A Summary History of Christian Origins?

[MrMacSon]

Andrew Criddle once mentioned that he could be dated later, even if his letters were authentic.

as did Carrier in a reply to a comment on his recent Paul blog-post.

The do seem to fit for the second century in general, although we should perhaps also mention Huller's mediating position that '3' may be authentic...

'3' as in a category above, or 3rd century?

The Ignatiana, 1 Peter, Revelation, and the Paulina themselves all provide a window on letter-writing in Asia Minor and named recipient churches. A little bit later, so do the Dionysian letters, from Dionysius of Corinth, mentioned by Eusebius.

Yes, I was just thinking about Revelation, and also thinking about Melito of Sardis ..

The author of the Ignatiana perhaps fit the description of proto catholic, while being written slightly before the "publication" of the letters of the Paul by Marcion and, thus, perhaps before the strategy to avoid the letters at all costs were firmly fixed. It doesn't appeal to the letters as scripture, but it does know them and does regard Paul well. This fits the first half of the second century.

Another possible proto catholic would be the author of the Polycarp letter.

all these are Asia Minor.

Robert Taylor (in his Diegesis) alleged that Melito said Christianity

• had flourished before the time attributed to it
• did not originate in Judea, a province of the Roman empire; it was an importation from some foreign countries which lay beyond the boundaries of that empire.

in Melito's Apology to Marcus Aurelius ??

(It'd be interesting to know if Melito or Taylor interpreting Melito meant out side the Roman empire or just outside the province of Judea).

- Melito tried to convince the emperor to rethink his policies since "Christianity only brought greatness and success to Rome."

[Peter Kirby]

The do seem to fit for the second century in general, although we should perhaps also mention Huller's mediating position that 3 may be authentic...

'3' as in a category above, or 3rd century?

Three letters. Three letters of Ignatius. The shorter shorter Ignatius. The Syriac Ignatius.

[Bernard Muller]

I do not think that the Matthew/Luke sayings material, as a whole, is representative of any group, because I take most of the material was fabricated after gMark was known, by differents authors, more so "Matthew" & "Luke".
I consider only a few of the Q sayings to be authentic (and collected before 70 AD), because they are according to what a rustic preacher would say to poor Jews, in the wake of John the Baptist's preaching, arrest & then execution.
This small collection of deemed authentic sayings would be representative of the belief of the first disciples, as imparted by their guru.

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

Three letters of Ignatius. The shorter shorter Ignatius. The Syriac Ignatius.

Interesting ....

[MrMacSon]

There are Syrian versions of an Apology attributed to Melito; so did Melito write two Apologies, or did someone write one in his name (and include aspects of Justin Martyr's Apology in it)

• http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/i ... -wace.html

[andrewcriddle]

Another key figure is Ignatius though his 7 epistles written in Asia minor (west Anatolia) ~ 107-8 AD/CE while on his way to alleged martyrdom in Rome (it seems weird a prisoner was allowed a tour de force)

Andrew Criddle once mentioned that he could be dated later, even if his letters were authentic.

Just to clarify, I regard the Ignatian letters as making more sense in the reign of Hadrian than in the reign of Trajan.

The only real reason for dating Ignatius in the time of Trajan is a belief in the rough accuracy of the dates for the early bishops of Antioch. Eusebius is our oldest surviving authority for these dates, they probably go back to Julius Africanus but that is still not very early evidence.

Andrew Criddle

[andrewbos]

A history of Christian origins that looks something like this, Stephan, might account for all that (and much else).

(A) RELATIVELY INDEPENDENT (with some possible interaction) IN THE PERIOD UP TO THE YEAR 70

• 1) Possibly Nazoreans, or possibly Jacob-(the-Just)-ians, or possibly Galilean Cynics, or possibly even revolutionaries, an Aramaic-speaking group (presumably), to be associated with the Mt//Lk synoptic sayings material, and to be located either in Jerusalem or in rural Syria/Galilee or both. (The most mysterious and difficult-to-pin-down group in Christian origins, which some don't even believe existed... and might not have...)

I would have A1 as: '

1) 'An Aramaic-speaking group, to be associated wit the Mt//Lk synoptic saying material (not containing material copied by the author of Luke from Matthew), and to be located either in Jerusalem or in rural Syria/Galilee or both, possibly a mystic-guru cult centered on the teachings and the personality of their divine-like guru Yeshua.'

[DCHindley]

What I find more interesting than the A-1 conundrum is that nobody has yet really tried to tear apart B through D (aside from the absolute chronology).

Does it represent a limited consensus of the members of the forum?

Not to me. But is that surprising?

The earliest followers of Jesus were following a man with an inclusive idea. The day of judgment (the Day of the LORD) was coming when the messiah would establish a bountiful kingdom of God on earth in the region known in old times as the Land of Canaan (essentially southern Syria and the areas populated by the Judeans). It would become the center of a worldwide empire that would replace all other empires and kingdoms that then existed (Roman, Parthian, etc). This idea of a coming new empire, one that would be just and fair, was as appealing to many gentiles as it was to many Judeans.

How they expected this to occur is a subject of speculation, but I suspect that they expected this to be effected by men led by a messiah along with angelic assistance. It is not clear to me whether Jesus thought of himself as this messiah figure or not, but I kind of doubt it. What set Jesus' movement apart form other messianic or royal claimants was that he was happy to allow non-Jews to participate by assimilation into the body of Israel.

These non-Judeans who were drawn to Jesus' teachings on the messianic age were residents of the region who felt oppressed, mainly tenant farmers (peasants) on estates controlled by the elites of the reigning government but also villagers like scribes and merchants. Many of these non-Judeans had circumcised themselves and were attempting to follow Judean ancestral law as best they could, including participation in temple worship and its sacrifices. They may have rationalized Jesus' death by the authorities as meaning he was himself the Messiah, and would be resurrected on that Day to lead the change of empire as God's representative on earth. All the dead saints would be resurrected to live in this fruitful earth, while the sinners would be sent to eternal destruction. Those pagans who survived this change of government would live and die as tributaries to the messianic kingdom, which they would have to accept as a fait accompli.

Many Judeans, though, were not so open to this idea and there were extremists on both sides who would ethnically cleanse the region given the opportunity. When the Judean revolt occurred, there was ethnic cleansing by extremists on both sides of the conflict. They turned on the moderates, who had been happy to co-exist together as equals and saw no need for a change in government, and either drove them out or killed them as well. Still, many Jews fought with the pagan residents of mixed and non-Judean towns, only to be betrayed by their "neighbors".

Josephus gives a full account of this bloody conflict between extremists of both sides. The closest modern parallel would be the ethnic struggles that occurred as the former Yugoslavia dissolved in the 1980s after the death of Marshal Tito, especially between Serbs and Bosnians. The moderates who wanted to live together as before, often called "Bosniacs" in the capital of the Bosnian region, Sarajevo, suffered the brunt of it.

Where this left our gentile converts who followed the messianic ideas of or about a moderate Jesus, is not hard to see. They were turned on as well and the survivors took this betrayal of trust by their Judean "brothers" pretty hard. They renounced their conversions and rationalized Jesus into a divine redeemer on the model of the mystery religions they had previously been familiar with, incorporating some well known Middle Platonic concepts.

They still hoped for a prosperous messianic age but believed that it was reserved for them, gentiles who worshipped the God of the Judeans, with the Judeans themselves now turned away by their own God because of the folly of rebellion. The establishment of a messianic age would be by the angels of God led by the resurrected Messiah, not by man, and would be enjoyed by those who saw things as they did.

Meanwhile, Judeans found themselves without a temple or sacrifices. Some joined ranks under the Rabbis who rationalized away the circumstances as another exile and sought to preserve their traditions for a future age when God would return his favor to them.

Another smaller portion of Judeans, mainly "intellectuals" of the kind represented by Philo of Alexandria, assimilated Middle Platonic concepts and developed a gnostic understanding, in which Judeans had been mislead by an arrogant national God who was ignorant of the true situation, that souls of men (at least some) could be re-unified with the true first principals through secret knowledge. The rationalization process that led to Judean Gnosticism was similar to the rationalization process of the former gentiles who had turned Jesus into a divine redeemer. In fact, some Christians also took up these "Judean Gnostic" ideas for themselves, and became the Christian Gnostics that the proto-Orthodox writers fought against tooth and nail.

Proto-orthodox authorities ended up inventing all sorts of straw men to explain away the existence of the other POVs, whether Christian or Judean flavored Gnosticicism, rather than admit they all stemmed from the same set of circumstances, being the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple with its sacrifices. Instead of accepting that they were brothers of sorts, they saw them as enemies to be destroyed. It is the functional equivalent to creating a historical narrative that "explains away", rather then simply explaining, the reality known to the explainer. Marcionites, I will concede, were real, but were IMHO a brand of Christian gnostic based loosely on Platonic cosmology.

Amen and amen.

Ain't rationalization wonderful?

DCH

Disclaimer: All rationalizations proposed by me are intended as explanations of historical evidence, and not intended to "explain them away". If you agree with my rationalizations, then they are good and reasonable ones. if you do not agree with my rationalizations, then they are evil and foolish and the operators of this forum cannot be blamed for them.

[Giuseppe]

Josephus gives a full account of this bloody conflict between extremists of both sides. The closest modern parallel would be the ethnic struggles that occurred as the former Yugoslavia dissolved in the 1980s after the death of Marshal Tito, especially between Serbs and Bosnians. The moderates who wanted to live together as before, often called "Bosniacs" in the capital of the Bosnian region, Sarajevo, suffered the brunt of it.

Only as pure speculation, I would use your modern parallel in order to help to figure the birth of a revelatory cult in Israel I CE. I think about the presumed ''facts'' in Medjugorje, that some have made a symbol of local nationalism and that remembers me what Carrier has written about apocalyptic Cargo cults, also.

[MrMacSon]

The earliest followers of Jesus were following a man with an inclusive idea. The day of judgment (the Day of the LORD) was coming when the messiah would establish a bountiful kingdom of God on earth in the region known in old times as the Land of Canaan (essentially southern Syria and the areas populated by the Judeans). It would become the center of a worldwide empire that would replace all other empires and kingdoms that then existed (Roman, Parthian, etc). This idea of a coming new empire, one that would be just and fair, was as appealing to many gentiles as it was to many Judeans.

How they expected this to occur is a subject of speculation, but I suspect that they expected this to be effected by men led by a messiah along with angelic assistance.

They might have been following a narrative about a man with an exclusive idea. Or even a narrative about an angel.