On the silence of 2century apologists

[archibald]

Sure, but to say it was 'strictly Jewish' is weird; and you left out the contradiction which is

... 'Galatians' and 'Romans' and '1 Corinthians' indicates [the] church (and James) was very influential, and that Paul felt the need to visit that church and provide the money Paul collected from his Christians.

How would the Jewish authorities (and maybe also the Roman authorities) be happy about money being collected from and for Christians?

They might or might not have been happy, but they might or might not have known. Small, non-mainstream groups often raise money under the radar.

Do you think it's weird? Given that the group apparently emerged directly out of Judaism, doesn't it make more sense to think that at first it was one of a number of Jewish sects, a branch of Judaism?

As to what 'strictly' Jewish means, I believe there were those who felt strongly that the leading Jewish factions at that time were anything but 'strictly Jewish', because of their toleration of and willingness to work with/under the Romans.

There is room for a Jerusalem group who were more radical, more 'strict' (and nationalistic). That is where my betting money would be, personally. I wouldn't bet my house on anything about early christianity, but I'd put a tenner on there being such a group at the start.

[MrMacSon]

... they might or might not have known.

Yes, I did think of that option.

.. Given that the group apparently emerged directly out of Judaism, doesn't it make more sense to think that at first it was one of a number of Jewish sects, a branch of Judaism? ... I wouldn't bet my house on anything about early Christianity, but I'd put a tenner on there being such a group at the start.

Yes, if there was a group that emerged out of Judaism one would think it would first be a branch of Judaism: a Jewish sect.

But I'm not convinced that happened, so I would go so far as to say, given the paucity of information about any [Jewish]-Christian sects or 'Christian' groups for nearly a century, and even then just an eccentric, heretical one (or two) -the Marcionites- there is no information that could count as evidence for anything that could resemble what was supposed to be a mainstream Christian group (supposedly started in the mid 1st century) for a couple of centuries, at least*.

• * 'if that' replaced by 'at least'.

The silence is profoundly significant. Especially considering we are told the mainstream texts were available early on.

It's as if those texts weren't available.

[archibald]

... they might or might not have known.

Yes, I did think of that option.

.. Given that the group apparently emerged directly out of Judaism, doesn't it make more sense to think that at first it was one of a number of Jewish sects, a branch of Judaism? ... I wouldn't bet my house on anything about early Christianity, but I'd put a tenner on there being such a group at the start.

Yes, if there was a group that emerged out of Judaism one would think it would first be a branch of Judaism: a Jewish sect.

But I'm not convinced that happened, so I would go so far as to say, given the paucity of information about any [Jewish]-Christian sects or 'Christian' groups for nearly a century, and even then just an eccentric, heretical one (or two) -the Marcionites- there is no information that could count as evidence for anything that could resemble what was supposed to be a mainstream Christian group (supposedly started in the mid 1st century) for a couple of centuries, if that.

First, if there was a Jerusalem sect (can you make a reasonable case that there wasn't? I'd be interested) it would have been adversely affected by the destruction of Jerusalem. This is arguably why we have inherited a Hellenistic, arguably Roman-friendly, anti-Jewish version.

Second, it is not hard to make case for there being an original Jerusalem sect with James as the leader.

The silence is profoundly significant. Especially considering we are told the mainstream texts were available early on.

It's as if those texts weren't available.

Which silence, the silence about Jesus' life or the silence about an original Jerusalem sect?

How, for example, would you explain the epistles repeatedly referring to the latter? That's an available set of texts, is it not?

[MrMacSon]

The silence is profoundly significant. Especially considering we are told the mainstream texts were available early on.

It's as if those texts weren't available.

Which silence ...?

The silence in the 2nd and 3rd centuries about "what was supposed to be a mainstream Christian group -supposedly started in the mid 1st century- for and during the next couple of centuries, at least."

How, for example, would you explain the epistles repeatedly referring to the latter [an original Jerusalem sect]?

A decision somewhere, sometime to place the early players and events in that time period, and a desire to continue to do so.

First, if there was a Jerusalem 'Jewish-Christian' sect...it would have been adversely affected by the destruction of Jerusalem.

Not necessarily. It's theology wasn't tied to anything in Jerusalem. Just to a man wandering the country-side.

can you make a reasonable case that there wasn't [an original Jerusalem sect]?

The case was in the post you responded to -viz. --

... given the paucity of information about any [Jewish]-Christian sects or 'Christian' groups for nearly a century, and even then just an eccentric, heretical one (or two) -the Marcionites- there is no information that could count as evidence for anything that could resemble what was supposed to be a mainstream Christian group (supposedly started in the mid 1st century) for a couple of centuries, at least*.

• * 'if that' replaced by 'at least'.

This is arguably why we have inherited a Hellenistic, arguably Roman-friendly, anti-Jewish version.

Christianity is likely to be Hellenistic b/c it arose out of Hellenised Jewish sects and in conjunction with other Hellenised religions ie. Christianity is a syncretic religion It is likely to Roman-friendly b/c of Constantine and Eusebius.

[archibald]

A decision somewhere, sometime to place the early players and events in that time period, and a desire to continue to do so.

Ok. Until I hear a better theory, I'm happy to run, for the sake of probability, with the one that has more actual evidence, starting with what's in the epistles and elsewhere, including Josephus and other historians. Yours seems too vague, unevidenced and speculative. And overly-unparsimonious.

And as I said, making a case for an original Jerusalem group is not hard. In fact, I'd say that it makes more sense, given the Jewish components of the story. No 'subsequent relocation to Judea' theory required.

[MrMacSon]

... I'm happy to run, for the sake of probability, with the [theory] that has more actual evidence, starting with what's in the epistles and elsewhere, including Josephus and other historians ...

... making a case for an original Jerusalem group is not hard. In fact, I'd say that it makes more sense, given the Jewish components of the story. No 'subsequent relocation to Judea' theory required.
.

What became of the original Jerusalem group? What evolved from them?

What ongoing or similar group was there in the 2nd century?

[Jax]

... I'm happy to run, for the sake of probability, with the [theory] that has more actual evidence, starting with what's in the epistles and elsewhere, including Josephus and other historians ...

... making a case for an original Jerusalem group is not hard. In fact, I'd say that it makes more sense, given the Jewish components of the story. No 'subsequent relocation to Judea' theory required.
.

What became of the original Jerusalem group? What evolved from them?

What ongoing or similar group was there in the 2nd century?

Exactly! IMO a Jewish origin for Christianity seems very unlikely because of this. Also why isn't there any Jewish and Aramaic Christian texts? One would kind of expect that from a Jewish centric cult would not one?

[arnoldo]

... I'm happy to run, for the sake of probability, with the [theory] that has more actual evidence, starting with what's in the epistles and elsewhere, including Josephus and other historians ...

... making a case for an original Jerusalem group is not hard. In fact, I'd say that it makes more sense, given the Jewish components of the story. No 'subsequent relocation to Judea' theory required.
.

What became of the original Jerusalem group? What evolved from them?

What ongoing or similar group was there in the 2nd century?

Exactly! IMO a Jewish origin for Christianity seems very unlikely because of this. Also why isn't there any Jewish and Aramaic Christian texts? One would kind of expect that from a Jewish centric cult would not one?

FWIW, Celsus as quoted by Origen.

[Celsus' Jewish critic]: The converts from Judaism have forsaken the law of their fathers, in consequence of their minds being led captive by Jesus; that they have been most ridiculously deceived, and that they have become deserters to another name and to another mode of life.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/celsus.html

[Jax]

Celcus is late 2nd century is he not?

[archibald]

... I'm happy to run, for the sake of probability, with the [theory] that has more actual evidence, starting with what's in the epistles and elsewhere, including Josephus and other historians ...

... making a case for an original Jerusalem group is not hard. In fact, I'd say that it makes more sense, given the Jewish components of the story. No 'subsequent relocation to Judea' theory required.
.

What became of the original Jerusalem group? What evolved from them?

What ongoing or similar group was there in the 2nd century?

At the moment I'm reading Robert Eisenman's 600+ page 'James, the Brother of Jesus' (I'm only on page 60 I must admit) but his thesis is one place you might look.

Elsewhere, it has been suggested that the Ebionites were the remnants, after the fall of Jerusalem.

I don't think anyone is suggesting they ever achieved prominence, even in Judea. The suggestion is that Pauline/Hellenistic Christianity thrived away from the ruins, as it were, while the Jerusalem group faded away. The group may have fragmented. There are indications it may possibly have had at least some zealot and Sicarii members, and many/most zealots and Sicarii died in the war.

Pre-Jewish War, Eisenman makes a case that James was the leader in Jerusalem. The epistles appear to bear this out.

In a way, it sort of depends what sort of group you're expecting to find evidence for. They might not have called themselves christians, for example.