The Origins of Christianity

[Michael BG]

What you seem to be saying is that Mark’s Jesus often states he is not a military heroic Messiah, but is a Messiah of a different type. And it is in this sense that Mark is concerned with this type of Messiah. It also appears that for you this is not historical, but there was a tradition that expected a nationalist Messiah as a new king of the Jewish people as the first stage of the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth. It is possible that Jesus did have to explain he was a suffering figure and not the expected divinely imposed figure.

I don't see questions of historicity entering into it. All we have is the text so we are limited to interpreting the text. But texts are always and inevitably written from within the historical context of the author and sometimes this will come out in what he is writing. After all, what he is writing is presumably charged with relevance to people in his own day with certain historical experiences. The indications in Mark are that he was writing from the perspective of having seen the destruction of Jerusalem and the chaos related to that -- chaos that included false hopes in a figure who would come to defeat the Romans. Josephus tells us that there was such an expectation at the time of the War. (We have no evidence for such a hope earlier than the War.) So Mark is comparing the Jesus he is describing with those failed would-be hopefuls.

When you talk of “Mark’s Jesus” you are implying that this is different to the Jesus of history. To write, “So Mark is comparing the Jesus he is describing with those failed would-be hopefuls” implies he has created such scenes and therefore they are not historical.

I really don’t understand how you can see Mark believing that a past event was the event that ended time and created heaven on earth. It has been argued that Matthew is still early enough like Mark for an expectation of the end of time and the creation of God kingdom on earth still to be seen in the near future, but that both Luke and John no longer see the second coming as coming soon and have put it into a distant future.

Mark does not say that the event "ended time" in our sense of that term. There is a wealth of scholarly material establishing the meaning of Mark's terminology within the understanding of the same terms in the OT. Daniel itself speaks of the Son of Man riding on the clouds and restoring the kingdom forever and ever to the holy people. That did not happen literally. That was typical metaphor for the restoration of Judea from the Seleucids. Same in Isaiah that speaks of stars falling from heaven etc. That didn't literally happen at the fall of Babylon but it is symbolic of the fall of kingdoms.

It is a mistake for us to interpret the metaphorical conventions of ancient mid east literature literally.

Maurice Cassey writes,

The kingship of God could be perceived in particular events … On earth, however, God’s kingship did not always appear to hold sway. … Many Jews hoped that God would finally establish his kingdom on earth soon. …

Jesus of Nazareth p 212-15

Dan 2.44

And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever;

It is possible that the references to lasting for ever imply the end of time.

Cassey continues,

it was bound to mean that the Romans would be driven out of Israel. … A notable Jewish prayer for deliverance is the Qaddish. …

“… May he (God) let his kingdom (…) rule in your lifetime and in your days and in the lifetime of the whole house of Israel, speedily and in the near time. Amen.”

This is an unambiguous prayer for the final establishment of God’s kingdom.
…
Jews at the time of Jesus believed that God … will set up his kingdom on earth, (and it) is to be hoped for in the near future.

p 215, 218

I have the impression you dislike Cassey but I don’t know how you feel about Paula Fredriksen who writes,

In the Qumran library … alongside the more familiar image of the royal Davidic messiah, the future warrior …we also find other messianic figures. … he might be the eschatological prophet, who will teach righteousness … at the End of Days. … This diversity of messianic figures … should not obscure the prime importance of the Davidic messiah. …The Messiah son of David is the best and most widely attested figure, cutting across sectarian as well as temporal lines: …

Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews p 123-24

These are widely held views of New Testament scholars.

Gal 1:22

And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea

These seem to be people who believed something which was the same as the people Paul converted.

There is a group of people in Jerusalem who Paul wants to accept him (“apostles” in addition to Peter and James [Gal 1:19] and “those of repute” [ Gal 2:2] and “those reputed to be pillars” [2:9]), but there were also “false brothers” [2:4]. He refers to them as “Holy Ones” the same term in uses for people he has converted and therefore it seems likely that they also believed something that his converts believed.

I am suspicious of references to 'Christ' alone in the 1st or early 2nd centuries, or claims of "churches of Christ", in the 1st century or early 2nd century (especially in Judea throughout the 2nd century). I wonder if these are references to a Christ other than Christ Jesus, or references to non-Jesus-following churches ie. churches of another 'Christ' or a 'Chrestus'.

I also wonder if Paul talking about interacting with Jesus apostles in Jerusalem is a later confabulation.

Paul often writes of rival people preaching a different message to his, (esp. in Corinth), which was why I didn’t try to specify what the something was that Paul and those he accepted in Jerusalem had in common.
I think it is hard to provide a strong case that there wasn’t a community in Jerusalem that Paul didn’t see as having something in common with his communities. If a second century editor was adding the references to Peter, James and John I would expect there to be less conflict than there is in Paul’s letters (a bit like Acts).

[Clive]

Paula Fredriksen who writes,

In the Qumran library … alongside the more familiar image of the royal Davidic messiah, the future warrior …we also find other messianic figures. … he might be the eschatological prophet, who will teach righteousness … at the End of Days. … This diversity of messianic figures … should not obscure the prime importance of the Davidic messiah. …The Messiah son of David is the best and most widely attested figure, cutting across sectarian as well as temporal lines: …
Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews p 123-24

Cannot the origins of christianity be understood as debates about what is a messiah, what are their attributes and what do they do?

The gospel Jesi - each gospel has their own - are attempts. Hebrew has another go, Paul has a go.

Is not therefore the new testament an attempt to collect the various jesi, christs, messiahs, meld them together and unify them? It was reasonably successful but has now unravelled.

There never was a Jesus of Nazareth. That was just a successful proposal on the process of christ making. A later one is the emperor one. Making new christs hasn't actually stopped.

[andrewcriddle]

Rom 12:1-7 seems strange in the context of Paul’s own sufferings 2 Cor 11:23d-25b, “with far greater labours, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. [24] Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. [25] Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned.” I assume that the lashes and the rods would have been administered by those in authority.

2 Cor 11 is describing punishments by the Jewish persecutors. Without turning to Acts or the Pastorals I don't know what reason we have to think Paul was accosted by Roman powers. He also said some of his sufferings were even a god-send to keep him humble.

Beaten with rods ἐραβδίσθην is us ually taken as a Roman punishment (as distinct from the Jewish 39 lashes) The verb is only used in the NT here and in Acts 16:22 where it is clearly a Roman punishment.

Andrew Criddle

[eedipus]

... the origin of Christianity was probably a result of the destruction of the 2nd. Temple ... by the Romans in the year 70AD.

True, but do you think the "crisis point in their identity with their monotheistic God ... facing the end of their Jewish faith in their God" came then of after the put down of the Bar Kokhba revolt and the then absolute sacking of Jerusalem with no chance of rebuilding the Temple.

The Roman-Jewish Wars between 66 and136AD were a catastrophe for the Jewish people,
and in terms of religious significance I see the sack of Jerusalem and in particular the destruction
of the Temple in 70AD as the watershed between the beginning of Christianity and Rabbinic
Judaism.
The possibility of a large exodus of Jews from Palestine would have galvanized the Jewish intellectual elite to produce an answer that evolved through the centuries to what we have today.
The Bar Kokhba revolt from 132 to 135AD was certainly another crisis point but in making a choice
I would choose the destruction of the Temple in 70AD that produced the crisis in their faith and initiated the origins of Christianity.

Dennis Sutherland.

Where was the promised Messiah?

The answer to the problem was the opposite to what they had previously thought. The Messiah was not yet to come, He had already been but he had not been recognized for who he was.

It was probably a Hellenic Jew who fashioned the story of Jesus of Nazareth. He intuitively understood the real meaning of the Greek mystery cults, the Elusinian Mysteries, and wrote the story of Jesus as an allegory for how we should view life and death but, tragically, it was altered and interpreted literally. It is not that the Jesus story is untrue, but it was really intended to point to a greater truth.[/quote]
An interesting proposition.[/quote]

[MrMacSon]

Gal 1:22

And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea

These seem to be people who believed something which was the same as the people Paul converted.

There is a group of people in Jerusalem who Paul wants to accept him (“apostles” in addition to Peter and James [Gal 1:19] and “those of repute” [ Gal 2:2] and “those reputed to be pillars” [2:9]), but there were also “false brothers” [2:4]. He refers to them as “Holy Ones” the same term in uses for people he has converted and therefore it seems likely that they also believed something that his converts believed.

I am suspicious of references to 'Christ' alone in the 1st or early 2nd centuries, or claims of "churches of Christ", in the 1st century or early 2nd century (especially in Judea throughout the 2nd century). I wonder if these are references to a Christ other than Christ Jesus, or references to non-Jesus-following churches ie. churches of another 'Christ' or a 'Chrestus'.

I also wonder if Paul talking about interacting with Jesus apostles in Jerusalem is a later confabulation.

Paul often writes of rival people preaching a different message to his, (esp. in Corinth), which was why I didn’t try to specify what the something was that Paul (and those he accepted in Jerusalem) had in common.

I think it is hard to provide a strong case that there wasn’t a community in Jerusalem that Paul didn’t see as having something in common with his communities.

I find double-negatives hard to discern, let alone triple negatives like that ('I find it hard ... wasn't ... didn't ...').

If a second century editor was adding the references to Peter, James and John, I would expect there to be less conflict than there is in Paul’s letters (a bit like Acts).

In response to the sum message of your three sentences there - of course Paul's message is about his new message being superior to other messages, but I still wonder what established churches he was interacting with, rival or otherwise (or is said to be interacting with); and when.

There is plenty of commentary elsewhere about tensions between Paul and Peter as representative of tensions between different communities.

I reiterate my comments -

• I am suspicious of (i) references to 'Christ' alone in the 1st or early 2nd centuries; or (ii) claims of "churches of Christ", in the 1st century or early 2nd century (especially in Judea throughout the 2nd century). I wonder if these are (a) references to a Christ other than Christ Jesus, or (b) references to non-Jesus-following churches ie. churches of another 'Christ' or a 'Chrestus'; (or (c) both (a) and (b)).
  
  I also wonder if Paul talking about interacting with Jesus apostles in Jerusalem is a later confabulation.

[neilgodfrey]

Rom 12:1-7 seems strange in the context of Paul’s own sufferings 2 Cor 11:23d-25b, “with far greater labours, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. [24] Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. [25] Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned.” I assume that the lashes and the rods would have been administered by those in authority.

2 Cor 11 is describing punishments by the Jewish persecutors. Without turning to Acts or the Pastorals I don't know what reason we have to think Paul was accosted by Roman powers. He also said some of his sufferings were even a god-send to keep him humble.

Beaten with rods ἐραβδίσθην is us ually taken as a Roman punishment (as distinct from the Jewish 39 lashes) The verb is only used in the NT here and in Acts 16:22 where it is clearly a Roman punishment.

Andrew Criddle

So Paul was not a Roman citizen then?

[neilgodfrey]

When you talk of “Mark’s Jesus” you are implying that this is different to the Jesus of history. To write, “So Mark is comparing the Jesus he is describing with those failed would-be hopefuls” implies he has created such scenes and therefore they are not historical.

We are examining the text of Mark. So we are reading Mark's interpretation. Whatever historicity there might be independent of the text is another question entirely. It does not follow that because we are reading Mark's interpretation and particular construct that "therefore" these do not correspond to historical counterparts outside the test. The question is the Origins of Christianity so we need to grasp the nature of the evidence itself as our first step.

Maurice Cassey writes,

The kingship of God could be perceived in particular events … On earth, however, God’s kingship did not always appear to hold sway. … Many Jews hoped that God would finally establish his kingdom on earth soon. …

Jesus of Nazareth p 212-15

Dan 2.44

And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever;

It is possible that the references to lasting for ever imply the end of time.

Cassey continues,

it was bound to mean that the Romans would be driven out of Israel. … A notable Jewish prayer for deliverance is the Qaddish. …

“… May he (God) let his kingdom (…) rule in your lifetime and in your days and in the lifetime of the whole house of Israel, speedily and in the near time. Amen.”

This is an unambiguous prayer for the final establishment of God’s kingdom.
…
Jews at the time of Jesus believed that God … will set up his kingdom on earth, (and it) is to be hoped for in the near future.

p 215, 218

I have the impression you dislike Cassey but I don’t know how you feel about Paula Fredriksen who writes,

In the Qumran library … alongside the more familiar image of the royal Davidic messiah, the future warrior …we also find other messianic figures. … he might be the eschatological prophet, who will teach righteousness … at the End of Days. … This diversity of messianic figures … should not obscure the prime importance of the Davidic messiah. …The Messiah son of David is the best and most widely attested figure, cutting across sectarian as well as temporal lines: …

Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews p 123-24

These are widely held views of New Testament scholars.

Widely held views do not equal widely held specialist views. I don't know why you bring in any suggestion of personal dislikes to this discussion. Casey is the one who has slandered me and that had nothing to do with his arguments in his scholarly topics -- which I have addressed several times. I have indeed demonstrated the flaws in his arguments but Casey chose to personally attack many others who did the same thing. His work on the Son of Man does deserve attention, though its tendentiousness does lessen its long-term value.

You need to address the specialists in apocalyptic literature. Just read for yourself the passages I have cited and even from those one can scarcely deny that questions deserve to be asked about common NT scholarly and popular interpretations. Did God really come down to David on a dark cloud to rescue him? Did the stars really fall from the sky when Babylon fell? Besides, it is not hard to find the original sense of what are translated as "age" and "forever".

I don't have the time to check up the references right now so will probably do so in a future post. I'm happy till then to agree to disagree.

When quoting scholars I look for passages where they establish their views with hard evidence and not simply express an opinion or assumption. As for your quote by Fredriksen, for example, notice the way she cites a DSS text and then makes a sweeping statement asking us to accept that the viewpoint is of "prime importance" more generally etc etc -- without any supporting evidence. Yet when one reads Novenson, Boyarin and other Jewish scholars (and Christian scholars of Jewish texts) one gets a very different picture.

[neilgodfrey]

Maurice Cassey writes,

The kingship of God could be perceived in particular events … On earth, however, God’s kingship did not always appear to hold sway. … Many Jews hoped that God would finally establish his kingdom on earth soon. …

Jesus of Nazareth p 212-15

Casey is here conflating modern concepts with ancient ones. We need first to ask what exactly was understood by the author's contemporaries when they read about God's kingdom and its being established soon. We especially need to understand the characteristics and nature of apocalyptic literature.

Dan 2.44

And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever;

It is possible that the references to lasting for ever imply the end of time.

It may be possible (especially in English translation) but what is probable given the meaning of such terminology in the time it was written and read? What does the scholarly research of specialists in this type of literature have to say about the meaning of this passage and why it was written as it was?

Cassey continues,

it was bound to mean that the Romans would be driven out of Israel. … A notable Jewish prayer for deliverance is the Qaddish. …

“… May he (God) let his kingdom (…) rule in your lifetime and in your days and in the lifetime of the whole house of Israel, speedily and in the near time. Amen.”

This is an unambiguous prayer for the final establishment of God’s kingdom.
…
Jews at the time of Jesus believed that God … will set up his kingdom on earth, (and it) is to be hoped for in the near future.

p 215, 218

Notice Casey draws upon late rabbinic text and declares it must predate the gospels because of some similarities in Aramaic phrasing. (No details provided.) Casey was a brilliant Aramaic scholar but his weakness was that he assumed anything he could somehow suggest had an Aramaic source by definition went back to authentic Jesus or first century Jewish sayings. Few critical scholars, I believe, were persuaded.

Besides, a prayer for a kingdom to come is not in dispute. What we are looking for is the meaning of certain images in Second Temple era apocalyptic literature.

[eedipus]

... the origin of Christianity was probably a result of the destruction of the 2nd. Temple ... by the Romans in the year 70AD.

True, but do you think the "crisis point in their identity with their monotheistic God ... facing the end of their Jewish faith in their God" came then of after the put down of the Bar Kokhba revolt and the then absolute sacking of Jerusalem with no chance of rebuilding the Temple.

The Roman-Jewish Wars between 66 and136AD were a catastrophe for the Jewish people,
and in terms of religious significance I see the sack of Jerusalem and in particular the destruction
of the Temple in 70AD as the watershed between the beginning of Christianity and Rabbinic
Judaism.
The possibility of a large exodus of Jews from Palestine would have galvanized the Jewish intellectual elite to produce an answer that evolved through the centuries to what we have today.
The Bar Kokhba revolt from 132 to 135AD was certainly another crisis point but in making a choice
I would choose the destruction of the Temple in 70AD that produced the crisis in their faith and initiated the origins of Christianity.

Dennis Sutherland.

Where was the promised Messiah?

The answer to the problem was the opposite to what they had previously thought. The Messiah was not yet to come, He had already been but he had not been recognized for who he was.

It was probably a Hellenic Jew who fashioned the story of Jesus of Nazareth. He intuitively understood the real meaning of the Greek mystery cults, the Elusinian Mysteries, and wrote the story of Jesus as an allegory for how we should view life and death but, tragically, it was altered and interpreted literally. It is not that the Jesus story is untrue, but it was really intended to point to a greater truth.

An interesting proposition.

[Ben C. Smith]

We need first to ask what exactly was understood by the author's contemporaries when they read about God's kingdom and its being established soon. We especially need to understand the characteristics and nature of apocalyptic literature.

I am, I think, in complete agreement with you on the probably highly symbolic meaning of the language found in the synoptic apocalypse. What I am far less sure of is that (any of) the evangelists would have understood all the historical events that such symbols most readily point to as having already happened, especially those described in Mark 13.26-27 and parallels. What exactly, for example, would be true after 70 (or any other point in time), but not before, that would correspond to the gathering of the elect?

Ben.