The Myth of Jewish Christianity

[Bertie]

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?

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. For what it is worth, Mr. Parvus's radical theory on the Vridar site also puts Christian origins within Judaism (and its fringe) as I believe does Mr. Huller's radical theory on this site. I believe they are correct to do so.

[Sheshbazzar]

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

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.
There was some really weird shit going down back then.

.

[Blood]

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.

[Leucius Charinus]

Yes but these assholes have been told about this place and Tanya (bce---) and Pete (LC) won't listen. There is no point. It has been brought up year after year and these imbeciles won't listen.

Stephan, I don't understand your hostility to views that differ from your's. The abuse you heap on other members of this forum (which I have been a recipient of) is uncalled for. I understand that you have heard this particular conspiracy theory many times, and feel that it is thoroughly refuted. I understand that you are tired of this conversation and the fact that it continues to raise its head. So here is some advice for you: (a) don't read the tread, (b) ignore those posters who you think do not contribute constructively to the conversation.

There is value in revisiting discredited theories. First, there is always the possibility that the theory is correct and has been discarded (Type II error). Second, reiterating the reasons for rejecting a theory has educational value for others who might not have encountered a particular theory and are not familiar with the logical landmines that might be hidden there. Let Pete and Tanya have their thread. if you have constructive criticisms, then by all means, contribute them, they could be helpful. It is a simple truth that people rarely change their minds on a position that they have become committed to. The purpose of contributing is not to persuade them that they are wrong, but to educate others.

I really dislike the intolerance you display here almost every day. I think you would be quite happy with a forum of just you, for you to converse with yourself. I don't think the rest of us want that.

Thanks for such a refreshing display of considered objectivity Cienfuegos.


LC

[Sheshbazzar]

Oh hell, I don't have to agree with everything Pete suggests, to profit from the reading of the reams of ancient texts and citations that he provides this Forum.
Just like any other poster on these Forums, I am able to take Pete's personal opinions and persuasions with a grain of salt, examine them, and then form my own persuasions, opinions, and conclusions.
Much territory I would never have ventured into were it not via exposure to unpopular controversies created by the Pete's and Adam's of this Forum.
Back in IIDB days I jousted with Adam at length, disagreeing with just about everything he presented, But I regard it all as to having been to my profit.
I would not wish to stifle the voice of anyone, and I have no one on ignore, as knowledge and skill is increased through wholehearted engagement in controversies.
I'm certainly not on this Forum to have my thoughts be dictated and controlled by the mind numbing assertions of HJ cultists.

.

[Leucius Charinus]

I will admit Jesus existed in the 1st century if there is sufficient evidence to support the contention. At the moment the evidence, as interpreted by a number of academics cited above, is that the author or authors of Paul, the gospels and acts did their literary authorship gig in the 2nd century.

I'm sorry to belabor this point but I'm trying so hard to figure out what you (and others) mean by "sufficient evidence" for a historical Jesus?

Where can I find a list of criteria for this "sufficient evidence"?
Is it the same criteria for believing that Caesar's built a bridge across the Rhine, during the Gallic War in 55 BCE?

Historical_method

• Historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence, including the evidence of archaeology, to research and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past.

[wiki]Historical_method#Core_principles_for_determining_reliability[/wiki]

• Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
  Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
  The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
  An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.
  If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
  The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
  If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

Additionally I might add that the "Great Silence of the First Century" is a well known phrase. It reflects the state of evidence external to the NT Story that is able to
corroborate the NT Story. This I believe is one of the factors that have lead various academics to investigate the ability of a 2nd century NT Story to best explain ALL the evidence.

Here are some of the hypothetical implications of a 2nd century Jesus Story:

1) Jewish Christianity may be a myth. Bruno Bauer for example points to a "Roman Christianity".

2) We would seem to be dealing with a "Greek literary school" who were primarily involved with authoring the Greek NT. They appear to have been preserving an LXX that was unique to their school.





LC

[Leucius Charinus]

Methinks, if research into early christian origins is to move forward - the assumed historicity of the NT figure of Paul has to be jettisoned.

'The assumed historicity of the NT figure of Paul'.
That I believe, defines the problem in dealing with and in reaching any consistent understanding of the actual origins and phases of development of these 'Pauline' texts.

We have sets of 'NT Pauline' epistles that are assumed to have been composed in total, and substantially word for word in the form that they are quoted by, and thus attested to by, the 2nd and 3rd century CE Church Fathers.
It being assumed by these, the Christian Church, and subsequently the world at large and posterity (us), that these ("authentic") 'Pauline' epistles were/are literary productions expressive of the thoughts and theological conclusions and teachings of one single 1st century individual.
It is a common assumption and academic paradigm that most are content to employ as being a 'given', and a fundamental foundation to presentation of any 'credible' hypothesis.

This shortsighted paradigmatic assumption so long the standard and accepted view, one continually reinforced by Christian apologists, and by tradition bound academia, is what needs to be jettisoned.

Personally, I see these 'Pauline Epistles' as having developed in a series of distinct phases;

First. A Jewish writer, 'Shaul', writing to the synagogues of the Diaspora addressing the matter of the need or requirement of ger toshavim 'strangers of the gate' to follow the Torah's kashruth 'Touch not, Taste not, Handle not' restrictions.
This writer presenting a cogent argument based upon the content of Torah, Prophets, and Writings (Tanakh) that such adherence to Jewish legalism by gentile believers was not at all called for by Scripture, and was in fact contrary to those specific texts and Promises regarding the gentiles.
Some of this writers words on this subject being expanded upon, and some being edited out by latter editors and re-writes.

Second. In the late 1st century a Hellenistic 'Christos' cultist (Marcion?) encounters a collection of these Jewish letters, and 'adopts' them, adding and introducing the 'Christos Iasus' elements into the texts, mainly by simply injecting 'Iasus Christos' or 'Christos Iasus' throughout the adopted and edited copies of text. So making a 'tool' out of old Shaul the Jew.

Third. More than one 2nd century gentile writer or sect further edits and expands on their 'copies' of these now 'Pauline' texts, beginning a series of progressively more elaborate catholic theological 'arguments', and introducing material highly biased against, and critical of damned 'Jews', and of "the Jews religion".

What had began as innocent Jewish treatises defending the rights and freedoms of gentile believers attending Jewish synagogue services, was over the course of many edits, gentile-ized and (somewhat crudely and inconsistently) refashioned into a 'Judaism' hating, anti-Semitic diatribe.
Don't blame the original author for that.

The introduction of the name 'Paul' into these texts serving as an immediately identifiable Christian marker, allowing the revised and 'acceptable' Christian versions to be easily and immediately identifiable from any of the 'old' (and authentic) texts that might still be in circulation.
Thus why the early Christian authorities were so intent upon destroying all 'heretical' texts, and the burning of entire libraries.
Over a thousand years of extreme censorship, and the deliberate seeking out and destruction of all non-conforming texts, has left the world with a very distorted view of its history, and of the actual course of development of the Christian religion.

So as I see it, we end up in the 'Pauline Epistles' with a weird and warped contradictory 'Paul' character that is a composite of 3 or more centuries of religionists diddling.
The NT 'figure' of Paul is no more an accurate portrait of any historical Paul, than the Gospels are an accurate portrait of a historical Jesus. Both alike being the products of myriad religious accretions and fabrications.

Thanks for the walk around the perimeter of "The Field of Paul".

As I read this the thought crossed my mind whether there were any creedal statements of the church which were related to Paul, or are the creedal statements of the church (eg: Nicaean Creed and all subsequent) sourced from the gospels? IDK at the moment.

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? For example, a literary school is capable of producing multiple layered fabrications within a short span of time which would appear to have been authored over a much longer period of time, and so look exactly as if they had evolved in an organic type of way.

What criteria can be used to differentiate "innocent" scribal enhancements over a long period of time, and a more "fraudulent" fabrication process over a smaller timeframe?


LC

[bcedaifu]

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.

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? Eat pork? Drink blood? Cease circumcision? Replace Moses with Paul?

Are you serious? No Jew, of any flavor, would have accepted the essence of Christianity. Had he existed, Jesus would have been viewed by Jews as yet another false pretender.

Christianity began with all kinds of yokels, but most assuredly, not with Jews.

[MrMacSon]

Christianity began with all kinds of yokels, but most assuredly, not with Jews.

Maybe not primarily from primary Jews, but the milieu in which Christianity developed was a very fluid one.

I'm intrigued by the proposition that Christianity mostly developed in an increasingly Hellenised-Jewish Alexandria

[maryhelena]

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.

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? Eat pork? Drink blood? Cease circumcision? Replace Moses with Paul?

Are you serious? No Jew, of any flavor, would have accepted the essence of Christianity. Had he existed, Jesus would have been viewed by Jews as yet another false pretender.

Christianity began with all kinds of yokels, but most assuredly, not with Jews.

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.