The Myth of Jewish Christianity

[bcedaifu]

John T wrote
what you cited is not at all convincing that the original manuscripts of 1Peter and 2 Corinthians were written by the same author, in the 2nd century.
That is, if that was your intent.
My intent, John, was to agree with the OP, and with Leucius' point of view, and further, to dispute the oft stated opinion that Christianity is a derivative of Judaism. I agree that the founders of the religion employed many Jewish ideas, and texts, and practiced ceremonies derived from Judaism. I disagree that the essence of the religion is founded in the heart of Judaism. I think Islam is much, much closer to Judaism, than Christianity, but both are far away from the original practices of Judaism, 2000 years ago. Unlike Judaism and Islam, Christianity proudly flaunts acceptance of pagan ideas, ideas which are repellent to both Jews and Muslims. The latter two groups demand circumcision, and deny consumption of pork, and insist on only YHWH (aka "allah"), denying that Jesus was a messiah.

Giraffes and polar bears are rather far apart on the evolutionary schema, but relative to a pine tree, they are practically kin.

My point about the Greek phrase in 2 Corinthians 11:31 and 1 Peter 1:3 (and elsewhere in "Paul's" writings), is meant to demonstrate the possibility, not a fact, the possibility that the epistles were written much later than is commonly believed by Christians. In my opinion, that unique wording, identifying YHWH as both god almighty, and also the father of the human (i.e. "lord", not "god") Jesus, is convincing evidence that the epistles were composed after Mark's gospel.

Is there a more significant concept in the Christian faith, than the "fact" that Jesus was YHWH's son? Please teach me, if I err here.

But, if I am correct, and if you agree with me, that this "fact" is singular, and definitive, then, why doesn't Mark explicitly write that? If you, John, sat down, at your desk, determined to quill a document, explaining the essence of Christianity, would you not commence, as did 1Peter, with a statement of fact: Jesus, a human, was YHWH's son, conceived by union of a human, Jewish maiden, impregnated with the DNA of David, (therefore, by supernatural means, without copulation), and born in the ordinary, typical fashion, vaginal delivery. Please, John, look at the Greek text: the God and father of the lord Jesus....

[Leucius Charinus]

to Leucius Charinus,

Paul the Apostle (and also that infamous "Pseudo-Paul") used his status as both a Jew and a Roman citizen to advantage in his ministry to both Jewish and Roman audiences. Paul's status as a Jew supports the hypothesis of a Jewish Christianity. Pseudo-Paul's status as a forged identity undermines this support

Paul & the so-called pseudo-Paul never claimed Paul was a Roman citizen. That comes only from 'Acts'.
If you reject 'Acts' completely, then you should make no mention of Paul as a Roman citizen. As for me, I am very doubtful on that point, and never made a point on Paul's alleged Roman citizenship.

The issue of Paul's Roman citizenship is a separate issue to Paul's Jewish status, and it is Paul's Jewish status that is essentially being questioned in the OP.

Actually, what you call pseudo-Paul was most likely not one author, but several, responsible for writing Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy & Titus.

I have introduced Brodie's notion of a literary "school" above, and such a notion can easily explain a variety of "Pseudo-Pauls".

Well a number of other scholars do stand by such a rejection. The OP refers to the Dutch Radicals, and thus indirectly to Bruno Bauer. These people (and many many others) have provided reasoned arguments to reject Acts as devoid of historical value.

The Dutch Radicals are only a fringe group from the past.

Detering is still writing. Their views and opinions, their conclusions and their treatment and in-depth analysis of the literary evidence are still with us and may yet be instructive. You are free to consign any "group" or Individual to your own rubbish bin. OTOH I find some of their ideas to be quite refreshing when faced with some of the stuff being pumped out of the mainstream theological departments over recent times.

And you do not take in account many many scholars (some of them atheists) who think Acts has some historical value.
Even the Westar Acts Seminar had to contend with: "This is not to say that Acts is totally unhistorical, but to observe that it is less helpful in the historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings than previously assumed." (http://historical-jesus.info/76.html)
I followed that conclusion.

I think its too early to make conclusions. The OP and these discussions are about exploration of ideas and hypothetical conditions.

Yes you can reject examining these ideas, and reject the exploration of the hypothesis that Paul was fabricated. But just understand that is what you are doing.

so note that in your OP, you mentioned the Dutch Radicals and Bruno Bauer only in the link to your own blog).

It's not my blog.

becomes your primary evidence! (along with your "many, many scholars").

I dont understand this sentence above.

The OP relates to understanding the way the Dutch Radicals examine, weigh and then judge the literary evidence. To repeat one set of alternative hypotheses by quoting Bauer, the writer of Mark's gospel was "an Italian, at home both in Rome and Alexandria"; that of Matthew's gospel "a Roman, nourished by the spirit of Seneca"; Christianity is essentially "Stoicism triumphant in a Jewish garb."

The (only alternative) hypotheses from your Bauer are pure fancy and require a lot of imagination.

How do you know if you have not examined Bauer's work (and that of the Dutch Radicals) and yet simultaneously reject them as "fringe"?

I have not yet had time to make a study of the scholarship which discusses Stoic thought on Paul and the Gospels, but it exists. I have cited some of it in a thread about Bauer. I do not see this analysis as some sort of "pure fancy". There is either a correlation between the literature of Paul and Gospels and the literature of Seneca and the Stoics, or there is not. If there is a correlation, then this needs to be explained.

And I don't see how your OP "relates to understanding the way the Dutch Radicals examine, weigh and then judge the literary evidence."

The OP is about, among other things, an exploration of the Dutch radical idea that the entire Pauline corpus is spurious. Why did they think this? What convinced them to think that this was a likely alternative to thinking that Paul was Partially legit and partially forged? These questions I wish to explore. As I mentioned above, what I mean by understanding the way the Dutch Radicals (and others) examine, weigh and then judge the literary evidence is to look at this Stoic influence.


LC

[bcedaifu]

MrMacSon wrote
I'm intrigued by the proposition that Christianity mostly developed in an increasingly Hellenised-Jewish Alexandria
I agree, and there are some other candidate loci as well: Rome, Corinth, Antioch, Ephesus.....

Of importance, to my way of thinking, is the notion that Jews were found in almost all urban areas, throughout the ancient Persian empire, and subsequent Greek empire, then Roman empire. Catalysts for the creation of this new religion included knowledge of both Greek and Hebrew, as well as understanding of both Pagan and Jewish religious practices. The adoption, by the nascent religion, of Egyptian and Zoroastrian practices, would seem to place Alexandria as one of the most likely sites for the debut of Christianity, since the Persians brought Zoroastrian practices to Alexandria, in the decades prior to Alexander's successful invasion.

[Leucius Charinus]

Jewish 'Christianity' is a misnomer, a distraction. It cannot be found among 1st century Jews, because it was not.

As virtually all critical scholars and commentary indicate that the term 'Christian' is a late and foreign sourced and introduced term.
One that would have either been alien to contemporaneous Jews, or if Hellenistically aware, or Greek literate, associated with the long established Greek o'Chrestos', 'the Good guys' mutual assistance organizations (that had a rather unsavory reputation for the forming mobs to 'assist' one another) Very few Jews of any stripe would care to identify themselves with that gentile organization.

The recent paper by Carrier on the prospect that the Christian reference in Tacitus is an interpolation concludes with the following sentences:
th

• The whole passage in Annals 15.44 should instead be considered as possible evidence supplementing Suetonius on the matter of “Chrestus the instigator” and Jewish unrest at Rome.

There has been much discussion of whether Christianity has been layered over the top of some form of earlier "Chrestianity". The Greeks were quite familiar with the "chrestos" term, and they would have had problems perhaps with the newer "Christos" term. Another can of worms.


LC

[bcedaifu]

Maryhelena wrote

So - would you say that Thomas Brodie is no longer a Christian since he no longer believes Jesus (and Paul) were historical figures? Surely the essence of a particular faith is not it's outward but it's inward meaning. Symbols are a means to an end not the be all and end all of a religion. Whether it is union with a god or some spirit force - or simply to be in tune with ones own being - it is the meaning one ascribes to stuff that holds potential for good. As of now, I don't know that the Catholic Church has abandoned Brodie to the realm of the heretics and apostates. Same with Hans Kung.

In my view, a Jew is someone who acknowledges that YHWH is supreme diety, (i.e. renouncing the more ancient faith in El and his many sons, among them YHWH), and that the commandments handed down by Moses must be obeyed, along with traditions of circumcision, avoiding pork consumption, and accepting various ceremonies and practices like bathing in the mikveh, in addition to acknowledging that Jews are superior to all other people, i.e. "God's chosen people".

To be a Christian, in my opinion, one must accept, without question, the fact, that Jesus was YHWH's son, and that "Paul" was his apostle, despite having never met Jesus, and that all people are equal in the eyes of YHWH. One must further acknowledge, to be a Christian, that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and was resurrected by supernatural means, to ascend to Mt. Olympus to live with his father, Zeus.

To be a Muslim, one must accept that Mohammed and Jesus were YHWH's prophets, and that Mohammed's version of the Torah plus Christian gospels with "Paul's" epistles, represents the divine truth, and must be followed absolutely (inerrant).

To answer your question, yes, he is no longer a Christian, irrespective of what the pope does, or does not do. If a person denies Jesus' historicity, then he cannot believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. No more blood to drink, then, where's the "new" covenant?

[maryhelena]

Thanks for your comments maryhelena. Brodie postulates a "literary school" as the environment of the authors of the NT. Does he indicate a chronology?

I might be wrong but I can't remember if Brodie gives a chronology for a 'literary school'. The index in the book does not seem to turn to a page with such a dating. Great idea though - a literary school.

Without any emotional attachment to the outcome this exercise is very simple. It should be as simple as a computer simulation in which sources can get flagged as authentic and inauthentic. One simply flags Paul and Acts as inauthentic, and then push the button for a result. The evidence itself still requires explanation and the entire aim is to explain ALL the evidence, not just some of it. As is usual in the development of many modern fields, progress is often made by questioning old and often unexamined hypotheses (eg: Paul existed, Christianity is Jewish, etc). The problems encountered along the way are often the screams and abuse of people who cannot conceive of letting go of the hypothetical assumptions (IOW dogma) that they have been taught by their professors, which were in turn taught to them by their professors, and so on, and so on.
LC

An interesting thread, Pete. My own thinking puts christian origins squarely in a Jewish context. As of now, that is what makes more sense to me.......

[Leucius Charinus]

I do not see how these speculations put the "the likelihood that the legends and letters of the Apostolic Age are an invention of the 2nd century" as not negligible.

It's quite simple. I do not see that a 2nd century invention theory is impossible. Therefore it must have some likelihood which is not null.

Let me guess. You consider a 1st century invention theory as 100% certain, secure, and locked up? I reject the 100% notion. The state of the evidence does not permit such certainty. Instead you might allocate 90% possibility for a 1st century authorship, and a 10% possibility for a 2nd century authorship. You can select your likelihood based upon your confidence in your conclusion AND based upon the state of the evidence itself.

Do your speculations imply the gospels came first, then later the invented Paul?

The theorising (not speculation) of Bruno Bauer from WIKI: [wiki]Bruno_Bauer#Views_on_Christian_origins[/wiki]

• For Bruno Bauer, the Gospel of Mark was completed in the reign (117-138) of Hadrian (where its prototype, the 'Ur-Marcus,' identifiable within the Gospel of Mark by a critical analysis, was begun around the time of Josephus and the Roman-Jewish Wars). Bauer, like other advocates of this 'Marcan Hypothesis', affirmed that all the other Gospel narratives used the Gospel of Mark as their model within their writing communities.
  
  ////
  
  Also, for some influential theologians in the Tübingen School, several Pauline epistles were regarded as forgeries of the 2nd century. Bauer radicalised that position by suggesting that all Pauline epistles were forgeries, written in the West in antagonism to the Paul of The Acts. Bauer observed a preponderance of the Greco-Roman element, over and above the Jewish element, in Christian writings, and he added a wealth of historical background to support his theory; though modern scholars such as E. P. Sanders and John P. Meier have disputed this theory and attempted to demonstrate a mainly Jewish historical background. Other authors, such as Rudolf Bultmann, tended to agree that a Greco-Roman element was dominant.

The question to address is also where is a 2nd century "Pseudo-Paul" (who is part of a literary "school") trying to put himself and why.

Why do you think Col, Eph, 2Th and the pastorals had to be written by only one author, your so-called Pseudo-Paul?
Furthermore, these letters do not appear to be written by one literary school, in view of their differences, including the ones related to christology and theology, not only between themselves, but also as compared with the other Pauline epistles (Rom, 1&2Cor, Gal, 1Th & Philippians).

It is by no means impossible that one literary school was responsible for the literary output which would normally suggest a number of competing schools. I think Brodie addresses this sort of stuff.

Not if both inventions were in the 2nd century, and weeks apart, inside a literary school.

Please provide the evidence Jesus & Paul were invented weeks apart inside a 2nd century literary school?

I am happy to accept this as an hypothesis which may be true or false. I gave that as a possibility to be explored. You trimmed the context.

Have you had a look at the claim that Paul and the gospel authors borrowed from Seneca and the Stoics?

So what? Since Paul is free-lancing most of the time and the gospels are mostly religious fiction, I would not be surprised if some Seneca (or Stoic) stuff made it in the epistles and gospels.

Thanks for the response but you avoided my question.



LC

[maryhelena]

Maryhelena wrote

So - would you say that Thomas Brodie is no longer a Christian since he no longer believes Jesus (and Paul) were historical figures? Surely the essence of a particular faith is not it's outward but it's inward meaning. Symbols are a means to an end not the be all and end all of a religion. Whether it is union with a god or some spirit force - or simply to be in tune with ones own being - it is the meaning one ascribes to stuff that holds potential for good. As of now, I don't know that the Catholic Church has abandoned Brodie to the realm of the heretics and apostates. Same with Hans Kung.

In my view, a Jew is someone who acknowledges that YHWH is supreme diety, (i.e. renouncing the more ancient faith in El and his many sons, among them YHWH), and that the commandments handed down by Moses must be obeyed, along with traditions of circumcision, avoiding pork consumption, and accepting various ceremonies and practices like bathing in the mikveh, in addition to acknowledging that Jews are superior to all other people, i.e. "God's chosen people".

To be a Christian, in my opinion, one must accept, without question, the fact, that Jesus was YHWH's son, and that "Paul" was his apostle, despite having never met Jesus, and that all people are equal in the eyes of YHWH. One must further acknowledge, to be a Christian, that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and was resurrected by supernatural means, to ascend to Mt. Olympus to live with his father, Zeus.

To be a Muslim, one must accept that Mohammed and Jesus were YHWH's prophets, and that Mohammed's version of the Torah plus Christian gospels with "Paul's" epistles, represents the divine truth, and must be followed absolutely (inerrant).

To answer your question, yes, he is no longer a Christian, irrespective of what the pope does, or does not do. If a person denies Jesus' historicity, then he cannot believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. No more blood to drink, then, where's the "new" covenant?

Here is what Brodie himself says:

IS IT POSSIBLE TO REDISCOVER THE MEANING OF CHRIST: chapter 20 in Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Thomas Brodie.

Is it possible for a believing Christian to accept that Jesus Christ never existed as a specific historical individual? At first sight it might seem not. The sense of Jesus as an historical individual is not just in the brain. For many it is the bone and in the soul. Most Christians feel connected somehow to Jesus and to history. And in the creed Jesus 'suffered under Pontius Pilate'.

<snip>

Besides, given the pervasive evidence of how the New Testament was composed - how it built on a reweaving of the Old Testament, a weaving so dense and artistic that specific events in the life of Jesus are neither traceable nor necessary - it is still a fair question to ask what is meant by the reality of Jesus. And, even granting how the New Testament was composed, is there still some sense in which he may be said to be historical?

<snip>

No question, then - our understanding of Christ can indeed change. The only issue is how far? Far enough to see Christ not as an individual human but as a symbol of God amoung us, God within us? It is a challenging change. It is disturbing. But perhaps it is not greater or more disturbing than the re-imaging of Creation and the Church. And it calls once again for a 'conversion of the imagination' (see Hays 2005). It would seem that it is time - adapting Radcliffe's image - it is time that Jesus Christ emerged from our tiny boxes.

Whether one goes along with Brodie's take on what viewing Jesus as a symbol could mean is not the point here. The point is moving from the material to the spiritual. i.e. giving meaning to symbols.

And is this not at the root of a lot of religion? Giving meaning to symbols. I can't, for the life of me, imagine that some Jews in the first century were not able to do likewise. New interpretations, new meaning to old stories. Deeper more 'spiritual' meaning. Intellectual evolution never stood still - not even for Jews. Sure, the fundamentalists of any religion often seek the upper hand - but progress does eventually win the day.....Why? Because reality is a hard taskmaster.......

[Leucius Charinus]

Circling back to the question of the original post, one of the (perhaps few) advances in New Testament scholarship between is a better understanding of the breadth and depth of 1st Century Judaism such that scholars today are much less likely to see rupture and discontinuity between the earliest Christianity and the Judaism of the time. With this understanding, is it not something of an Occam's Razor violation to bring in Seneca or Stoics or Caesar or whatnot to explain early Christian doctrine, when there doesn't appear to be very much left to explain that cannot be plausibly connected to 1st Century Judaism?

IMO that appears to be a circular argument based on the hypothesis of 1st century authorship for the NT.
Scholarship is simply continuing to self-validate its hypotheses rather than question them.

I am interested in the alternate hypotheses and their discussion.

Note that even the modern radicals seem to grasp this — Detering and Price share with the 19th Century radicals their deconstruction of the texts, but when it comes to speculative re-construction they are more likely to consider origins within a (very broad) understanding of Judaism (including fringe elements) — stuff like Samaritans, esoteric trends and gnosticism, Essenes, John the Baptist traditions, and so on.

There is no dispute that the Jesus Story was supposed to be about a 1st century history of a Jewish sect who separated themselves from the nation of the Hebrews to become the nation of Christians. But the genre of the Jesus Story may be fiction. We don't know. Or rather, I should say, I don't know. It's obvious that there are many people who proclaim to know precisely what went down at the authorship gig for the NT. I am not one of these. I have my doubts.




LC

[Leucius Charinus]

Wonder what the 'tipping point' is supposed to be, between an early believer being 'Jewish' or being 'Christian'.

The literary evidence ... According to the experts, the presence of nomina sacra in the Greek LXX indicates Christian usage, while the absence indicates Jewish usage. The problem is finding the LXX evidence and then trying to draw lines between the dots. There's not too much of it.

But I see the paradoxes you are describing ....

I mean, could a 1st century 'Jew' believe that Y'shuah was the promised Meshiach , and had been executed to redeem Israel from the wrath of haShem, and accept 'baptism', immersion into the name 'Y'shuah ha'Meshiach', ...yet not accept the Pauline 'replacement' theology that haShem had abandoned the Jews and the form of religion HE had instituted and commanded be kept by Israel 'to a thousand generations' (Deut 7:9, 1Ch 16:15, Psa 105:8) and now favored gentiles over Jews ?

If this Jewish person did not identify by the title 'Christian', and was not baptized into the Greek name 'Iasus', would they be still 'Jewish', ....or would they be a 'Christian' even if they had never even heard of the term? or having heard of it, rejected it as being Jews not accounting it the equal of meshiach?

Did a Jew have to explicitly employ the Greek term 'Christos' in order to be a 'Christian'?

Did refusing this Antioch Syria, foreign grown appellation/insult make one remain a non-Christian?

Could a Jewish person believe that he was 'saved' by Y'shuah (Gr 'Iasus'), yet reject the claims made by the 'apostle Paul', (IF ever heard of) ? Would such person no longer be Jewish?

Sounds like it would be a fundamental requirement for this 'Christos' religious cult movement, that a Jewish person must first learn, accept, and employ Greek religious terminology and names in order to join to, or to be accounted as a adherent of the 'Christos' cult.

The cult venerated (and probably edited) its own Greek LXX (as we have discussed). What would they think of their cult members who chose to read the Hebrew scriptures sometimes, instead of maintaining a pathological focus on the study of the Greek "Sacred Book"?

There was some really weird shit going down back then.

If Brodie's right it was being packaged up in a "school".



LC