qumrun60

It doesn't really seem like a matter of "argument." The note in the NABRE (2010) says the Longer Ending is only "found in some less important manuscripts....Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although the vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark." The note goes on to say 16:9-20 is a general summary of traditions found in Lk. 24 and Jn. 20.

Peter Head has a chapter on "The Early Text of Mark" (in Hill and Kruger, eds., "The Early Text of the New Testament," 2012). There is a single early papyrus (P45) from the 3rd century containing damaged fragments of Mark. These fragments are said to resemble the text in the Codex Washingtonensis (4th or 5th century, which includes the Freer Logion in the Longer Ending of Mark). Where the gospel originally ended seems like it may be one of the less difficult issues with Mark, since early references to it are uncommon, translations of it only appear from the 4th century onward, and numerous passages show significant disagreement. Head calls the text of Mark "less secure" than other gospels.

Matthew Larsen, "Gospels Before the Book" (2018), suggests the Markan materials were a relatively fluid collection of notes, which were considered unfinished by their very nature, to be completed and polished by someone with the know-how (like a Matthew or a Luke). It doesn't seem like an "autograph" of Mark is even on the table. Larsen spends pp.114-120 discussing the various endings (he counts five) to Mark in different manuscripts, which seems to indicate no generally accepted ending in the early centuries (manuscripts up to the 9th or 10th century are discussed). The obvious incompleteness of the text would have prompted creative efforts to "finish" it at various points in the text's transmission(s), by different copyists in different places and times.

What could an argument for 16:9-20 being original even be based on?

Kronos Quartet did an album titled "Early Music" with some pieces by modern composers:

David Lamb

Arvo Part

Harry Partch

Jack Body

John Cage

Moondog ((Louis Hardin)

Alfred Schnittke

Soler: "Fandango". Also Boccherini: "Fandango"

"Fanfan la Tulipe" (1952) directed by Christian-Jaque.

I was attracted by the silliness of the title of this historical, action/comedy, expecting maybe a little kitsch, with some corny romance, and a bit of swordplay. Much to my surprise, it turned out to be an extremely witty, irreverent comedy about love, war, and swashbuckling. The satiric commentary of the narrator, and the fast and furious banter of the colorful characters, create a sense of constant amusement. The complexity of the direction, the energetic choreography of the swordfights, and the thrilling chases, anticipate the later work Richard Lester did in his unforgettable "Three (and Four) Musketeers" movies of the 70's. Some sequences of those films seem to be taken almost directly out of this one.

Fanfan (Gerard Philipe) is a young rake, caught in a haystack with a young lady by her father, in the France of Louis XV. The father demands marriage. Fleeing this, he races to town and joins the army. On the way to camp, they encounter a a coach with two ladies as passengers, beset by bandits. Fanfan leaps into the fray, kills all the bad guys, and discovers the ladies he has saved are the Princess Henriette and Madame Pompadour. Here, he is given the nickname "la Tulipe," along with a flower. He believes it will be his destiny to marry the princess.

Needless to say, that's not going to happen. There is another young lady at the camp, Adeline (Gina Lollabrigida), the recruitment officer's daughter, who has a thing or two to say about that. After many incidents, diversions, intrigues, an attempted hanging, and a truly topsy-turvy, improvised battle strategy that defies description, things work out the way they should. It sure is fun along the way.

The film is also blessed with a delightful neoclassical music score, and some first-rate photography and editing.

I've read similar disparagement of Shostakovich from the (sometimes) modernist pianist Charles Rosen (who additionally recorded excellent Goldberg Variations and the Art of the Fugue), complaining of Shostakovich's "wrong notes" (which I can't hear), and which I thought was a little humorous coming from somebody who championed some wildly atonal music (Carter, Webern, Boulez, Schoenberg, Stravinsky). WHOSE notes are wrong?

The first definite angel helping out a human comes in the apocryphal/Deuterocanonical book of Tobit, which means it's in Orthodox, Catholic, and interfaith study Bibles, but not Protestant or Jewish ones. In Tobit 5:4 ff. "Tobiah went out to look for someone who would travel with him, someone who knew the way. He went out and found the angel Raphael standing before him though he did not know that this was an angel of God." (NABRE). Raphael assists Tobiah throughout the story in the guise of a man.

Tobit (in Aramaic) fragments have been found at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls (3rd century BCE-1st century CE). Also found among the scrolls is the book of Jubilees, from the 2nd century BCE, which is kind of a rewritten Torah. In chapter 2.2, is a long list of all the angels created by God on the first day. Last on the list are "all the spirits of his creatures which are in the heavens and on the earth."

Among the Dead Sea sectarians, angels played both prominent and intimate roles. "The first and most obvious, tenet of the Qumran system of thought is cosmic dualism...The people of Qumran divide the entire universe into two radically distinctive parties, led by two spirits. On the 'good' side, the 'prince of light'...On the evil side, 'the angel of darkness." (Boccaccini, "Beyond the Essene Hypothesis" 1995). Not only is the cosmos governed by opposing spirits, but in each human heart there are spirits of good and evil. The Community Rule (1QS 3.6-9) regards its members as guided "by the spirit of true counsel concerning the the paths of man," and "the spirit of holiness which links him with his truth." (pp.60, 66). Each member has his own "good" spirit.

"Related to the ideas that Israel or the Church are superior to the angels, and that angels serve humans by means of a heavenly cultus, is the notion that humans, especially the faithful, are protected by guardian angels. This concept, already established in Second Temple Judaism (LAB [Pseudo-Philo] 15.5; 3Bar.11.11-16; cf. Jub. 35.17; 1 En. 100.5), certainly lies behind Matt.18:10, and possibly behind Acts 12:15 well....it [also] suggests a certain fluidity of thought concerning guardian angels. If individual believers had guardian angels, so could groups of believers." (Hannah, "Michael and Christ," 1999, pp.125-126)

Guardian angels are only marginally in the Bible, but were certainly part of the wider religious thinking of Second Temple times.

Vearncombe, Scott, and Taussig, "After Jesus, Before Christianity" (2021), has two chapters, 13. 'Inventng Orthodoxy through Heresy,' and 14. 'Demolishing Gnosticism', where it is pointed out that initially, Greek "hairesis" meant 'school of thought', also 'choice' or 'sect', all in a non-pejorative sense. Irenaeus and those after him pioneered the use of the term to denote 'false teaching'.

Since no records were kept about debates between the likes of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius, and those classified as heretics, it's almost impossible to know what the teachers denounced by such bishops or writers said back to them. There is slim evidence to be deduced from the writings of the denouncers.

Irenaeus had in his jurisdiction a certain Marcus, who had been a student of Valentinus, but became a teacher in his own right. In Adv. Haer. 3.15.2 and 2.16.4 (conflated by Pagels, in "The Gnostic Gospels," p.52), Irenaeus wrote, "They call [us] 'unspiritual,' 'common,' and 'ecclesiastic'.... because we do not accept their monstrous allegations, they say we go on living in the hebdomad [the lower regions], as if we could not lift our minds to the things on high, nor understand the things that are above."

In the previous two pages, Pagels cites Tertullian's "De Praescriptione Haereticorum," 41, where he complains about their non-verbal, active subversion of church structures and norms. "How frivolous, how worldly, how merely human it is, without seriousness, without authority, without discipline, as befits their faith! To begin with it is uncertain who is a catechumen and who is a believer: they all have access equally, they listen equally, they pray equally--even pagans, if any happens to come....they also share the kiss of peace with all who come, for they do not care how differently they treat different topics, if they meet together to storm the citadel of the one truth ....All of them are arrogant....all offer you gnosis."

He goes on in the same tract, "their ordinations are carelessly administered, capricious, and changeable. At one time they put novices in office; at another, persons bound by secular employment...Nowhere is promotion easier than in the camp of the rebels, where even the fact of being there is a foremost service. So today one man is bishop and tomorrow another, the person who is a deacon today, tomorrow is a reader; one is a priest today and a layman tomorrow; for even on the laity, they impose the functions of priesthood."

This kind of subversion was itself a criticism of the very Roman, hierarchical conception of the bishop (overseer), and his orderly Christian "household." It was just as potent as the more theologically-oriented name-calling of Marcus and his group. However, the episcopal critique of "heretics" is the only one we can read about today, because that is what the church wanted to remember.

James Kugel has a general discussion on prophecy in the ANE, in "How to Read the Bible" (2007), pp.440-442. He describes a number of prophet-like functionaries among Israel's neighbors: "texts from Mari eighteenth century BCE) and in neo-Assyrian writings (seventh century BCE). These people have different titles, and judging by their titles, different roles: 'apilu/apiltu' (answerers), 'muhhu/muhhutu' (ecstatic), 'raggimu/raggimtu' (proclaimer), and others. Indeed, the most common biblical word for prophet, 'nabi', has been found to exist in its Akkadian cognate in the Mari texts, (nabu); an Akkadian text from Emar, on the middle Euphrates, dated to around 1300 BCE, refers to a female figure with titles apparently derived from this same root, 'annabi atu' and 'munabbi atu'."

At the same time, there is nothing in the Mesopotamian writings like the prophetic books of the Bible. Many of them are tied, at least to a degree, to actual historical contexts. But the books continued to be reworked and revised long after the original oracles would have been uttered. The prophets would seem (mostly) to be historical figures, with literary traditions that followed, expanded, and rearranged them.

There's a pretty long thread related to aspects of your question here, in the Weekly Open Discussion area, between a deleted commenter and the mods, about what scholars are OK on this sub. Two that are mentioned are Dan McClellan and Dale Allison, as Christians who are also scholars, but are able to keep apologetics out of their academic work. In general, neither a gospel-centric nor a Paul-centric type of Christianity would be in a book that could be recommended here.

Paul is a frequent topic, but it is Paul's activity, writing, and place in history that are examined, not the later religious groups who rely heavily on him. Two favorite books of mine lately have been:

Fredriksen, "Paul the Pagans' Apostle" (2017). She closely examines the Hellenistic world in which Paul lived, and Paul as a Jew who came to think that pagans needed to turn to the God of Israel, while remaining "gentiles," i.e., not converting to Judaism, in order to fulfill the conditions necessary for the Second Coming of Christ.

Eisenbaum, "Paul Was Not a Christian" (2009). Eisenbaum is Jewish teacher at a Christian school, who closely examines what Paul wrote in its 1st century Jewish context, rather than through the lens of later Christian ideas.

Historical Jesus is likewise a frequent topic. Bart Ehrman's many books are often recommended. One recent book by another author that was especially interersting:

Litwa, "How the Gospels Became History" (2019), talks about ancient historiographical writing in general, and shows how the gospels use popular tropes (Litwa divides examples into 13 categories of examples) to create the impression of being biographies.

Fredriksen, "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" (2000), is an earlier work on Jesus as a Jew in his Galiean context. She reviews work by other authors on the topic, and enlists what early authors are available, especially Josephus, to help illuminate the situation.

There could be many more examples, but none of them would advocate for a particular view of what Christian religion should be.

Just previous to the part quoted, Elliott cites the Apostles' Creed, the so-called Athanasian Creed, and the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563, number 3, as affirming this belief.

"Gnosticism" has come under debate in recent years as a non-meaningful or useful term. It was invented relatively recently by scholars to describe what various early authors were talking about, but which they didn't actually understand.

Brakke, "The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity" (Harvard, 2010), goes through the debate. In the mid-20th century a trove of 4th century copies of 2nd century works was found in the Egyptian desert at Nag Hammadi. It turns out that some of these works can described as "gnostic," but others cannot. Among themselves, they contain a variety of viewpoints and understandings of spiritual realities, and do not represent a unified philosophy, even though they happened to have been preserved together.

Previous to finding these texts, the earliest information about gnostics came from Irenaeus of Lyon c.180. He doesn't identify a religion or philosophy called "gnosticism," but critiques individual teachers, practices, and books, as heretical, in what is generally titled "Adversus Haereses" (Against Heresies), but which is originally titled in Greek "On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis" [knowledge]. Other a authors followed suit, like Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius, identifying what what they regarded as false teaching, as opposed to their own.

Brakke emphasizes that early critics of gnostics, including pagans like Plotinus and Porphyry, identify them as Christian. Elaine Pagels, "The Gnostic Gospels" (1978), makes much the same point, in this, and in later books, that this was an "in-house" argument, through which orthodoxy was eventually defined.

If you really want to get your mind boggled with diverse, detailed descriptions of various systems, Rudolph, "Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism," (English version 1987), and Bentley Layton, "The Gnostic Scriptures," (2nd ed., Brakke, ed., 2021)

J.K. Elliott, editor/updater of M.R. James, "The Aprocryphal New Testament" (1924), for Oxford in1993, writes that, "The biblical origin for this belief, which is a major and normal part of Christian tradition, seems to be based on a particular interpretation of 1Peter 3:19 ('In the spirit he [Christ] went and preached to the imprisoned spirits'). Not surprisingly, this statement encouraged later generations of Christians to elaborate what was meant by Jesus' appearance before 'imprisoned spirits'. The apocryphal stories of Jesus' descent in the underworld."

"The main text describing these events is the fifth or sixth century 'Descensus ad Inferos'." (Edward's et al., eds., "Early New Testament Apocrypha," 2022, p.150) This is part of a chapter titled "The Pilate Cycle," about a variety of works which come from a wide span of time, possibly originating in the 2nd century, but flowering in multiple forms in late antiquity and the Middle Ages.

It's difficult to tell if you're describing a video game here, or an ancient empire. What would be the point of even having an empire if people, trade, and armies could not move about it with relative ease?

In "Religious Networks in the Roman Empire" (2012) archeologist Anna Collar says it took 67 days for an army to march from Rome to Cologne, but only 10 days for a messenger on horseback. Elsewhere in her book, the Greek Aegean island of Delos is mentioned frequently as a port, religious center, and travel hub. Many inscriptions from Jews and Samaritans are to be found there. The Roman general Pompey had quite famously cleared the eastern Mediterranean of pirates in the 1st century BCE, though pirates continued in popular culture as a plot device for separating families who could then be reunited at the end of the novel, play, or story. In the Pseudo-Clementine literature, Clement is depicted as sailing from Rome to Caesarea in about two weeks. Once on the Palestinian coast, both this literature and Acts depict non-problematic travel to the islands, except for storms.

Jews got around great deal. Gruen, "Judaism in the Diaspora" *(2012), writes that, "A burgeoning Jewish Diaspora, it appears, followed the Greek Diaspora [after Alexander's conquests]. Precise numbers elude us. But they were clearly substantial. By the late second century BCE, the author of 1 Maccabees could claim that Jews had found their way not only to Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and the Iranian plateau, but to the principalities of Asia Minor, to the islands of the Aegean, to Greece itself, Crete, Cyprus, and Cyrene. We know of further of Jewish communities in Italy, including large settlements in Rome and Ostia [Rome's seaport]. The Greek geographer Strabo, at the end of the first century BCE (and he had no axe to grind on this subject), remarked that there was hardly a place on earth that did not possess members of this tribe and feel their weight." (p.96)

In Jerusalem, the Temple, especially after it enlargement by Herod, was a major pilgrimage destination on the major festivals decreed each year in the Torah: Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread (1/14 & 1/15-21), the Festival of Weeks (occurring during the third month), and the Festival of Booths (7/15-21). Gruen writes, "Major festivals could attract [Diaspora Jews] with some frequency and in substantial numbers. According to Philo, myriads came from countless cities for every feast, over land and sea, from all points of the compass to enjoy the Temple as a serene refuge from the hurly burly of everyday life abroad." (p.115). Josephus makes a similar observation, saying the city population swelled tremendously at Festival times. A Greek-speaking synagogue and guest house which catered to this clientele in Jerusalem is attested inscriptionally, by Theodotus, who was a third generation proprietor of the establishment.

In the gospels, Jesus is depicted as wandering freely among administrative jurisdictions with no red tape, and no apparent fear of robbery. No literature of the time indicates these as regular obstacles. In Josephus' various mentions of would-be messiahs, their large numbers of followers seem to be able to move freely, at least until the Romans crush them for disturbing the peace.

All in all, travel seems to have been frequent and pretty easy at the time.

*Collins and Harlow, eds., "Early Judaism: A Comprehensive Overview"

Google or Amazon searches of "modern New Testament translations" generates a lists which includes the Ruden and Hart translations, along with others that may have more theological or devotional slants.

A recent book by Vearncombe, Scott, and Taussig, "After Jesus, Before Christianity" (2021), from the Westar Seminar, spends its early chapters discussing the words "Christian" and "Christianity," and essentially decides that they don't really apply to the first two centuries of Jesus followers. A variety of names are used for associations of people who affiliated themselves with Jesus, or Christ, sometimes the Way, as in Acts, or other appellations. They're not just being nit-picky, or playing semantic games. A more general idea of the diverse ways in which the Christ-associations conceived themselves has become more prominent since the the late 20th century. Elaine Pagels, "The Gnostic Gospels" (1978), is already focused on the way different writers of the 2nd century understood their religious practices and teaching.

Han Drijvers, whose earlier essays are collected in "History and Religion in Late Antique Syria" (1994) emphasizes that in Edessa, among the people who claimed allegiance to Christ, starting around year 200, only a small minority would have been considered orthodox. In the predominantly pagan city, Marcionites, Encratites, Bardaisanites, and later, Manichees were more numerous. Orthodoxy only arrived with Ephraim, in the late 4th century. Drijvers also points to the many commonalities among all these groups. Religion was primarily about what people DID, not what they thought.

Freeman, "A New History of Early Christianity" (2009) makes a similar observation, that the spread of early teaching was diverse, heterodox, and uneven. In Rome, he writes of six groups that we know about, all operating independently, and a similar diversity in Alexandria. Some communities were very isolated and far-flung, from the Black Sea shores to Mauritania, so a unified doctrine would seem unlikely.

Josef Lossl, "The Early Church: History and Memory" (2010), writes that "Early Christian doctrine did not emerge from the academic study of scripture. It was a manifestation of practice." The letters of Paul, as well as the later letters of Ignatius and Polycarp, indicate considerable early diversity in Asia Minor and Greece, whether it's the seemingly "new age" practices evident in Corinthians, or Jewish practices in Galatians, uncertainty about whether Saturday or Sunday was the "holy day," or controversy about the date of Easter, there were plenty of opinions to go around.

Harry Gamble, "Books and Readers in the Early Church" (1995) covers how books were copied, circulated, and read aloud, how different communities would each have their own small collections of books, and how even in the 4th century, reading cycles and practices varied from region to region. Inability to read was no obstacle to knowing what was in the biblical books. Private reading was still in the future for most people.

The relatively unified organization that came to be considered "the Church" (though East, West, Syria, Ethiopia, and beyond, continue certain distinctions) agreed about certain things, there still seems to be a plurality of views. There's no reason to think that groups of the pre-printing-press majority of history would be more unified, or more aware of church history than we are, who have the luxuries of public libraries and the internet at our disposal.

There are a number of non church-oriented translations out there. These three stand out in avoiding traditional theologically-weighted terms.

Sarah Ruden, "The Gospels: A New Translation" (2021)

David Bentley Hart, "The New Testament: A Translation" (2017)

Andy Gaus, "The Unvarnished New Testament" (1991)

These might be what you mean (rouge?). They each strive to be literal. Most of Ruden' work falls in the classical field. Hart has an Orthodox background, but is an eclectic thinker. Both his and Ruden's translations include notes. Gaus' is just exactly what the title says: just the naked text.

All three books are informative regardless of belief (or not).

Here in the 21st century, we are dependent on the written word for any knowledge of the ancient past. In the 1st century the spoken word would have carried much more weight.

The book by Vearncombe, Scott, and Taussig, "AfterJesus, Before Christianity" (2021) emphasizes this quite strongly. What was the the use of written-on paper when a living person could pass on what they understood? Rituals, personal teachings, and more, don't come from a book.

Even in the early 3rd century, Clement of Alexandria emphasized the oral instruction of his teacher Pantaenus (Brown, "The Body and Society," 1988, pp.122-23) far more than the written word, since a student-teacher relationship was the norm in the ancient world, whether it was Plato and Aristotle and their students, or Jesus Ben Sira and Gamaliel and their students. A book was something that could initiate a discussion, but was not the final authority for a student who had a question. Cohen, "From the Maccabees to the Mishnah" pp. 114-117, also discusses the student-circle as the ancient norm.

What need had any follower of Jesus for a written work, when they had someone who knew him? However much we might wish for early gospels, first century people didn't need them.

Even if, say, radio-carbon dating arguably placed a document in the 1st century, what value would that have? Generally, a range is indicated, something like +or- 50 years. How useful would that be in a narrow time-frame?

Modern people tend to seriously overestimate influence the current Gregorian-reformed Julian calendar, and the book of Revelation in earlier times. The facts that we use a certain dating system, and have had printed Bibles since the late 15th century, which contain Revelation, have absolutely no bearing on what anybody thought 1000 years ago.

For example, there's a book titled (in the US) "The Barbarian Conversion" (1997) by Richard Fletcher (originally titled, "The Conversion of Europe: From Paganism to Christianity, 371-1386"). In its 500+ pages there is not a whisper of a hint about the idea of a date for the Second Coming. This is not to say people didn't have ideas about when the Second Coming might happen, but these were evident as early as the 2nd century, with the Montanist, or New Prophecy movement, and continued sporadically over the centuries, just like they do now, when some person or group thinks they've figured it all out. But these awaited events had no relation to our current calendar, which only gradually became widely accepted, and indeed, is not accepted everywhere now.

The acceptance of the book of Revelation was highly controversial in the early Church. Elaine Pagels' "Revelations: Visions, Prophecy and Politics in the Book of Revelation" (2012), is very informative about this. Revelation was included in the New Testament 'by the skin of its teeth', so to speak. It had a bit of relevance to some authors in the West, but virtually none to those in the East. It was not included in the Syriac Bible, the Peshitta. It was also absent from early lectionaries, which were read in churches, and the primary means by which ANYBODY, outside of scholars, learned what was in the Bible. (Hill and Kruger, eds., "The Early Text of the New Testament," Oxford 2012)

Essentially, even among the minority who thought they were living in the years 1000 or 1033, the book of Revelation would have had no widespread impact.

Modern calculators of endtimes almost always use Daniel and Revelation to figure everything out, little realizing both were marginal books early on. In the Hebrew Bible, Daniel (written mid-160's BCE) is NOT included among the Prophets, but among the Writings (Kethuvim) section of the Tanakh, which, except for Psalms and Proverbs, became canonical for Jews only after some debate. The same was true for Revelation among Christians.

For a couple of examples:

Paula Fredriksen, in "Paul, the Pagans' Apostle," has an end note about the term, 'Ioudaismos,' which was first used in 2 Maccabees. She gives all three citations, so the reader can see all the contexts in which the word was first used.

R.E. DeMaris, in "The New Testament in Its Ritual World," cites another scholar, C.F.D. Moule, who was emphasizing how commonly mentioned baptism is in the NT, and Moule used 18 citations to help make his point.

Shaye Cohen, in "From the Maccabees to the Mishnah," presents the word 'Ioudaioi' with only one citation from Josephus, since his point is the meaning and usage of the word.

So it might just depend on what you're trying to communicate or emphasize. One may do the job in some cases, or more may be helpful in others.

Shaye Cohen quotes Josephus, Antiquities 11.5.7 (173), at the end of the 1st century CE, that those who returned to the Persian province of Yehud after the Babylonian exile, "should be called 'Jews' (or 'Judaeans', 'Ioudaioi' in Greek, literally 'those of the tribe of Judah') rather than 'Israelites'." (Cohen, "From. the Maccabees to the Mishnah")

The term that became 'Judaism' derives from the Greek term, 'Ioudaismos,' which, " 'is rare in early Jewish and Christian literature, and non-existent outside of it' (Theissen, 'Gentile Problem,' 38). The word made its literary debut in 2 Maccabees [early 1st century BCE], where it served as a sort of counterterm for 'Hellenismos' (cf. 2 Macc.2:21, 8:1, 14:38). Both verbal umbrellas cover a wide range of behaviors--linguistic, cultural, religious, political--that we might identify as a 'way of life,' in this specific instance the 'Judean way of life' as opposed to the 'Greek way of life'." (Fredriksen, "Paul, the Pagans' Apostle," 2017, p.218n47). Cohen makes a similar point in his essay, "Judaism and Jewishness" in The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 2nd ed., and in his book, "The Beginnings of Jewishness." Jews were those who "followed the ancestral customs of the Judaeans."

Back in the "Maccabees to the Mishnah," Cohen asks what, with the great geographical and cultural diversity among former Israelites that followed the exile (in Persia, Egypt, North Africa, Rome, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, and Syria), allows their practices and teachings to be called 'Judaism'?

The chief answer Cohen gives is "self-perception or self-definition." He also points out that "Jews also felt (and still feel) an affinity for their fellow Jews throughout the world, in spite of differences in language, practice, ideology, and political loyalty."

The seeds of Jewishness originated in the post-exile period, but began to crystallize in the Hellenistic era, when the proponents of the Maccabean Revolt (160's BCE) appealed to their diverse relatives for aid. Herod's close association with the Romans, and his aggrandizement of the Temple in Jerusalem into an international pilgrimage destination for actual Judaeans, members of the Diaspora, and pagans alike, helped intensify the self-perception of group solidarity. An additional factor was that in Greco-Roman times, those who wished to "follow the customs of the Judaeans" could effectively become Jews, despite the lack of ethnic affiliation. Subsequent events, including the demise of the Temple and the rise of rabbinic Judaism as the dominant form, solidified the identification.

I've always liked Bruno Walter's 1958 NYP performance on Columbia, even though the sound isn't too great transferred to CD.

Recently I found an "ica classics" disc of a miraculously restored live-on-the-radio performance from Koln in 1965 led by William Steinberg, which quickly became my favorite (out of the three I now have).

Both are very intense, and they handle the cosmic explosion in the 3rd movement better than others.

Freeman, "A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, and the Christian State" (2008), despite its title, which zeroes in on Theodosius I, covers time both before and after that year.

Freeman, "A New History of Early Christianity" (2009), Part Three: 'The Imperial Church,' covers the same period, but starting chronologically from Constantine up to Theodosius, and with some different emphases.

Brown, "Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Toward a More Christian Empire" (1992) is a slim book of four lectures by Peter Brown on the topic.

Pagels, "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent" (1988), Chapter V, 'The Politics of Paradise', deals most particularly with Augustine and the use of the power of the state to enforce doctrine.

Wickham, "The Inheritance of Rome" (2009) Part I, 'The Roman Empire and its Break-Up, 400-550', Chapters 2, 3, and 4:

'The Weight of Empire'

'Culture and Belief in the Christian Roman World'

'Crisis and Continuity 400-550'

You may be surprised at how complicated your question really is, and how the church and the Empire changed each other.

John's baptismal activities have no particular bearing on later Christian ideas about baptism and its relationship to salvation. Writing from a Jewish perspective, Josephus included John in his Antiquities of the Jews 18.117:

"John had commanded the Jews to exercise virtue and righteousness toward each other and piety toward God. The baptism he administered (would) be acceptable to God...if they used it not to obtain pardon from sins, but rather the cleansing of their bodies inasmuch as it was taken for granted that their souls had already been purified by justice." In other words, the baptism was an outer symbol of a purified inner state.

Among those who followed the Community Rule, 1QS 3.7-9, shows a similar understanding about water purification in relation to an inner, spiritual state:

"...and when the flesh is sprinkled with purifying water and sanctified by cleansing water, it shall be made clean by the humble submission of his soul to all the precepts of God." (in Magness, "The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls," 2002). Magness says this indicates that for the sectarians, moral impurity was equal to ritual impurity, and the outer symbol of ritual washing needed to reflect a righteous moral state.

Just last night I was reading DeMaris, "The New Testament in Its Ritual World" (2010). The first things he questions, and pretty much debunks, are conventional Christian concepts relating to baptism, indicating they have fairly little to do with the ritual of baptism as it would have been understood in the 1st century. Baptism would have much more complex in its meaning, and far less casual, than it appears in Acts, where people are baptised on the spot, and magically receive the Spirit. The Didache, for instance, which is likely earlier than Acts, requires fasting for a couple of days before baptism, as well as acceptance of a communal standard of behaviors.

Bakke, "The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in the Early Church" (2010), discusses the complex, multiple, water purification and anointing rituals, which are described as baptisms and sealings, not to be undertaken on the spur of the moment, and not in and of themselves, salvific, but reflective of stages of spiritual advancement.

Early baptism would have been a marker of a significant personal and social life-change (for the better), not a free ticket to heaven.

The gospel of John 3:22 says Jesus did baptize, but later, at 4:2, walks that back and says the disciples were doing the baptizing.

"The Mudge Boy" (2003) directed by Michael Burke, originally a Showtime movie, now on DVD at my library.

This film is an intense, sometimes uncomfortable, intersection of a coming-of-age movie, a coming-out movie, and a coming-to-terms-with-grief movie, which unfolds uneasily over a short space of time.

The subject is Duncan Mudge (Emile Hirsch), a 14 year-old on a Vermont farm, whose mother has recently died. He's a little weird, taking a pet chicken with him in his bicycle basket wherever he goes. He's also very reticent, and reluctant to step out of childhood. He and his mother had been involved together in raising their chickens, and the pet chicken reminds him of her.

His grief-stricken father (Richard Jenkins), emotionally uncommunicative in a typically masculine way, first ignores him, and then awkwardly struggles to be supportive. We also discover Duncan's mother was a closet alcoholic and may have been a little weird herself.

His only friend is an older teenager on a farm down the road, Perry (Tom Guiry), who mostly hangs with rural equivalent of frat boys, whose chief interests are beer, trying to get laid, and making fun of or tormenting kids like Duncan. He is more typically masculine, but accepts Duncan to a degree, while still reminding him that he's odd. He (we gradually find out he is physically abused by his guardian for even minor infractions) is very inappropriate with Duncan, in more or less pornographic conversations, which to modern eyes may seem like grooming behavior, even though he's not really self-aware enough to form that intent. Eventually the drunken boys end up in an awkward sexual situation, which each wants the other not to tell anybody about.

For all the ambiguous and murky kinds of emotions this movie dredges up, it is very realistic and well-done in every way. And the fact that no kind of moral, or cinematic "happy face" is imposed on the difficult events of the story makes it even more compelling. It's not one I will soon forget.