The Origins of Christianity

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Origins of Christianity

Post by neilgodfrey »

Clive wrote:As Homer was rewritten over the centuries, was there a constant need to rewrite Judaism? If you are God's chosen people and stuff happens, how do you explain that?
Thomas L. Thompson has argued the answer is a resounding Yes. The lessons in the Jewish scriptures have a constant theme: this is the story of an earlier generation, of the Israel of old -- Don't be like them, be a new and purified Israel.

Always the narratives are written to show the failures of a previous generation and as a warning not to follow. The message throughout the scriptures is to learn from the old Israel and become the new Israel. This topos was continued with the gospels. Mark has the twelve disciples (reminders of the hard hearted twelve tribes of old) themselves set up as the foils from whom the readers were to learn. They failed; don't be like them.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Origins of Christianity

Post by MrMacSon »

neilgodfrey wrote:
MrMacSon wrote: While I can agree with most of that, as an abstract commentary, at least, I get the impression you've set a dichotomy at 70 CE, and an absolute dichotomy at that.
If I understand your question correctly then, yes, the story of Jesus that we find in the gospels was unknown until after the Jewish War. The narrative itself is, I think, best understood as an attempt to address needs that came about because of that war (I also have the Second Jewish War in the back of my mind and all the rebellions/riots that took place in between among the various Jewish centres, but there are too many more unknowns to be addressed if we go that route).

The gospel narratives were woven around the Jewish scriptures and pointed to a "fulfilment" of those scriptures. The death of Jesus is for the first time set down as part allegory of the destruction of the old Temple and Mosaic order.
neilgodfrey wrote: The messiah idea (as in a conquering Davidic hero to take over the political rule) only emerged during the Jewish war of 66-70 itself, and up to or again in the 130s with the Second Revolt. This concept of the messiah was not part of mainstream turn of the century Jewish thought, nor of Paul's, till then. The gospels are responding to the militaristic Davidic idea of a messiah that had emerged as part of the events of 70 CE.
MrMacSon wrote: Which "turn-of-the-century 'Jewish-thought'" are you referring to? ie. the turn of which century?
Around the time the birth/appearance of Jesus is set.
MrMacSon wrote:... do you want to elaborate on the forms of Jewish thought you were alluding to /thinking of?
Jewish scholar-of-Judaism Daniel Boyarim is one of several who pointed to the rabbinic interpretation of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah ... this figure was of a Messiah who would suffer and die yet be resurrected, ...this rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah could not have been in response to Christian beliefs, and that it had to have been inherited from pre-Christian times. The reason it could not have been borrowed from Christianity was that the belief emerged at a time of extreme Jewish-Christian animosity and loathing of one another.

Also Book of Enoch speaks of the death of a messiah that is quite distinct from Christian traditions. Also Daniel, of course, including the 'Son of Man' passage that represents the deaths of the Maccabean martyrs and their "resurrection" to independence. This passage (Hengel argues) was also derived in part from Isaiah's Suffering Servant prophecy, and then Daniel's 'Son of Man' image was interpreted more literally in the Book of Enoch. We can trace the progression of Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 53's Suffering Servant passage from metaphor to a literal figure in Enoch. It is unclear when Enoch was composed, with some suggesting it was later first century, and others prior to that. Even if it was later first century it was still composed around the time the first gospels were being written and is nonetheless independent of them.

The whole idea of the Christ being crucified by Romans, ..his death being associated with the end of the Temple (torn curtain), ..his tomb being a midrash on the destroyed first temple (Isaiah 22:16 -- tomb carved out of a rock), ..him being mocked as a false messiah (such as emerged at the time of the War), and the very emphasis on crucifixion itself (the Jewish War saw thousands of Jews crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem) --- the author or creator of this Passion Narrative was writing in the context of the War and its aftermath.
Cheers Neil.

I agree that
  • "The [Jesus] narrative itself is ..best understood as an attempt to address needs that came about because of the [Jewish-Roman ] war/s'
that
  • "The gospel narratives were woven around the Jewish scriptures, and pointed to a "fulfilment" of those scriptures"
    • (as you summarized in your last passage: Isaiah (esp ISa. 53); Daniel; Enoch, etc)
and
  • that "The death of Jesus is - for the first time - set down as part allegory of the destruction of the old Temple and Mosaic order"

I also agree that
  • "The gospels are responding to the militaristic Davidic idea of a messiah"

but I think it is still hard to know whether "the militaristic Davidic idea of a messiah" is a response to
  • 1. the events of 70 CE per se, or
  • 2. events throughout all the period 70 - 130 CE, or
  • 3. as much, if not more, the events of 130-134 CE.
I note you said (in parentheses)
neilgodfrey wrote:
  • I also have the Second Jewish War in the back of my mind, and all the rebellions/riots that took place in between among the various Jewish centres, but there are too many more unknowns to be addressed if we go that route
While it is hard to properly know about "all the rebellions/riots that took place in between among the various Jewish centres", and that it is hard to know the context of all the events of the main 2nd Jewish War, ie. the Bar Kokhba Revolt (cf. the Kito uprisings in Nth Africa), I think that it is worth considering the eventual full Jesus narratives being a response to the total period 70 CE to 135 CE and not just the events around 70 CE.

Have you read or considered
or
  • E. Tigchelaar's “Is the Liar Bar Kokhba? Considering the Date and Provenance of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter”, in:
    The Apocalypse of Peter , eds. J.N. Bremmer, I. Czachesz (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha, 7), Leuven, 2003.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: The Origins of Christianity

Post by iskander »

Clive wrote:Don't forget Pentecost :-)

So was Jesus 40 years before the destruction of the temple a test?

Are the cross, crucifixion and resurrection imports into something else? They don't seem to fit into the narrative, that sounds like another cycle of Jews do wrong, prophet turns up, an empire - Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Greeks, Romans - causes havoc, some form of resolution. (Noah, Moses ....)
Why should I remember Pentecost? :)

No.
The Jewish reformer was a man and never resuscitated. It is a religious story.--- not a medical one :D
Last edited by iskander on Sun Jun 12, 2016 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: The Origins of Christianity

Post by iskander »

Clive wrote:As Homer was rewritten over the centuries, was there a constant need to rewrite Judaism? If you are God's chosen people and stuff happens, how do you explain that? Your god is not like the others, who are fickle, you have to explain why stuff happens. Continually being trampled means you have to come up with more and more explanations that evolve.

Cycles of 40 are used as motifs, sons of god get invented.

The New Testament is in the traditions of the prophets :-) with new imported bits as iterations cause imports from whatever the new empire is to be assimilated.

If there isn't a prophet obviously to hand, invent one?
The history of the Israelites often mentions religious activity , it is different now.

There are no cycles of 40. Son of God is only a religious expression.

The New Testament is not the Jewish reformer :)

No there is none, Mohamed is the last invented prophet.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Origins of Christianity

Post by neilgodfrey »

MrMacSon wrote: Have you read or considered
',
Yes
  • L. Gaston's No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels, Leiden, 1970, p. 44.
No. Looks interesting.
  • or
    • E. Tigchelaar's “Is the Liar Bar Kokhba? Considering the Date and Provenance of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter”, in:
      The Apocalypse of Peter , eds. J.N. Bremmer, I. Czachesz (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha, 7), Leuven, 2003, pp.63–77,
No, but have read an argument identifying the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians with Bar Kokhba.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The Origins of Christianity

Post by andrewcriddle »

neilgodfrey wrote:
The whole idea of the Christ being crucified by Romans, and his death being associated with the end of the Temple (torn curtain) and his tomb being a midrash on the destroyed first temple (Isaiah 22:16 -- tomb carved out of a rock) and him being mocked as a false messiah (such as emerged at the time of the War) and the very emphasis on crucifixion itself (the Jewish War saw thousands of Jews crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem) --- the author or creator of this Passion Narrative was writing in the context of the War and its aftermath.
The crucifixion of the Christ is Pauline and hence earlier than 70 CE.
And if Paul regarded the crucifixion as an event on earth in the relatively recent past then it is extremely likely that he regarded it as an event carried out by the Romans.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Tenorikuma
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:40 am

Re: The Origins of Christianity

Post by Tenorikuma »

That's the problem, isn't it, Andrew? Paul never seems to place the crucifixion in a specific place or time period. Determining what Paul "likely" thought runs the danger of begging the question.

An additional problem, if Romans 13 is genuinely Pauline, would be reconciling Paul's view of the Roman authorities ("God's servants" who punish only wrongdoers) with Jesus as an innocent man tortured to death.
Last edited by Tenorikuma on Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Origins of Christianity

Post by neilgodfrey »

andrewcriddle wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:
The whole idea of the Christ being crucified by Romans, and his death being associated with the end of the Temple (torn curtain) and his tomb being a midrash on the destroyed first temple (Isaiah 22:16 -- tomb carved out of a rock) and him being mocked as a false messiah (such as emerged at the time of the War) and the very emphasis on crucifixion itself (the Jewish War saw thousands of Jews crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem) --- the author or creator of this Passion Narrative was writing in the context of the War and its aftermath.
The crucifixion of the Christ is Pauline and hence earlier than 70 CE.
And if Paul regarded the crucifixion as an event on earth in the relatively recent past then it is extremely likely that he regarded it as an event carried out by the Romans.

Andrew Criddle
Of course the crucifixion of the Christ is Pauline and pre-70. That was the the root from which the gospel narrative was developed. But we know the evidence of Paul's own writings indicates that he had praise for the god-directed justice of the Roman authorities. The risk is making assumptions about what is likely on the basis of the gospel narratives. But this is a well-worn discussion.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The Origins of Christianity

Post by andrewcriddle »

neilgodfrey wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:
The whole idea of the Christ being crucified by Romans, and his death being associated with the end of the Temple (torn curtain) and his tomb being a midrash on the destroyed first temple (Isaiah 22:16 -- tomb carved out of a rock) and him being mocked as a false messiah (such as emerged at the time of the War) and the very emphasis on crucifixion itself (the Jewish War saw thousands of Jews crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem) --- the author or creator of this Passion Narrative was writing in the context of the War and its aftermath.
The crucifixion of the Christ is Pauline and hence earlier than 70 CE.
And if Paul regarded the crucifixion as an event on earth in the relatively recent past then it is extremely likely that he regarded it as an event carried out by the Romans.

Andrew Criddle
Of course the crucifixion of the Christ is Pauline and pre-70. That was the the root from which the gospel narrative was developed. But we know the evidence of Paul's own writings indicates that he had praise for the god-directed justice of the Roman authorities. The risk is making assumptions about what is likely on the basis of the gospel narratives. But this is a well-worn discussion.
Part of my point is that there is a problem IMO in regarding a doctrine as clearly post-70 if that doctrine is an almost inevitable consequence of understanding Paul as referring to an event on earth in the relatively recent past.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The Origins of Christianity

Post by andrewcriddle »

Tenorikuma wrote:That's the problem, isn't it, Andrew? Paul never seems to place the crucifixion in a specific place or time period. Determining what Paul "likely" thought runs the danger of begging the question.
Paul clearly understood the death of Jesus as something only recently known to have happened.
I have never found plausible the idea that Paul regarded the crucifixion as something that had already happened when the Old Testament was written.
IMO Paul clearly regards the coming of Christ as something the OT writers predicted as future but which has in relatively recent times actually happened.
Tenorikuma wrote: An additional problem, if Romans 13 is genuinely Pauline, would be reconciling Paul's view of the Roman authorities ("God's servants" who punish only wrongdoers) with Jesus as an innocent man tortured to death.
If there is a problem of reconciling Romans 13 and 1 Corinthians 2:8 then I doubt if it is resolved by putting the crucifixion in the heavenly regions.

From a long ago post
In 1 Corinthians 2 Paul refers to Christ being killed by the "rulers of this age". IIUC you, (maybe correctly), regard "rulers of this age" here as being a reference to angelic/daemonic rulers.

However such angelic/daemonic rulers are, almost certainly, as part of their job description, the spiritual forces behind earthly power structures. (See the later chapters of Daniel for this idea of the heavenly princes of the nations.)

Hence if Paul regarded earthly authorities as God's agents, then he almost certainly regarded the angelic/daemonic world rulers as also God's agents, although at least one of these must (according to Corinthians) have been involved in the death of Christ.

My explanation of Paul's thought here would emphasise the importance of spiritual blindness/ignorance. IE the powers killed Christ not realising what they were doing. They are intrinsically fallible but not intrinsically malicious.
(This is true whether the powers concerned are human or angelic/daemonic.)

Andrew Criddle
Andrew Criddle
Post Reply