Early practice of "baptizing" pagan traditions

[cloudyday2]

How do you convert people to your ideals? You make them understand it, you present it in a way that they understand, you use their known symbols and language forms.

Your posts have a lot of good information as always, but Christianity in the modern understanding is more than an ideal - it is historical events - especially the crucifixion and claimed resurrection.

Let's take the Nativity stories as an example. What do you think about them and the possible motives of the creator (if they were not historical)?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

claimed resurrection.

Proven resurrection.

A lot of people make claims for a lot of things. Unproven.

 

[cloudyday2]

^ @Quid est Veritas? to clarify my point. If Christianity is partly about historical events, then embellishing the gospel histories with symbolic fictional events might lead the reader to question the actual historical events recorded - especially if there is no obvious way to distinguish real events from the symbolic.

This is why I suspect the early Christians thought the gospels were mostly myth, symbolism, etc. The Book of Enoch was highly regarded by many Jews, but most of them probably realized it was a work of fiction to communicate religious ideas. Maybe that is how early Christians thought about the gospels, and maybe that is why they were so willing to absorb and reinterpret pagan traditions.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Your posts have a lot of good information as always, but Christianity in the modern understanding is more than an ideal - it is historical events - especially the crucifixion and claimed resurrection.

Let's take the Nativity stories as an example. What do you think about them and the possible motives of the creator (if they were not historical)?

To the first century writers, they were fully historical. Whether that means they fully occurred in the manner they wrote, as we think history does today, is another matter entirely. Their narrative expressed the belief of the event, it represents the point thereof, and is clearly fully conceived as the telling of a Real thing. This is all that would have mattered to them.

^ @Quid est Veritas? to clarify my point. If Christianity is partly about historical events, then embellishing the gospel histories with symbolic fictional events might lead the reader to question the actual historical events recorded - especially if there is no obvious way to distinguish real events from the symbolic.

This is why I suspect the early Christians thought the gospels were mostly myth, symbolism, etc. The Book of Enoch was highly regarded by many Jews, but most of them probably realized it was a work of fiction to communicate religious ideas. Maybe that is how early Christians thought about the gospels, and maybe that is why they were so willing to absorb and reinterpret pagan traditions.

Again, not to a first century reader. Histories weren't conceived as factual representations of actual events. They were a literary genre meant to conjure up the situation, to express the truth of what occurred, but no one felt that embellishing or omitting lessened this in any way. They would probably conceive it as more closely following the Form of what occurred, that they would help us understand the essential events that they were trying to convey, would make it mirror the Real thereby. Again, the idea that something being mostly 'myth' or 'symbolism' and therefore not having occurred, is not how people thought back then. You are anachronistically importing centuries of sceptical tradition into the manner that people in the first century understood things.

Let's look at the things you mention though. Jesus clearly was born and died due to Crucifixion. No one, except loonies, deny this. We have multiple sources, (Christian, Roman and Jewish), that mention his death, and stands to reason, If He died, that He had been born. Our accounts all have underlying ideas from which they are writing, be it the gospels speaking of the Son of God, the Talmud calling Jesus an illegitimate child, or the almost absent-minded Roman references, like a quant anecdote. This is enough that we can confirm Jesus as historical by modern standards, and now we enter the murky world of textual interpretation of the ancient authors. If we accept the 'truth' as it is perceived by one author, than that creates how we see those events. Few doubt Herodotus' Thermopylae narrative too much, maybe the size of the armies, so in spite of knowing that he embellishes elsewhere, we construct our historical narrative on this. In truth, what really happened may be very murky indeed.
With the gospels, the events are fantastic, and thus often discounted today (although the ancients wouldn't have, seeing that strange omens and the miraculous were often added to perfectly normal histories, like the Phoenix in Pliny or the Rain miracle in Cassius Dio). This does not mean we can discount it all based thereon, for we don't discount every other historical text for the same reasons. We must craft an 'historical Jesus' or somesuch for ourselves, importing post-Nineteenth century ideas into the First, sifting what we believe or don't. This is not how people would have read it back then, and very much determined by our assumptions held a priori. If I think this represents Truth, I would interpret it as such, if I don't, then I won't. How much we would then see as Real and how much as embellishment is thus very open to interpretation between these two views. The idea that 'mythic' or fantastic or even 'false' elements would make ancient readers necessarily lean to the disbelieving it, is completely wrong. They didn't expect complete bland facts in anyway and wouldn't conceive a lack thereof as limiting veracity of the account.

 

[TheOldWays]

^ @Quid est Veritas? to clarify my point. If Christianity is partly about historical events, then embellishing the gospel histories with symbolic fictional events might lead the reader to question the actual historical events recorded - especially if there is no obvious way to distinguish real events from the symbolic.

This is why I suspect the early Christians thought the gospels were mostly myth, symbolism, etc. The Book of Enoch was highly regarded by many Jews, but most of them probably realized it was a work of fiction to communicate religious ideas. Maybe that is how early Christians thought about the gospels, and maybe that is why they were so willing to absorb and reinterpret pagan traditions.

Good points. I do think the ancients had a much better idea of the idea of myth and symbolism. It's seems like that understanding is lost on us moderns today.

 

[Zoness]

The early Christians "baptized" pagan traditions to facilitate conversions.

• Some Christian saints were apparently pagan gods.
• The Marian devotion apparently sprang-up in Ephesus as a "baptism" of the goddess Artemis and propagated to other regions like Arabia where similar fertility goddesses were popular.
• Some quotations and miracles associated with Jesus in the gospels apparently originated from earlier figures in Judaism or Hellenism.
• The Christmas traditions (tree, date, etc.) are another popular example of this.

Regardless of whether you agree with every example that I gave above, most will surely agree that some of these "baptisms" occurred, and they were apparently endorsed by early Christian leaders.

My question is: what does this suggest about the early Christian leadership? These "baptisms" apparently happened within a few generations of the crucifixion. How could a sincere church leader endorse the idea of polluting the historical facts with myths? How could anybody who valued truth go along with this?

To me this suggests that the early Christian leaders did not actually care about the history - almost as if they knew that the historical narrative of the gospels was mostly allegory. IDK

It's not surprising that this would come up, and especially if you're going to bring a hugely new religion to a people, you should probably at least try to integrate even a tiny bit. I've heard the idea that some saints are pagan gods. St. Brigid being one analogous to the same Celtic goddess.

Though I don't think the rise of the veneration of Mary had to do with any sort of pagan integration, I think that was a much more complicated situation. That would be a fascinating discussion in and of itself.

I have not heard much about Jesus' works originating from other sources -- I'll have to defer that to someone else.

Christmas traditions have a number of pagan influences, though I don't see how that takes away from Christianity, personally. I know some Christians feel very strongly about it and lash out at the mere suggestion that something has a pagan origin.

Personally, it makes sense that this would take place over time. Even if Christians wanted total control over a new population; people hold beliefs that are both idiosyncratic and syncretic. There were probably very few theologically pure Christians as you would have had to be pretty learned to really get it. I don't think this sort of stuff happened for any specific malicious reason (except for maybe the persecution and elimination of earlier pagans themselves) but rather was the natural conclusion of mixing a new religion with old beliefs. Obviously to maintain legitimacy you need to claim those practices were yours from the beginning. Through the eyes of a bishop trying to grow his diocese, it makes a lot of sense.

 

[cloudyday2]

To the first century writers, they were fully historical. Whether that means they fully occurred in the manner they wrote, as we think history does today, is another matter entirely. Their narrative expressed the belief of the event, it represents the point thereof, and is clearly fully conceived as the telling of a Real thing. This is all that would have mattered to them.

Is it all that matters to you? For example, if the resurrection and ascension of Jesus was an embellishment to express the gospel community's idea of what must have happened because it should have happened, would that bother you?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Is it all that matters to you? For example, if the resurrection and ascension of Jesus was an embellishment to express the gospel community's idea of what must have happened because it should have happened, would that bother you?

Let's look at our sources and apply textual criticism. We have four gospels, which likely represent three independant witnesses. John and Mark are independant; Luke and Matthew dependant on Mark, but having material in common which suggests another source for both (Q-gospel). These three independant sources clearly suggest Jesus to have been resurrected.
We have Josephus' account, which though corrupted, clearly originally referenced Jesus' crucifixion and a claim of resurrection, based on the nature of the work, later reference to James the brother of the Lord, and early mentioning of it in Eusebius and others.
We have Pliny's letters, which also reference such a claim made by Christians.

So on historical-critical grounds, it is quite clear that the Resurrection is not an embellishment, but an essential part of the narrative of the gospels, which were conceived as history by their writers, and this contention is supported by other writings of the period. For the history they are presenting is the core of Christianity, that God became man, suffered, died and was resurrected. So here I don't see the problem.

The barebones is not at issue for essential elements of the faith, like the Resurrection or sonship of Jesus, by the nature of the gospels. This is more for details, like was the demoniac from Gerasa or Gadara, or stories unique to one gospel to ponder over. On these elements, I am not too bothered that their form is not necessarily supported on critical grounds or a narrow veridicality. For they either represent the underlying gist of truth that the writers are presenting or they are true elements in entirety.

It all comes down to how much you trust the writers of the period. The gospels have well supported elements, like Roman Governors or administrative boundaries, that no one doubts. Whether you believe the rest: the writers clearly believe what they wrote, it depends how much you do.
It is similar to how Pliny writes on monopods or Herodotus on the gods' intervention or how histories of Alexander may record him being fathered by Zeus in the form of a snake. We don't discount them on account of these for other elements of history.
We need to decide what elements we trust, even if multiple sources concur thereon. The very claim of Christianity is fantastic, even to its writers. Like so much, it boils down to a matter of faith, but its position is no weaker or stronger than secular history of the period.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I have not heard much about Jesus' works originating from other sources -- I'll have to defer that to someone else

This is probably referring to Appolonius of Tyana. He was a similar first century miracle worker that was often juxtaposed unfavourably to Jesus by pagan sources in the third century, and by later opponents of Christianity like Voltaire.

He was a Neopythagorean philosopher, that could supposedly heal and had extra-sensory perception. Our first account of him however, comes from Philostratus in 220s AD though, so to claim Jesus to be based on him is speculation and they aren't really that similar. Chesterton argued that Appolonius has no similarity to the passion narrative, nor the purposiveness of the gospels, so similarities wear thin and are superficial at best. His historicity is based largely on Philostratus, so while likely an actual historical personage, Jesus is much better attested.

Alternately, it may refer to dubious associations of Jesus with figures like Mithras or other first century Messiah candidates, but the former is nonsense when you know a bit of Mithraism, and the latter are usually only known from a few lines in Josephus, so has no data to support the contention at all.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Well, the alternative to this assimilation is what you can see in IS-territory, or in Afghanistan under the Taliban: the destruction of anything that does not fit the "pure", One True Religion.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Let's look at our sources and apply textual criticism. We have four gospels, which likely represent three independant witnesses. John and Mark are independant; Luke and Matthew dependant on Mark, but having material in common which suggests another source for both (Q-gospel). These three independant sources clearly suggest Jesus to have been resurrected.

All of these were written by followers of Paul, who seized upon his theology. His school of thought was clearly the most successful, with the "Judaizers" becoming insignificant by the end of the first century CE.
Given that Paul's epistles clearly suggest an ongoing rivalry between him and the "Pillars", even after the council, it would have been fascinating to see what a different tale the Jerusalem Church might have told. Sadly, almost all we've got today comes from Pauline sources.

We have Josephus' account, which though corrupted, clearly originally referenced Jesus' crucifixion and a claim of resurrection, based on the nature of the work, later reference to James the brother of the Lord, and early mentioning of it in Eusebius and others.
We have Pliny's letters, which also reference such a claim made by Christians.

All of these, of course, depend on word-of-mouth, looking back from a vantage point that is already far removed from the actual events.
They clearly tell us what Christians believed at the time.

So on historical-critical grounds, it is quite clear that the Resurrection is not an embellishment, but an essential part of the narrative of the gospels, which were conceived as history by their writers, and this contention is supported by other writings of the period. For the history they are presenting is the core of Christianity, that God became man, suffered, died and was resurrected. So here I don't see the problem.

Were they?
They certainly considered the content to be true, but that is not the same.

It all comes down to how much you trust the writers of the period. The gospels have well supported elements, like Roman Governors or administrative boundaries, that no one doubts.

Oh really?
No one doubts that the Romans (being quite efficient bureaucrats) would require people to return to the place of their ancestors for a census - a measure that'd not only be utterly nonsensical, but also create total chaos?
No one notices the incompatibility between Quirinius's governorship in Syria and the death of Herod the Great a decade earlier?
No one notices how the depiction of Jesus's trial as described by the gospels seems very intent on shifting as much of the blame as possible to the Jews, and has the Romans conducting a crucifixion on the eve of a major holiday, which would basically ensure an uprising in the volatile province?

 

[cloudyday2]

This is probably referring to Appolonius of Tyana. He was a similar first century miracle worker that was often juxtaposed unfavourably to Jesus by pagan sources in the third century, and by later opponents of Christianity like Voltaire.

He was a Neopythagorean philosopher, that could supposedly heal and had extra-sensory perception. Our first account of him however, comes from Philostratus in 220s AD though, so to claim Jesus to be based on him is speculation and they aren't really that similar. Chesterton argued that Appolonius has no similarity to the passion narrative, nor the purposiveness of the gospels, so similarities wear thin and are superficial at best. His historicity is based largely on Philostratus, so while likely an actual historical personage, Jesus is much better attested.

Alternately, it may refer to dubious associations of Jesus with figures like Mithras or other first century Messiah candidates, but the former is nonsense when you know a bit of Mithraism, and the latter are usually only known from a few lines in Josephus, so has no data to support the contention at all.

I was thinking more about the sayings of Jesus that were originally spoken by earlier Jews. Some might argue that Jesus was simply repeating sayings that He had heard from these earlier Jews and then the gospel writers dutifully recorded the quotes without attribution and later generations mistakenly assumed that Jesus had invented the sayings. I suspect that the gospel writers were knowingly or unknowingly attributing these saying to Jesus when He probably did not say them. (That often happens - where famous people get credit for the sayings of others. It's usually accidental.)

The Epistle of Eugnostos is probably a century or so after the canonical gospels reached a stable form, but there is an example of somebody deliberately putting the words of others in the mouth of Jesus. The person doing that obviously did not have the modern regard for preserving the integrity of the sayings of Jesus.

 

[cloudyday2]

It is similar to how Pliny writes on monopods or Herodotus on the gods' intervention or how histories of Alexander may record him being fathered by Zeus in the form of a snake. We don't discount them on account of these for other elements of history.
We need to decide what elements we trust, even if multiple sources concur thereon. The very claim of Christianity is fantastic, even to its writers. Like so much, it boils down to a matter of faith, but its position is no weaker or stronger than secular history of the period.

I think we have to approach this using subjective probabilities. What is the probability that the resurrection actually happened versus the probability that it was Christian folklore? Nobody takes the monopods seriously today, because we should have found some evidence by now if they exist. The probability that monopods ever existed is much smaller than the probability that Pliny was writing malarkey for some reason.

So what is the probability that dead people can be resurrected and ascend to heaven? The resurrection is more than reviving a dead body - it is a new body that will never die. The only evidence for resurrection that I can imagine is the reports of people interacting with deceased loved ones. Those reports suggest that something in humans continues after death.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

All of these were written by followers of Paul, who seized upon his theology. His school of thought was clearly the most successful, with the "Judaizers" becoming insignificant by the end of the first century CE.
Given that Paul's epistles clearly suggest an ongoing rivalry between him and the "Pillars", even after the council, it would have been fascinating to see what a different tale the Jerusalem Church might have told. Sadly, almost all we've got today comes from Pauline sources.

This is a suppositional assertion, but irrelevant to the argument of independant derivation of the content as can clearly be seen by the differences therein.

All of these, of course, depend on word-of-mouth, looking back from a vantage point that is already far removed from the actual events.
They clearly tell us what Christians believed at the time.

Yes? Point being?

Were they?
They certainly considered the content to be true, but that is not the same.

I made multiple posts on first century conceptions of history in this thread.

Oh really?
No one doubts that the Romans (being quite efficient bureaucrats) would require people to return to the place of their ancestors for a census - a measure that'd not only be utterly nonsensical, but also create total chaos?
No one notices the incompatibility between Quirinius's governorship in Syria and the death of Herod the Great a decade earlier?
No one notices how the depiction of Jesus's trial as described by the gospels seems very intent on shifting as much of the blame as possible to the Jews, and has the Romans conducting a crucifixion on the eve of a major holiday, which would basically ensure an uprising in the volatile province?

This is that variation in sources and elaborations we are talking of. Everyone agrees Pontius Pilate, Quirinius, Festus, Herod Agrippa, Archelaus, Herod the Great, etc. existed. We all agree on the borders of Judaea, on Archelaus following his father before Judaea became a Roman province, etc. There is far too much period specific information, such as the Biblical account correctly giving Pilate's title (according to Archaeology such as the Pilate Stone), while Tacitus later made an error here. There is information universally acknowledged as historical, whether you believe the narrative or not.

As to the birth narratives and the census of Quirinius, I made a whole thread explaining the problems, ideas and possible solutions behind it:

The Census at the birth of Christ

On the Trial, crucifying a messiah figure was forced on Pilate by the account. He clearly tried not to do it, to head off a possible uprising, but judged he had to, to keep the Sanhedrin from doing so anyway or at least docile. The trial and crucifixion fits the first century very well, especcially when taking Sejanus, Pilate, Roman politics and Philo and Josephus into account.

You clearly are not following what I am saying very well.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I was thinking more about the sayings of Jesus that were originally spoken by earlier Jews. Some might argue that Jesus was simply repeating sayings that He had heard from these earlier Jews and then the gospel writers dutifully recorded the quotes without attribution and later generations mistakenly assumed that Jesus had invented the sayings. I suspect that the gospel writers were knowingly or unknowingly attributing these saying to Jesus when He probably did not say them. (That often happens - where famous people get credit for the sayings of others. It's usually accidental.)

The Epistle of Eugnostos is probably a century or so after the canonical gospels reached a stable form, but there is an example of somebody deliberately putting the words of others in the mouth of Jesus. The person doing that obviously did not have the modern regard for preserving the integrity of the sayings of Jesus.

Jesus is depicted as frequently referencing the scriptures, so I don't think this would be seen as a problem for anyone. So His statements aren't original, He is working from Jewish tradition. Yes? Why is this a problem at all? We Christians all think this anyway, that Jesus brings the OT to fruition.
Also, first century history did not necessarily quote someone when they report he said something, more 'along the lines off' in modern parlance.

I think we have to approach this using subjective probabilities. What is the probability that the resurrection actually happened versus the probability that it was Christian folklore? Nobody takes the monopods seriously today, because we should have found some evidence by now if they exist. The probability that monopods ever existed is much smaller than the probability that Pliny was writing malarkey for some reason.

So what is the probability that dead people can be resurrected and ascend to heaven? The resurrection is more than reviving a dead body - it is a new body that will never die. The only evidence for resurrection that I can imagine is the reports of people interacting with deceased loved ones. Those reports suggest that something in humans continues after death.

The Resurrection is presented as a one time event, a dramatic change of the normal state of affairs. Why would 'probability' in the sense of repeatibility as you use it here, be in any way relevant? As I said, this is a matter of faith in the writers, or more generally a matter of Faith.
If someone says: "only this one time this happened" (two if we count Lazarus, but this is a bit different); you would disavow it because it was unique, that it didn't happen more frequently? That is the whole fantastic claim upon which the Gospel, the Good News, is based.

 

[cloudyday2]

The Resurrection is presented as a one time event, a dramatic change of the normal state of affairs. Why would 'probability' in the sense of repeatibility as you use it here, be in any way relevant? As I said, this is a matter of faith in the writers, or more generally a matter of Faith.
If someone says: "only this one time this happened" (two if we count Lazarus, but this is a bit different); you would disavow it because it didn't happen more frequently? That is the whole fantastic claim upon which the Gospel, the Good News, is based.

I have heard some Christians say that Lazarus was a resuscitation instead of a resurrection, because he came to life in his existing mortal body. Jesus was supposed to be the "first fruits"/"first born" of the resurrection promised for all Christians (and all humans?).

The reason to dismiss the resurrection of Jesus is that it would imply a whole new understanding of reality. It would be like inventing quantum mechanics on the evidence of one experiment. It is more reasonable to look for other explanations. For example if I report that I rode in flying saucer last night, it would be sensible to look for other explanations such as that I was nuts.

 

[cloudyday2]

On the Trial, crucifying a messiah figure was forced on Pilate by the account. He clearly tried not to do it, to head off a possible uprising, but judged he had to, to keep the Sanhedrin from doing so anyway or at least docile. The trial and crucifixion fits the first century very well, especcially when taking Sejanus, Pilate, Roman politics and Philo and Josephus into account.

I've heard a couple of different theories:

• NT Wright claimed that Pilate was merely pretending to see no reason to execute Jesus, because he generally tried to annoy the Jewish authorities at every opportunity and he could see that they wanted Jesus eliminated. Pilate was a pretty cruel person, so this makes more sense than believing that Pilate cared about Jesus IMO.
• Most scholars think the account of Pilate's hesitancy was designed to place blame on the Jewish religious authorities instead of the Romans. One theory of the historical Jesus is that He was making a claim to be the Messiah, and that was reason enough for the Romans to execute Him.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I've heard a couple of different theories:

• NT Wright claimed that Pilate was merely pretending to see no reason to execute Jesus, because he generally tried to annoy the Jewish authorities at every opportunity and he could see that they wanted Jesus eliminated. Pilate was a pretty cruel person, so this makes more sense than believing that Pilate cared about Jesus IMO.
• Most scholars think the account of Pilate's hesitancy was designed to place blame on the Jewish religious authorities instead of the Romans. One theory of the historical Jesus is that He was making a claim to be the Messiah, and that was reason enough for the Romans to execute Him.

Philo and Josephus report Pilate being very anti-Jewish and show a strong governor. I wrote a piece on this recently as well:

Sejanus, Pilate and the dating of the Crucifixion

Feel free to ask further questions on this, I welcome it.

Whether the account of Pilate's hesitancy is a later interpretation, it fits the status quo of first century Judaea, a restive province during a feast all about Jewish freedom. Pilate was an effective governor, hence he stayed in the post for 10 years, so he is unlikely to look for trouble if he was not in a position of power. The affair of the standards that Josephus recorded earlier, likely means that his centuries were hold up in the Antonia fortress or still at Caesarea Maritima, so it is quite plausible.

If a Christian extrapolation, it was a genius one, and frankly changes little to the Christian claim of Jesus dying for our sins and resurrection if false.

The reason to dismiss the resurrection of Jesus is that it would imply a whole new understanding of reality.

Indeed, which is what Christianity claims.

It would be like inventing quantum mechanics on the evidence of one experiment.

Yes, but one experiment that by nature cannot be repeated.

Whether it is more 'reasonable', that is debateable. The assumption here is one of empiric evidence being stronger or something of this nature. Perhaps this is true in purely material claims, but it can hardly be made in metaphysical ones except to deny them possible. By denying them though, you are not substantially supporting the opposite idea either. As I said, a matter of faith.

 

[cloudyday2]

All of these were written by followers of Paul, who seized upon his theology. His school of thought was clearly the most successful, with the "Judaizers" becoming insignificant by the end of the first century CE.
Given that Paul's epistles clearly suggest an ongoing rivalry between him and the "Pillars", even after the council, it would have been fascinating to see what a different tale the Jerusalem Church might have told. Sadly, almost all we've got today comes from Pauline sources.

One approach that makes sense to me is understanding the Jewish sects that might have inspired Christianity. Here are book reviews for a couple that I liked:
Beyond the Essene Hypothesis
The Jewish Gospels

 

[juvenissun]

Regardless of whether you agree with every example that I gave above, most will surely agree that some of these "baptisms" occurred, and they were apparently endorsed by early Christian leaders.

If you visit China, you will find many many Apple product imitations. Was Apple product inspired by these imitations? Why not?

Which imitation is endorsed by any Apple officers?

You can certainly make up stories. But that is not enough in a serious argument.