of them did. Otherwise this reads more like an essay. Wesley 05:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)