Some notes on early Christianity - its evolution and "sacred text"

by Half banana 16 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Half banana
    Half banana

    In the scope of this site, it’s not possible to go too deeply into historical research in a single post but we can give the flavour of things formerly hidden from us when we were JWs.

    Like most things, Christianity evolved.

    It has unseen roots but many visible branches, 40,000 is the often quoted number! There never was a moment when it arrived fully formed in the middle of the first century. Its roots in folk mysteries were deliberately concealed by fourth and fifth century Christian leaders. The genuine Pauline scriptures (those actually written by Paul) from that first century, seemed not to know much about Jesus yet it was Paul, the Romanised Jew, convert, fanatic and visionary who got the christianity ball rolling. The Jesus story became central in the second century and Bible texts were compiled into the Catholic canon in the fourth. Thereafter it was continually edited, refined and altered by copyists and by rabid apologists like the fawning historian Eusebius right up to the time of the early medieval monastic scribes.

    Christianity was drawn from an existing folk tradition of semi divine saviours, all of whom were miraculous healers, teachers, and miracle workers. It is most telling from critical-textual examination that Jesus‘ name was a latecomer to the story, as indeed was the idea of “Christ” which in all the earliest copies of texts, later incorporated into the Bible, used instead the term chrest not christ which meant “good”. This was the traditional description for the god-man hero but later substituted by the Greek word christ meaning anointed. In the god-man tradition and in proto-christianity, the saviour figure was usually called ”the Lord.” (Do read The Shepherd of Hermas for a taste of of early christianity -- available on the internet, note the absence of "Jesus" and "Christ" in the text).

    The new cult of Christianity deliberately distanced itself from the older traditions. Tellingly it specially noted the time when it first used the name “Christian” (Acts 11;26) i.e. not chrest but Christ followers. It had borrowed the literary framework and the story lines from what was later condemned as paganism but had changed key words and names, therefore keeping the saviour myths alive but clothed anew and in a fresh binding as it were. There are Koine Greek Bible texts extant which show the spelling alterations from chrest to christ, these have been known for a couple of centuries but so far have received little publicity. What! show the Bible to be fallible. . .

    Unlike factual evidence, ideas and beliefs begin small like rivulets feeding into a stream, by popular consent they gain body and momentum, and eventually become a river. The wonder of written text meant being able to fix this flow of ideas and spoken word into a history for others to read. For the illiterate, hand written accounts read to them would have seemed, because of their exclusivity, to be almost sacred in nature -- and engraving words in stone would have been mystically potent! Sadly it took right up the period of the Enlightenment in late 18th century France to disabuse the masses of this notion.

    So just because something is written down or called "sacred" does not carry with it any proof whatsoever of its truthfulness.

  • eyeuse2badub
    eyeuse2badub

    Nice post HB! I've had a similar discussion with my pimi wife and other jw's (who won't turn me in as an apostate). My question/thoughts for them was, how can we be sure that all those ancient writings that supposedly make up the Bible are accurate or even true accounts?

    Of course, they let it be know that jehober made sure that 'his word' would be preserved accurately throughout the centuries. Okay, so I always ask them, "Why then did jehober preserve his word but allow his name to be buried for centuries? How about all those hundreds of thousands that lived and never knew god's name?"

    just saying!

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    Thank you Half banana for your Post, most informative ! I have "The Shepherd of Hermas " in my Library, and read it many years ago, but never noticed the absence of Jesus and Christ in the Text ! of course, back in those days I was an active J.W, and we were mind controlled to "read things in to" whatever texts we were reading.

    I fully endorse your comment on the very early period of Christianity : "There never was a moment when it arrived fully formed in the middle of the first century". And I would add , it was far from "fully formed" at the end of that Century, when the Apostles and nearly all eye-witnesses of Jesus were surely dead ! And as you say, controversy raged on, and continues ! Of course we see various theological ideas emerging in the New Testament Books, these being written against a background of the existence of a number of groups claiming to be followers of Jesus, all with varying theologies.

    Our very own Poster, Doug Mason touches on this in a number of his Papers, and maybe more so in his latest Paper, still a work in progress.

    Gnosticism of course is fairly well known, and probably affected the writer of the Gospel of John. The Nestorians I think were very early, and other nebulous groups who fizzled out, and we have scant knowledge of, unless they were condemned as Heretics by the Church that came to call itself Orthodox, itself several removes from proto Christian Theology.

    All of this is a very different picture from the one drawn by the J.W Org ! The evolution of Christianity is quite as messy as the Evolution of Life on earth !

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot
    Ironic that natural selection would give rise to a species which becomes so specifically adapted to its environment that the denial of natural selection’s existence becomes a vital component to its continued survival in said environment.

    😏

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    Scholars , even skeptical ones agree on certain facts regarding how Christianity got started.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOW7k3hQ-vE

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Half banana : It is most telling from critical-textual examination that ... the idea of “Christ” which in all the earliest copies of texts, later incorporated into the Bible, used instead the term chrest not christ which meant “good”.... There are Koine Greek Bible texts extant which show the spelling alterations from chrest to christ, these have been known for a couple of centuries but so far have received little publicity.

    Interesting. Do you happen to know of any papyri or manuscripts that support this?

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Earnest, I have read that the earliest copies of the NT say "Chrestian" instead of "Christian".

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Earnest, http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/chrestians%20christians.htm documents the "papyri or manuscripts" which answer your question. The site mentioned above says (and shows) that the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Beza each say "The disciples were first called Chreistians in Antioch ..."! That site also shows the earliest extant manuscript of the "Annals" by Tacitus in reference to followers of Christ shows evidence of originally saying "Chrestians" before being tampered with to say "Christians" (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#Christians_and_Chrestians ). All later extant copies of the Annals say "Christians".

    For further documentation see the following.

    https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/C/christian.html [It says the following. "In all three New Testament passages the uncorrected Codex Sinaiticus reads "Chrestian." We know from many sources that this variant was widely current in the 2nd century. Blass in his edition of Acts not only consistently reads "Chrestian," but conjectures that "Chrestian" is the correct reading in Tacitus (Annals, xv.44), the earliest extra-Biblical testimony to the word.']

    http://cista.net/Origins-of-Chrestianity/sites.google.com/site/originsofchristianity/archaeology-of-chrest/from-gnosticism-and-greek-magic-to-the-chrestian-new-testament.html
  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/marcion.html under the heading of 'THE ORIGIN OF THE WORD "CHRISTIAN" ' makes interesting statements regarding "Chrestus", "Chrestos", and "Chrestianity".

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Disillusioned JW, thanks for your research on the origin of the use of Chrestos instead of Christos. However, it isn't as clear as it first seems to be.

    First of all, your last post relates to the use of chrestos by Marcion. It says

    At this early time, there is some confusion about the correct spelling for "Christian." It is known that Marcion preferred to call Jesus the "Chrestos" (which means the Kind or Helpful One). "… [T]he spelling for 'Chrestos' (=the Good one) [is] derived from an ancient inscription to a Marcionite synagogue" (Daniel Jon Mahar. English Reconstruction and Translation of Marcion's version of To The Galatians. p. 1).

    The book by Daniel Mahar, English Reconstruction and Translation of Marcion's version of To The Galatians, renders Marcion's version of Galations 1:1 as "Paul an apostle, not of men nor through man, but through Isu Chrestos ...", but in fact that is not what Marcion wrote.

    The earliest record we have of what Marcion wrote is by Tertullian in his treatise "Against Marcion". There he writes (in Latin) in book 5, chapter 1, para.3 that according to Marcion, Paul claims to be "an apostle not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ [Iesum Christum]".

    Why, then, does Mahar render it as Isu Chrestos? He says in his introduction:

    The English translation itself is admittedly conjectural in places, as also are the notes.

    One such creative liberty is the name for the Marcionite Savior, "Isu Chrestos" - "Isu" derived on the designation of Syrian Marcionites, the spelling for "Chrestos" (=the Good one ) derived from an ancient inscription to a Marcionite synagogue.

    So his claim that Marcion used the term Chrestos is only conjecture based on an inscription to a "Marcionite synagogue" which he does not identify.

    I will try to address the other points you raise in a future post.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit