Yes, and this concern was early on, in the first century. And how could it be otherwise? Christianity grew up smack-dub in the middle of paganism. Swimming in that culture, it’s all they knew.
Justin lived in the second century. Anyway, could it be that monotheists wished to deny their source? If monotheism evolved, it didn’t see itself that way. It always came by revelation. Or is it that naturalism must deny revelation because it presupposes evolution?
Yes but he was repeating the Diabolical Mimicry from the first century, as an answer used by earlier Christians as to why Christianity looked so damn pagan.
Justin wasn’t answering why Christianity looked pagan, he was making a case for not killing Christians by pointing out its cultural “harmlessness” by comparing the similarities that he saw between it and pagan religions.
As to the 1st c CE…there’s so much happening at that time, and so little that we so far know (we have mass stacks of texts we’re still trying to dig our way through, slowly restoring them), that I don’t know that it’s really merited to attempt to summarize a singular vantage point about Christianity in this era yet.
About the only general assertion that we can go with is that there were a vast array of rather diverse variations of Christianity during this era; that much we can tell so far.
And there wasn’t a singular commonality of all of them being pagan-like by any stretch.
Most likely, only those groups of adherents in directly long-standing Hellenistic cultures who were traditionally pagan would have adopted Christian concepts through pagan-like interpretations.
For instance, the Ebionites are clearly not interpreting their Christianity with pagan-like concepts.
And that makes sense.
That’s such a hard round of questions.
It’s easy to feel compelled to just answer this, but I would then feel guilty for neglecting regional cultural imperatives in the process.
If I have to hazard a thought experiment, then I would probably venture along the lines that revelation was a long-running tradition in both many Pagan heritages of the time, as well as Hebrew heritages.
Without drilling into any specific group at a specific time, it’s hard to analyze motive, but it stands conceptual reason in thought experiment that the link isn’t exactly monotheism, but mysticism - that a divine had been reached unto and revelation had been achieved; something greater than man was fueling the subsequent actions of man, thereby making man greater if the actions were divine.
If I had to push even further in conjecture, I would consider this to be such as a result of social evolution.
That a stage was relatively present whereby the idea of reaching out to more than what “we” (they) are was imperative to furthering the divide from a sort of “basic man animal” (something that was not too terribly distance in familiarity) into a civilized “advanced divine man”.
As per usual, at least in my studies of people over time, people appear to have out-sourced that advancement motivator and provider rather than seeing it as an event whereby man could do this on his own and creating his own advancement.
This also could be why there was such a new interest in the difference between “ideal” and “actual” around the same time-frames.
So in a way, I suppose I’m outlining a psychological dangling carrot that man was chasing (and often still does).
Yes, but in the process Justin revealed a picture of Christianity that looked like that of the pagans.
Okay, Professor Bart Ehrman.
Wasn’t it you that claimed Jesus was rubbing shoulders with the Roman pagans of his day?
Weren’t most gentiles of those days pagan?
The Ebionites and Judaizers were push down and out by the pagan Christians … who obviously won the day.
Absolutely; I only intended to say that it was not his point to do so.
He wasn’t attempting to show why Christianity was so much like Paganism; he was attempting to show how harmless Christianity was by justification of making an argument that Paganism is not feared, so why fear Christianity…here, let me show you comparisons of shared ideals.
This is different than ‘repeating the Diabolical Mimicry from the first century, as an answer used by earlier Christians as to why Christianity looked so damn pagan.’
He wasn’t worried about Christianity looking pagan.
Yes, because I was taking into account one specific person in one specific cultural setting in one specific range of time.
When we narrow the lens to localized inquiry, we can start to make assertions from deduction about what labels of ideals to refer to things as; we can start to culminate ideals into categories because we can understand a finite range.
On the other hand, the anthropological context of Jesus doesn’t transmute over to all of the 1st c CE adherents to “Christianity”.
That is a rather very diverse group with a wide range of ideals; some were pagan influenced, and some were not.
I suppose this depends on what you mean.
If your question is, “weren’t most non-Hebrews not practitioners of Judaism?”, then yes.
If your question is, “weren’t most non-Hebrews practitioners of Roman pantheon religions and their regional variations?”, then that depends.
Who?
Africa? No.
Around the Judaean belt? No.
In Rome? Yes.
Asia Minor? Some, but it’s mixed due to Celtic influences previously as well as other previous cultures that were influential such as the Hittites up in that area.
The Ebionites weren’t up North; they were down in the Judaean belt and mostly a tad West into Africa.
They weren’t really running from Roman pagan adherents, but from Hebrew traditionalist adherents.
[b]
If I may focus on Tertullian for a moment. He was definitely one of those Christians that Maia complains about: “if it ain’t Christian then it’s pagan and damned to hell!” (imagined quote) He was uncomfortable with Greek philosophies, which he thought might compete for the minds of Christians, so he tarred them as pagan. Thankfully, we now know that this is a rather rabid misclassification. Not all thoughts of pagans are pagan thoughts. It seems such a simple confusion on his part. Paganism is the worship of anthropomorphic deities including gods, animals and objects that are believed to intervene on behalf of a petitioner if certain rituals are performed. Jesus obviously thought that was B.S. even in terms of Judaism and the practices of temple priests. A pagan can have many thoughts that are not pagan and do not relate to his pagan beliefs: for example, suppose a pagan thinks roses are prettier than tulips. That is not a pagan thought. Neither is it a Christian thought if held by a Christian. It is laughingly stupid to think that political thoughts about government, for further example, are pagan because the ‘philosopher’ that advocates such a view is a pagan or lives in a predominantly pagan culture. Again, Socrates, the inspirer of Plato’s Republic, was sentenced to death because he did not believe in the pagan gods of the Athenian state. And disingenuous Tertullian would have known this historical fact.
Tertullian cultivated a “pagan by association” scheme which classified everything connected to a pagan culture as pagan and, well, damned to hell for that reason. By the dint of the same reasoning, a Christian living in pagan Athens would be a pagan or paganized just because of his association with that culture. This is abstract reasoning gone mad and tripping itself on foolish errors and misconceptions. Unfortunately for Christianity, some of Tertullian’s conclusions were adopted by the Council of Nicaea and did in fact help paganize Christianity.
[/b]
I want to thank you for the nice comments about the thread. I have been away for a day but have returned, eager to stir the pot again to gain your thoughts on issues that have troubled me.
Let me put forward the proposition that Christianity, as we practice and know it now, has been paganized and is a pagan religion. There is a an established pantheon of gods, namely the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Throw in the Virgin Mary for what she is worth. Then admit some lesser demi-gods to the pantheon, namely, the saints, to whom we can pray for special relief. Sound like Zeus, Hera, et al? Toss in some mysteries, like the resurrection, virgin birth, divination of a man, the trinity, heaven, hell and a devil and some authorities to tell us what this incomprehensible mess means. Then beat down other pagan pantheons into submission as inferior to the Christian one which has a monopoly on the truth. And then insist that all this amounts to the worship of One True God.
I submit that this crock pot of spices and herbs is nothing but a formula to obfuscate the meaning of the teachings of Jesus and blunt their revolutionary force and significance for mankind. The real story of Jesus is the story of a man, not a God, preaching to men and women on how to improve the quality of their lives by embracing love, peace, equality and sharing the bounties of this earth. He invokes the spirit of a loving God to justify his recommended path. And he asks individuals to connect personally with that God and explore collectively the right and moral direction.
The pantheon of Christianity makes no sense and, for that reason, the authorities that try to distill a meaning from it can conclude anything they want and simultaneously argue the One True God also wills it. This was the downfall of Christianity.
You disagree with Tertullian. Got it. So far, his opinions hold a little more sway on Christian beliefs and practice than yours do and it is Christian belief and practice that we’re talking about right?
By that definition western monotheism is pagan. Calling God “father” is anthropomorphic. Practicing the eucharist or baptism or prayer may be performing a ritual to elicit intervention from a god.
I think you need to clarify exactly where the distinction lies lest someone conclude that the thoughts of pagans that you don’t like you labeled are “pagan” and thoughts you like are not. Plato’s Socrates does espouse a kind of monotheism in the Republic. Is that the critical criterion for you?
Not everyone parses the definition of Pagan the way you do and that may be a source of confusion here.
Good response Jayson. Thanks. But were Hebrews considered gentiles?
Thomas, in what sense, if any, is your Jesus the Christ? Perhaps it was the paganization of Jesus that made him the cosmic Christ of the church instead of a failed messiah wanna-be.
For what it’s worth, I love your Jesus Thomas.
But that Jesus is long gone. He’s dead as a door nail. And has been for long enough time that we can forget the hope of resurrection, or getting him back. That Jesus is a needle in a haystack.
We can live a human Jesus. We can’t be born of virgins, or have Doves land on us, with proclamations from on high. That’s not possible for us. But yes Thomas, WE, can live the human Jesus today. But we’ll be pretty much alone.
V said:
What evidence do you have for diabolic mimicry in the first century?
Well I didn’t get it from thin air. I picked it up while reading about these matters. I’ll see if I can find where I came across it, but I doubt we have any primary or even secondary evidence. Still, I’ll try to go back and source it.
But to think this concern about Christianity being like paganism started with Justin Martyr doesn’t strike me as realistic. It seems reasonable to me that it was a concern to at least some earlier on, during the 1st century.
But I don’t think it would be much of a concern to the pagan gentiles (of Paul or others)… who were likely syncretizing with Christianity … as commonly happens when two religious systems come together.
I think Christianity and paganism was a tangled up “mess” early on … by all the pagan gentiles joining it starting in the 50s with Paul … given the Greco-Roman soil it grew up in … and Jesus was lost in all the mixed up milieu.
I came by it at this site: http://www.holyblasphemy.net/welcom/
Who says :
““Diabolical Mimicry” is fascinating because the argument is nearly as old as the beginning of the Christian movement and used widely by Christian apologists for nearly 4 centuries, which shows that not only were the similarities between Jesus and Pagan gods apparent to both Christians and Pagans, but that they were never refused by apologists as coincidental, nor a result of reverse-copying, as is claimed today. Diabolical Mimicry was the earliest Christian response to the Christ Myth theory, which has plagued Christians who believe in the historical Jesus for nearly 2,000 years. The argument claims that Satan used “plagiarism by anticipation,” or a pre-emptive strike against the gospel stories centuries before Jesus was born, by spreading rumors of other god-men who did what Jesus was going to do later.”
That’s a claim without a citation. How near is nearly? Are we talking a matter of months, years, decades, or a century after the crucifixion? When was the Christ Myth theory first recorded? Inquiring minds want to know these things.
No. “Gentile” was a term used by Greek translators for “goy”; a term in Hebrew for “nations”; most often used as an implication of non-Hebrews, as there were the Hebrews and then there were the other nations - to the Hebrew perspective.
This is reflected in even early Christian texts where “gentile” continues to be used for non-Hebrews.
The practice of using this term “goy” as non-Hebrews is rather old, at least 8th c BCE in writing, and possibly earlier by mouth.
(for instance, it’s seen used in this way back in, I think it’s Exodus if I recall right).
/Signed.
As I went through and translated Matthew from Greek slowly picking my way through it textually anthropologically as well as with general anthropological interest, I found this same iteration coming forward and all of the rest contextually fitting very nicely into the category of “added” by Hellenistic followings later.
I tend to not bother bringing it up, as typically it just causes contests and arguments I do not wish to have with people as I have no real interest in compelling others away or toward any spiritual belief ideals - especially when none of this is spiritual for myself.
But, Thomas, if you ever want, I have quite a bit of textual examples of what you are asserting. If you ever want, just shoot me a PM and I can shoot you anything that you would like on the matter.
Honestly, Felix, I would flip that around.
Your use of it is very odd to me, and does not fit into any historical text that I am familiar with.
Thomas’ use of the term fits right in line with every text that I have read, as well as the general anthroplogical practice of the categorical relationship between Hellenistic and Pagan.
You see it backwards from the standard historical society, and think of it as Pagan > Hellenistic (viewing that religion > society), whereas the standard of all texts and the historical society as a whole uses it inversely as Hellenistic > Pagan (viewing it as society > religion).
I was never confused by Thomas, but I was quite confused by you.