The Origins of Christianity

[Solo]

... FWIW, Mark's narrative was likely composed as a response to a request for a collection of Paul's letters (as the gospel) by a group of messianist exiles from Jerusalem proselytizing in the neighbourhood of the Markan community (or communities). It was an elaborate hoax which was to ridicule the Jesus traditions coming from Jerusalem in favour of the theology of Christ crucified taught by Paul.

What information gives rise to "the Jesus traditions coming from Jerusalem"^ ??

Galatians at minimum. Paul also admits the existence of "another Jesus" elsewhere (2 Co 11:4).

Clearly the Cross of Christ was accepted by the Petrines.

When did 'the Petrines' accept the 'Cross of Christ'?

I think that is a a post-70 development. If Mark really ended at 16:8, as I believe it did, then the Petrine did not "see" the crucifixion and get the news of the rising of the Lord until after Mark.

On what basis do you say this? -

But, the style of Mark and the Paulines, and their vituperative attacks on the founding Jesus traditions and imperious demands that they repudiate them, were not [accepted by the Petrines].

Mark 4:10-12 (the implied demand that the Petrine wing repent for its lack of 'faith' was ridiculed by Jesus in the warning against throwing 'pearls befor swine'. Swine is transparently reference to the "unspiritual" nature of the disciples as seen by the Paulines).

This is interesting -

Matthew overthrew Mark in a spectacular fashion substituting the twelve apostles (not the same as the Twelve of the earlier gospel) for the unspoken authority of Paul expressing himself through Jesus and the gospel narrator. Matthew brilliantly turned Mark's tools against him, by absorbing his tale (90% of Mark's text is contained in Matthew) in new contexts and in textual operations which, to an outsider, would be hardly visible, but which made the story a prettier, a more conventional literary work, ergo accessible to a larger public.

- but it is contradicted by your last sentence (of that passage) viz. -

Consequently, in much of history Mark was seen as in almost total agreement with Matthew.

Is there more to explain that?

You see a contradiction there ? Where ? If you accept the view of the church that was not challenged until mid 19th century, then Matthew wrote first and Mark after him. The idea of not repudiating Mark outwardly but to containing him was a stroke of genius. Christianity would likely not have survived without this.

Best,
Jiri

[Clive]

It is possible that Rom 13:1-7 is an interpolation. (Do any scholars suggestion this?)

Yes. Refer to Peter Kirby's notes and links here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1839&p=40601#p40600.

In Rom 12:14 Paul is saying bless those who persecute you; in 12:20 “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.”. Then in Rom 13:8 he is still taking about love, but now your neighbour. Then he talks with the coming of Jesus Christ and not caring about the flesh (Rom 13:14).

Rom 12:1-7 seems strange in the context of Paul’s own sufferings 2 Cor 11:23d-25b, “with far greater labours, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. [24] Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. [25] Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned.” I assume that the lashes and the rods would have been administered by those in authority.

I have found Romans 13.1-7 to be an intractable problem so far. It comes across as so impossibly naïve that I have trouble imagining anyone having written it. Paul is hard to imagine for many reasons, some of which you have listed here. But would a forger have been unaware of the kinds of trouble that produced warnings of persecution all across the New Testament and the early patristic texts? Was there some pocket of Christianity that was nearly completely untouched by conflicts with the authorities?

Is it possible that by "authorities" Paul (or whoever) means only the Roman authorities, which during this time could at least hypothetically be counted on to stave off the excesses of local magistrates and religious rulers?

One also has to reckon with Jesus being a good person and yet crucified, according to Paul. If demons did it, problem solved. But I offer another possible solution here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1718.

Of course, the most well known example of crucifixion slavery and leadership was not that long ago or far away - Spartacus.

[outhouse]

Paul also admits the existence of "another Jesus" elsewhere (2 Co 11:4).

Jiri

This is just showing a lack of education by you admitting you cannot understand the real context.


It was in context against false teachers, not multiple jesus, just concepts from those teaching different traditions about the same one.

[Clive]

Why does one translation (DRA) read

For if he that cometh preacheth another Christ,

?

[eedipus]

... the origin of Christianity was probably a result of the destruction of the 2nd. Temple ... by the Romans in the year 70AD.

True, but do you think the "crisis point in their identity with their monotheistic God ... facing the end of their Jewish faith in their God" came then of after the put down of the Bar Kokhba revolt and the then absolute sacking of Jerusalem with no chance of rebuilding the Temple.

The Roman-Jewish Wars between 66 and136AD were a catastrophe for the Jewish people,
and in terms of religious significance I see the sack of Jerusalem and in particular the destruction
of the Temple in 70AD as the watershed between the beginning of Christianity and Rabbinic
Judaism.
The possibility of a large exodus of Jews from Palestine would have galvanized the Jewish intellectual elite to produce an answer that evolved through the centuries to what we have today.
The Bar Kokhba revolt from 132 to 135AD was certainly another crisis point but in making a choice
I would choose the destruction of the Temple in 70AD that produced the crisis in their faith and initiated the origins of Christianity.

Dennis Sutherland.

Where was the promised Messiah?

The answer to the problem was the opposite to what they had previously thought. The Messiah was not yet to come, He had already been but he had not been recognized for who he was.

It was probably a Hellenic Jew who fashioned the story of Jesus of Nazareth. He intuitively understood the real meaning of the Greek mystery cults, the Elusinian Mysteries, and wrote the story of Jesus as an allegory for how we should view life and death but, tragically, it was altered and interpreted literally. It is not that the Jesus story is untrue, but it was really intended to point to a greater truth.

An nteresting proposition.

[Solo]

Paul also admits the existence of "another Jesus" elsewhere (2 Co 11:4).

Jiri

This is just showing a lack of education by you admitting you cannot understand the real context.


It was in context against false teachers, not multiple jesus, just concepts from those teaching different traditions about the same one.

Evidently, it doesn't matter at your level of analysis there were quotation marks around another Jesus. Was kann man tun ?

Best,
Jiri

[eedipus]

... the origin of Christianity was probably a result of the destruction of the 2nd. Temple ... by the Romans in the year 70AD.

True, but do you think the "crisis point in their identity with their monotheistic God ... facing the end of their Jewish faith in their God" came then of after the put down of the Bar Kokhba revolt and the then absolute sacking of Jerusalem with no chance of rebuilding the Temple.

...the Roman-Jewish Wars between 66 and136AD were a catastrophe for the Jewish people,
and in terms of religious significance I see the sack of Jerusalem and in particular the destruction
of the Temple in 70AD as the watershed between the beginning of Christianity and Rabbinic
Judaism.
The possibility of a large exodus of Jews from Palestine would have galvanized the Jewish intellectual elite to produce an answer that evolved through the centuries to what we have today.
The Bar Kokhba revolt from 132 to 135AD was certainly another crisis point but in making a choice
I would choose the destruction of the Temple in 70AD that produced the crisis in their faith and initiated the origins of Christianity.

Dennis Sutherland.[/quote]

Where was the promised Messiah?

The answer to the problem was the opposite to what they had previously thought. The Messiah was not yet to come, He had already been but he had not been recognized for who he was.

It was probably a Hellenic Jew who fashioned the story of Jesus of Nazareth. He intuitively understood the real meaning of the Greek mystery cults, the Elusinian Mysteries, and wrote the story of Jesus as an allegory for how we should view life and death but, tragically, it was altered and interpreted literally. It is not that the Jesus story is untrue, but it was really intended to point to a greater truth.[/quote]
An nteresting proposition.[/quote]

[neilgodfrey]

Of course the crucifixion of the Christ is Pauline and pre-70.

On what basis do you . . . say these things? and, What do you mean by the crucifixion of 'the Christ'?

Good question. It's always good to be challenged and tested on the fundamentals.

Galatians 2:20; 1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:2, etc. -- hence the crucifixion of Christ is a Pauline teaching.

Paul spoke of crucifixion of the Christ as something that he personally could in some sense identify with. He "died", "mortified his old self", to have the life of Christ in him. It is a spiritual conquest relevant to Jews and gentiles alike.

That it's pre-70 I base on the evidence that Paul demonstrates no knowledge of the events of the War of 68-70. He speaks of Jews as redeemable as anyone else. That doesn't prove the texts we work with are pre-70 but it's a reasonable starting point.

[Ben C. Smith]

Of course the crucifixion of the Christ is Pauline and pre-70.

On what basis do you . . . say these things? and, What do you mean by the crucifixion of 'the Christ'?

Good question. It's always good to be challenged and tested on the fundamentals.

Galatians 2:20; 1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:2, etc. -- hence the crucifixion of Christ is a Pauline teaching.

Paul spoke of crucifixion of the Christ as something that he personally could in some sense identify with. He "died", "mortified his old self", to have the life of Christ in him. It is a spiritual conquest relevant to Jews and gentiles alike.

That it's pre-70 I base on the evidence that Paul demonstrates no knowledge of the events of the War of 68-70. He speaks of Jews as redeemable as anyone else. That doesn't prove the texts we work with are pre-70 but it's a reasonable starting point.

Not only is there no demonstration of knowledge of the War, but there are also some verses (1 Corinthians 10.18; 2 Thessalonians 2.4; Romans 9.4) which appear to presume that the temple is still standing, its sacrificial system still running. One has to be cautious with such statements, of course, as they may be abstract or idealized, but they do seem to presume a standing temple. Also, 2 Corinthians 11.32-33 (if not an interpolation) would seem to date the autobiographical episode described in those verses, at least, to the reign of Aretas III (from about 9 BC to 40 AD). Finally, patristic testimony is united in placing Paul before 70. Maybe it is all an elaborate legend, but it is something.

There is a passage in the letters that seems to postdate or presume 70 (1 Thessalonians 2.14-16), but it has been argued either to be or to contain an interpolation.

[neilgodfrey]

That's correct. The Gospel of Mark was rejecting the notion of those "world/Roman conquering" types of messiahs. Paul knew nothing of them. Paul's message was being adapted for the new situation.

What evidence can you present that Mark is concerned with a rebellious Messianic figure?

Mark 13 warns of false messiahs; Mark's Jesus admonishes Peter for holding on to a conquering-only Messiah concept; Mark's Jesus is addressing his polar opposite, a Davidic conquering messiah idea, everytime he stresses that he must, on the contrary, undergo suffering and service. He doesn't just teach suffering and service, but he teaches these in contrast to their opposites -- and the narrative tells us that the opposites are what his disciples expect in a messiah.

If the gospels (esp Mark and Matthew) are written in the tradition of the Jewish scriptures then it makes most sense to me to interpret them as saying Jesus or God "came" or "visited" Jerusalem in 70 CE.

What evidence would you produce that Mark is saying that God came to Jerusalem in 70 CE, rather than Jesus was there between 26 and 36 CE when Pilate was Prefect?

I don't think it's necessarily either/or. The events of the first coming are the reason for the "real" coming. The parable of the wicked tenants sets out the theme. God sends his servant, servant is killed, God sends his army to slay them as punishment. As for the language used by Mark to speak of the coming of God or his Christ/Son of Man .... it is drawn from the Jewish scriptures, so it is reasonable to apply to it a similar interpretation as we find there. I have set out some of the arguments here and here.

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.

It is possible that Rom 13:1-7 is an interpolation. (Do any scholars suggestion this?)

Good point. Yes it is possible. Sturdy compiled a list of scholars who argued it was an interpolation:

13:1-7, Pallis (1920); Loisy (1922: 104, 128; 1935: 30-31; 1936: 287); Windisch (1931); cf. Barnikol (1931b); Eggenberger (1945); Barnes (1947: 302, possibly); Kallas (1964-65); Munro (1983: 56f., 65-67); Sahlin (1953); Bultmann (1947).

Rom 12:1-7 seems strange in the context of Paul’s own sufferings 2 Cor 11:23d-25b, “with far greater labours, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. [24] Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. [25] Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned.” I assume that the lashes and the rods would have been administered by those in authority.

2 Cor 11 is describing punishments by the Jewish persecutors. Without turning to Acts or the Pastorals I don't know what reason we have to think Paul was accosted by Roman powers. He also said some of his sufferings were even a god-send to keep him humble.