The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

[Ben C. Smith]

One needs to explain the overt similarities between our Christian texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls. How do you propose we bridge the gap?

I think there is a persistent gap. The Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts are a wide variety of texts. Many of these texts - 40% of those so far identified - are a collection of copies of the actual books of the Hebrew Scriptures, texts that all Jews would have had and read.

Another 30% are texts from the Second Temple Period which ultimately were not canonized in the Hebrew Bible, like the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, the Book of Tobit, the Wisdom of Sirach, Psalms 152–155, etc.

The remainder (roughly 30%) are sectarian manuscripts of previously unknown documents that shed light on the rules and beliefs of a particular group (sect) or groups within greater Judaism, like the Community Rule, the War Scroll, the Pesher on Habakkuk, and The Rule of the Blessing. Many of these scrolls show us is the kind of challenges that could be brought against some of the traditional lines of Jewish thought and even the operation of the Temple itself, and have been associated with the Essenes. They interpreted Scripture, especially the prophets, Isaiah, the Torah itself, to suggest that the course of Judaism is going through a profound change. In their understanding, there will come a day when the Lord revisits the Earth with power. And in the process establishes a new kingdom for Judaism. It will be like the kingdom of David and Solomon.

It is said they literally abandoned Jerusalem in protest at the way the Temple was being run. They are said to have been apocalyptic and messianic. And separatist and sectarian.

There are striking similarities between the description of an initiation ceremony of new members in the Community Rule and descriptions of the Essene initiation ceremony mentioned in the works of Flavius Josephus.

Robert Eisenman vigorously posits his theory that the later, non-biblical "sectarian" scrolls must be viewed in the context of a wider first-century CE “Opposition Movement,” including Essenes, Zealots, Sicarii, and/or Nazoreans, and particularly the Ebionites, who he posits as the early Judeo-Christian community of Jerusalem and whose leader was James, the brother of Jesus, also the Scrolls' Teacher of Righteousness. Eisenman has thus created a strong link between the Scrolls and the perception of a pre-Pauline Jewish Christian community.

It has sometimes been suggested that Jesus, himself, or maybe even John the Baptist, were members of this group, but i understand that can't be proven.

Scholars have argued that the scrolls were the product of Jews living in Jerusalem, who hid the scrolls in the caves near Qumran while fleeing from the Romans during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf first proposed that the Dead Sea Scrolls originated at the library of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Later, Norman Golb suggested that the scrolls were the product of multiple libraries in Jerusalem, and not necessarily the Jerusalem Temple library. Proponents of the Jerusalem Origin theory point to the diversity of thought and handwriting among the scrolls as evidence against a Qumran origin of the scrolls. Several archaeologists have also accepted an origin of the scrolls other than Qumran, including Yizhar Hirschfeld and most recently Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg, who all understand the remains of Qumran to be those of a Hasmonean fort that was reused during later periods.

Some have argued that Zadokites (Sadducees) wrote the scrolls eg. the work of Lawrence H. Schiffman. The most important document in support of this view is the "Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah" (4QMMT), which cites purity laws (such as the transfer of impurities) identical to those attributed in rabbinic writings to the Sadducees. 4QMMT also reproduces a festival calendar that follows Sadducee principles for the dating of certain festival days.

I am missing the part where any of this answers my question. Can you please rephrase it? Most of it is simply text from the Wikipedia article on the Dead Sea Scrolls (highlighted yellow); from an online Quora response by someone named Sam Cheung, who describes himself as a Christian, a Teacher, and a Mathematician (highlighted pink); from L. Michael White for the PBS series "From Jesus to Christ" (highlighted blue); from a post by a new user named Elyane El Helou on the Orange Room forum (highlighted orange); and from a book by Greg Rigby (highlighted green). The parts I cannot immediately locate sound like they may be yours, but they are either stitching the seams between those paraphrased or copied portions of text or summarizing other portions of those texts, not actually answering my question.

Certainly 'Romans' does presuppose a Christian community before Paul was set to arrive.

Indeed.

Robert Price calls it "a patchwork quilt stitched together by the hands of various Paulinists with competing views", and asks "What might be the historical occasion for the nucleus to which all the rest was eventually added? What if the trip to Rome anticipated by the writer is that of Marcion when he brought a contribution to the church at Rome and set forth his gospel before its elders?" (The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul, Kindle Locations 4979-4982).

I love to read Price. I really do. But I disagree thoroughly with his estimate of the Pauline epistles.

Price says Rom 1:8-17 "makes more sense as a fragment of an actual letter from Marcion himself announcing his intention to visit Rome, which he did. In Paul’s day there was no church there, according to Acts.

Acts has Christians in Rome before Paul:

Acts 28.11-15: 11 At the end of three months we set sail on an Alexandrian ship which had wintered at the island, and which had the Twin Brothers for its figurehead. 12 After we put in at Syracuse, we stayed there for three days. 13 From there we sailed around and arrived at Rhegium, and a day later a south wind sprang up, and on the second day we came to Puteoli. 14 There we found some brethren, and were invited to stay with them for seven days; and thus we came to Rome. 15 And the brethren, when they heard about us, came from there as far as the Market of Appius and Three Inns to meet us; and when Paul saw them, he thanked God and took courage.

Price says much of Rom 3 "is Catholic-retooled Paulinism, genuine Pauline insights harmonized with the Old Testament. The prerogative of the Christian God to judge is affirmed, as well as documented from Jewish scripture. The Marcionite opposition of Torah and gospel is retained ..."

If Price were correct, then we could largely remove Romans from consideration for this topic. Since I think that Price is mostly incorrect, I cannot do so.

I would accept that texts such as the Didache is likely to predate the gospel of Matthew and probably also even the apostle Paul himself.

Okay.

Galatians is multi-layered as if having gone through the hands of various redactors.

I also disagree with Price on Galatians. That it (probably) has additions I accept. But there are parts that seem genuine to me, at least at the present time, and those parts include the reference to Antioch in chapter 2.

In any case, you know (at least this much of) the evidence for Syria and for Rome bearing an early Christian presence. Stephan is wrong to say it is all about the church fathers; no, it is about the Pauline epistles. Anyone may disagree with my assessment of those epistles (Pauline at the core, with interpolated and other modified parts in them); look me up in five years and I myself may disagree with my current assessment of those epistles. But until such time as I am able to remove them from my consideration, there they are.

As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, again, please let me know how your copied and paraphrased texts help bridge the gap between them and our extant Christian texts.

[MrMacSon]

I am missing the part where any of this answers my question ... As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, again, please let me know how your copied and paraphrased texts help bridge the gap between them and our extant Christian texts.

The first sentence - 'I think there is a persistent [and significant] gap [between our Christian texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls]' - is in response to your question" 'How do you propose we bridge the gap?'

Yes, my post is simply text from the both the Wikipedia article on the Dead Sea Scrolls and from L. Michael White for the PBS series "From Jesus to Christ" (and just them). I ended up doing a summary for posterity for myself as much as anything, but did not think I found anything that supported the notion that the Dead Sea/Qumran Scrolls reflect 'Jewish Christianity'. They just summarised, as others have surmised, that Judaism was going through a profound change.

• The Essene-aligned scrolls showed their understanding that there will come a day when the Lord revisits the Earth with power. And in the process establishes a new kingdom for Judaism. It will be like the kingdom of David and Solomon. It is said they literally abandoned Jerusalem in protest at the way the Temple was being run. They are said to have been apocalyptic and messianic.

But without reference to Jesus - or any other aspects of Christianity - I don't think they can be said to reflect 'Jewish-Christianity'.

I love to read Price. I really do. But I disagree thoroughly with his estimate of the Pauline epistles.
. .
I also disagree with Price on Galatians. That it (probably) has additions I accept. But there are parts that seem genuine to me, at least at the present time, and those parts include the reference to Antioch in chapter 2.

I appreciate that. And that does moderate the degree to which I accept Price. I guess I have taken more of an interest in his propositions about dating and aligning the Pauline epistles with Marcion and others in the 2nd century since Tyson, Beduhn, Vinzent, and Klinghardt have aligned the primary production of the synoptics with or around Marcion.

Acts has Christians in Rome before Paul:

Acts 28.11-15: 11 At the end of three months we set sail on an Alexandrian ship which had wintered at the island, and which had the Twin Brothers for its figurehead. 12 After we put in at Syracuse, we stayed there for three days. 13 From there we sailed around and arrived at Rhegium, and a day later a south wind sprang up, and on the second day we came to Puteoli. 14 There we found some brethren, and were invited to stay with them for seven days; and thus we came to Rome. 15 And the brethren, when they heard about us, came from there as far as the Market of Appius and Three Inns to meet us; and when Paul saw them, he thanked God and took courage.

Cheers.

In any case, you know (at least this much of) the evidence for Syria and for Rome bearing an early Christian presence. Stephan is wrong to say it is all about the church fathers; no, it is about the Pauline epistles. Anyone may disagree with my assessment of those epistles (Pauline at the core, with interpolated and other modified parts in them); look me up in five years and I myself may disagree with my current assessment of those epistles. But until such time as I am able to remove them from my consideration, there they are.

Cheers. I realise it is mostly about the Pauline epistles.

[Ben C. Smith]

I am missing the part where any of this answers my question ... As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, again, please let me know how your copied and paraphrased texts help bridge the gap between them and our extant Christian texts.

The first sentence - 'I think there is a persistent [and significant] gap [between our Christian texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls]' - is in response to your question" 'How do you propose we bridge the gap?'

Yes, my post is simply text from the both the Wikipedia article on the Dead Sea Scrolls and from L. Michael White for the PBS series "From Jesus to Christ" (and just them). I ended up doing a summary for posterity for myself as much as anything, but did not think I found anything that supported the notion that the Dead Sea/Qumran Scrolls reflect 'Jewish Christianity'. They just summarised, as others have surmised, that Judaism was going through a profound change.

• The Essene-aligned scrolls showed their understanding that there will come a day when the Lord revisits the Earth with power. And in the process establishes a new kingdom for Judaism. It will be like the kingdom of David and Solomon. It is said they literally abandoned Jerusalem in protest at the way the Temple was being run. They are said to have been apocalyptic and messianic.

But without reference to Jesus - or any other aspects of Christianity - I don't think they can be said to reflect 'Jewish-Christianity'.

All right, then you are misunderstanding my argument. It is not that the Dead Sea Scrolls have anything themselves to do with Christianity, any more than the Hebrew scriptures do. Yet the Dead Sea Scrolls, time and time again, provide crucial context and background for statements made in the Christian writings, just like the Hebrew scriptures do. Given that the Scrolls were buried before the War ended, how does one explain that they so often provide the closest context for Christian ideas? The Hebrew scriptures do the same, and we explain the connection easily: Christians had access to those scriptures, whether in the original or in translation, and used them in their own texts. But what about the Dead Sea Scrolls, long since buried? Did Christians have access to them somehow? If your response is yes, then Christians must have had access to them before 70. If your response is no, then Christians must have had access to texts and traditions from after 70 which are very similar to the scrolls, texts and traditions which carried their most relevant and essential ideas forward, but are now lost to us, which is to find yourself arguing exactly the same contingency that I am, namely that there are texts and traditions, rooted before 70, that we no longer have access to. The only way not to support my argument for me is to argue that the overlaps between the Scrolls and the Christian writings are pure coincidence, and I submit that such an argument is no more likely than the proposition that the overlaps between the Hebrew scriptures and the Christian writings is pure coincidence.

[Jax]

One needs to explain the overt similarities between our Christian texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls. How do you propose we bridge the gap?

I think there is a persistent gap. The Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts are a wide variety of texts. Many of these texts - 40% of those so far identified - are a collection of copies of the actual books of the Hebrew Scriptures, texts that all Jews would have had and read.

Another 30% are texts from the Second Temple Period which ultimately were not canonized in the Hebrew Bible, like the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, the Book of Tobit, the Wisdom of Sirach, Psalms 152–155, etc.

The remainder (roughly 30%) are sectarian manuscripts of previously unknown documents that shed light on the rules and beliefs of a particular group (sect) or groups within greater Judaism, like the Community Rule, the War Scroll, the Pesher on Habakkuk, and The Rule of the Blessing. Many of these scrolls show us is the kind of challenges that could be brought against some of the traditional lines of Jewish thought and even the operation of the Temple itself, and have been associated with the Essenes. They interpreted Scripture, especially the prophets, Isaiah, the Torah itself, to suggest that the course of Judaism is going through a profound change. In their understanding, there will come a day when the Lord revisits the Earth with power. And in the process establishes a new kingdom for Judaism. It will be like the kingdom of David and Solomon.

It is said they literally abandoned Jerusalem in protest at the way the Temple was being run. They are said to have been apocalyptic and messianic. And separatist and sectarian.

There are striking similarities between the description of an initiation ceremony of new members in the Community Rule and descriptions of the Essene initiation ceremony mentioned in the works of Flavius Josephus.

Robert Eisenman vigorously posits his theory that the later, non-biblical "sectarian" scrolls must be viewed in the context of a wider first-century CE “Opposition Movement,” including Essenes, Zealots, Sicarii, and/or Nazoreans, and particularly the Ebionites, who he posits as the early Judeo-Christian community of Jerusalem and whose leader was James, the brother of Jesus, also the Scrolls' Teacher of Righteousness. Eisenman has thus created a strong link between the Scrolls and the perception of a pre-Pauline Jewish Christian community.

It has sometimes been suggested that Jesus, himself, or maybe even John the Baptist, were members of this group, but i understand that can't be proven.

Scholars have argued that the scrolls were the product of Jews living in Jerusalem, who hid the scrolls in the caves near Qumran while fleeing from the Romans during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf first proposed that the Dead Sea Scrolls originated at the library of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Later, Norman Golb suggested that the scrolls were the product of multiple libraries in Jerusalem, and not necessarily the Jerusalem Temple library. Proponents of the Jerusalem Origin theory point to the diversity of thought and handwriting among the scrolls as evidence against a Qumran origin of the scrolls. Several archaeologists have also accepted an origin of the scrolls other than Qumran, including Yizhar Hirschfeld and most recently Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg, who all understand the remains of Qumran to be those of a Hasmonean fort that was reused during later periods.

Some have argued that Zadokites (Sadducees) wrote the scrolls eg. the work of Lawrence H. Schiffman. The most important document in support of this view is the "Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah" (4QMMT), which cites purity laws (such as the transfer of impurities) identical to those attributed in rabbinic writings to the Sadducees. 4QMMT also reproduces a festival calendar that follows Sadducee principles for the dating of certain festival days.

I am missing the part where any of this answers my question. Can you please rephrase it? Most of it is simply text from the Wikipedia article on the Dead Sea Scrolls (highlighted yellow); from an online Quora response by someone named Sam Cheung, who describes himself as a Christian, a Teacher, and a Mathematician (highlighted pink); from L. Michael White for the PBS series "From Jesus to Christ" (highlighted blue); from a post by a new user named Elyane El Helou on the Orange Room forum (highlighted orange); and from a book by Greg Rigby (highlighted green). The parts I cannot immediately locate sound like they may be yours, but they are either stitching the seams between those paraphrased or copied portions of text or summarizing other portions of those texts, not actually answering my question.

Certainly 'Romans' does presuppose a Christian community before Paul was set to arrive.

Indeed.

Robert Price calls it "a patchwork quilt stitched together by the hands of various Paulinists with competing views", and asks "What might be the historical occasion for the nucleus to which all the rest was eventually added? What if the trip to Rome anticipated by the writer is that of Marcion when he brought a contribution to the church at Rome and set forth his gospel before its elders?" (The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul, Kindle Locations 4979-4982).

I love to read Price. I really do. But I disagree thoroughly with his estimate of the Pauline epistles.

Price says Rom 1:8-17 "makes more sense as a fragment of an actual letter from Marcion himself announcing his intention to visit Rome, which he did. In Paul’s day there was no church there, according to Acts.

Acts has Christians in Rome before Paul:

Acts 28.11-15: 11 At the end of three months we set sail on an Alexandrian ship which had wintered at the island, and which had the Twin Brothers for its figurehead. 12 After we put in at Syracuse, we stayed there for three days. 13 From there we sailed around and arrived at Rhegium, and a day later a south wind sprang up, and on the second day we came to Puteoli. 14 There we found some brethren, and were invited to stay with them for seven days; and thus we came to Rome. 15 And the brethren, when they heard about us, came from there as far as the Market of Appius and Three Inns to meet us; and when Paul saw them, he thanked God and took courage.

Price says much of Rom 3 "is Catholic-retooled Paulinism, genuine Pauline insights harmonized with the Old Testament. The prerogative of the Christian God to judge is affirmed, as well as documented from Jewish scripture. The Marcionite opposition of Torah and gospel is retained ..."

If Price were correct, then we could largely remove Romans from consideration for this topic. Since I think that Price is mostly incorrect, I cannot do so.

I would accept that texts such as the Didache is likely to predate the gospel of Matthew and probably also even the apostle Paul himself.

Okay.

Galatians is multi-layered as if having gone through the hands of various redactors.

I also disagree with Price on Galatians. That it (probably) has additions I accept. But there are parts that seem genuine to me, at least at the present time, and those parts include the reference to Antioch in chapter 2.

In any case, you know (at least this much of) the evidence for Syria and for Rome bearing an early Christian presence. Stephan is wrong to say it is all about the church fathers; no, it is about the Pauline epistles. Anyone may disagree with my assessment of those epistles (Pauline at the core, with interpolated and other modified parts in them); look me up in five years and I myself may disagree with my current assessment of those epistles. But until such time as I am able to remove them from my consideration, there they are.

As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, again, please let me know how your copied and paraphrased texts help bridge the gap between them and our extant Christian texts.

To be fair. There is no real indication that there were Christians in Antioch when Paul and Peter were there. It might be inferred but cannot be proven. I'm not just saying this to be a pain in the but, rather I am pointing out that both Antioch and Alexandrian seem to have Christianity arrive somewhat later.

All of Paul's letters- with the exception of Romans- are to groups in Asia Minor and Greece. Why are there no letters to Syria or Cilicia? One would think that those two locations would have all of the Gentiles that Paul could ever hope to recruit.

Also why is there no apparent Christian presence in the areas around Judea except Antioch and Alexandria; major Greek and Roman commerce and military hubs, until after the areas in and around Judea have been resettled by Romans after the Jewish and Bar Kokhba wars?

[Jax]

I am missing the part where any of this answers my question ... As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, again, please let me know how your copied and paraphrased texts help bridge the gap between them and our extant Christian texts.

The first sentence - 'I think there is a persistent [and significant] gap [between our Christian texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls]' - is in response to your question" 'How do you propose we bridge the gap?'

Yes, my post is simply text from the both the Wikipedia article on the Dead Sea Scrolls and from L. Michael White for the PBS series "From Jesus to Christ" (and just them). I ended up doing a summary for posterity for myself as much as anything, but did not think I found anything that supported the notion that the Dead Sea/Qumran Scrolls reflect 'Jewish Christianity'. They just summarised, as others have surmised, that Judaism was going through a profound change.

• The Essene-aligned scrolls showed their understanding that there will come a day when the Lord revisits the Earth with power. And in the process establishes a new kingdom for Judaism. It will be like the kingdom of David and Solomon. It is said they literally abandoned Jerusalem in protest at the way the Temple was being run. They are said to have been apocalyptic and messianic.

But without reference to Jesus - or any other aspects of Christianity - I don't think they can be said to reflect 'Jewish-Christianity'.

All right, then you are misunderstanding my argument. It is not that the Dead Sea Scrolls have anything themselves to do with Christianity, any more than the Hebrew scriptures do. Yet the Dead Sea Scrolls, time and time again, provide crucial context and background for statements made in the Christian writings, just like the Hebrew scriptures do. Given that the Scrolls were buried before the War ended, how does one explain that they so often provide the closest context for Christian ideas? The Hebrew scriptures do the same, and we explain the connection easily: Christians had access to those scriptures, whether in the original or in translation, and used them in their own texts. But what about the Dead Sea Scrolls, long since buried? Did Christians have access to them somehow? If your response is yes, then Christians must have had access to them before 70. If your response is no, then Christians must have had access to texts and traditions from after 70 which are very similar to the scrolls, texts and traditions which carried their most relevant and essential ideas forward, but are now lost to us, which is to find yourself arguing exactly the same contingency that I am, namely that there are texts and traditions, rooted before 70, that we no longer have access to. The only way not to support my argument for me is to argue that the overlaps between the Scrolls and the Christian writings are pure coincidence, and I submit that such an argument is no more likely than the proposition that the overlaps between the Hebrew scriptures and the Christian writings is pure coincidence.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't the relevant texts concerning early Christianity found in the DSS thought to have been written in the 1st century BCE? Also is there not speculation of a early DSS sectarian community centered around Damascus?

From Paul's letters, where else than Damascus can we assume that he comes from?

[Ben C. Smith]

To be fair. There is no real indication that there were Christians in Antioch when Paul and Peter were there. It might be inferred but cannot be proven.

There are gentiles there with whom Paul, Barnabas, and Cephas are having table fellowship. In the context of Paul's mission to the gentiles, I think that these gentiles being of the same (or at least similar) cult as Paul himself is the most likely option, especially in view of the other evidence presented for Syria.

All of Paul's letters- with the exception of Romans- are to groups in Asia Minor and Greece. Why are there no letters to Syria or Cilicia? One would think that those two locations would have all of the Gentiles that Paul could ever hope to recruit.

In a way this is like asking why my parents went to Mexico as Protestant missionaries instead of South Africa, is it not? I do not think we can possibly answer for certain why Paul chose to go in an arc from Jerusalem through Antioch, Asia, Greece, and then to Rome, but there are numerous possible options. Language, for example. Paul may have stuck to cities in which Greek was the primary tongue spoken, which would exclude cities like, say, Syrian Edessa. It has often been noted, too, that Paul seemed to concentrate on urban rather than on rural areas; this may simply have been a matter of his own comfort level. But to suggest that Paul has to address each and every Christian community available in his time frame is too much, I submit.

Something else to keep in mind is that Paul himself mentions other missionaries besides himself (including Apollos, Cephas, and the unnamed "super apostles" in 2 Corinthians). Where are their letters? Perhaps 1 Peter is genuine and by Cephas (though I harbor doubts about both). That would be thirteen letters attributed to Paul and one attributed to one of these other fellows. Add in all of the Catholic epistles and we are still heavily balanced toward Paul. So my issue is this: what we have preserved is probably the result of selection bias. Perhaps those other missionaries did not write as often as Paul did; perhaps they wrote but their letters were lost to history; perhaps their letters were less conducive to later orthodox interests.

In short, I think that asking why we lack certain kinds of materials is the wrong question for this time period. We have lost so very much; of course many things are missing in our picture of earliest Christianity. We have to face up to this. We have no real idea how the churches of Alexandria and Rome, for example, were founded; and those are churches which have elaborate legends attached to their founding (Peter for Rome, Mark for Alexandria)! We have no real idea who first brought Christianity to Edessa or to most of northern Africa, for example, no matter which time period we think that happened.

In summary, the evidence for an early Christian presence in Antioch and in Rome is slighter than we might like it to be, but it is there. The evidence for Antioch is slighter than the evidence for Rome, but we also have the indirect triangulation of the Didache, the gospel of Matthew, and the epistles of Ignatius. The evidence for Rome is very direct in Paul: he was not the founder, but the church existed. So far the only evidence offered against early Christian churches in these two locales is that we lack more direct evidence for their actual founding. But, since the only churches of which we have such direct foundational evidence are those founded by Paul himself, and since Paul does not claim to have founded either, this lack of evidence is actually expected. We have to infer more than we might like, but nothing (so far) opposes the inference, which is more than nothing.

[Ben C. Smith]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't the relevant texts concerning early Christianity found in the DSS thought to have been written in the 1st century BCE?

Many of them, yes. Others date to the first century AD, I believe. Regardless, the idea is that there was an actual community of persons maintaining these ideas.

Also is there not speculation of a early DSS sectarian community centered around Damascus?

There is, yes.

From Paul's letters, where else than Damascus can we assume that he comes from?

Paul does seem to have a connection to Damascus, yes. I believe that Paul is a Jewish example of a species of Christianity which originated before 70. This species of Christianity was rooted in ideas which are still extant in the Dead Sea Scrolls — by a stroke of luck, never forget. Before the War this religion was exported to the Greek cities of the Mediterranean by Paul, to Rome by persons unknown, to Antioch by persons unknown, and probably to other locales by persons unknown. Another form of it, one which emphasized standards which many felt Paul had compromised (such as those having to do with idol worship), was also exported to cities of Asia Minor by people associated with the elder John and possibly with Philip. After the War this religion was probably mostly stamped out in Judea, with the result that only the more gentile manifestations of it survived. But the continuity is there, that between the ideas of the Jewish sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian sectarian texts known to us today, kept alive in a stream of texts (both extant and nonextant) and traditions hailing from before 70 in Judea.

[Jax]

With a small paradigm shift in time it seems simpler to me. Paul living in or around Damascus in the 1st century BCE is influenced by the sectarian Jewish splinter group that wrote at least some of the material found at Qumran. Paul then becomes caught up in the conflicts of Greece and Asia Minor and with other Jewish men also part of these campaigns introduce the core concepts of this splinter sect to the Roman soldiers that they interacted with. Colonies of these Roman soldiers from these campaigns are established in Greece and Asia Minor (Corinth, Philippi, Troas, Sinope..) as well as other places like Rome, North Africa, Antioch, Alexandria, Spain, and are then the points that originate early Christianity.

Christianity as we understand it then finally comes to Judea after 70 when Romans settle in the Levant after the war. More so after Bar Kokhba.

I feel that this scenario has at least reasonable plausibility.

[Ben C. Smith]

With a small paradigm shift in time it seems simpler to me. Paul living in or around Damascus in the 1st century BCE is influenced by the sectarian Jewish splinter group that wrote at least some of the material found at Qumran. Paul then becomes caught up in the conflicts of Greece and Asia Minor and with other Jewish men also part of these campaigns introduce the core concepts of this splinter sect to the Roman soldiers that they interacted with. Colonies of these Roman soldiers from these campaigns are established in Greece and Asia Minor (Corinth, Philippi, Troas, Sinope..) as well as other places like Rome, North Africa, Antioch, Alexandria, Spain, and are then the points that originate early Christianity.

Christianity as we understand it then finally comes to Judea after 70 when Romans settle in the Levant after the war. More so after Bar Kokhba.

I feel that this scenario has at least reasonable plausibility.

On this scenario, the Damascus "branch" of the sect represented at Qumran, the branch with which Paul would have had contact, would have had documents bearing ideas similar to those from the scrolls discovered at Qumran, correct?

[Ben C. Smith]

With a small paradigm shift in time it seems simpler to me. Paul living in or around Damascus in the 1st century BCE is influenced by the sectarian Jewish splinter group that wrote at least some of the material found at Qumran. Paul then becomes caught up in the conflicts of Greece and Asia Minor and with other Jewish men also part of these campaigns introduce the core concepts of this splinter sect to the Roman soldiers that they interacted with. Colonies of these Roman soldiers from these campaigns are established in Greece and Asia Minor (Corinth, Philippi, Troas, Sinope..) as well as other places like Rome, North Africa, Antioch, Alexandria, Spain, and are then the points that originate early Christianity.

Christianity as we understand it then finally comes to Judea after 70 when Romans settle in the Levant after the war. More so after Bar Kokhba.

I feel that this scenario has at least reasonable plausibility.

I want to point out here my initial contribution to this thread:

Christianity has too many overlaps with the Dead Sea Scrolls to be purely of gentile origin. The lack of Hebrew or Aramaic texts is easily explicable: after 70, Judea was in chaos; much was lost; the Dead Sea Scrolls cache itself was a stroke of luck, one which may never be replicated.

It seems that you agree with me that Christianity has too much in common with the sectarian Scrolls to be purely of gentile origin. It was of sectarian Jewish origin in your scenario, as well. The only difference is that you think that the Jewish sect in question was an outpost in Damascus instead of being located in the homeland.

So there are two different questions on the table:

1. Was Christianity founded in Judaism (as a religion or philosophy)?
2. Was Christianity founded in Judea (as a geographical region)?

You and I agree that the answer to the first question is yes. We may disagree on the answer to the second question. Naturally, when I interjected, I was going from my own point of view that (at least an important thread of) Christianity did start in Judea before 70. But I will completely agree that it is not impossible that the Judaism from which Christianity developed was located abroad; it is not my preferred reconstruction, but it is possible.

In order to focus the lens upon the geographical issue, I have to ask you about Galatians 2 again. On your scenario, Paul both hails from Damascus and interacts with a Jewish sect in Damascus. On mine, Paul may hail from Damascus (or perhaps he was at least based there for a time), but the Jewish sect he interacted with was located in Judea. Galatians 2 mentions a sect with which Paul interacted, and it was located in Jerusalem. That looks like evidence for my position; what is the equivalent evidence for yours? What shows us that Paul had meaningful dealings with a Jewish sect in Damascus?