Mystery Cults and Christianity

During the Hellenistic period, specifically 27BC – 180AD, the west experienced a new surge of oriental cults coming into their world. This contributed to the success of prophets, magicians, healers and sage types.3 Thus it is easy to see how preachers such as John the Baptizer and Jesus of Nazareth fit right into the mold of their cultural setting. The trend of mystery cults was perhaps one of the more important aspects of Hellenistic religion in its relation to Judaism and early Christianity. During the period following Alexander’s conquest there was a huge blend between oriental religions and Hellenistic religions. This syncretism ultimately reached Anatolian, Egyptian, Persian, and Syrian cultures (among others) as well.4 Just as the Isis and Osiris cults blended Egyptian and Hellenistic elements, and Mithraism blended Persian and Hellenistic elements, it is doubtful that early Christianity arose as anything other than a blend of Jewish and Hellenistic elements, continuing the trend during the Hellenistic period. This is not to say that Christianity began as simply a copy of other mystery religions, but more accurately that Christianity began as its own mystery religion in some sense.

There are undeniable similarities between Christianity and the Greek mystery cults. Among them were; ritual meals, ritual baths, a son of god figure who died and then achieved victory over death, and a promise of salvation for its followers. These cults also had monotheistic trends, evolving out the rampant polytheism in the Greco-Roman world, just like how Judaism and early Christianity had henotheistic tendencies before later becoming fully monotheistic. Again, while neither of these are exact copies of another, they each share blended Hellenistic elements along with their own unique elements specific to their culture (Egyptian, Syrian, Jewish, etc).

Following those lines, it can be said with a fair amount of confidence that without Hellenization, Christianity would not have grown in the way it did. Because the Hellenization of Palestine united the region the way it did, it was instrumental to the origins and eventual spread of Christianity. This was also crucial because as has already been stated, syncretism was a large aspect of religion in the Greco-Roman world, and not only religion but culture as a whole. As Dale Martin notes, “people were expected to mix gods, religious practices, assumptions, and beliefs from different sources and cultures.”5

–M

Attitudes of the Gospel Writers Toward Jews and Judaism

A prevailing theme laced within the gospels of Matthew, Luke-Acts, and John that frequently receives attention of modern audiences, is their negative portrayal of “the Jews.” With

each gospel the hostile rhetoric targeted at the Jews escalates; with Matthew being the softest, and John being by far the harshest. While such language is employed by all three writers, each one does so in defense of their own personal agenda which are not always the same. None the less, the use of this rhetoric has throughout the ages troubled contemporary readers and it has been argued that it has helped prop up and legitimize rampant anti-Semitism such as the Nazi brand of positive Christianity. However, contextual background is important in dealing with broad brushstrokes of this nature and simply declaring the gospel writers to be anti-Semitic is both simplistic and naïve.

Before truly diving into the textual examples of anti-Jewish language in the gospels, an important distinction should first be made. It is apparent that there are two different kinds of polemics present in Matthew (and it would seem reasonable that this would hold true in general, not just in Matthew). Anti-Semitism, as McKnight describes, is “irrational, personal, racial prejudice against Jews because they are Jews,” while he describes anti-Judaism as separate, being, “for the religious polemic exercised especially by early Christians.”1 (McKnight pg. 56)

Regarding Matthew, it makes little sense to characterize him as anti-Semitic because at the time, “Jewish Christianity” was not pronouncing itself to be a new religion, but another brand (the right brand) of Judaism. In this sense, Matthew is not opposing the Jews based on a racial prejudice as the Nazi’s did in the 1930’s, rather he is responding to critics and proclaiming to have the pure and true form of Judaism. In simplest terms, Matthew is arguing with other Jews who do not share his same theological views, and his gospel is essentially a persuasive essay in favor of his particular brand of Judaism. In fact, much, though certainly not all, of his criticism is of the Jewish leadership such as the scribes and Pharisees. Because Matthew believes he has the “right” version of Judaism, he of course feels that dissenting Jews, (those who do not share his view that Jesus is the messiah) are not the true Jews, and are the “false Israel.” In this sense

1 McKnight, Scot, “A Loyal Critic: Matthew’s Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspective,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith, ed. Craig A. Evans and Donald A. Hagner (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 56.

Matthew is not so much anti-Semitic as he is simply arguing that he is right, and other Jews are wrong. For Matthew, the destruction of Jerusalem is a result of the Jews not accepting Jesus. This demonstrates what Fredrickson describes as “Jewish sectarian rhetoric” becoming “anti- Jewish rhetoric.” 2

Similarly, Luke also employs anti-Jewish language, particularly during his passion narrative. While Matthew makes clear, that the Jewish chief priests and scribes are at fault (see 20.18), Luke escalates this by going far out of his way to even absolve Pilate of any blame, thrice ascribing him statements of resistance in sentencing Jesus to death (Luke 23.4, 23.14, 23.22). One area where Luke differs from Matthew, is the addition of the Roman Empire as an entity in the narrative. While Matthew writing to Jews and arguing against “non-messianic” Judaism, Luke is writing for a largely gentile audience and is writing against the Jews as a means to legitimize his own movement. This is largely due to the notion that unless “Jewish Christians” could establish themselves as Jews, or even the “true” Jews, they would not be viewed as legitimate by the Romans. So, as Wilson notes, while Jews and Christians would attack each other, they were also, “vying for the attention of political authorities.” Wilson describes the dilemma for Christians as wanting to be viewed by the Romans as Jews in order to “avoid the charge of Judaizing, though not the sort of troublesome Jews that the Romans suspected them of being.” For Luke, the conflict was nothing more than an intra-Jewish pissing match, and that all the disturbances were completely “the Jews” fault.3 Thus there were both religious and political reasons for early Christians to attack the Jews in literature.

As far as anti-Judaism goes, John’s gospel takes the cake as the perceived, most anti- Semitic gospel. Perhaps the most famous occurrence of anti-Jewish sentiment, is in John 8.44 where he declares the Jews to be sons of the devil. As Kysar states, “one cannot read the passion story (in John) and escape the impression that the Jewish leaders alone are responsible for the […] death of Jesus.” In John 19.4-8 Pilate is depicted as being fearful of the Jewish chief priests and police and caving into their demands that Jesus be executed. Pilate declares multiple times that he finds no faults against Jesus, yet the Jewish leaders get more and more hostile and insist he be killed. While it can be noted that once again, many of John’s references to “the Jews,” and

2 Fredrickson, Paula. Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews, and Judaism. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010), 82
3 Wilson, Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians. (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2004), 68- 70

“they” are specific to the Jewish leaders, and not necessarily all Jews in general (7.11-13, 30, 35) it is simply, “inescapable that the text of the narrative nurtures a negative mentality toward Jews and Judaism.”4 In John, “the Jews” along with the Pharisees, and the chief priests, are metaphors for the opposition to Jesus. Though in chapter 9 the terms “Pharisees,” and “the Jews” are alternated, further creating ambiguity and lumping the two together. John portrays Judaism as inferior to Christianity and Jesus’ message. For these theological reasons, as well as perhaps a reaction to expulsion from the synagogue, John’s anti-Jewish language is heightened.

Clearly, though each writer uses anti-Jewish language to varying degrees, each writer also has different contexts for doing such. In Matthew, his concern is with fellow Jews and asserting himself and his movement as the purest form of Judaism. Luke on the other hand, is battling Jews for attention and recognition of the Romans and seeking to legitimize his movement. John simply has strong Christological disputes with the Jews and sees them as the opposition to Jesus. While it is more than possible to read the scholarship on these matters and deduce that while there is certainly harsh rhetoric being used against the Jews, there are also contextual reasons that certainly make the rhetoric far more understandable. However, it must also be recognized that the average readers of Matthew for example, have not read the scholarship and are ignorant to these ‘revelations.’ What then can be said about these writers and their texts? How harshly can we judge their use of anti-Jewish language and how much blame can we place on them for anti-Semitism throughout history? While it would be easy to point to Matthew 27.5, or John 8.44 and simply scape-goat them for the Spanish inquisition, the publication of Martin Luther’s On Jews and Their Lies, or the Holocaust, it would be highly naïve to do so. When dealing with writings, and other forms of media, context is important. To say that a certain movie, or book, or song, is responsible for violent act x, is just ‘moral majority.’ Sure, the writers of Matthew, Luke, and John could have made their wording a little clearer, but they didn’t, and at the time, they probably didn’t need to. In terms of how these texts are perceived by readers today, it is unfortunate in many ways that religions have “holy” texts as it almost guarantees that they will be stripped of their historical purpose and context and will instead be given a literalist interpretation. As Kysar states on page 125, “its canonization as Holy Scripture means that the divine truth is spoken through its words regardless of the historical

4 Kysar, Robert, “Anti-Semitism and the Gospel of John,” in Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel. (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005), 116-117.

setting or time in which it is read. Again though it must be stressed that this should not be the fault of the author. Ultimately people are responsible for their own interpretations. People taking things out of context is not the fault of the author. Entertainment and art can’t be blamed for their misinterpretations. As Billy Loomis, the killer in Scream said, “Now Sid, don’t you blame the movies! Movies don’t create psychos, movies make psychos more creative!”

Adoptionist Passages in the New Testament

The idea that Jesus was adopted as God’s son at some point in his life was an early belief held by various Jewish-Christian groups, such as the Ebionites.

Though it was ultimately ruled as heresy, there are still traces of adoptionism that can be found in the New Testament. Whether or not they were intended to be explicitly adoptionist is another matter, but regardless they carry heavy adoptionist undertones.

And we bring you the good news that what God promised to our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second Psalm,

‘you are my Son; today I have begotten you.’

–Acts 13.32-33

Here the author of Acts (commonly believed to also be the author of Luke) makes a clear reference to Psalm 2.7 in which God is speaking of the King of Israel as his son. The important word to stress is the word today. Through an adoptionist lens, this verse is declaring that on the day of his ascension, God has adopted Jesus as his son. In my previous post I made the comparison of Elizabeth being made queen on the day of her coronation. Here, Luke is suggesting that Jesus was chosen as God’s son on that particular day, and not until then.

 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

– Romans 1.3-4

The earliest case in which a NT author describes Jesus as the Son of God comes from Paul’s letter to the Romans. Notice in this passage that he does not say Jesus was pre-existent, or that he was always the son of God. Instead Paul states that Jesus was declared to be God’s son at his resurrection.

So also Christ did not glorify himself in becoming a high priest, but was appointed by the one who said to him; ‘you are my Son, today I have begotten you.’

Again we have a text that stresses the idea that Jesus was not always God’s son, but was instead appointed the title, this time referring to the moment of his baptism. Again we see the reference to Psalm 2.7.

These are just a couple passages that carry adoptionist undertones from the New Testament. There is another verse of interest, Luke 3.22, which does not include adoptionist language, but has been argued originally did. I will cover that in another post.

Term Paper: On Adoptionist Christology Update

For the past month or so I have been diligently gathering and reading sources for my term paper for my Christian History and Theology class (RLST 345).

The main focus of my paper is on the “heretical,” adoptionist christology” views held by some early Christians.

As of right the primary argument I will be making is that adoptionism is the earliest christological view of Jesus.

Adoptionism:

Adoptionism, sometimes called dynamic monarchianism, is a nontrinitarian theological teaching that Jesus was adopted as God’s Son at either his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension.

Basically, this christology holds that Jesus was not God at and prior to his birth, as was later accepted as Orthodoxy, but that he was fully human and due to his devotion to God, was chosen as his son. A good analogy that I’ve heard is as follows: Elizabeth was not born queen, nor was she a pre-existent queen. Elizabeth became queen at her coronation. Likewise, Jesus, a righteous man, was not born divine, but became divine at his baptism (or resurrection, or ascension).

Now it is certainly a fact that this view of Jesus was held by some early Christians such as, and most notably, the Ebionites. Yet the question still remains as to whether or not this was the original view of Jesus among his earliest followers.

To pursue this question I will primarily deal with the following issues:

I. Divine humans in the Greco-Roman World

II. Adoptionistic language in the New Testament and scribal corruption

III. The language Jesus uses about himself in the synoptics

IV. Theologically motivated scribal corruption in the copying of manuscripts

Based on those main themes, using the methods of historiography, I will make the case that adoptionism was the earliest christology.

With a little under two months to go i’m still actively refining the paper so certain focuses are subject to change.

So that’s a quick update. The final paper will be much more clear and organized, and more extensive.

–M

Comparing the Prophecies to King Esarhaddon and Haggai 2.1-29, 20-23

Below is another paper I wrote for the bible class I took last year. Again the purpose was to place the biblical text in its’ literary context, in this case, ancient near eastern prophecy.

Located in the northern areas of Mesopotamia, near the upper parts of the Tigris river, Assyria flourished as an empire from approximately 2500 to 650 BCE. From that time Assyria existed as an independent state before becoming a “geo-political entity ruled by foreign powers.” Reigning as King of Assyria from 681 – 669 BCE, Esarhaddon, was named the successor by his father, Sennacherib. Esarhaddon’s name appeared in Oracles as the one to reconstruct Babylon and liberate the exiles. Serving as governor of the Persian province of Judah from 538 – 520 BCE, Zerubbabel, is credited with leading the first group of Jews who had returned from Babylon, as well as creating the groundwork for the second temple in Jerusalem. In the Old Testament, he is always linked to Joshua, and in the book of Haggai, the author always affiliates him with King David. Joshua, is described in the Hebrew Bible as being the first High Priest of the reconstructed, second Jewish Temple, serving from 515-490 BCE. The dates of his birth and death are unknown. Haggai, was the first of the “post-exile” prophets, one of the twelve “minor prophets” in the Hebrew Bible and was prominent during the construction of the second temple in Jerusalem. Very little is known about his personal life, but his public ministry is believed to have begun in 520 BCE, following the Jews return to Judah. Nabu, is the god of wisdom and writing, to both Assyrians and Babylonians. Nabu was a prominent god in Assyria and was probably introduced around 2000 BCE. Bel, is actually a title, meaning “master” or “lord,” used by Assyrians and Babylonians, not the name of an actual god. Ishtar, daughter of Ninurta, is the Assyrian and Babylonian goddess of fertility, love, sex and war.

Both the texts in Haggai 2.1-29, 20-23, and the prophecies to King Esarhaddon belong to the literary genre of prophecy. Of the 39 texts in the Hebrew Bible, 21 of them are prophetic texts, making prophecy the largest literary genre in the (Hebrew) Bible. While widespread in the Ancient Near East, prophecy was also widely practiced in Egypt as evidenced by popular stories such as the text of Wen-Amon, and prophecies in the book of Numbers in chapters 22 – 24. Prophecy commonly contained warnings from the god of dire consequences of specific communities should they not pay heed to certain instructions.

Prophecies in the Ancient Near East primarily dealt with political issues for the King and the State. Prophets, “people who are believed to be able to communicate on behalf of a god,” would deliver messages to the king, governor or other elite official. The role of the prophet was to interpret signs of nature and to interpret the past, and present political situations. One thing that prophets did not do, despite popular belief based on Hollywood portrayal, was predict the future. Prophets served as social and political critics for and against the political leaders. Many prophets were actually appointed by kings to serve as interpreters of kingdom affairs. Because they were believed to be in contact with and have the words of the god, they were highly respected. However, other prophets not appointed by kings, known as independents, tended to be far more revolutionary and critical of the leaders. Because these self-appointed prophets were at ends with the governments, many of them ended up being executed.

There are numerous similarities both in phrasing and content between the prophecies to Esarhaddon, and the prophecies to Zerubbabel in Haggai. The recurring theme of all four texts deals with the god or goddess relaying to the king that (s)he will protect that king’s particular kingdom. In The Prophecy to King Esarhaddon from the Goddess Ishtar, the goddess tells king Esarhaddon that she will thwart all enemies of his kingdom, and protect him and “remain with him in times of trouble.” The goddess proclaims that she will, “throw down your enemies in front of you.” This is a very similar text to that found in Haggai 2.20-23, where the god also speaks of crushing one’s enemies and protecting them; “I  am about to shake the skies and the land, and overthrow the thrones of [enemy] kings; I am about to destroy the strength of those nations.” While the text in Haggai 2.1-9, also talks of protection, it does not really deal with defeat of enemies in the same way the the passage in 20-23 or the Prophecy from Ishtar does. Instead, 2.1-9 is more closely constructed like the Prophecy to Esarhaddon from Three Gods. Both texts speak more of a promise of prosperity and support from the god(s). The most strikingly similar line between the two texts is when Yahweh tells Zerubbabel, “My spirit surrounds you, so do not fear,” much like when Bel tells Esarhaddon, “The sixty great gods surround you.”

Miracle Stories and the Marketing of Ancient Religions

The following is a short write-up I did last semester for my bible class. In it I compare two miracle stories, one from the New Testament, and one from Iambichus’ Life of Pythagorus. The purpose is to show parallels between biblical stories and non-biblical stories and their literary context.

Miracle Stories and the Marketing of Ancient Religions | Max

A prominent literary genre used in classical antiquity, particularly used in promotion of a specific religion, was the ‘miracle story.’ Because these stories were so often used to market religions they generally had propagandistic tendencies in them. There are numerous examples of these miracle stories in various ancient religions and thus one can conclude they were immensely popular during the time period as a way of promoting one’s religion. Ancient miracle stories typically followed a four-point plot formula in which first, a problem or hopeless situation is introduced. Secondly, a god or holy man is introduced into the story upon which, third, he performs specific ritual actions of words which, fourthly, result in the miracle itself. This plot line is observed time and time again in ancient miracle stories throughout antiquity.In the Gospel According to John 21.1-13, a miracle story is described in which the seven disciples are out fishing. While out, the disciples have no luck catching fish. Then Jesus appears to them and instructs them to cast their nets over the right side of the boat. Upon doing so they begin to catch an excess of fish. The first element of miracle stories, the description of the problem, is noted in verses 21.3 when it was announced that they had caught no fish on the day. Following that, Jesus appeared to them on the beach in verse 4, this being the arrival of the holy man in the story. The ritual actions performed and the miracle are described in verse 6 as they cast their nets over the right side of the boat. Just as Jesus had said, they found an abundance of fish in their nets. In verses 9-13 there is some dialogue and concluding description of the story. Such scenes and dialogue were also commonly added at the end of miracle stories, sometimes including praise over the event that occurred.

Another example of this type of literature, is Iamblichus’s account. In it, he recalls a miracle story, also about fishermen, regarding the Greek hero, Pythagoras. In the story Pythagoras approaches a group of fishermen who were pulling up their nets that were full of fish. Pythagoras then opines with what he believes to be the exact number of fish in their nets. They inform him that if his guess is correct they will do anything he wishes. To this, Pythagoras requests that following the counting the fish be cast back into the sea. The text infers that Pythagoras was correct (although it never explicitly states so) and even more, not a single fish died despite being out of water for such a prolonged period of time. In this story, the problem or hopeless situation is somewhat unclear. After the first three words “At that time” there are ellipses, indicating that a portion of the text is missing, perhaps the problem occurs there. The holy man in this case is Pythagoras who instructs the fishermen to count their fish. The ritual action or words is either Pythagoras’s instructions or the act of counting done by the fishermen. The miracle itself is that Pythagoras is correct and that no fish died during the event.

As for why believers in the ancient world would use such stories as a means of marketing their respective religions, it was perhaps as a way to lend credibility to said religions. It is conceivable that when promoting one’s religion, one would need extra methods of persuasion in order to draw people’s attention. Miracle stories thus can work as a way to stand out and captivate audiences. If these religions could boast of miracles then they would have a stand out element that would create distinction between them and other religions. It could also be that since many religions had miracle stories as a part of their platform, that they became expected of any religion of this type to have a miracle story. Sort of the same way that advocating lower taxes has become expected of conservative political candidates in the modern era.

The type of people who would be attracted to these kinds of stories are the general public. As has been noted in previous lectures, the common folk of the time were not literate and as such it could be hypothesized that the everyday commoners of the time would be interested in stories that they could relay to each other through oral tradition. Believers would need some sort of text or story to grasp onto when discussing their religion as it would make it more identifiable and more unique. The uniqueness of a religion may have been very important to those people and for that reason these kinds of stories may have appealed to them as they tried to share their religions.

Using such stories to promote religions can be effective tools because they are enticing and can easily excite people and draw in curious members to the religion being promoted. Those marketing their religion by using miracle stories probably hoped that they would be seen as stories that would get the general public to view their religion as special. The concept of miracles occurring would be seen as a sign that a religion has special elements to it and thus people would be persuaded into joining. In some ways this may have been the earliest form of the concept “shock sells.”

Curtains (1983) Review

So last night, as a part of my ’31 Days of Horror’ (where I watch a horror movie every night of October leading up to watching Halloween on Halloween) I watched the not too well known 1983 slasher movie, Curtains.

I discovered the movie while browsing for some good slasher flicks. I came a cross a post on a site about horror movies I probably haven’t seen but should.

The movie poster is actually very interesting with the hag face. The other seller was the scene that was attached to the blurb about the movie. The scene was the ice skating scene which, if you’ve seen the movie, you know. I watched it and then decided I was going to watch the whole movie.

Initially I thought it had some real potential. I was very wrong. It’s not that it’s necessarily bad, it’s just not good at all. Beyond the ice skating scene, there’s not much going for it. There’s a plot twist at the end but by the time it happens I was so unenthused by the rest of the movie it didn’t really have as much of an effect.

As a slaher movie it really misses the mark. There is very little gore, which could be due to a low budget, but then they should have just done the kill scenes differently. For example, one of the victims has her throat slashed with a scythe–and yet we see no blood. Now, in reality, if someone had their throat sliced like that there would be tons of blood, and yet we don’t see anything. So clearly this isn’t Friday the 13th. In that case they should have just done cut away kills.

Overall the film moves at a slow pace, and works against itself as it takes away from the “twist” ending. I suppose it’s not the worst horror movie i’ve seen, though being better than Halloween 3, or the Wicker Man remake isn’t exactly saying much.

I’d say it’s a below average slasher movie with only one, maybe two really good scenes that essentially drag the film over the finish line.

If you love great slashers like The Burning, My Bloody Valentine or Friday the 13th, you’ll most likely be severely disappointed by this one. That being said, there are far worse horror movies out there and it’s worth seeing solely for the hag mask, and ice skating scene.

Rating: 4/10

–M