The construction of a Universal Church

The earliest known reference to the "catholic" church is found in Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrnaeans (ca 107 CE), chapter 8:

εκει η καθολικη εκκλησια.

The word greek word "ekklesia" referred to the principal assembly of the democracy in ancient Athens, open to all male citizens as soon as they qualified for citizenship.  That the early "church" chose to so identify itself gives an idea of why the Roman government thought it a potentially insurrectionist association, in a way that has nothing at all to do with any presumption that the "lovingness" of the community represented a threat.  

In appropriating the name of the assembly of the democracy in ancient Athens, the leaders of the new assembly were deliberately sending a signal that they had the intent of challenging Roman authority.

In appropriating Judean texts, and in writing themselves into ownership of those texts, the leaders of the new assembly were intentionally asserting that their fellowship was not limited to Greco-Roman cultic practice, but was subsuming all available cults, to make it a "universal" assembly.

(http://www.textexcavation.com/greekignatiussmyrnaeans.html)

It has been posited by early church scholars that the Jewish War of 66-70 was the cataclysmic event that launched the early church, which, presumably, had been "in hiding," or, at best, "small communities of followers" since the post-crucifixion era (ca 35 CE, give or take).

It is worth noting, however, that the Judean leader of the Jewish War was Yosef ben Matitiyahu.  Joseph son of Matthew, 

We have already seen that Yehoshua haMoshiach is not a name but a sentence:  "The annointed one will save."  We have also already seen that the names of the gospellers were derived from leaders of the Kitos War.  

The church, from its inception, was a construct, not the natural evolution of a band of followers of a single, humble teacher.

What we have is not a new religion based on the execution of a wandering rabbi/wonderworker/mystic and his followers.  We have a deliberately constructed cult whose purpose was to challenge the authority of Rome, and to absorb into itself as many cults into itself as possible,

The difference between history and historiography, or mah nishtanah ha inyan hazeh mi col ha aherim?

How does history differ from historiography,or how did this subject make itself different from all others?

The answer to that is simple and not simple. 

historiography is the writing of the stories of history that have been accepted as "history."  those stories might not, in fact, be "history" but may be "propaganda," "wishful thinking," or "delusion."

History is the record of what happened, whether or not that conforms to what subsequent generations want to believe happened.

How does this differ from other fields?

To take dance (as an example of a "discipline" that also is creative--keeping in mind that "creative," when used in a field like history, is not a compliment):  dancers have to take class to learn, to develop, to continue to grow.

No dance class that I know of requires any dancer to be able to explain what Balanchine was attempting to do, and how and why American dancers (and audiences) had no context in which to understand him (and still don't.)

In contrast, as a grad student in history, I was required to take a class in which one of the prerequisites was sufficient proficiency in Aramaic to know when and where a major scholar had so thoroughly lacked competence in that language that most of his "translation" of a major historical work is little more than his fantasy of what the actual text says.

Therein lies the difference between "history" and "historiography."

Greco-Roman synchretizing of Greco-Roman cults with Judean text and misunderstood praxis to evolve a "new" religion

It is a recognized aspect of early Christianity that the early church, in order to survive, synchretized with pagan cults, incorporating their gods as "saints" in order to expand Church membership.  One of the more amusing synchretizations was the minor god of war Mithras who became Saint Mithras, patron of warriors.

it should not be assumed that synchretization was a later development, or was in any way randomly executed.  It was an essential part of the development, not just of church membership, but of basic doctrine.

It is common for early Church scholars to claim that Philo was not terribly important to early Christian doctrine because his use of the logos was common in the ancient world.  That argument is little more than a paper tiger:  Philo's writings contained far more than just the Logos, and, as we have seen, Philo's writings were the basis for the narrative surrounding the Last Supper, the virgin/whore dichotomy as evidenced in the Mary/Mary Magdalen narratives, the diminution of Africa, in addition to providing the "philosophical" basis on which Greco-Romans deemed it acceptable to usurp Judean writings, and writings which Greco-Romans used to demonize Judeans as part of the rationale legitimizing that usurpation.

The early Church synchretized Greco-Roman praxis with poorly understood and misinterpreted Judean praxis, all of which was synchretized with Philo's writings, which were understood as "judean philosophy."  Greco-Roman "mystery cults" were the basis for the early Church's insistence that the "mysteriousness" of Jesus' teachings could only be comprehended by believers.  The notion that the parables were somehow mystical utterances that could only be dimly perceived by those who had been accepted as participants in the cult is consistent with mystery cults as they operated in Greco-Roman society.

The construction of "faith" as something somehow superior to logic and reason was (and is) a manipulative device that was (and is) used by members to elevate their rhetoric into something is meant to be perceived as more significant than it would otherwise seem.  It is common today for pastors to tell their congregants "the opposite of faith is not unbelief;  the opposite of faith is certainty."

That is an absurdity that only succeeds when accompanied by an insistence that the obvious has some greater significance than can be perceived by ordinary, mortal eyes.  This gives the congregant the illusion that s/he is a part of something greater, more mysterious, more exalted than that which ordinary mortals can comprehend.  That is a pernicious fiction because it elevates any position taken by the community/denomination/organization to something that is above human critique and/or evaluation. 

good god/bad god

One of the less comprehensible claims made by Christians, both ancient and contemporary, is that the god of judeans is "bad" and "punishing," while the god of Christians is good.

If we look at the text, we find that the Judean god was punishing when those who could be presumed to have accepted the contract with him violated that contract.  The "punishment" was not random, nor was it capricious.

In contrast, if we look at both Greco-Roman gods and the Christian construct of God, we find something different:  Greco-Roman gods behaved with more-than-human capriciousness, not limiting behaviour to human jealousies, but going as far as inciting wars.

God as a Christian construct goes further than that: giving his only son to be killed (John 3:16), he engages in act that the Judean god prohibited Abraham from committing.

How is it possible to claim that a God who intervenes in and rejects human sacrifice is "bad" and "punishing" while calling "good" a later construct of that same god, predicated on the same texts, who performs the same act that he had previously repudiated?

judean over-legislation v Roman over-legislation

    It is a truism of Christianity that Judean praxis was bound by rules.  this is contrasted with the claim that Christianity has only one rule:  to love your neighbor as yourself.  Christians fail to note, however, that that rule, which is ascribed to the wisdom of Jesus, appears in Leviticus.  Christians do not present the same argument regarding the Roman empire, which, as we have noted, was so over-legislated that there were legal provisions concerning the age and social status of male intrasexual interaction.

    Why has Christianity focussed on attacking Judean praxis as over-legislated rather than challenging Roman over-legislation?

    Principally, the answer is that the Roman Empire was a dominant force from which early Christians wanted recognition and legitimation from Roman authorities, rather than having any desire to present themselves as an opposing force.  Post bar Cochbah Judeans, on the other hand, were an already demolished force--one that not only did not need to be reckoned with, but which had already been demonized as hostile and rebellious by Roman authorities (most notably Hadrian, who was responsible for the demolition of the Judean populace).

    Christians, both ancient and modern, enjoy representing themselves as oppressed, struggling for justice and recognition against a persecuting majority.  Yet history demonstrates (beginning with Justin Martyr's First Apology) that the early Christians demonized Judeans for the purpose of usurping ownership of Judean texts.  Justin Martyr's First Apology attempts to curry favor with Roman authorities by energetically separating the proto-Christian movement from Judean praxis. 

Irenaeus, Jesus and Bar Cochba

Howls of delight or outrage arise when non-scholars discover that the “historic Jesus” and the “historic Paul” might not be as “historic” as the Church would have them.  The delight (or outrage) comes because those non-scholars believed the catechism they were told, and only when they bothered to check the documents for themselves, they discovered that Church catechism is a collection of conflated narratives that were agreed upon because that conflation created a cohesive “history” out of a collection of disjointed documents which disagree with each other.

One of the prime examples of this is when non-scholars discover that Jesus was not crucified at age 30.  They make this discovery by reading Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.5 (Greek portion from Eusebius, History of the Church 3.23.3):

Illi autem, ut figmentum suum de eo quod est scriptum vocare annum domini acceptum affirment, dicunt uno anno eum praedicasse, et duodecimo mense passum, contra semetipsos obliti sunt, solventes eius omne negotium, et magis necessariam, et magis honorabilem aetatem eius auferentes, illam inquam provectiorem, in qua et docens praeerat universis. quomodo enim habuit discipulos si non docebat? quomodo autem docebat magistri aetatem non habens? ad baptismum enim venit nondum qui triginta annorum; ita enim, qui eius annos significavit Lucas, posuit: Iesus autem erat quasi incipiens triginta annorum, cum veniret ad baptismum; et a baptismate uno tantum anno praedicavit; complens tricesimum annum passus est, adhuc iuvenis exsistens, et qui necdum provectiorem haberet aetatem. quia autem triginta annorum aetas prima indolis est iuvenis, et extenditur usque ad quadragesimum annum, omnis quilibet confitebitur; a quadragesimo autem et quinquagesimo anno declinat iam in aetatem seniorem, quam habens dominus noster docebat, sicut evangelium *et omnes seniores testantur, qui in Asia apud Iohannem discipulum domini convenerunt, id ipsum tradidisse eis Iohannem. permansit autem cum eis usque ad Traiani tempora.* quidam autem eorum non solum Ioannem, sed et alios apostolos viderunt, et haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt, et testantur de huiusmodi relatione.

...και παντες οι πρεσβυτεροι μαρτυρουσιν, οι κατα την Ασιαν Ιωαννη τω του κυριου μαθητη συμβεβληκοτες, παραδεδωκεναι τον Ιωαννην. παρεμεινεν γαρ αυτοις μεχρι των Τραιανου χρονων.

They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, maintain that he preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. They are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying his whole work and robbing him of that age which is both more necessary and more honorable than any other, that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher he excelled all others. For how could he have had disciples if he did not teach? And how could he have taught unless he had reached the age of a master? For when he came to be baptized he had not yet completed his thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age; for thus Luke, who has mentioned his years, has expressed it: Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old when he came to receive baptism); and [they affirm that] he preached only one year reckoning from his baptism; on completing his thirtieth year he suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. But that the age of thirty years is the prime of life for a youth, and it extends up to the fortieth year, everyone will allow it to be confessed; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year it declines already into the senior age, which our Lord had while he was teaching, just as the gospel and all the elders, who had dwelled with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia, testify that John delivered. For he remained with them until the times of Trajan. But some of them saw, not only John, but also other apostles, and heard these same things from them, and testify concerning the previously related matter.

Reference to John remaining until the times of Trajan is also in Against Heresies 3.3.4:

Sed et quae est Ephesi ecclesia a Paulo quidem fundata, Iohanne autem permanente apud eos usque ad Traiani tempora, testis est verus apostolorum traditionis.

Αλλα και η εν Εφεσω εκκλησια υπο Παυλου μεν τεθεμελιωμενη, Ιωαννου δε παραμειναντος αυτοις μεχρι των Τραιανου χρονων, μαρτυς αληθης εστι της των αποστολων παραδοσεως.

But also the church in Ephesus, which was founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them all the way up until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

Trajan was emperor from 9-117 CE.  Irenaeus locates the “ministry” of Jesus in the time of the Kitos Revolt, rather than in the era before the Jewish War of 66-73, the dating that has been catechetically accepted.  

Irenaeus ‘ later dating of  Jesus’ ministry still manages to place the “historic” Jesus before Bar Cochba, in an attempt to avoid linking the two.

Contemporary idiocy

There seems to be a presumption among historians that the ancient world was significantly different from the contemporary world:  it seems to be assumed that in the ancient world, people were simpler, more noble, incapable of deceit.  

Following from this, scholars seem to enjoy believing that the Gospels are historical narratives because, of course, a simpler, more noble, guileless people couldn’t possibly write biographical narratives of a person who they knew did not exist.  

 Scholars also seem to enjoy the belief that these simple, more noble, guileless people couldn’t possibly coordinate textual insertions to construct a plausible historical context for this otherwise entirely undocumented hero.

It makes you wonder who the simple people are.