The following review of Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity examines the archaeological evidence from a different perspective.
It is common to relate the development of the Western episcopate to Clement of Rome and the social environment of the early church. The novelty of Jeffers's study is the connection it makes between Clement, Rome's aristocracy, and the hierarchy of the Roman church. Jeffers' thesis is that the Roman monoepiscopacy evolved from the strict hierarchal structure Clement's church had adopted from Rome's elite class.
In the first two centuries Roman churches both imitated and opposed the society in their ideology and structure. The minority which adopted the aristocracy's hierarchy did so out of a beneficial relationship with that segment of society. The majority which opposed both the society and those integrative Christians were of low status. This disharmony amid the churches caused the elitist, hierarchical minority to reformulate tradition into a stricter authority structure. By the late second century this reformulation developed into the monoepiscopacy which dominated the Roman Church.
Jeffers builds a case for such a development through archaeological, literary, and sociological theory analysis. The data analyzed are pertinent to illuminating the social status, values, and interrelationships of Clement of Rome, Hermas, and their congregations. Archaeologically, Jeffers seeks to construct a plausible background for Clement's association with Roman aristocracy. He attempts to fortify the theory identifying Clement as a freedman of Flavius Clemens under the patronage of Clemens' wife, Flavia Domitilla, a Christian or sympathizer. His argument connects the warehouse beneath the San Clemente complex with the house church of Clement on first-century Flavian property. This property, the site of Domitilla's catacomb, is said to have a history of burial plots granted by Domitilla to her dependents. Some of these dependents were probably Christians whose second-century descendants expanded the use of the cemetery.
John2 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:09 pm
I feel like I gave Atwill a fair shot, and I think in the big picture Christianity (and Jesus, more or less as he's presented in Mark and Matthew, allowing for artistic license, which I think is natural enough to expect) already existed before Josephus and Titus were even born and when Vespasian was a kid and therefore has nothing to do with any of them.
It's really a question of when the Gospels were written, not when Christianity (broadly defined) began. The fact that Paul was founding churches and worshipping a deity he called Jesus Christ is not in dispute.
If you date the Gospels before the Jewish revolt, then of course the Flavian theory would make no sense. But historians generally do not suppose that the Gospels were written shortly after Jesus died, as you do.
John2 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:09 pm
I feel like I gave Atwill a fair shot, and I think in the big picture Christianity (and Jesus, more or less as he's presented in Mark and Matthew, allowing for artistic license, which I think is natural enough to expect) already existed before Josephus and Titus were even born and when Vespasian was a kid and therefore has nothing to do with any of them.
It's really a question of when the Gospels were written, not when Christianity (broadly defined) began. The fact that Paul was founding churches and worshipping a deity he called Jesus Christ is not in dispute.
If you date the Gospels before the Jewish revolt, then of course the Flavian theory would make no sense. But historians generally do not suppose that the Gospels were written shortly after Jesus died, as you do.
While I do think all gospels were written after 70 CE, I think Mark and Matthew (and Luke following them, as per the Farrer Hypothesis) had nothing to do with Vespasian, Titus or Josephus because I think they are products of people who were in touch with pre-70 CE Christianity (as per Papias).
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
I look at it this way. I'm thinking 1 Clement could have been written by the Clement Paul mentions in Philippians and that he was Flavius Clemens who was later executed by Domitian c. 95 CE. So in my view, 1 Clement could be a post-70 CE writing by someone who was "in touch with" pre-70 CE Christianity. I also think Luke/Acts could have been written by the Epaphroditus Paul mentions in Philippians (who I think was Nero's secretary and later Josephus' patron of the same name who is said to have died during the time Domitian was persecuting Christians c. 95 CE), so I think Luke-Acts could have been written by someone who was in touch with pre-70 CE Christianity. (That they are both mentioned in a letter that sends special greetings from "those of Caesar's household" is telling in this respect.)
And then (for reasons I won't go into now) I buy what Papias says about Mark being a follower of Peter, so in my view Mark is also a post-70 CE writing by someone who was in touch with pre-70 CE Christianity. And Matthew (to me) is also at least pre-Papias, and since he says it was written in Hebrew and because it is said by church fathers to have been used by Jewish Christians who went back to the time of Jesus who only knew Hebrew, I assume that whoever wrote it (whether he was actually called Matthew or not) was in touch with pre-70 CE Christianity.
And since what these gospels say resembles what Josephus says about the Fourth Philosophy (albeit a relatively moderate version of it), I think they more likely pertain to that than to Vespasian and Titus (who fought against the Fourth Philosophy).
Last edited by John2 on Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
I would only add that the Flavians didn't need to have anything to do with the gospels because they had Josephus, who blatantly proclaimed Vespasian to be the Messiah (or a figure predicted in the OT to be "governor of the habitable earth," which I take to mean the Messiah) and served the interests of the Flavians.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
No, I'll add one more thing. To me Jesus' core message (aside from what I view as his messianic/apocalyptic "mumbo jumbo") is his opposition to the Pharisees and their oral Torah (as per Mk 7:1-13 and Mt. 5:20, for examples). Why would the Flavians promote that when the Pharisees (like Josephus) were the most pro-Roman sect of them all?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:50 pm Why would the Flavians promote that when the Pharisees (like Josephus) were the most pro-Roman sect of them all?
'Cos there were two parts to the Roman Appropriation of the Judaic Culture. The Flavians had to show that the Julio-Claudians were at the end of their line and the Flavians were in the Ascendant and the replacement of the J-Cs was chosen by God. They used the advantage of theft over honest toil. The Judaic Story of the Hasmoneans was just sitting there!
The Pharisees are hated quite naturally. They accuse the Hasmoneans Hyrcanus 1 and so on through Jannaeus of being Impure and not worthy to be Holy enough to be High Priests. Then, with Herod, the High Priest becomes an appointed position. The Hellenistic rulers in Jerusalem were quite hated.
In this sense, the Roman Theft brings as many troubles as it solves.
John2 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:15 pm
Regarding Flavius Clemens, I also think he could be the Clement Paul mentions in Php. 4:3. And as for 1 Clement, someone like Flavius Clemens would have had the status and resources to be a leader of the Roman Church and to compose and send out a huge ass letter like that. My thinking is that as someone who was close to Domitian (since he married his niece), he would have seen the writing on the wall and wanted to put everything out there before it was too late. And if he had known Paul (as per Php. 4:3), it would explain why 1 Clement lauds him.
Wouldn't that put Paul's letters later than 'conventionally' dated, since TF Clemens wasn't born until ~50 CE (wiki) died ~CE 95
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.
Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.-Giuseppe
Joseph Atwill's, Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus
Reviewed by Robert M. Price
When someone suggests that Christianity may have been a “safe,” denatured, Roman-domesticated, messianic Methadone to replace the real and dangerous messianic heroin of the Zealots, and that Josephus had something to do with it, it does not sound unreasonable on the face of it.
Now even this much is highly controversial, debatable, and necessarily so. But if we find this much of the premise beguiling, should we go the rest of the way with Atwill as our guide? After all, somewhat similar theories of a Roman origin of Christianity and of Jesus have been proposed by Abelard Reuchlin (whose notorious 1979 booklet The True Authorship of the New Testament strikingly anticipates Atwill’s at several points), Margaret Morrison (Jesus Augustus), Cliff Carrington (who also ascribes the gospels to the Flavians), and Stephan Hermann Huller (Marcus Agrippa, etc.). We might find that one of these alternative theories of Roman origins explains many of the same things Atwill’s does, and without the disadvantages.
Atwill’s theory does have the advantage of accounting for the persistent pro-Roman tendencies of the New Testament, but consider what else it requires us to accept. First, we are to accept a common, if committee, authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke John, and Josephus’ The Jewish War. The whole idea seems, well, absurd. http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_atwill.htm
