The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2842
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Blood wrote:
Bertie wrote:
1. The entire textual evidence from canonical sources to patristic sources to apocryphal Scriptures and even the surviving hostile witnesses puts the start of the cult in Judea. That counts for something.
Yeah. It means that "according to the scriptures" (i.e,. the tendentious, Gentile fantasy misinterpretation of the Septuagint) "the Christ" had to be killed "by the Jews" in Jerusalem during the Passover. That's all that the "textual evidence" (i.e. theological, prophetic, Hal Lindseyesque BS) means. Nothing more. Similarly, according to all the textual sources for Conan, he had to become king of Cimmeria one day.
2. Jewish Christianity is of course attested in the sources long after the first century (like the Ebionites) and we have have some surviving Scripture from some of them. I think the existence of these groups is better explained by their having been in the movement all along rather than their having joined a movement that had already become hostile to Jews by the early-mid 2nd century.
Actually I think the Ebionites are the only sect that are described as living "like the Jews" by keeping the Torah and throwing out Paul.
3. Perhaps the most subjective point — some of the early Christian writings engage with the Jewish Scriptures in a pretty deep and thoroughgoing way, and I think this is more likely to be the case if the movement had a lot of Jews or at least "god fearers" in it than if the movement was more Caesar and less Jew.
They engage with the Septuagint in a thoroughgoing but highly tendentious way, running a yellow highlighter over anything that was complimentary toward Gentiles and hostile toward Israelites and Jews and making that dichotomy absolutely central to their theology. It is therefore more likely that the Gentile God Fearers had taken the scriptures and formed their own sects long before any of them were sufficiently bold enough to start creating their own theology and pretending it, too, was scripture.

Interesting comments. Thanks.





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
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2842
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by Leucius Charinus »

maryhelena wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:
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.
One that according to the experts seemed to exclusively use the codex rather than the roll. A very high technology school ahead of its time. Some brave scholars have indeed postulated that the Christians were the inventors of the codex technology. This was at a time when the palaeographers were bravely giving early dated for NT papyri.

My own thinking puts christian origins squarely in a Jewish context. As of now, that is what makes more sense to me.......
So the "school" that produced the NT was physically in a Jewish historical context? Or what?



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
maryhelena
Posts: 2950
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by maryhelena »

Leucius Charinus wrote:
maryhelena wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:
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.
One that according to the experts seemed to exclusively use the codex rather than the roll. A very high technology school ahead of its time. Some brave scholars have indeed postulated that the Christians were the inventors of the codex technology. This was at a time when the palaeographers were bravely giving early dated for NT papyri.

My own thinking puts christian origins squarely in a Jewish context. As of now, that is what makes more sense to me.......
So the "school" that produced the NT was physically in a Jewish historical context? Or what?



LC
Yep - Jewish context. Open to evidence that demonstrates the opposite.....

:)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2842
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by Leucius Charinus »

maryhelena wrote:
Yep - Jewish context.

Open to evidence that demonstrates the opposite.....

:)

Bruno Bauer certainly wrote as if he had some evidence against this proposition. The problem is that I don't know precisely what his claims were at the moment.

First of all he rejected the 1st century as the century of the NT authorship gig.
Secondly he rejected the Jewishness of the Gospels --- AFAIK based on their use of Seneca and the Stoics.

Examples will be furnished in due course.




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]
Sheshbazzar
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by Sheshbazzar »

Leucius Charinus wrote:I appreciate the above three phase model in its ability to explain the state of the literary evidence and all its layers of polemic and propaganda.
If we are dealing with a 2nd century "school" what is there to prevent your 2nd phase to have been enacted during the 2nd century rather than the 1st century?

I did write 'In the late 1st century', and could as well have written 'In the very early 2nd century'.
But if I had written 'In the 2nd century' some would have thought I'd intended sometime around 150 CE.
Or to put a finer point on it, it would have made no difference had I suggested 199 CE (1st century) or 200 CE (2nd century)

The reason I chose to write 'In the late 1st century', was to allow for the development of and the dissemination of the complex Christian theology that is presented to us in Justin the Martyr's writings circa 150 CE. (mid 2nd century CE)
And I here note it is Justin's many internal inconsistencies with latter catholic enforced beliefs, practices, and doctrines that to me, indicate that Justin's writing are indeed early. It would be incredible and incomprehensible that any latter catholic forger would write as a saint, so many statements that were at utter odds with, and presented early evidence against so many fundamental catholic beliefs that were accounted by catholics as being ancient tradition received directly from The Apostles themselves, and in place from the foundation of the faith.
Sheshbazzar
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by Sheshbazzar »

bcedaifu wrote:Sheshbazzar wrote:
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.

I don't agree.

To adhere to the new "christian" faith, or whatever they would have called themselves, at the outset, (for I understand that "christian", as a word, appears in the fourth century for the first time), it would have been necessary firstfor a Jew to acknowledge that Paul's "new" covenant had merit.
Where do you get the idea that this had to be 'Paul's "new" covenant' _exclusively?
Any Jew who could or can read Hebrew could and can read;

הנה ימים באים נאם־יהוה וכרתי את־בית ישראל ואת־בית יהודה ברית חדשה׃
לא כברית אשר כרתי את־אבותם ביום החזיקי בידם להוציאם מארץ מצרים אשר־המה הפרו את־בריתי ואנכי בעלתי בם נאם־יהוה׃

or in reading Greek, could and can read in the LXX;

ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται φησὶν κύριος καὶ διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ καὶ τῷ οἴκῳ Ιουδα διαθήκην καινήν
οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην ἣν διεθέμην τοῖς πατράσιν αὐτῶν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου μου τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν ἐξαγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου ὅτι αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ μου καὶ ἐγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν φησὶν κύριος

And known that a 'NEW' Covenant; 'One NOT according to that Covenant made with the Fathers in the wilderness' was in the offing.

'Paul' certainly was not the first, nor the only one to announce this New Covenant, and the Scriptural Promises made to the GENTILES that believe in The Holy One of Israel.
Why would any Jew accept the notion that a lay person could announce a "new" covenant, one that throws out the former contract between God and his chosen people, and replaces it with a novel agreement, demanding equality among the despised gentiles and Jews intermingled together, as if the two groups shared something in common?
Perhaps because Jews who were well acquainted with the content of the Tanakh, and with the specific promises made therein, first to 'Jews', and subsequently to 'all of the NATIONS of the earth', it wasn't news of anything that they had not long expected.
Eat pork? Drink blood? Cease circumcision?

Jews are Jews. Gentiles (other 'nations') are Gentiles, and the two are never the same. Not even in Revelations.
Different peoples, separate, and subject if willing, to different sets of rules.
Replace Moses with Paul?
Only if you 'buy' the content of texts that catholocism spent centuries in cooking.

Moses, and The Law which was by Moses is never replaced. What laws of foods, clothes, and of Sabbath and Festival observances, Moses wrote of, applies only to Torah observant Jews.
Never in Moses did these apply to righteous 'ger toshavim' the 'strangers within thy gates'.
These, freely living in their uncircumcision of the flesh, were barred from the eating of the Passover Seder, and so being, never were 'under' nor subject to the restrictions of that Covenant which Scripturally Moses enjoined upon the nation of Israel alone out of all the earth's peoples.
Are you serious? No Jew, of any flavor, would have accepted the essence of Christianity.
Yes, I am very serious. Sorry dude. But some Jews most certainly did, some Jews most certainly have, and some Jews most certainly do 'accept the essence' of The Way.
And over the centuries, the total number of Jews walking in The Way numbers into the tens of thousands.
Had he existed, Jesus would have been viewed by Jews as yet another false pretender.
Obviously he was by most Jews. But again, at any given point in history there have always been those of Jewish birth and upbringing who have and do embrace Y'shuah ha'Notzeri as being ha'Meshiach and their 'Ga'al (Redeemer)
Christianity began with all kinds of yokels, but most assuredly, not with Jews.
As I have stated before, these 1st century Jews who accepted ha'Adon Y'shuah ha'Meshiach as being their Redeeming kinsman did not use the word 'Christian', many lived out their Torah observant lives never having heard of any such foreign fabricated insult, much less applied it to themselves.

Sheshbazzar
Last edited by Sheshbazzar on Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by John T »

bcedaifu wrote: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....
@ bcedaifu,

I still struggle to understand your justification for your points of view and since you pleaded with me to continue, perhaps it would be helpful for you to understand where I'm coming from.

1. I have very little doubt that Jesus had a brother named James. After the death of Jesus, his brother James, a.k.a. The Just was in charge of the Christian movement. Paul was in constant loggerheads with James. James was still very much in the belief that salvation would be given to those who diligently followed the law but for Paul, salvation would be based on faith and not works. Do I need to cite scripture/sources, or is that a given?

2. Both agreed that it would be Jesus as the Son of God/Man that would usher in this new salvation at his second coming.

3. The term Son of God, Messiah and prophet, can be loosely interchangeable in meaning.

4. Prophets are messengers sent by God to announce/carry out his mission.

5. The gospels were written decades after the dead/resurrection of Jesus.

6. Mark (a companion of Peter and purportedly his interpreter in Rome) is the first major biographer of the life and times of Jesus. His gospel was written between 55-65 A.D.

7. Mark clearly states in the very first verse that Jesus Christ is the Son (huiou) of God. However, it was upon the baptism of Jesus that God adopted Jesus as his son and messenger. Mark 1:9-11. Still, there can be no doubt pagans would ask what do you mean by 'Son of God'? Do you mean Jesus was conceived like Hercules who was the son of Zeus and his mother the mortal Alcmene? The later synoptic gospels used Mark as a source while trying to smooth over the confusing points.

8. So, you asked me once again to look at the Greek text for Son of God. I already have, (many times over the years) and have concluded the nuance of the term 'Son of God' was misinterpreted by some genitals, mainly due to scribes who tried and failed to translate it.

9. However, those perceived errors/discrepancies does not mean I can leap to the conclusion that the epistles of Paul and 1 Peter were originally written by the same author in the 2nd century. Instead, I will entertain the notion that perhaps during the late 2nd century due to the Marcion/gnositc heresy, the church leaders in an honest attempt for cohesiveness/clarity made edits and comments in the margins which were later interpolated, thus giving the appearances of conspiracy when none existed.

10. With that all said, Christianity is a concurrent/direct descendent of Judaism.

Does that clear things up?

Sincerely,
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
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 »

John T wrote:
10. With that all said, Christianity is a concurrent/direct descendent of Judaism.
According to Ignatius of Antioch, it's the other way around.
CHAPTER X.--BEWARE OF JUDAIZING.

Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour ye shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... berts.html
Last edited by arnoldo on Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2842
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by Leucius Charinus »

arnoldo wrote:
John T wrote:
10. With that all said, Christianity is a concurrent/direct descendent of Judaism.
According to Igatius of Antioch, it's the other way around.
CHAPTER X.--BEWARE OF JUDAIZING.

Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour ye shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... berts.html
Nice catch arnoldo.



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
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2842
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: The Myth of Jewish Christianity

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Sheshbazzar wrote: The reason I chose to write 'In the late 1st century', was to allow for the development of and the dissemination of the complex Christian theology that is presented to us in Justin the Martyr's writings circa 150 CE. (mid 2nd century CE)
And I here note it is Justin's many internal inconsistencies with latter catholic enforced beliefs, practices, and doctrines that to me, indicate that Justin's writing are indeed early. It would be incredible and incomprehensible that any latter catholic forger would write as a saint, so many statements that were at utter odds with, and presented early evidence against so many fundamental catholic beliefs that were accounted by catholics as being ancient tradition received directly from The Apostles themselves, and in place from the foundation of the faith.
Thanks for the explanation involving Father Justin.
Joseph Wheless on Father Justin: http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/a ... Martyr.htm
  • Father Justin also retails to the Emperor the old fable of
    Simon Magus and his magical miracles at Rome, and attributes it all
    to the work of the devils. For "the evil spirits, not being
    satisfied with saying, before Christ's appearance, that those who
    were said to be sons of Jupiter were born of him, but after he
    appeared, ... and when they learned how He had been foretold by the
    prophets, put forward again other men, the Samaritans Simon and
    Menander, who did many mighty works by magic; ... and so greatly
    astonished the sacred Senate and people of the Romans that he was
    considered a god, and honored with a statue; ... which statue was
    erected in the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this
    inscription in the language of Rome: 'Simoni Deo Sancto -- To Simon
    the holy God" (I Apol. chs. xxvi, lvi; ANF. i, 171, 182; cf. Iren.
    Adv. Haer. ch. xxiii; ANF. i, 347-8; Euseb. HE. II, 13.) We have
    seen this much embroidered "tradition" myth exploded, and the
    statue discovered and deciphered, it being a simple private pious
    monument to a Pagan god!
This reference in Justin to Simon Magus (often compared to Paul) is interesting considering that Simon Magus stars in a number of non canonical writings, including the Clementines. Haven't made up my mind about the limits of Catholic forgery yet, although I am aware of hundreds of Latin documents supposedly from Christians in the first three centuries being forged by the Pseudo-Isidorian forgery mill in the mid 9th century.

At the moment this OP is leading me to try and work out what was in the mind of Bruno Bauer in terms of his 2nd century Non-Jewish Christian Origins theory, and the evidence he adduced to support his claims.




LC
Last edited by Leucius Charinus on Wed Jan 21, 2015 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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