Re: Marcion, Paul, and early Christianity
Okay, first installment of my notes:
Real World and Text influence flow chart. (I'll try to make a graphic of this and add later.)
Caesar, “hope of the world”, “savior”, betrayed and martyred. The entire Roman World, is stunned. Tens of thousands of soldiers who spent years with Caesar carry his memory throughout the empire and follow his cult.
Caesar cult, official deification, astonishing appearance of a comet, transformation to mysteries?
Caesar cult mystery play written.
Major elements:
Crossing the Rubicon – Baptism
Astonishing victories against major odds – miracles
Triumphal return to Rome
Last Supper
Betrayal and assassination
The dramatic funeral with Caesar’s effigy mounted on a trophaeum and the is the dramatic re-enactment of Caesar’s funeral. The trophaeum, being a Roman symbol of victory, thus becomes, at one and the same time, the symbol of death/victory, or a victorious death.
The Account from Suetonius:
When the funeral was announced, a pyre was erected in the Field of Mars near the tomb of Julia. In front of the rostra [1] was placed a gilded shrine, made after the model of the temple of Venus Genetrix. Within was a bier of ivory with coverlets of purple and gold, and at its head a pillar hung with the robe in which he was slain. Since it was clear that the day would not be long enough for those who offered gifts, they were directed to bring them to the Campus by whatsoever streets of the city they wished, regardless of any order of precedence. At the funeral games, to rouse pity and indignation at his death, these words from the Contest for the arms of Pacuvius were sung:
Saved I these men that they might murder me?
and words of a like purport from the Electra of Atilius [2].
Instead of a eulogy the consul Marc Antony caused a herald to recite the decree of the Senate in which it had voted Caesar all divine and human honors at once, and likewise the oath with which they had all pledged themselves to watch over his personal safety; to which he added a very few words of his own [3]. The bier on the rostra was carried to the Forum by magistrates and ex-magistrates. While some were urging that it be burned in the temple of Jupiter of the Capitol, and others in the Hall of Pompey [4], on a sudden two beings [5] with swords by their sides and brandishing a pair of darts set fire to it with blazing torches, and at once the throng of bystanders heaped upon it dry branches, the judgment seats with the benches, and whatever else could serve as an offering. Then the musicians and actors tore off their robes, which they had taken from the equipment of his triumphs and put on for the occasion, rent them to bits and threw them into the flames, and the veterans of the legions the arms with which they had adorned themselves for the funeral. Many of the women, too, offered up the jewels which they wore and the amulets and robes of their children. At the height of the public grief a throng of foreigners went about lamenting each after the fashion of his country, above all the Jews, who even flocked to the place for several successive nights.[6]
The populace, with torches in their hands, ran from the funeral to the houses of Brutus and Cassius and after being repelled with difficulty, they slew Helvius Cinna when they met him, through a mistake in the name, supposing that he was Cornelius Cinna, who had the day before made a bitter indictment of Caesar and for whom they were looking; and they set his head upon a spear and paraded it about the streets. Afterwards they set up in the Forum a solid column of Numidian marble [7] almost twenty feet high, and inscribed upon it, To the Father of his Country. At the foot of this they continued for a long time to sacrifice, make vows, and settle some of their disputes by an oath in the name of Caesar.
Caesar left in the minds of some of his friends the suspicion that he did not wish to live any longer and had taken no precautions, because of his failing health; and that therefore he neglected the warnings which came to him from portents and from the reports of his friends. Some think that it was because he had full trust in that last decree of the Senators and their oath that he dismissed even the armed bodyguard of Spanish soldiers that formerly attended him. Others, on the contrary, believe that he elected to expose himself once for all to the plots that threatened him on every hand, rather than to be always anxious and on his guard. Some, too, say that he was wont to declare that it was not so much to his own interest as to that of his country that he remain alive. He had long since had his fill of power and glory. But if aught befell him, the commonwealth would have no peace, and, involved in another civil war, would be in a worse state than before.
Notes
[1] The speaker's platform on the Comitium, where the people could meet.
[2] Marcus Pacuvius (c.220-c.130) was a poet from Brindisi. He was also known as painter. In the Contest for the arms, he described how Ulysses and Ajax quarreled about the possession of Achilles' weapons and armor.
Atilius was a contemporary of Pacuvius. His Electra is a translation of the play of the Athenian playwright Sophocles (fifth century BCE). The play, Electra, recounts the tale of Electra and the vengeance that she and her brother Orestes take on their mother Clytemnestra and step father Aegisthus for the murder of their father, Agamemnon.
[3] The speech of Marc Antony can be found in the History of the Civil wars by Appian of Alexandria (text).
[4] The Senate house had burnt down in 52 and Pompey had offered the Senate a new meeting place, situated on the Field of Mars.
[5] It is tempting to see in these two 'beings' Castor and Pollux, the divine twins who had their temple nearby. If so, this story came into being in an early attempt to make some sort of god of the murdered dictator. This early attempt was ignored when a more powerful symbol was seen: after several weeks, a comet appeared.
[6] It is possible that at least some Jews identified Caesar with the Messiah. After all, he had defeated Pompey, the destroyer of Jerusalem; moreover, Caesar had done much for the Jews. Now that a comet was visible, all prophecies seemed to be fulfilled: the star was the sign of the Messiah, there were theories that he would die, and nobody had ever said that the Messiah had to be Jewish (e.g., the Persian king Cyrus the Great had been recognized as Messiah by Isaiah).
[7] Numidian marble was yellow like gold. Numidia had been conquered by Caesar.
Here is Appian’s account of the funeral:
When [Caesar's father-in-law] Piso brought Caesar's body into the Forum, a huge number of armed men gathered to guard it. It was laid with lavish pomp and cries of mourning on the rostra [1], whereupon wailing and lamentation arose again for a long time, and the armed men clashed their weapons, and very soon people began to change their minds about the amnesty [2]. Then Marc Antony, seeing their state of mind, did not give up hope. He had been chosen to deliver the funeral oration as a consul for a consul, a friend for a friend, and a kinsman for a kinsman (being related to Caesar through his mother), and so he again pursued his tactic and spoke as follows.
'It is not right, my fellow-citizens, for the funeral oration in praise of so great a man to be delivered by me, a single individual, instead of by his whole country. The honors that all of you alike, first Senate and then People, decreed for him in admiration of his qualities when he was still alive, these I shall read aloud and regard my voice as being not mine, but yours.'
He then read them out with a proud and thunderous expression on his face, emphasizing each with his voice and stressing particularly the terms with which they had sanctified him, calling him 'sacrosanct', 'inviolate', 'father of his country', 'benefactor', or 'leader', as they had done in no other case. As he came to each of these Antony turned and made a gesture with his hand towards the body of Caesar, comparing the deed with the word.
He also made a few brief comments on each, with a mixture of pity and indignation. Where the decree said 'Father of his country', he commented 'This is a proof of his mercy', and where it said 'Sacrosanct and inviolate' and 'Whoever shall take refuge with him shall also be unharmed', he said 'The victim is not some other person seeking refuge with him, but the sacrosanct and inviolate Caesar himself, who did not snatch these honors by force like a despot, indeed did not even ask for them. Evidently we are the most unfree of people because we give such things unasked to those who do not deserve them. But you, my loyal citizens, by showing him such honor at this moment, although he is no more, are defending us against the accusation of having lost our freedom.'
And again he read out the oaths, by which they all undertook to protect Caesar and Caesar's person with all their might, and if anyone should conspire against him, those who failed to defend him were to be accursed. At this point he raised his voice very loud, stretched his hand out towards the Capitol, and said, 'O Jupiter, god of our ancestors, and ye other gods, for my own part I am prepared to defend Caesar according to my oath and the terms of the curse I called down on myself, but since it is the view of my equals that what we have decided will be for the best, I pray that it is for the best.'
Noises of protest came from the Senate at this remark, which was very plainly directed at them. Antony calmed them down, saying by way of retractation, 'It seems, fellow-citizens, that what has happened is the work not of any man, but of some spirit. We must attend to the present instead of the past, because our future, and indeed our present, is poised on a knife-edge above great dangers and we risk being dragged back into our previous state of civil war, with the complete extinction of our city's remaining noble families. Let us then conduct this sacrosanct person to join the blest, and sing over him the customary hymn and dirge.'
So saying he hitched up his clothing like a man possessed, and girded himself so that he could easily use his hands. He then stood close to the bier as though he were on stage, bending over it and straightening up again, and first of all chanted praise to Caesar as a heavenly deity, raising his hands in witness of Caesar's divine birth and at the same tune rapidly reciting his campaigns and battles and victories, and the peoples he had brought under his country's rule, and the spoils he had sent home. He presented each as a marvel and constantly cried 'This man alone emerged victorious over all those who did battle with him.'
'And you', he said, 'were also the only man to avenge the violence offered to your country 300 years ago [3], by bringing to their knees the savage peoples who were the only ones ever to break in to Rome and set fire to it.'
In this inspired frenzy he said much else, altering his voice from clarion-clear to dirge-like, grieving for Caesar as for a friend who had suffered injustice, weeping, and vowing that he desired to give his life for Caesar's. Then, swept very easily on to passionate emotion, he stripped the clothes from Caesar's body, raised them on a pole and waved them about, rent as they were by the stabs and befouled with the dictator's blood. At this the people, like a chorus, joined him in the most sorrowful lamentation and after this expression of emotion were again filled with anger.
After the speech, other dirges accompanied by singing were chanted over the dead by choirs in the customary Roman manner, and they again recited his achievements and his fate. Somewhere in the lament Caesar himself was supposed to mention by name those of his enemies he had helped, and referring to his murderers said as if in wonder, 'To think that I actually saved the lives of these men who were to kill me.' [4]
Then the people could stand it no longer. They considered it monstrous that all the murderers, who with the sole exception of Decimus [Junius Brutus] had been taken prisoner as partisans of Pompey, had formed the conspiracy when instead of being punished they had been promoted to magistracies, provincial governorships, and military commands, and that Decimus had even been thought worthy of adoption as Caesar's son.
When the crowd were in this state, and near to violence, someone raised above the bier a wax effigy of Caesar - the body itself, lying on its back on the bier, not being visible. The effigy was turned in every direction, by a mechanical device, and twenty-three wounds could be seen, savagely inflicted on every part of the body and on the face. This sight seemed so pitiful to the people that they could bear it no longer. Howling and lamenting, they surrounded the senate-house, where Caesar had been killed [5], and burnt it down, and hurried about hunting for the murderers, who had slipped away some time previously.
[1] The speaker's platform on the Comitium, where the people could meet.
[2] On March 17, Marc Antony had dictated the murderers a compromise: they were to receive amnesty while Caesar's acts were to be respected, and he would be worshipped as a god. This was a very clever move: the murderers accepted the deal, which meant that they were implicitly admitting that there had been no reason to kill the dictator.
[3] In 387/386, a Gallic tribe had attacked Rome.
[4] A quote from the Contest of arms by the playwright Pacuvius.
[5] Appian confuses two buildings and two incidents. The building where Caesar had been killed, was the Hall of Pompey on the Field of Mars, where the Senate met now that the real Senate building on the Forum had been destroyed. This destruction had taken place in 52 BCE, when it had been set afire by an angry mob.
Thus, as Carotta and Gary Courtney suggest (particularly Courtney), the earliest form of the Book of Mark was the stage direction for the Caesar Cult Mysteries/Passion Play.
Meanwhile, the most important thing to remember about Judea is its volatile social and political conditions in the years following the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC. Eventually, Rome took over directly and what had been just simmering came to a fast and explosive boil. Anyone who ignores these conditions in trying to figure out the Jesus problem will get nowhere.
So, in Judea, in addition to a strong revolutionary undercurrent that kept erupting here and there and being beaten back by troops of various tetrarchs, governors, prefects, whatever, there was a parallel and cross-pollinating current of religious innovations especially in respect of messianic ideas, theories, hopes. There was also a great ferment of Greek ideas being re-cast by Jewish thinkers and mystics including ideas about other worlds, noumenal worlds of Plato, ontology, angels, demons, and more.
At this point, Herod the Great dies and there is the “Golden Eagle Temple Cleansing” by Matthias and Judas. At the same time, there is the death of the new “King of the Jews”, Simon of Peraea. Josephus is unclear about the several Judases. He says first that Matthias and Judas are executed by being burned alive. But then, Judas keeps popping up over and over again for some years more. He is credited with creating the uber-strict Judaism “Fourth Philosophy” which probably relates closely to the Essene groups.
As Knohl develops the idea which seems to have originated during Macabbean times, the “blood of martyrs” can not only appease god’s wrath against the entire people, but, rather like the expression in Genesis, the blood can create a direct link between this world and the “heavenly” world, as in “the voice of your brother’s blood cries from the ground.” So, apparently, these mystic revolutionaries (there was no separation between religion and politics for ancient peoples, most particularly the Jews) came up with the idea that the shed blood of a martyr would actually create a sort of “fiery path” or road between earth and the heavens, sort of like the ascension of Elijah who was taken up in a “chariot of fire”. It seems that, in the face of Roman abuses and their overpowering presence, there was an evolving image of an Elijah like messiah who would be sacrificed and ascend and bring back god and the angels to drive the Romans out and even destroy Rome. So, it is important to keep in mind the military/revolutionary/vengeance and destruction ideology behind all of this. That’s why I call the mythical Jerusalem Church the “James Gang”. The only extent to which this could be considered a “church” was that they were fanatical Jews; what we, today, would call terrorists. And that’s not to say that they didn’t have real grievances against Rome!
So, Simon of Peraea, Matthias and Judas of the 4th philosophy gang became martyrs whose deaths were attractors for god’s vengeance on Rome.. They had a REAL following, i.e. just about everybody in Judea who wanted to throw off the Roman yoke.
Now, Judas the Galilean, who I think is the same Judas associated with Matthias above, and who managed to not be executed at that time, and who Josephus credits with the founding of the Fourth Philosophy Fanatical Judaism cult, was, in the beginning, pretty much as the tradition describes “Jesus” – a teacher and interpreter of the law. But after the deaths of Matthias and Simon of Peraea, and others, he was radicalized along with his gang, his multiple brothers, including James, and his buddy Cephas. They continued to function in the Temple society of Jerusalem because that was the hub of their religion and religion was the hub of their resistance. They were busy creating a revolutionary network and Josephus, himself, may very well have been a part of it at some point.
This brings us to the Testimonium Flavianum. Now, Unterbrink gives many reasons why he thinks that this was originally the notice of the death of Judas the Galilean and a number of reasons why. Works for me, only the issue I have is with the date that is generally assumed for this event.
The real problem in Antiquities 18.3 is what follows the Testimoneum: the pathetic story about PAULina married to SATURNINUS and the night of love in the temple of Isis, followed by the equally hokey story about FULVIA - ALSO married to a SATURNINUS (duplication to call attention in a subtle way?) and the hoax played by the 3 Jews, both of which stories were supposed to explain the expulsion of the Jews WHEN? During the time of Pilate? That is what the beginning of the chapter talks about. Josephus specifies that the time of Pilate is the same as the time of the TF and then following, says that at the same time, the expulsion of the Jews happened. We can certainly date this expulsion to 19 AD. That’s 10/11 years earlier than Jesus or whoever is supposed to have been crucified. (And we don’t even know for sure that there was a crucifixion here though it is possible since Pilate was, by all accounts, a bastard.)
But here’s the main problem: in Tacitus Annals 13.44, there is a story about Octavius Sagitta who was "enamored to a frenzy of Pontia, a married woman..." The story has a somewhat different outcome but the principal elements are all there. So, I re-read it and then my eye was caught by something on the facing page in chap. 43, just a few paragraphs up: the name SATURNINUS. I believe the date of this event was around 58.
Obviously, Josephus could have gotten the idea for his tale from anywhere, but marrying the two women - suspiciously named PAULina (think apostle Paul) and a FULVIA (think Mark Anthony and Clodius and then Caesar's funeral) to a SATURNINUS when that name is just a few paragraphs away from the tale of Octavius Sagitta and Pontia just strikes me as more than coincidence. The creative author’s eye just fell on this name and used it in doublet to “send a message”. I would say s/he also used the names “PAULina” and FULVIA for the same reason: those with eyes to see would see.
As Unterbrink points out in his examination of the text (he is clueless about the Caesar connection so really doesn’t get it completely), the name of the lover in Josephus' variation of the tale, Decius Mundus, is also peculiar and this is something that another guy has noticed who has written about Judas the Galilean being the "real Jesus" (Dan Unterbrink). He points out that the name is similar to Decius Mus, the namv of three Romans who sacrificed (devotio) themselves in battle for the victory of their armies. (Livy 8.9)
Another interesting event in 19 AD was the death of Germanicus following which there was the debate in the senate about expelling BOTH Egyptian and Jewish worshippers from Rome. (Annals 2.85 And it was done.) Interestingly, "Tacitus refers to the magic charms uncovered in connection with the poisoning of Germanicus as "devotiones", indicating that the word had expanded its meaning to include other ritual acts in which an individual sought to harm and even kill another." (Rives, "Magic, Religion, and Law," pp. 47, 61.)
So, if Josephus is being at all chronological here, he means to say that this TF thing belongs to the year 19 AD which, as Unterbrink suggests, might fit a crucifixion of Judas the Galilean. (Josephus records the crucifixion of his sons by Tiberius Alexander some years later.)
There are two historical events that are something like pegs: the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 19 AD in the fifth year of Tiberius and then a similar episode in the reign of Claudius in either 41 or 49. (I think it was 49.) The first "hook" strikes me as odd when I consider that Marcion's version of Luke began with the fifteenth year of Tiberius. So, we have an expulsion in the Vth year of the reign and the "crucifixion" in the XVth - Ten years difference.
Then, in Josephus, the same troubling ten year period of Archelaus and Pilate that seem so much like doublets.
So, for the myth of Jesus, just add ten years and you've shifted the whole thing forward and who would know? Assuming that Judas the Galilean was the one crucified in 19 AD... and someone didn't want anybody to relate that to "Jesus".
Obviously, something happened at those two times – 19 AD and 49 AD - recorded in REAL history and whatever it was, it really riled up the Jews.
Recall that my problem with Josephus was those two stories that followed immediately on the Testimonium Flavianum... that is, they are associated with the text about the alleged crucifixion IN TIME. But, as I pointed out, the stories in Josephus appear to have been adapted/rewritten based on a legal case mentioned by Tacitus belonging to the year 58. Sure, Josephus could have gotten it from another source, but it is very curious that the name of the husbands of the two women, Saturninus, is just a few paragraphs up from the tale itself IN TACITUS. Reminds one of the Theudas-Judas problem. Which makes one wonder if the same person suffering from ADD who wrote Acts was diddling with the MS of Josephus.
In any event, clearly, the conversion to Judaism of a noble Roman woman and the somehow related embezzlement of expensive gifts for the Jewish temple by Jewish rascals, could hardly be the reason for Tiberius to expel the Jews.
My guess is that something happened in Judea that caused the unrest in Rome. Was it the crucifixion of SOMEBODY important to the Jews? Someone who was later amalgamated with the whole Jesus story in some way? It is curious that the TF is placed along with the expulsion of the Jews that occurred in 19 AD in Josephus and there is no indication (despite the episodes borrowed from 58 AD and creatively re-written to give an excuse for the expulsion) that Josephus was not being somewhat chronological in placing the TF with the expulsion time-wise. The upshot is that if this was one of the "important events" - like some sort of model of a crucifixion of SOMEbody - it is around 10 years off from the accepted chronology.
If the author of Acts was misled by this ten year shift forward, and was borrowing like crazy from Josephus, he probably inventively put Paul in front of Gallio. But, if we postulate that Acts is also starting from such a displacement in time, (in addition to all his other sins of omission and commission), we simply have to give up any idea of Gallio having anything to do with Paul at all. There is also the possibility that the author of Acts was associated in some way with a corporate decision of the church in Rome to modify Josephus and a lot of other texts.
Anyway, having released Paul from the bondage of Acts, he is free to do some much more interesting things that I think are suggested by his character and the letters. That is, what if the "conference" occurred as Paul described it, the agreement to leave each other alone was made, and afterward, the James Gang, in bad faith respecting the alleged agreement, invaded his mission field? What would he do? Well, possibly, he just simply sat down and wrote Romans and embarked shortly thereafter to Rome and to heck with the collection.
Which brings up another point: What were they collecting for anyway? To fund their revolutionary movement (described by Josephus who was probably part of it)? What if, then, Paul was in Rome in 49 and was the cause of the Claudian kerfuffle that resulted in another expulsion of Jews? And the "exiling" of Paul who headed for Spain? What if this event recorded by Suetonius is a real, live, historical report of the activity of Paul in Rome? What if the ridiculous story about Paul being arrested in Jerusalem when he went to deliver the collection (which he probably wouldn't have wanted to do after those crazy people went poaching on his territory) didn't happen at all - or, if it did, it actually happened in ROME, more or less? What if the James Gang sent emissaries to Rome to confront Paul and a riot ensued?
19 to 41 AD is 22 years, plenty of time for the Paul timeline from death of the Messiah figure to him adopting it along with some sort of Mystery play thing that may have originally been based on the death of Caesar, to a whole bunch of missionary work. It's even better if it is 19 to 49, which gives Paul 30 years to do a LOT before he heads for Rome.
The so-called "Jerusalem church" headed by James/Cephas/whoever was more likely to have been the Fourth Philosophy gang described so lovingly by Josephus and headed up by Judas of Sepphoris/the Galilean (and others, obviously). Josephus is pretty fast and loose with his identifications of individuals and one gets the strong impression that he's hiding something, possibly even his own involvement in the group that fomented the rebellion, i.e. the James gang.
If there was an already existing "Chrestus Cult" based originally on the worship of Caesar, then it was Paul who took these doings, combined them, and transformed them into Christianity - creating it, literally. And obviously, the James gang didn't like it one bit because their spiritually resurrected guy was supposed to be coming back and bringing fire from heaven to destroy the Romans and they needed him dead and on his chariot of fire for their revolutionary poster boy. (Israel Knohl's "The Gabriel Revelation" supports this interpretation as possibly applying to Simon of Perea and could have as easily been applied to a few others of the same ilk including Judas the Galilean.)
What fascinates me is that Josephus alternates terms for all these revolutionary types, most often calling them "robbers" and once or twice "pirates". That's what got me into this mess: tracking down those darn pirates who were reported to be the first worshippers of Mithras according to Plutarch. That led me straight to Caesar and Anthony. And one cannot help but recall the dramatic passion play of Caesar's funeral and the fact that he was known primarily for his clemency, and he was loved most of all by the people. Additionally, Caesar was victim of the most heinous betrayal of all time... and this appears to have been the model for the betrayal of Judas. Both of them ended up in Dante's lowest circle of Hell together.
Anyway, as I said, I think the answers are right there in history, in the dynamics of real people, wars, revolutions, betrayal and untimely death. Paul's letters are historical documents. The histories and annals of Tacitus are histories. Josephus wrote histories though you have to be a little careful there: it was apologetic history. But that's really all you can use. Acts is so corrupted by agenda and late date that you just can't use it as a historical source. Period. And you have to be careful with the letters because they were often edited to bring them into line with theology and even the last bit of Acts.