Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

[Irish1975]

[box]
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
[/box]

It seems to me that only one Flavian-sponsored Gospel is required in order for the Flavian hypothesis to work: gMark.

[Irish1975]

I don't think things such as vague iconography or lack of use of the cross until the 4th century, etc, endorses the hypothesis that Flavians crafted the cult and the narrative of Jesus Christ more or less as we find it in the NT Gospels.

It certainly suggests, however, that Christianity was not up and running by the end of the 4th first or even the 4th century as we are led to believe.

In what respect is the iconography of Roman coins and catacombs vague?

[John2]

[box]
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
[/box]

It seems to me that only one Flavian-sponsored Gospel is required in order for the Flavian hypothesis to work: gMark.

But why should "pro-Roman tendencies" suggest that Mark was Flavian-sponsored? As Josephus says about other writers of the time in the preface to the Jewish War:

… those that were there present have given false accounts of things … out of a humor of flattery to the Romans ... and … their writings contain sometimes … encomiums …

Were these other writings Flavian-sponsored too just because they flattered the Romans? Then why does Josephus criticize them? I think this shows that Roman flattery in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean that a writing from this time period was Flavian-sponsored. Maybe Mark was just ... Roman.

And what's so pro-Roman about Jesus in Mark anyway? Let's take another look at the tax question in 12:13-17:

Later, they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to catch Jesus in His words. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that You are honest and are swayed by no one. Indeed, you are impartial and teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay them or not?”

But Jesus saw through their hypocrisy and said, “Why are you testing me? Bring me a denarius to inspect.” So they brought it, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they answered.

Then Jesus told them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

And they marveled at him.

If anything, this sounds like a major "dis" to Caesar, considering that it associates him with money (which Jesus seems to have had little regard for) and doesn't consider him divine (which I think in and of itself disproves the Flavian hypothesis). And why would the Pharisees and Herodians "marvel" at his response if it was so "pro-Roman" considering how pro-Roman they were?

Cf. Mk. 6:7-9:

Then Jesus called the Twelve to Him and began to send them out two by two, giving them authority over unclean spirits. He instructed them to take nothing but a staff for the journey —no bread, no bag, no money in their belts— and to wear sandals, but not a second tunic.

In my view, Jesus is simply saying that if Caesar wants his money then let him have it since it's more important to give "to God what is God's."

[Charles Wilson]

Then Jesus called the Twelve to Him and began to send them out two by two, giving them authority over unclean spirits. He instructed them to take nothing but a staff for the journey —no bread, no bag, no money in their belts— and to wear sandals, but not a second tunic.

In my view, Jesus is simply saying that if Caesar wants his money then let him have it since it's more important to give "to God what is God's."

With greatest respect for your positions, John2, allow me to offer another reading:

1. I believe that the sending of the two by two was in preparation for the Coup against the Herodians and Romans at the Passover of 4 BCE. This is occurring around Jerusalem and the Temple and therefore the travel is limited. There is no reason to carry much and if captured, there is nothing that may be tied to the Insurrectionists.

2. There is a joke here with the "Render unto Caesar" material. Caesar is "Lord of the Earth". He already owns everything. To "...render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is to give him what he already owns. The Priesthood does not promise Empire (Though Jannaeus apparently promised greater Israel) but an approved method by which a Nation may be presented as Holy to God.

CW

[Irish1975]

But why should "pro-Roman tendencies" suggest that Mark was Flavian-sponsored? As Josephus says about other writers of the time in the preface to the Jewish War:

… those that were there present have given false accounts of things … out of a humor of flattery to the Romans ... and … their writings contain sometimes … encomiums …

Were these other writings Flavian-sponsored too just because they flattered the Romans? Then why does Josephus criticize them? I think this shows that Roman flattery in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean that a writing from this time period was Flavian-sponsored. Maybe Mark was just ... Roman.

And what's so pro-Roman about Jesus in Mark anyway? Let's take another look at the tax question in 12:13-17:

The evidence for Flavian sponsorship of gMark may or may not be that strong. But one thing that should not be in dispute is whether or not the Gospels and the NT as a whole promoted a development of Judaism that worked to the advantage of the Roman empire. A messiah who advocates paying taxes, opposes Jewish zealotry and strict Torah observance, welcomes and praises gentiles and sinners, and predicts the destruction of the Temple, presenting his own resurrected and sin-atoning body as a substitute for the Temple cult and Passover sacrifice, is most definitely a Jewish messiah that Roman emperors can get along with. Promoting the Pauline dying-and-rising messiah, who fulfills Jewish prophecy, enters and leaves the stage of history at a convenient time in the past, would perfectly serve the interests of the Roman state during and after the Jewish revolt. All the other claimants to the title of messiah at the time (66-132 CE) were rebels against Roman rule.

[John2]

But why should "pro-Roman tendencies" suggest that Mark was Flavian-sponsored? As Josephus says about other writers of the time in the preface to the Jewish War:

… those that were there present have given false accounts of things … out of a humor of flattery to the Romans ... and … their writings contain sometimes … encomiums …

Were these other writings Flavian-sponsored too just because they flattered the Romans? Then why does Josephus criticize them? I think this shows that Roman flattery in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean that a writing from this time period was Flavian-sponsored. Maybe Mark was just ... Roman.

And what's so pro-Roman about Jesus in Mark anyway? Let's take another look at the tax question in 12:13-17:

The evidence for Flavian sponsorship of gMark may or may not be that strong. But one thing that should not be in dispute is whether or not the Gospels and the NT as a whole promoted a development of Judaism that worked to the advantage of the Roman empire. A messiah who advocates paying taxes, opposes Jewish zealotry and strict Torah observance, welcomes and praises gentiles and sinners, and predicts the destruction of the Temple, presenting his own resurrected and sin-atoning body as a substitute for the Temple cult and Passover sacrifice, is most definitely a Jewish messiah that Roman emperors can get along with. Promoting the Pauline dying-and-rising messiah, who fulfills Jewish prophecy, enters and leaves the stage of history at a convenient time in the past, would perfectly serve the interests of the Roman state during and after the Jewish revolt. All the other claimants to the title of messiah at the time (66-132 CE) were rebels against Roman rule.

But just as we see how Josephus shows that flattering the Romans doesn't necessarily equate to being Flavian-sponsored, you can hang these other things you mention on Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Does it follow then that Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism and the Dead Sea Scrolls were Flavian-sponsored? I would say to some degree in the former example, sure, in the sense that they ultimately were willing (however begrudgingly) to go along with the Roman Empire (which of course includes the Flavian era). Take the Rabbinic dictum "the law of the land is the law," for example:

Dina d'malkhuta dina (alternative spelling: dina de-malkhuta dina) (Aramaic: דִּינָא דְּמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא‎, "the law of the land is the law"), is a rabbinic dictum based on the halakhic rule that the law of the country is binding, and, in certain cases, is to be preferred to Jewish law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_d%27malkhuta_dina

This is similar to the attitude Peter and Paul have too, of course, which makes sense since I view Christianity as being a faction of the Fourth Philosophy, which Josephus says shared "Pharisaic notions" in Ant. 18.1.6.

And messianism (and arguably perhaps even a suffering Messiah) and the concept of the resurrection of the dead are what Josephus would call "Pharisaic notions" too and were/are shared by the Pharisees/Rabbinic Jews, Fourth Philosophers and in the Dead Sea Scrolls, just like they are by Jesus and Christians after him (and cf. Acts 15:5).

And the Dead Sea Scrolls (which I view as largely Fourth Philosophic writings) also share the concept of sin-atoning bodies as a substitute for the Temple cult (such as in the Community Rule). And the Damascus Document welcomes Gentiles to a notable extent. Are they Flavian-sponsered for those reasons too?

And Jesus, as far as I can tell anyway, was more lenient in some ways and stricter in others regarding Torah observance, which seems like a natural enough thing to be like, so I don't see what that has to do with promoting the Flavians either.

[John2]

In other words, in the big picture, I view the Fourth Philosophy, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jesus and Christianity (even to some extent Paul), and maybe even the Essenes in their way, as "radical Pharisees." That's why Josephus had joined the Fourth Philosophy, even though he was a Pharisee. That's why there were Pharisee Christians (regardless that their views on Gentile circumcision didn't prevail). And Paul, of course, had previously been a Pharisee and had initially opposed what I would call a particular type of "radical Pharisees" (i.e, Christians) before becoming one himself, like Josephus had initially become a "radical Pharisee" (i.e., a Fourth Philosopher, by virtue of being a general in the 66-70 CE war, however reluctantly) and then rejected them later. This is why they're all so intertwined, and why Paul, as a Pharisee, was so intent on arresting and persecuting Christians (i.e., because they were, from his perspective and the perspective of the Pharisee-controlled establishment, "radical Pharisees").

And some "radical Pharisees" were more moderate with respect to violence and accommodation with Rome than others, like Jesus and Niger of Perea (who was executed by other Fourth Philosophers for his moderation with respect to making peace with the Romans), and some were more extreme, like the Sicarii and the Jewish Christians who rioted in Jerusalem and wanted to kill Paul for teaching against the Torah in Acts 21, or the followers of Theudas and Judas and the Galilean (who are likened to Christians in Acts 5:36-39). And this is why they all (Pharisees, the Fourth Philosophy, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity) believe in "Pharisaic notions" like messianism and the resurrection of the dead and such.

[John2]

But I'd say that Jesus was certainly not moderate with respect to his opposition to the Pharisees' oral Torah (commonly called "the customs of the fathers," cf. Gal. 1:14). He couldn't have been more radical in that respect, as were other Fourth Philosophers, who Josephus said had altered "the customs of our fathers" in Ant. 18.1.1 (and as are the Dead Sea Scrolls). Look how brazen Jesus is in that respect, especially considering that Josephus says the Pharisees and the oral Torah held sway in mainstream Judaism during this period (as per Mk. 7:3 below) and which Rabbinic Jews to this day consider to be divine.

Mk. 7:1-13:

Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus, and they saw some of His disciples eating with hands that were defiled—that is, unwashed.

Now in holding to the tradition of the elders, the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat until they wash their hands ceremonially. And on returning from the market, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions for them to observe, including the washing of cups, pitchers, kettles, and couches for dining.

So the Pharisees and scribes questioned Jesus: “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders? Instead, they eat with defiled hands.”

Jesus answered them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’

You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.”

He went on to say, “You neatly set aside the commandment of God to maintain your own tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘The help you would have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift committed to God), he is no longer permitted to do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by the tradition you have handed down. And you do so in many such matters.”

If I had been a Pharisee like Paul who had been "advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers," I'd have been angry with Christians too.

[John2]

But at the same time, Jesus was in line with "Pharisaic notions," like other Fourth Philosophers. This is why he doesn't criticize the Pharisees in Mk. 12:18-27 regarding the issue of the resurrection of the dead, only the Sadducees:

Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus and questioned Him: “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man is to marry his brother’s widow and raise up offspring for him. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died, leaving no children. Then the second one married the widow, but he also died and left no children. And the third did likewise. In this way, none of the seven left any children. And last of all, the woman died. In the resurrection, whose wife will she be? For all seven were married to her.”

Jesus said to them, “Aren’t you mistaken because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.

But concerning the dead rising, have you not read about the burning bush in the Book of Moses, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

And the Dead Sea Scrolls are in agreement with Jesus on this issue, since they also believe in the resurrection of the dead but reject the oral Torah of the Pharisees.

Considering how well I think Christianity (and particularly Mark) fits with Josephus' description of the Fourth Philosophy, Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism and the Dead Sea Scrolls (which were surely not Flavian-sponsored, though Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism was generally favored by the Romans before, during the time of, and after the Flavians), I don't see how it could have anything to do with the Flavians.

[Irish1975]

But why should "pro-Roman tendencies" suggest that Mark was Flavian-sponsored? As Josephus says about other writers of the time in the preface to the Jewish War:

… those that were there present have given false accounts of things … out of a humor of flattery to the Romans ... and … their writings contain sometimes … encomiums …

Were these other writings Flavian-sponsored too just because they flattered the Romans? Then why does Josephus criticize them? I think this shows that Roman flattery in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean that a writing from this time period was Flavian-sponsored. Maybe Mark was just ... Roman.

And what's so pro-Roman about Jesus in Mark anyway? Let's take another look at the tax question in 12:13-17:

The evidence for Flavian sponsorship of gMark may or may not be that strong. But one thing that should not be in dispute is whether or not the Gospels and the NT as a whole promoted a development of Judaism that worked to the advantage of the Roman empire. A messiah who advocates paying taxes, opposes Jewish zealotry and strict Torah observance, welcomes and praises gentiles and sinners, and predicts the destruction of the Temple, presenting his own resurrected and sin-atoning body as a substitute for the Temple cult and Passover sacrifice, is most definitely a Jewish messiah that Roman emperors can get along with. Promoting the Pauline dying-and-rising messiah, who fulfills Jewish prophecy, enters and leaves the stage of history at a convenient time in the past, would perfectly serve the interests of the Roman state during and after the Jewish revolt. All the other claimants to the title of messiah at the time (66-132 CE) were rebels against Roman rule.

But just as we see how Josephus shows that flattering the Romans doesn't necessarily equate to being Flavian-sponsored, you can hang these other things you mention on Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Does it follow then that Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism and the Dead Sea Scrolls were Flavian-sponsored? I would say to some degree in the former example, sure, in the sense that they ultimately were willing (however begrudgingly) to go along with the Roman Empire (which of course includes the Flavian era). Take the Rabbinic dictum "the law of the land is the law," for example:

Dina d'malkhuta dina (alternative spelling: dina de-malkhuta dina) (Aramaic: דִּינָא דְּמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא‎, "the law of the land is the law"), is a rabbinic dictum based on the halakhic rule that the law of the country is binding, and, in certain cases, is to be preferred to Jewish law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_d%27malkhuta_dina

This is similar to the attitude Peter and Paul have too, of course, which makes sense since I view Christianity as being a faction of the Fourth Philosophy, which Josephus says shared "Pharisaic notions."

And the Messiah (and arguably perhaps even a suffering Messiah) and the concept of resurrection of the dead are what Josephus would call "Pharisaic notions" too and were/are shared by the Pharisees/Rabbinic Jews, Fourth Philosophers and in the Dead Sea Scrolls, just like they are by Jesus and Christians after him (and cf. Acts 15:5).

And the Dead Sea Scrolls (which I view as largely Fourth Philosophic writings) also share the concept of sin-atoning bodies as a substitute for the Temple cult (such as in the Community Rule). And the Damascus Document welcomes Gentiles to a notable extent. Are they Flavian-sponsered for those reasons too?

And Jesus, as far as I can tell anyway, was more lenient in some ways and stricter in others regarding Torah observance, which seems like a natural enough thing to be like, so I don't see what that has to do with promoting the Flavians either.

The pro-Roman ideology of the Gospels does not "necessarily mean," as you say, that any of them was Flavian-sponsored. No one has said that. You've compared flattery by historians of the Jewish War, criticized by Josephus, to the pro-Roman ideology of the Gospels; but these are very different cases.

A narrative depicting a Jewish messiah who predicts 40 years in advance exactly what the Romans did to Jerusalem, which effectively blames the event on the sins of Jews in Jerusalem, written in Italy in the last third of the 1st century, would have functioned as very useful propaganda for the Flavians. There were very many Jews scattered throughout the empire, and it is entirely plausible that the Flavians would have promoted gMark's story in order to vindicate themselves and thwart any desire for retribution.