Bernard's website: my answer to comments

[TedM]

This would only work if we thought Christianity had a center that originated out of Jerusalem as a point of authority. Thing is we know it did not.

The movement started out in massive diversity spread over the Empire, there wee many starting points and none tied to Jerusalem.

And you can show evidence that it started (not existed - but started) elsewhere, as well as evidence that it did NOT start in Jerusalem, when the very passover you believe had Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection rumors took place In Jerusalem?

It also makes sense to me that early Christianity would have been centered around Jerusalem because of the fact that Jerusalem was the expected place in which Christianity was to be fulfilled through the return of Jesus to set up his everlasting kingdom. So from my limited background I would say common sense is not supporting your view here, but I would like to know what evidence you have.

[MrMacSon]

This is ..bare assertion (assertion without a shred of evidence) -

By 70ce Marks gospel was teaching Christianity to Romans who had no knowledge of Judaism and explains the laws to these people.

You cannot refute it.

That's why you made no attempt

The principle of the Burden of Proof lies with the person making the assertion - "he who avers, must prove".

Moreover, implying I cannot refute it, therefore 'it may be true' or 'it might be true', or 'it is true,' is a fallacy called 'argumentium ad ignoratum'.

and the silence on the issue is glaring - there is hardly any mention of Mark's gospel before it appears in a NT in the 4th century. The only mentions appear to be by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, and Victorinus of Pettau? Most of those mentions are in passing - no references to, or quotes from, the 'Gospel according to Mark'.

[Ulan]

This would only work if we thought Christianity had a center that originated out of Jerusalem as a point of authority. Thing is we know it did not.

The movement started out in massive diversity spread over the Empire, there wee many starting points and none tied to Jerusalem.

And you can show evidence that it started (not existed - but started) elsewhere, as well as evidence that it did NOT start in Jerusalem, when the very passover you believe had Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection rumors took place In Jerusalem?

It also makes sense to me that early Christianity would have been centered around Jerusalem because of the fact that Jerusalem was the expected place in which Christianity was to be fulfilled through the return of Jesus to set up his everlasting kingdom. So from my limited background I would say common sense is not supporting your view here, but I would like to know what evidence you have.

This is actually a rather standard position in NT scholarship.

1. The first idea is, whatever that community in Jerusalem that Paul visited to get them to agree to his gospel was, it was not Christian and probably never became Christian. The best contender is some sort of messianic Judaism that perished after the Jewish War(s). A James is supposed to have been their leader, and he's connected with stories about the position of the temple high priest. That doesn't fit Christianity in any way.

2. It's also a standard position that all NT texts were originally in Greek and have no precursors in Aramaic or Hebrew (sometimes the potential Q document is exempted). Different positions have been forwarded (and still are) on this board, but those are not positions shared by the mainstream scholarship.

3. The next element is that all gospels seem to be extensions of gMark (gMatthew and gLuke) or a dialog with gMark (gJohn), which is the assumed Markan Priority. Mark doesn't betray any knowledge of Judea, his place names are often puns, which means he's talking about some kind of "Jerusalem Disneyland" (there's also the later Jewish tradition to take the word "Jerusalem" as a stand-in for an idea, e.g. the "Jerusalem Talmud" that has nothing to do with Jerusalem). If you combine these two elements, it means that the base story of the gospels does not originate from Judea.

4. Our main source for a Christian Jerusalem community is Acts. However, there are multiple reasons to assume that the whole first part of Acts is a late invention (which is also the result of the Jesus Seminar's probe into this). The community is an idealized portrait, lifted from Plato's "Republic" in their structure. The so-called "Council of Jerusalem" and its central decision about the acceptance of gentile Christians does not work in Aramaic of Hebrew, because the OT quote the decision is based on only exists in the Greek Septuaginta (it's not even in modern Bibles, as those use the Masoretic text, or they have it in a footnote).

So at least in this point, a large part of NT scholarship corroborates the idea that there was no Christian Jerusalem community. Whether you think those arguments are persuasive is your own call.

[TedM]

So at least in this point, a large part of NT scholarship corroborates the idea that there was no Christian Jerusalem community. Whether you think those arguments are persuasive is your own call.

I"m incredulous actually. I would be shocked to discover that this is the mainstream view, or that even more than 10% of the scholars believe this. Of course that only says something about me, and I could just be totally ignorant at this point on this issue. It requires throwing out Acts, the Corinths, Galatians, and probably a host of other early writings. Do you have any evidence that this really is the mainstream view?

[Ulan]

It requires throwing out Acts, the Corinths, Galatians, and probably a host of other early writings. Do you have any evidence that this really is the mainstream view?

No, just Acts. Paul's letters are mostly fine with this view. If you forget about what Acts says for a moment, Paul went to Jerusalem to get his gospel approved, and it's also clear that those people in Jerusalem did not deal with gentiles (the only good comparison table I have about this is from a German scholar, in German, but you can just look that up in the NT).

Polling numbers in NT studies is always a bit arbitrary (do you include apologetics?), but of course questioning the authenticity of Acts is definitely the field of so-called "critical" scholarship. You have the result of a 10 year project about Acts here in Acts and Christian Beginnings, a publication affiliated with the Westar Institute. While the dating of Acts to 115 is definitely not the majority view, many of its other specific findings are also accepted by a wide range of scholars outside of this circle.

In principle, the text of Hegesippus alone (related via Eusebius) is sufficient to tell us that we are not dealing with Christians here:

"James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people-so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel's, by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people."

The wiki entry stresses this, too:
"Since it was unlawful for anyone but the High Priest of the Temple to enter the Holy of Holies, and then only once a year on Yom Kippur, Jerome's quotation from Hegesippus indicates that James was considered a High Priest. The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions suggest this."

[MrMacSon]

... questioning the authenticity of Acts is definitely the field of so-called "critical" scholarship. You have the result of a 10 year project about Acts here in Acts and Christian Beginnings, a publication affiliated with the Westar Institute. While the dating of Acts to 115 is definitely not the majority view, many of its other specific findings are also accepted by a wide range of scholars outside of this circle.

To TedM, Ulan, et al,

There's more about Westar Institute's 10-year long Seminar on the Acts of the Apostles here https://www.westarinstitute.org/project ... -apostles/ -

Findings

• 1. The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical reassessment.
  2. Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
  3. The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
  4. Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts.
  5. Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.
  6. Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.
  7. Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature.
  8. The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices.
  9. Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
  10. Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.

https://www.westarinstitute.org/project ... -apostles/

and more here - https://www.westarinstitute.org/blog/ta ... es/page/2/ -

The Acts Seminar concluded that Acts was written around 115 CE and used literary models like Homer for inspiration, even exact words and phrases from popular stories ...

... The Acts Seminar demonstrated that the author of Acts used a collection of Paul’s letters to create a believable itinerary for Paul’s journeys throughout the Mediterranean. Previously, scholars saw the correspondence between Paul’s letters and Acts as proof that they were written in the same era. In fact, the reverse is true. Acts used Paul’s letters as a source while shying away from Pauline theology, which lost popularity in the second century.

... Yet Acts remains important as a window into the world of early second-century Christianity. Acts succeeded in creating a “charter myth,” a narrative constitution for the young Jesus movement. “Acts offered a major reinterpretation of Paul so powerful it hasn’t been undone until this century,” Tyson explained. “Narrative is so powerful, so effective,” Smith added. “Luke benefits from following this model. It’s good storytelling.”


Taming Tongues of Fire in the Book of Acts

When we read the book of Acts, we encounter a distinct movement away from the egalitarian vision of Jesus and even Paul, down the path toward Constantine and the religion of an empire. This shift comes into focus when we compare Acts to the pagan Felix Minutious, who criticized Christianity in the third century on a number of counts. In a presentation [at 2013's] the Early Christianity: Heritage or Heresies? conference by the Westar Institute, Shelly Matthews, author of Acts of the Apostles: Taming Tongues of Fire (Sheffield), used Felix as a key to explore the social criticisms to which the author of Acts responded.


Pagan Criticism of Christians

Felix, though writing around a century later than Acts, captures well the sentiments of Greco-Roman civil society toward Christians. Among other things, Felix describes Christians as the "dregs of society," made up of gullible women and riff-raff whispering in corners. He found it shocking that they worshiped a criminal, which was what crucifixion represented. He described them as worse even than the Jews - who were themselves viewed as rebellious rabble rousers - because at least the Jews worshiped in public places and respectable temples ... [worth reading ...]

http://www.westarinstitute.org/blog/tag ... es/page/2/

[outhouse]

Christianity would have been centered around Jerusalem because of the fact that Jerusalem was the expected place in which Christianity was to be fulfilled through the return of Jesus to set up his everlasting kingdom. .

All the more reason for Pauls community to rhetorically assert real apostles gathered there.

But we both know full well if there was a gathering there, and assembly as the koine word dictates, and they were following what the thought were teachings of Peter Or Thomas. The names would have been changed to build authority.

Attributing names was common the same way 1/2 the NT of Pauls text are pseudepegrapha in Puals name.

So from my limited background I would say common sense is not supporting your view here, but I would like to know what evidence you have.

No credible professor is teaching his classes the movement started in Israel.

There are no text that exist from Israel in the NT by all credible standards. That's all the evidence I need, but there is plenty.

Pauls communities are all in the Diaspora. The movement is a product of Diaspora Jews and Proselytes, and every bit of writing we possess confirms this.


You also notice how Paul when hunting down leaders there is no mention of him even looking in Israel.

Think about it. Common sense dictates Aramaic Galilean apostles would be in Galilee, these were backwoods uneducated hicks who hated Hellenism and how it perverted Judaism.

Jerusalem was more educated and Hellenistic then these country bumkins were used to, these were the people they would have apposed, not taught.

[outhouse]

I"m incredulous actually. I would be shocked to discover that this is the mainstream view, or that even more than 10% of the scholars believe this. Of course that only says something about me, and I could just be totally ignorant at this point on this issue. It requires throwing out Acts, the Corinths, Galatians, and probably a host of other early writings. Do you have any evidence that this really is the mainstream view?

Ted I'm not being rude here, and I enjoy your peaceful debate, so don't take this wrong.

Have you taken any non apologetic courses from a college or university on these subjects?


None of the text you mentioned are ever taken at face value, no text is. What your saying does tend to be an apologetic opinion, but that is not what they are teaching in credible classes regarding history.

[outhouse]

.
3. The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.

How much support do you think there getting on this?


I don't know the percentage here, but I do know many still claim the epistles were no a source.


Maybe Peter of Ben or DC or Neil could chime in. Probably would make a decent thread of its own.

[MrMacSon]

.
3. The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.

How much support do you think they're getting on this?

I don't know - it would be interesting to know how the Westar Acts Seminar findings have been received

• (I suspect a lot of traditionalists are "burying their heads in the sand").

I don't know the percentage here, but I do know many still claim the epistles were [not] a source.

many 'scholars'? 'still claim'?? the Pauline epistles were not a source for...? (for Acts?)

Maybe Peter of Ben or DC or Neil could chime in. Probably would make a decent thread of its own.

Neil has mentioned it previously on his blog -

• http://vridar.org/2013/11/22/top-ten-fi ... s-seminar/
  
  http://vridar.org/2013/11/24/pauls-lett ... ar-report/
  
  http://vridar.org/2013/11/22/the-author-of-acts/

and in the last day or so Neil has mentioned Acts in relation to a very recent Bart Ehrman blog-post about Acts -

• http://vridar.org/2016/03/24/acts-is-hi ... ays-it-is/
  
  it seems Ehrman is recounting his role in a recent debate "Is Acts Historically Reliable?" and he gave the affirmative argument.
  
  Ehrman says he will post a blog about "the other side" of 'the case'.

.