Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 6:28 amAm 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.

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 4:45 am (14) Earliest references to "Christians" (excluding TF) are (supposedly) all Roman = emperor Trajan, statesman Pliny, historian Tacitus

mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 10:51 am

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 10:07 am We should at least distinguish between the emergence of Christianity in Rome (a vast city with a large Jewish population), versus an involvement by Roman political elites in the genesis of the Christian story (as per Atwill, Valliant). The phrase "Roman Provenance" seems ambiguous between the two. The former is a modest claim that rests on abundant evidence, both literary and archeological. The latter is a bold conspiracy theory, with almost no evidence about the conspiratorial activity of Roman elites themselves.

However, I don't think Valliant's research should be ignored. He made some curious discoveries and/or connections about coins, tombs, and the icon of the anchor entwined with a fish.

I absolutely fail to see any Judaic involvement in any Christianity whatsoever. I know what signs wants us all to believe, but seriously - no Judaic would fall for the hilarious falsifications of Judaism that are in the NT

It's not a genesis, Irish - it is taking an existing story and movement and merely turning the tide. All we need is motive, and perhaps it was just one guy who started it all - let's dub him Mark - and it was surprisingly successful once that word got out.
And then all that was needed was an organised fix, MatthewLuke, and there it was: nascent Christianity, toddler stage

The issue that I have with my latest on this is that evidently the struggle against Chrestianity took many centuries. If we place any of this between 3rd and 5th CE, the Romans were still boss then - why didn't they pull through?
The "official" texts couldn't be altered anymore, but if we go by the offside texts we find a very gradual replacement of xrhstos by xristos, where the 5th CE displays a 50-50 division, just about.
Let me wrap up with the following; in my work we always hold the architecture adagium of Why, What, How and With what

I have guessed at the Why, and it is evident that there's a grain of truth to the fact that an anti-Judaic movement isn't a pleasant aspect of any society - so that's in the ballpark.
The What has been evident for centuries: the anti-Judaism in Marcion has been turned into pro-Judaism in the NT, and both Chrestianity and Judaism have been deeply rooted into another there.
The How is the issue here, I think: who instigated this, was it organised and if so, to which extent? And you are completely right that we have nothing on that, save for conspiracy theories that aren't convincing at all.
WithWhat? A pen

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 9:25 am
I suppose one way to conceptualize the problem is that we have no workable theories, and little evidence, for why Christianity became something that the highest imperial circles were concerned with, at some early stage. Among the oddities--

1. Scattered evidence that minor relatives of the Flavian emperors, Flavia Domitilla and Titus Flavius Clemens, had some kind of involvement with Judaism, and possibly Christ worship.

2. Justin's putative addresses to Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Are these really what they claim to be, or someone's propaganda? How realistic is it that someone like the author of the Justinian material was giving talks to emperors? Urging the supreme commander of the known world to persecute this group, and not that. It's very weird.

3. The unexplained reference in Philippians to a slave of Caesar's household as a fellow believer.

4. Related to 3, the coincidence of names like "Clement" and "Epaphroditus" with definite characters of Domitian's regime.

5. Romans 13:1-6 as a sort of concordat between church and empire.

It is said that the emperors, at least from Hadrian on, were very concerned with Judaic rebelliousness. At best, that furnishes a motive, but a rather abstract one, for the nurture of a religion that, if it succeeded, might subvert Judaism's political monotheism. But I think too much weight is put on this one factor.

From the side of modern Christianity, of course it is taken for granted that imperial interest in the faith arose from its rapid success and growth, and the challenge it posed to the imperial cult. Likewise, the only sensible explanation for the lobbying of imperial favor by such a one as Justin was to achieve security for his co-religionists against persecution. The idea of any pseudo-Machiavellian schemes by the founders of Catholicism is just so much twaddle. Thus, the conventional history of Christianity's rise.

But Christianity is and has always been an inherently political religion, both designed and maintained for the benefit of a certain scheme of political power.

mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 11:57 pmRight. 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"

Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 10:15 am

mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 11:57 pmRight. 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"

It is here that the story gets complicated.

I've asked for years for someone else besides me and the esteemed Mr. Christensen (RIP), who pointed me in the correct direction, that one may calculate who was on Duty in Mishmarot Service during the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE during that Passover and Feast Week.

The correct answer is that Bilgah and Immer were on Duty for this Passover Period and you can verify this with pencil and paper and a little Maff.
No one has reported on this Site that they took the time to prove that this is True.

Why is this important? Bilgah is deprecated in the eyes of the Mishmarot Priesthood, so much so that they moved the Tools of Bilgah for the Slaughter of the victims in the Temple to the other end of the Temple. They looked at reducing the Number of Priestly Groups to 23 before deciding against it.

"Immer" follows "Bilgah" and the word "Immer" is identical to "immar" - "Lamb". So:

Mark 1: 7 (RSV):

[7] And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.

Diminished Bilgah followed by Immer.

John 1: 29 (RSV):

[29] The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

The pairing of a god name with an animal name goes back 1000 years to Sumer (Pettinato, Archives of Ebla). " 'nmmr-haad", "Panther of Haad", may give an understanding of "Nimrod", from Genesis. ""Lamb-of-God" would be "Immar-Yah" which would become " 'Marya".

Why is this important? Judaic Religious Culture is found almost everywhere in the NT and this is NOT argumentative to your Cause mlinssen. It all implies that the NT was a CONSTRUCTION, changing Anti-Roman writings into a Pro-Roman story of a savior-god loyal to Rome. If I am given the name of a Priest, that may be interesting but not necessarily worthy of worship.
If, however, we rename this person and ascribe Supernatural Powers given from God, many would feel OBLIGATED to worship this person:

John 1: 3 (RSV):

[3] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

Again, this is where the complications arise. Who could have provided the Romans with this information? Zakkai escapes from the Fall of Jerusalem and Vespasian is told by Zakkai that he will become Ruler of the world, *Supposedly*. He founds a School at Yavneh and changes the Direction of Judaism, from an Isolated, war-like religion to a Religion that Studies what is Right and Correct, "Supposedly" (Irony: 600 years later, Flavius Constantinus Heraclius "...shores up his Eastern Front", signing agreements wiht Tribal Middle Eastern Peoples. In ten years or so Heraclius is gone but the Tribes coalesce around the remains of the agreements...).

Without challenging your Work, Judaic Religious Culture may be found almost everywhere in the NT. It's all there to see if one would look.

Best to you, mlinssen.

CW

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 9:25 am I suppose one way to conceptualize the problem is that we have no workable theories, and little evidence, for why Christianity became something that the highest imperial circles were concerned with, at some early stage. Among the oddities--

1. Scattered evidence that minor relatives of the Flavian emperors, Flavia Domitilla and Titus Flavius Clemens, had some kind of involvement with Judaism, and possibly Christ worship.

2. Justin's putative addresses to Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Are these really what they claim to be, or someone's propaganda? How realistic is it that someone like the author of the Justinian material was giving talks to emperors? Urging the supreme commander of the known world to persecute this group, and not that. It's very weird.

3. The unexplained reference in Philippians to a slave of Caesar's household as a fellow believer.

4. Related to 3, the coincidence of names like "Clement" and "Epaphroditus" with definite characters of Domitian's regime.

5. Romans 13:1-6 as a sort of concordat between church and empire.

It is said that the emperors, at least from Hadrian on, were very concerned with Judaic rebelliousness. At best, that furnishes a motive, but a rather abstract one, for the nurture of a religion that, if it succeeded, might subvert Judaism's political monotheism. But I think too much weight is put on this one factor.

From the side of modern Christianity, of course it is taken for granted that imperial interest in the faith arose from its rapid success and growth, and the challenge it posed to the imperial cult. Likewise, the only sensible explanation for the lobbying of imperial favor by such a one as Justin was to achieve security for his co-religionists against persecution. The idea of any pseudo-Machiavellian schemes by the founders of Catholicism is just so much twaddle. Thus, the conventional history of Christianity's rise.

But Christianity is and has always been an inherently political religion, both designed and maintained for the benefit of a certain scheme of political power.

mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 10:31 am
Hi Charles, I certainly don't deny that there are faint, feeble and weak traces of an immensely watered down version of Judaism in the NT - and you are free to challenge my work any time anyway.

But what you give me here is name dropping X and Y, and it is utterly unconvincing - you might as well have thrown Harry Potter into the mix, seriously

The NT certainly is a construction / fabrication, and it most certainly is pro-Roman in the simple sense that it is not anti-Roman. Yet I suspect the original John to have invented the crucifixion by Pilate at the instigation of the Judeans, even though I have as much evidence for that as you present here for your case

Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 11:47 am

mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 10:31 am
Hi Charles, I certainly don't deny that there are faint, feeble and weak traces of an immensely watered down version of Judaism in the NT - and you are free to challenge my work any time anyway.

Thank you for responding.
I could challenge you at any time but I don't. Your work is very important, especially to that important question of Linguistic Origins of the NT. If "The First Edition of the NT" is that way because all of the previous iterations had Non-Greek Passages (Ummm, Coptic, f'rinstance?), that tells us nothing.