Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Tue Dec 13, 2022 12:33 pm**

The entire Roman conspiracy or Flavian conspiracy has a very major flaw in it. Basically it assumes the Jewish religion was some how special and different from other religions, or that it was uniquely militant and nationalistic. And also that the Jews in the 1st century somehow constituted a existential threat to the Romans, and specifically the Flavian dynasty. Further it misunderstands the tax farm focus of the Roman empire.

One also has to explain why it is that the epicenter of Christianity is the Greek homeland (today's Greece and Turkey), where the bulk of the activity and every letter is addressed, and the geolocation (if we extend to greater Armenia) of almost all of the patron saints (apostles) tombs are reputed.

There is no question the Celtic and Germantic religions were far more serious threats to the Romans than the Jews. More legions were lost and more legions were constantly deployed and warring these tribes to the north than dealing with the Jews. The Jews in fact proved far easier to tax and control than the barbarians to the north. And tax farming is what it was all about. That money went to the Empire and personal accounts of the Emperors. It was used to build and upkeep the temple in Rome. Why try to diminish the revenue by converting those Jews paying taxes by converting them to some synthetic religion?

Any such project would have had to come out of the pockets of the Imperial family. This conspiracy assumes big bank rolls and a sort of concerted and sustained policy for an extended time, maybe multiple generations. As if there was some secret skunk works in the palace dreaming up, and executing such a plan. This would be be so different and so beyond anything we have ever documented of the Romans. It is more in line with modern ideological movements than with family get rich schemes that dominate Roman Imperial history.

This conspiracy theory is nothing more than modern projection of CIA conspiracies of founding this or that movement. The closest thing we have is the Taliban, who were created --or at least had the name picked by marketing studies-- by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). And they didn't write any sacred texts. The whole concept is beyond absurd, simply implausible.

Posted: **Tue Dec 13, 2022 12:51 pm**

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 11:58 am
mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 11:36 am
Sinouhe wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 10:56 am
mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 10:51 am I absolutely fail to see any Judaic involvement in any Christianity whatsoever.
You really have to be obsessed with Marcion and totally ignorant of the Jewish literature of the second temple to say such a thing.
Can you name a few texts please, of that infamous "Jewish literature of the second temple"?
All these texts precede Paul and Mark, are contemporary or follow Mark by a few years or decades :

- The DSS (1st Century BC)
- Psalms of Solomon (1st Century BC)
- The Parables of Enoch (1st century BC/AD)
- 2 Enoch (1st century AD).
- 2 Baruch (1st century AD)
- The Jewish Apocalypse of Ezra (1st century AD)
- Testament of Moses (1st century AD)
- Apocalypse of Abraham (1st century AD / 2nd century AD)

There's really quite a lot of those and all that, that make it into the NT, isn't there? Or Christianity, for that matter

Posted: **Tue Dec 13, 2022 12:55 pm**

Stuart wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 12:33 pm This conspiracy theory is nothing more than modern projection of CIA conspiracies of founding this or that movement. The closest thing we have is the Taliban, who were created --or at least had the name picked by marketing studies-- by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). And they didn't write any sacred texts. The whole concept is beyond absurd, simply implausible.

Although I agree with your general cotempt for the claim that the Roman government created Christianity, I would quibble with this point. The cult of Sarapis is an example of a Meditteranean state's creating a nerw god and cult in an attempt to unify its people.

Posted: **Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:07 pm**

mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 12:51 pm
There's really quite a lot of those and all that, that make it into the NT, isn't there? Or Christianity, for that matter

Didn't you say: "I absolutely fail to see any Judaic involvement in any Christianity whatsoever"?

Paul and Mark do not stand out among these books.
They all (except 2 Enoch) use the Book of Isaiah and the character of the servant for their conception of the Messiah.
As for 2 Enoch, it mentions a hero born of a woman without any sexual intercourse and then hidden in heaven.

Posted: **Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:50 pm**

rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 6:28 am
... I really can't go along with any idea about Romans "inventing" Jesus or Christianity for political purposes. Nor can I go along with the idea that there was some real Jesus person who was a violent radical who was then whitewashed into a man of peace.

What I would agree with, however, is that [some] Roman[s] scholars would have had an interest in promoting the idea that Jesus had fulfilled the prophecies of the Jewish scriptures. It was common among Greeks and Romans to address prophecies by either showing that they had not yet been fulfilled and thus may still come true, or by showing that they are already been fulfilled and thus the prophecy had "expired" for lack of a better term.

For example, if there was a prophecy that a king would be killed by his wife, then kings would be in fear that they may be murdered by their wives. However, if it could be shown that the prophecy had already been fulfilled, then kings would rest easy knowing that they were no longer in jeopardy.

So, if Jesus worship originated with the Gnostic view that Jesus was not a Jewish messiah who fulfilled Jewish scriptures, but rather that Jesus was an opponent of the Jews who had been sent to depose their god once and for all, we can see that, in the wake of the Jewish-Roman Wars, [some] Roman[s] scholars would have had an interest in appropriating such a claim to make Jesus [as] a fulfiller of Jewish prophecy instead of an opponent of Judaism.

Having Jesus as an opponent of Judaism would perpetuate conflict, while claiming that Jesus had fulfilled the prophecies of the Jewish scriptures would have shown that Jewish messianic expectation had been satisfied and thus there is no further expectation of a Jewish messiah. The Jews simply misunderstood their own scriptures and didn't realize that the messiah would be a man of peace instead of a man of war.

So I can go along with the idea that[some] Roman[s] would have been motived to accept and favor a view that held Jesus to be a fulfiller of Jewish prophecy and a man of peace sent by the Jewish god, over the Gnostic idea that Jesus was an opponent of the Jewish god. But I can't go along with the idea that Roman officials commissioned the "creation of Christianity" in order to quell the religious conflicts. And, indeed, Christianity actually led to an expansion of religious conflict within the empire as pagans resist the cult. This wasn't some consciously directed imperial plan.

Am I missing something here? It seems that this line of reasoning, the idea that Christianity was a "Roman plot" from the very beginning, has gained quite a bit of traction.

I agree that "Roman provenance" is far-fetched and I too was surprised to see Vinzent going along with it. Robyn Faith Walsh appeared in another episode alongside Valliant—who I don't think deserves a platform alongside any academics—but at least she countered some of his claims.

I take issue with your appeal to "Roman scholars" considering, afaik, we have no knowledge of any engaging with 'Christianity' up until the early 4th century, at least (perhaps Lactantius qualifies as one who did).

I also take issue with your repeated references and appeals to 'Gnostics' or 'Gnosticism' as an overarching thing.1 It wasn't.

especially your claim that "Jesus was not a Jewish messiah who fulfilled Jewish scriptures" was the or even just 'a' Gnostic thing.

Posted: **Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:53 pm**

Stuart wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 12:33 pm ... the epicenter of Christianity is the Greek homeland (today's Greece and Turkey), where the bulk of the activity and every letter is addressed, and the geolocation (if we extend to greater Armenia) of almost all of the patron saints (apostles) tombs are reputed.

Sure, but the events in the letters—and the key characters therein—are rooted in Palestine

Posted: **Tue Dec 13, 2022 2:05 pm**

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 12:55 pm
Stuart wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 12:33 pm This conspiracy theory is nothing more than modern projection of CIA conspiracies of founding this or that movement. The closest thing we have is the Taliban, who were created --or at least had the name picked by marketing studies-- by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). And they didn't write any sacred texts. The whole concept is beyond absurd, simply implausible.
Although I agree with your general contempt for the claim that the Roman government created Christianity, I would quibble with this point. The cult of Sarapis is an example of a Mediterranean state creating a new god and cult in an attempt to unify its people.

You're right, ABuddhist, but that was Ptolemy Soter 1 in 'Egypt' in the aftermath of Alexander the Great's death in the 4th century BCE.

Interestingly, though, Sarapis [was] transformed over the ensuing 2-3 centuries; and the Sarapis religion-cult was spreading north in the first century AD/CE, as were the associated Egyptian cult/s of Osiris, Isis and Horus.

A good example of a state—the Roman emperor Hadrian, no less—creating a new god for his peoples is the cults of Antinous that sprung up very quickly in the early 130s AD/CE. I say 'cults' plural because Hadrian literally created different version, eg. Osiris-Antinous/Antinous-Osiris and Hermes-Antinous/Hermes-Antinous versions, among others, in different places. I think these, along with the Philo, Josephus, Cassius Dio, Suetonius, Tacitus, Plutarch, etc., textual 'accounts', shaped—whetted—many Romans appetites for similar accounts and new 'gods' - and new theology and new contemplations of old theologies - in those times.

Posted: **Tue Dec 13, 2022 2:26 pm**

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:07 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 12:51 pm
There's really quite a lot of those and all that, that make it into the NT, isn't there? Or Christianity, for that matter
Didn't you say: "I absolutely fail to see any Judaic involvement in any Christianity whatsoever"?

Paul and Mark do not stand out among these books.
They all (except 2 Enoch) use the Book of Isaiah and the character of the servant for their conception of the Messiah.
As for 2 Enoch, it mentions a hero born of a woman without any sexual intercourse and then hidden in heaven.

So, none of the books that you mention have any direct or even indirect relation to the NT? But they are Judaic books about the Tanakh?

Posted: **Tue Dec 13, 2022 9:09 pm**

mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 2:26 pm
Sinouhe wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:07 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 12:51 pm
There's really quite a lot of those and all that, that make it into the NT, isn't there? Or Christianity, for that matter
Didn't you say: "I absolutely fail to see any Judaic involvement in any Christianity whatsoever"?

Paul and Mark do not stand out among these books.
They all (except 2 Enoch) use the Book of Isaiah and the character of the servant for their conception of the Messiah.
As for 2 Enoch, it mentions a hero born of a woman without any sexual intercourse and then hidden in heaven.
So, none of the books that you mention have any direct or even indirect relation to the NT? But they are Judaic books about the Tanakh ?

Bravo. Exactly like Paul and Mark.

Posted: **Tue Dec 13, 2022 11:57 pm**

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 9:09 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 2:26 pm
Sinouhe wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:07 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 12:51 pm
There's really quite a lot of those and all that, that make it into the NT, isn't there? Or Christianity, for that matter
Didn't you say: "I absolutely fail to see any Judaic involvement in any Christianity whatsoever"?

Paul and Mark do not stand out among these books.
They all (except 2 Enoch) use the Book of Isaiah and the character of the servant for their conception of the Messiah.
As for 2 Enoch, it mentions a hero born of a woman without any sexual intercourse and then hidden in heaven.
So, none of the books that you mention have any direct or even indirect relation to the NT? But they are Judaic books about the Tanakh ?
Bravo. Exactly like Paul and Mark.

Right. So we're back at where we started: I fail to see any Judaism in the NT - and perhaps I should have added "save for the obvious parodies (meant to be taken seriously) by Mark and Matthew, and Paul"

Naturally there has been Judaism before, during and after that period in all kinds of forms - and all of that impossible to combine with the alien judaisation that we find in the NT: false and fake prophecies, a weak rhetoric Messiah instead of a warrior who crushes Israel's enemies, and most of all: rejection of the Torah at large (despite the mumblings of Paul who buries it all under a ton of words without being any decisive in any way)

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

"Roman Provenance"

Re: "Roman Provenance"

Re: "Roman Provenance"

Re: "Roman Provenance"

Re: "Roman Provenance"

Re: "Roman Provenance"

Re: "Roman Provenance"

Re: "Roman Provenance"

Re: "Roman Provenance"

Re: "Roman Provenance"

Re: "Roman Provenance"