The self-evident emergence of Christianity

[mlinssen]

The whole dating game is obvious, including the retrofit to 1st CE - safely out of reach for everyone.
Does it really matter whether their lies were created in the 2nd, 4th or 9th CE?

The Resurrection is where the hostile takeover began; when and where Mark started, Chrestianity got hijacked

You are staring into the abyss, Mlinssen!

Your Grand Work on Thomas screams for an analysis of how - AND WHEN - a corrupted Set of Thomas Sayings got merged into the NT.
Which means that the "Judaic" material is important if a Zakkai and others laid the groundwork for its inclusion (or even creation!) in the NT.

On this view, the Judaic Basis in the 4th or 9th centuries would not have been apparent, remembered or accessed in these Supersessionist centuries.
That is what would be "Out or Reach" and yet the Clues, which you are finding to your credit, are still there.

Good points.

CW

Thanks Charles. The Romans reacted to "Marcion" and countered all his anti-Judaism as best they could, while adding pro-Judaism as best they could.
Mark introducing the baptism of Jesus by John, suddenly his forerunner even, is a fine example of the latter

But indeed, the question is how Thomas got into Chrestianity / "Marcion". I don't consider the Thomas sayings to be really corrupted, the content is largely intact although there are translation mishaps in the NT, likely already in *Ev - but the entire goal of the NT was to repurpose them into their context, and I'd really have to dive deep into Klinghardt in order to figure out which content really is *Ev

Mark already is a remake of *Ev, an earlier version of it perhaps, according to Vinzent - although I just think that Mark was shy and had enough on his hands as it was

Where does John fit in is another question, and which version of John would that be? There are faint traces here and there of him being late (native Greek word for flogging Jesus) as well as early (the woman at the well saying "salvation is from the Judeans")

"On this view, the Judaic Basis in the 4th or 9th centuries would not have been apparent, remembered or accessed in these Supersessionist centuries."

I'm puzzled beyond measure. Care to elaborate?

[Charles Wilson]

Where does John fit in is another question, and which version of John would that be? There are faint traces here and there of him being late (native Greek word for flogging Jesus) as well as early (the woman at the well saying "salvation is from the Judeans")

As well as "Soudarian" (Latin: "Head Bandages") and others. Remember, it reads OK to the Original Authors. To us: Not so much. As to John...

On this view, the Judaic Basis in the 4th or 9th centuries would not have been apparent, remembered or accessed in these Supersessionist centuries.

I'm puzzled beyond measure. Care to elaborate?

Let's assume a meeting or three (Not necessarily from my observer's platform but...a meeting) between say, Vespasian and Zakkai:

V: Why don't I gut you and feed the pigs and goats with your entrails?

Z: That would ruin my day, I'm afraid. Since you are destined to rule the world, why don't I help you instead?

Advisor (Whispers in V's ear).

V: Stupido, my advisor over here, tells me that we could have a Project for a New Religion, loyal to <ahem>, ME. That would please me, the Ruler of the World, greatly. And you might live. Any ideas?...
***
Let's now assume that a "John-Mark" is produced but that it is lacking in, shall we say, Roman Elegance. It gets split and the John half gets a Project Manager and some Greekies who view the task through their Greek lens (Teeple, for ex.).

John 2: 19 - 2 (RSV):

[19] Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
[20] The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"
[21] But he spoke of the temple of his body.
[22] When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

Group Leader: "Look at (Verse 19) here. This is code. I recognize it from that Zakkai stuff. Most of the (verse 20) stuff couldn't be known to the Emperor nor to any Greek I know. We need to change things a bit..."

"'Forty-six years' is also problematic. The Judaic Symbolism of raising a Temple you've just demolished is one thing. Magicians do tricks all the time. Uhhh, "forty-six years"?"

Someone knows the Time-Markers and they must be hidden. Verse 22 accomplishes this hiding. It records an event between the Disciples, who were always suspect. "OH YEAH, remember when...?" Uhhh, NO. It becomes perceived as a different Type of Fact: "Jesus must have been 46 years old." The Reader, the BELIEVER, supplies the meaning and it "MUST" mean whatever the current dogma necessitates.

SO:

However coercive the Original Stories, on order from the Roman Overlords, there are Clues from the Jewish side embedded into the Stories - " 'N what about this Thomas stuff?..." In the Fourth Century and onwards, these Clues would not have been recognized - "She had a 12 year Issue of Blood". "Jairus' Daughter was 12 years old." They are perceived as Real Miracle Stories, not Symbolic Tales.

Supersessionism is meant to replace any and all Judaic Possibilities. Take everything the Jews had and move them to Rome. Transvalue it ALL. After a couple hundred years, it was accomplished. "We have linguistic techniques ("He was referring to the Temple of his body..." "The Disciples remembered...) " to handle all puzzles..."

Those embedded bits, however, are still there, now unknown and forgotten.

Y/N/M?

[mlinssen]

Supersessionism is meant to replace any and all Judaic Possibilities. Take everything the Jews had and move them to Rome. Transvalue it ALL. After a couple hundred years, it was accomplished. "We have linguistic techniques ("He was referring to the Temple of his body..." "The Disciples remembered...) " to handle all puzzles..."

Those embedded bits, however, are still there, now unknown and forgotten.

Y/N/M?

There is code, yes. But from where it comes, or rather where it should point to, is not always evident. Most comes from the Tanakh or it's of Roman making but likely there'll be a Hellenic reference too

Supersessionism is nothing but the unfortunate consequence of countering Marcion. I'll repeat the strategy once more:

In essence, the gospels thus share the same strategy as Paul ff:

1. Heal the wounds between Judaism and Chrestianity by ending the divide via bringing the opponents together;
2. Permanently align Chrestianity and Judaism by forging an unbreakable bond between the two via making one dependent on the other and vice versa

Paul (and ff) addresses the first point with his apologising for the Gentiles having received this new god and kingdom, even while being “Lawless” and uncircumcised, and he moves on to the second point by asserting that Chrestianity is the fulfilment of God’s plan (Romans 9:25-26);
Mark (and ff) handles the first issue by taking the anti-Judaism in *Ev and focussing all of it towards the ‘Pharisees and scribes’ - thereby catching two birds with one stone, and his way of addressing the second point is by taking not Chrestianity but only Jesus and to present him as the fulfilment of God’s plan (Mark 1:1-3).

That was achieved, there can be no doubt about that.
As a result, oh dramatic irony, Christianity became diametrically opposed to Judaism - the curse of the copying from Thomas who started all that, perhaps?

[mlinssen]

So where Mark deals with Jesus and has to deflect explicit anti-Judaism in *Ev, Paul deals with the religion and has to deflect that it is the Gentiles who received God's favour instead of the Jews, and in that regard there is anti-Judaism to deal with too because the poor Jews got punished by God AGAIN

Jesus and his religion are the fulfilment of God's plan, it is actually his idea that the Jews should be superseded. Paul doesn't take those words into his mouth but he suggests as much. And the sad result is not that the Judaics accept their fate but that the Chrestians do so.
Supersessionism, as we know it, is caused by Paul's failure and Mark's success. While Paul tried to ram Chrestianity through the throats of Judaics because that was the strategy - and it is arguable that he naturally never did so but that Romans was solely written as an alleged piece of history à la Dialogue with Trypho where the Jews bow their head to the Chrestians under their new masters the Romans - his rhetoric had the adverse effect of being rejected by the real Judaics while embraced by the real Chrestians, who in it saw even more and better evidence of the failure of Judaism. And they p0wned it, and that was the end of that: that story became part of their larger story

So in essence Paul failed and Mark succeeded, and that likely is the reason why nobody mentions Paul while they should, but then his letters end up being cherished by real Chrestians and they become part of the legacy. And then that can't be undone anymore - because that's also how storytelling works

So Paul failed, backfired, and while he should have come before Mark in the Canon because he preceded him, he got fumbled in the back just like Mark got fumbled behind Matthew, and Acts got written to glue the gospels and letters together

[davidmartin]

The Thomas sayings are buried pretty deep in the surrounding layers and would appear to have no interest at all in supporting a new religion that would exchange the pharisees for bishops. But it looks for all the world like there was a bunch of gentile religionists attracted to Judaism but forever inferior to their Jewish teachers, then along comes a way to inherit the whole thing and become the masters of it themselves and kick out their former teachers with God's blessing. They absolutely loved it. The question is does the religion that emerged match up closely to the intentions of its founder?
If you have to ask do I mean Paul or Jesus that sums up the problem
Since we have Thomas and if the hypothesis is that it's reliable and Mark used it for a source then for all intents and purposes we have something to compare with because the gospel of Mark assumes whoever said the Thomas sayings was for them the son of God
I'm not of the opinion the answer to that is black and white, yes or no but it sure looks like there is some level of disconnect involved which is what makes it interesting

[mlinssen]

The Thomas sayings are buried pretty deep in the surrounding layers and would appear to have no interest at all in supporting a new religion that would exchange the pharisees for bishops. But it looks for all the world like there was a bunch of gentile religionists attracted to Judaism but forever inferior to their Jewish teachers, then along comes a way to inherit the whole thing and become the masters of it themselves and kick out their former teachers with God's blessing. They absolutely loved it. The question is does the religion that emerged match up closely to the intentions of its founder?
If you have to ask do I mean Paul or Jesus that sums up the problem
Since we have Thomas and if the hypothesis is that it's reliable and Mark used it for a source then for all intents and purposes we have something to compare with because the gospel of Mark assumes whoever said the Thomas sayings was for them the son of God
I'm not of the opinion the answer to that is black and white, yes or no but it sure looks like there is some level of disconnect involved which is what makes it interesting

I doubt that anyone was fond of Judaism, it is not a particularly attractive religion really

[mlinssen]

I'm just going to quote and link a few of the posts on this site alone

viewtopic.php?p=910#p910

It will be noticed that those who argue for a pre 70 CE Jesus cult of Christians hardly present any supporting evidence for their position but are constantly ridiculing others who argue for a post c 70 CE Jesus cult.

The very first thing that must be understood is that all Gospels are forgeries or falsely attributed to characters of whom there is no corroborative evidence for their existence.

In the Canon itself, Scholars have already agreed almost universally that the Gospels were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

We see that for hundreds of years people were duped into thinking that the Gospels must have been written in the 1st century because Christian writers of antiquity claimed Matthew and John were actual disciples of the supposed Jesus and that Mark and Luke were contemporaries of Jesus and the Apostles.

The Forgeries were specifically carried out to DECEIVE and dupe the reader.

In "Church History" it is claimed gMatthew was composed before gMark which was already composed by Mark since the time of Philo or since c 50 CE.

Church History 6

4. Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ

Church History 2.17

1. And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria.

Now, the writings of Justin Martyr show that the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not known or used in the Churches up c 150 CE.

Justin's First Apology LXVII

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits

Based on Justin gMatthew, gMark, gLuke and gJohn are most likely forgeries or falsely attributed to the named authors after c 150 CE.

viewtopic.php?p=2627#p2627

What the text did not contain is "χρηϲτιανοϲ." Of this we can be fairly certain. That's Greek.

haha. Very good!.. Unfortunately, however, I was responding to the OP, not to the diversion about Tacitus, whose original text is claimed, without evidence, to have been written in Latin. I doubt that supposition, but I have no evidence to support my belief that Tacitus wrote originally in Greek, like most of the rest of the Roman officials, working in the former Greek empire, in that era.

This understanding of "Roman officials" in second century Rome and the prevailing use of Greek or Latin looks confused.

The question here, is NOT, what did Tacitus write. The question is, what was the ORIGINAL spelling and meaning of the word, known today as χρηϲτιανοϲ? Did it originally mean, "The good", or "the anointed"? Codex Sinaiticus is the gold standard, for it is universally acknowledged to represent a fourth century CE composition, and in this important witness, the Greek word, χρηϲτιανοϲ, appears, whereas, the sole copy of Tacitus' Annals, to which you have referred, was fabricated in a monastery in Italy in the middle ages, a millenium after Codex Sinaiticus.

χρηϲτοϲ is "good." χριϲτοϲ is "anointed."

I notice that most of your rejoinders to my posts, maybe it has been too small a sample, seem to combine a titch of light hearted contempt, mixed with a sprinkle of overt hostility. Why not, for a change, try to focus on the issues, raised by my submission to the forum:

a. The text of Codex Sinaiticus--its significance, if any, (in your opinion) to the question raised in the OP, spelling and meaning of χρηϲτιανοϲ, and

It lends weight to the contention that the two spellings continued to be confused later than the second century when Tacitus wrote and, further, by Christian scribes.

One possible conjecture, following the confession by Justin Martyr that Marcionites are also known as Christians, and the further contention that the higher God of Marcion was known as "the Good," a Platonist concept, is that the Marcionites had a hand to play in the origin of the term χρηϲτιανοϲ as a reference to Christians but specifically to Marcionite Christians (originally, Chrestians). This explains also why the spelling χρηϲτιανοϲ could be prior to the other, which is created to make distance between Christians and the Marcionites. They may have competed for centuries to be the dominant pronunciation and spelling, on this understanding of the etymology.

b. The provocative thoughts of Walter Shandruck, whose opinion coincides with your own, Peter, i.e. that the original word χρηϲτιανοϲ is derived from Latin, not Greek. So, does this imply that Tertullian's input to the creation of Codex Sinaiticus represents not simply that of another heretic gone astray, but rather a voice corresponding to that of co-architect of the canon?

He's got a good point. That could also explain Latinate confusion over the exact stem of the word, imported from Greek.

Do we have any other author, before publication of Codex Sinaiticus, writing in Latin, to explain the concept of χρηϲτιανοϲ, as it appears in context in mid 4th century ?

I'm not sure exactly how you are attempting to qualify your question for a specific answer, so if this comment below doesn't answer your question, perhaps it answers another one.

Tertullian wrote in Latin and attests to the pronunciation Chrestianos (thus, he says, witnessing to the goodness of the Christian).

Suetonius wrote in Latin and mentions Chrestus under Claudius. A conjectural emendation might make him refer to Chrestians being persecuted by Nero.

Is there any other single word, of greater significance to the evolution of the Christian tradition, than χρηϲτιανοϲ, as it appears in Codex Sinaiticus?

Not sure. Gospel, maybe. Apostle, maybe. Gnosis, maybe. Catholic, maybe. Bishop, maybe. But, no, that one is definitely up there too. Tough call.

viewtopic.php?p=34376#p34376

I'd suggest that the word appeared already in the early second century, when it was being used by Tacitus and Suetonius and Pliny (and also 1 Peter), as "the name" under which the "Chrestiani" were being convicted.

We can leave slightly to one side the question of whether they were called "Chrestiani" due to pagan misunderstanding (of the word for Christ) or simply because that was the way it was in the early second century (with there being a central figure of χρηστὸς or Chrestus).

By the time of Justin, then, it would be firmly lodged in use as the 'name' ascribed to them.

... I don't have a 'thesis' per se. Just a theory about the nomen sacrum IC which I vigorously defend for now.

We have plenty of examples of the Greek form Χρηστιανοὶ or Latin form Chrestiani in this context. Yes, the word was carried into Greek [Χρηστιανοὶ] from Latin [Chrestiani] from Latin [Chrestus] from Greek [χρηστὸς]. That's a true fact, so I'd just suggest getting over it. YMMV, of course.)

But all of these date back to a person named Chrestos no? I am not sure that the context of the apology supports that. I think Justin is talking about an excellent or good person.

Why should this be a contradiction?

Tertullian has essentially the same response as Justin here (but Justin says all this without correcting the pagans about the name Χρηστιανοὶ):

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/mayo ... lation.htm

In each case the reform effected by the name of Christian is the ground of offence. Goodness is not of such account as hatred of the Christians. Now therefore if it is a name that is hated what charge can there be against a name, what prosecution of words, unless it be that a particular utterance of a word has a barbarous or ill-omened or a scurrilous or immodest sound? The name Christian indeed, so far as its meaning is concerned, is derived from 'anointing.' And even when it is wrongly pronounced 'Chrestian' by you--for neither is there any real knowledge of the name among you--it is made up from sweetness or kindness. And thus even an innocent name gets hated in the case of innocent men.

Likewise Justin but with an important difference (and, thus, a different implied spelling):

For we are accused of being Chr[e]stians, and to hate what is excellent (chrestos) is unjust. Again, if any of the accused deny the name, and say that he is not a Chr[e]stian, you acquit him, as having no evidence against him as a wrong-doer; but if any one acknowledge that he is a Chr[e]stian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgment. Justice requires that you inquire into the life both of him who confesses and of him who denies, that by his deeds it may be apparent what kind of man each is." (1 Apol 4) [no parallel statement about anointing]

Is it possible there were separate communities called Christians and Chrestians, respectively? and they were beginning to overlap? that is causing some contemplation by the likes of Justin Martyr and Tertullian?

It would also be interesting to look at some early versions of the alleged letter of Hadrian to Servianus.

An English version is here; and a Latin version here

viewtopic.php?p=119725#p119725

to hakeem,

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1` does not refer to Christians or NT Jesus of Nazareth once the "TF" is a late forgery in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3. If Josephus wanted to write about NT Jesus he would have done so in the 18th book his Antiquities when he mentioned John the Baptist and Pilate the Governor of Judea.

Here, Jesus is just named for identifying Jame, I don't see why, at that conjecture, Josephus should mentioned Christians and "of Nazareth". And that Jesus is not any Jesus. He is the the one called Christ.
With Ant.18.3.3 being a forgery, it is obvious Josephus had no desire to write about Jesus. Josephus was not a Christian, that would explain it.

The character called Jesus in the 20th book of Josephus' Antiquities lived in the time of Nero when Albinus was Governor.

That's not what Jews 20.9.1 says. James was alive during the time of Nero and Festus (not Albinus). That does not mean that his brother lived at that time also.
For example, in Ant. book XX, ch 8, section 1, we have:
Germanicus, the brother of Caesar[Claudius]
Germanicus was long dead (19 CE) when Claudius was emperor (41-54 CE).

The very NT states that many will come claiming to be Christ

I already explained that at: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7690&start=180#p119718

Justin Martyr claimed there were people in the 1st century before the time of Nero who were called Christians but were not believers in the NT Jesus stories.

Dialogue whith Trypho, ch. XXXV
And Trypho said, "I believe, however, that many of those who say that they confess Jesus, and are called Christians, eat meats offered to idols, and declare that they are by no means injured in consequence." And I replied, "The fact that there are such men confessing themselves to be Christians, and admitting the crucified Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, yet not teaching His doctrines, but those of the spirits of error, causes us who are disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, to be more faithful and stedfast in the hope announced by Him.

So according to Justin, those Christians are guilty of not teaching Jesus' doctrines. That does not mean these Christians rejected the gospels Jesus' stories.

In Sacred History, Sulpitius Severus quotes a passage similar to Tacitus' Annals 15.44 and the phrase " Christus, from whom the name had its origin" is missing.

Sulpitius Severus Sacred History 2 .29
And in fact, Nero could not by any means he tried escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent

Why do you expect that Severus (c. 363 – c. 425) to repeat everything written by Tacitus, including the origins of the word "Christian"?
BTW, Severus has 'Christianos' in the Latin of Sacred History 2 .29

Also, it is a fact that in the extant copy of Tacitus' Annals the word ChrEstianos was manipulated into ChrIstianos.

From Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[16] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown. It is impossible today to say who altered the letter e into an i. In Suetonius' Nero 16.2, 'christiani', however, seems to be the original reading".[17] Since the alteration became known it has given rise to debates among scholars as to whether Tacitus deliberately used the term "Chrestians", or if a scribe made an error during the Middle Ages.[18][19] It has been stated that both the terms Christians and Chrestians had at times been used by the general population in Rome to refer to early Christians.[20]

However, Tacitus used "Christus" instead of "Chrestus".

In addition, Tacitus also wrote in his Histories 5.13 that the Jews expected their Messianic ruler at around cc 66 CE or at the time of the Jewish War against the Romans .

Jesus, as the Messiah (King of the Jew), dead but resurrected and saved in heaven, and expected to come back to be the earthly ruling Messiah, was believed after 30 CE by a small number of Jews.
That would not prevent many Jews to expect a Messiah to come around 66 CE in order to defeat those nasty Romans.

Tacitus's Annals 15.44 is a confirmed forgery using Christian and non-apologetic writings.

That's a theory with very few adepts. And of course, any Mythicist would want to eliminate this passage from Annals.

Cordially, Bernard

I looked for: justin martyr chrestians

We've all been there and done that, apparently. History repeats itself while history remains unchanged?

[davidmartin]

I doubt that anyone was fond of Judaism, it is not a particularly attractive religion really

Yes exactly that's the appeal. Such as the author of the Didache "you slaves shall be subject to your masters as to a type of God, in modesty and fear"

[mlinssen]

I doubt that anyone was fond of Judaism, it is not a particularly attractive religion really

Yes exactly that's the appeal. Such as the author of the Didache "you slaves shall be subject to your masters as to a type of God, in modesty and fear"

Now please do tell me what is so very attractive at being a slave to a master. Especially the modesty part as well, and not to forget fear of course

[davidmartin]

Now please do tell me what is so very attractive at being a slave to a master. Especially the modesty part as well, and not to forget fear of course

Not attractive to me! But I think some folks liked this mindset and thought it was the way to go. The teaching of Thomas is basically the opposite of this, as I read in your analysis of the sayings