The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by Leucius Charinus »

The Myth of Jewish Christianity: http://mythicismfiles.blogspot.com.au/2 ... anity.html
  • So we have two sources of information regarding Christianity's birth and early formative period: the Acts of the Apostles and the pauline epistles. The historical reliability of the Acts has been the focus of much scholarship in the last century, especially as contrasted with the epistles, which at times contradict its outlined narrative. My own opinion is that Acts is likely a very deliberate attempt to synthesize the two hitherto irreconcilable rival camps into a resultant unified faith. I follow David Trobisch on this. Moreover, I follow John Knox and Joseph Tyson in their suggestion that the Acts was penned essentially an an anti-marcionite reaction.

    I will return to this idea later. For now, suffice to say that if this is so, and if we add to this mix the Dutch radical idea that the entire Pauline corpus is spurious, then we have to face the sobering possibility that we have no primary sources regarding pre-Jewish-Revolt Christianity. This is so significant a paradigm-shift that it merits repetition and highlighting:

    We have no primary sources regarding pre-Jewish-Revolt Christianity.

    Gloss that over at your own risk (or at your own benefit, as the case might be).


LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8023
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by Peter Kirby »

The thrust of the link is to call into question the assumed Jewish context of early Christianity (in hermetic, insulated, restrictive fashion), in response to the argument that the crucifixion is historical because otherwise Jesus would not have been portrayed as crucified (that being too far removed a thought for Jews to attribute to a Messiah) ... if I've understood it anyway.

The quote highlighted seems to me to be out of proportion only in expressing shock (and perhaps in its certitude).

But you really should come down off your ledge. I don't understand the point of your quotation or engagement along any such dimension as long as you've already consigned all these texts to your fantasized 4th century thingamabob. You can't meaningfully engage in a discussion of the realities of ante-Nicene Christianity from inside that bubble of yours. On your stated view of things, this whole essay you quote is meaningless, an exercise in distinctions without a difference - no matter what, it was all forged to look that way for unknown reasons in the 4th century.

Why don't you give that up and engage the subject as you seem wont to do?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by Stephan Huller »

Because he's a demented loon. Like trying to ask a terrorist to reintegrate into society. He never comes to a forum to actually "discuss" anything. He's acting the part of a spy or a clandestine "agent" for his demented theory. Throw him out.
Sheshbazzar
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by Sheshbazzar »

Perhaps some would choose to enforce barriers as to what Pete is allowed to speculate on, so as to permanently box in and limit the 'demented loon' to whatever tiny '4th century conspiracy' paradigm box it is that they desire to keep him filed away in?

Every time I see an instance of 'MM' venturing across those invisible lines and either postulating or suggesting something that is not confined to nor consistent with maintaining an exclusively '4th century conspiracy theory', I applaud that progress, not seek for ways to limit or stifle his attempts to deal with and incorporate new information that will effectively move him out of that box.
Keeping a 'demented loon' boxed up in a cage for you to have a place stand on doesn't serve to make you one bit taller.
bcedaifu
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:40 am

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by bcedaifu »

Stephan Huller wrote:Because he's a demented loon.
http://bettydobson.blogspot.com/2011/08 ... -loon.html

Some august members of the forum, may not recall, that SH is Canadian, so, he would naturally invoke for denigration, a symbol with which he had been familiar, though, for the life of me, I cannot imagine the magnificent Loon of Canada, in that role. For those who have never had the good fortune, as I have had, to go canoeing in Algonquin National park, the loons are a treasure, not something to represent an insult.

For my money, Leucius Charinus is a Koala Bear, the fantastic Australian marsupial, (not members of the bear family, like Raccoons, with prehensile upper extremity grasp).

I envision only darkness, when I seek to find an animal to represent SH. Sheshbazzar, on the otherhand, with those Eagle eyes, and raptor like precision, hunting fish, or fisherman, or souls, is certainly an Osprey. http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Osprey/lifehistory

I once enjoyed watching a bald eagle go fishing. He first patiently waited until the Osprey caught a fish, then chased the Osprey until the smaller bird released the fish, and the Eagle grabbed it in mid-air.

Yes, I am a member of both Audubon and Cornell laboratory. haha.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by arnoldo »

Leucius Charinus wrote: We have no primary sources regarding pre-Jewish-Revolt Christianity.

Gloss that over at your own risk (or at your own benefit, as the case might be).[/list]



LC
Magnus Zetterholm attempts to use sociological methods to determine how Christianity eventually branched from Judaism in his book, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation Between Judaism and Christianity.
bcedaifu
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:40 am

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by bcedaifu »

Arnoldo wrote:Magnus Zetterholm attempts to use sociological methods to determine how Christianity eventually branched from Judaism in his book,
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... an-center/

so far as I am aware, (I am uninformed!), the oldest "church" excavated in Turkey, was discovered after an earthquake, and is situated in Laodicea, dated at the time of Constantine, i.e. 4th century.

To discuss "sociological methods" to determine the interaction between Jews and Christians in Antioch, one must first, in my opinion, establish the existence, by archaeology, of a viable, functioning, extant christian community in Antioch, prior to Lord Constantine's imposition of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.

Can you suggest another seismic shift in society, comparable to Constantine's imposition of Christianity, progression of which has been successfully elaborated using the methods of Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Karl Marx? I confess to being very fond of the writings of Rosa Luxemburg, but I doubt that her knowledge, skill, and linguistic expertise, can be invoked to explain the rise of fascism in Germany, the very force which led to her assassination by the Freikorps, established in the eighteenth century.

I need someone to explain why any Jew, of any age, would not consider the single most important aspect of his/her religion, the contract, the agreement, the covenant, between YHWH, and humans. In my narrow minded view, belief in the sacred covenant is the single most important aspect of Judaism, which distinguishes it better than anything else, from all other religions. Perhaps I err in that opinion.

But, if I err not, then, why would ANY Jew, follow the direction of a guy, (Paul/Saul) who is NOT a Jewish religious leader, informing them of a "new" covenant? Give up the old, and follow the new??? I don't have a degree in Sociology, but common sense suggests that no amount of sociological theory is going to assist us to understand why any Jew would forsake the ancient "truth" to follow an apostate. On the other hand, "Turkey" as we call it, was an integral component of the Greek, and then Roman Empire. Folks there built huge stone temples to honor Herakles. Jews were not a huge majority in that region. Pagans were. If you seek to know, the ethnicity of the earliest Christians, in ancient "Turkey", then look to the pagans, not the Jews. I guess that is sociology, then, isn''t it?
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by Charles Wilson »

Leucius Charinus wrote:The historical reliability of the Acts has been the focus of much scholarship in the last century, especially as contrasted with the epistles, which at times contradict its outlined narrative.
'N as we all by now, Acts is a Docudrama written around that wacky ol' Governor of Syria, Mucianus. Also making the Second Team All-Stars is the 12th Legion. It's all in Tacitus, especially Histories, Book 4. We all know that.

Now, can we all calm down just a little? LC has put quite a bit of work into his Thesis and, though it may get on your nerves a bit, he's still is shooting at a little consistency which is a Good Thing. The other Good Thing is that his initials aren't SH, ya' know? Anybody think SH is only taking today's meds like he's spoz'ta? Anybody?...Anyb-...Never mind.

Keep Posting LC.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by outhouse »

Stephan Huller wrote:Because he's a demented loon.

Throw him out.
I keep him on ignore so he does not distract from any possible advancement in knowledge.


When poisoning the well is the best possible outcome maybe it is time :tombstone:
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Peter Kirby wrote:The thrust of the link is to call into question the assumed Jewish context of early Christianity (in hermetic, insulated, restrictive fashion), in response to the argument that the crucifixion is historical because otherwise Jesus would not have been portrayed as crucified (that being too far removed a thought for Jews to attribute to a Messiah) ... if I've understood it anyway.

The quote highlighted seems to me to be out of proportion only in expressing shock (and perhaps in its certitude).

But you really should come down off your ledge. I don't understand the point of your quotation or engagement along any such dimension as long as you've already consigned all these texts to your fantasized 4th century thingamabob. You can't meaningfully engage in a discussion of the realities of ante-Nicene Christianity from inside that bubble of yours. On your stated view of things, this whole essay you quote is meaningless, an exercise in distinctions without a difference - no matter what, it was all forged to look that way for unknown reasons in the 4th century.

Why don't you give that up and engage the subject as you seem wont to do?
Stephan Huller wrote:Because he's a demented loon. Like trying to ask a terrorist to reintegrate into society. He never comes to a forum to actually "discuss" anything. He's acting the part of a spy or a clandestine "agent" for his demented theory. Throw him out.
FFS the author clearly states he is following the Dutch Radical position. FFS the quote highlighted has a conditional IF in its preface. The position as I read it runs like this. If Acts is bullshit and Paul is really "Pseudo-Paul" then what is left of the Jewishness in the NT? One needs only to read what little has been translated from the works of Bruno Bauer (who inspired the research of the Dutch Radicals) to see that Bauer was one of the first to attempt to carefully demonstrate that some New Testament writers freely borrowed from Seneca the Stoic. He writes that 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."

As I have recently written on a few other threads (including one on Bauer), according to Bauer Christian origins was a 2nd century literary enterprise. IDK precisely where the author of the mythicist files article cited in the OP is heading. But it seems to be in the direction of Bruno Bauer and not away from him.

So for the purposes of friendly discussion treat me like Bruno Bauer. The NT is a second century fabrication, with the signature of Roman involvement. It is as Jewish as the Song of Hiawatha is Ojibway. The LXX obviously had to have had Jewish roots because it is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. But there are outstanding unanswered questions about the historical authenticity of the "Christianised LXX", and the century in which it was last edited by Christians. But the NT need have no Jewish roots if it was authored and cobbled together by a (late?) second century Roman oriented literary school. This opinion follows Bauer.

So kick Bauer's opinions out of the discussion if you don't like them.




LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
Post Reply