aa5874

Please, name 1st century Hellenistic Proselytes who had Revealations of the Resurrected Jesus like the Pauline writer.

There is no evidence whatsoever fron antiquity that the Pauline Revealed Teachings were matched by anyone.

Even the author of the Canon of the Church did NOT match Paul revealed teachings--Not even the author of Revelation--Not even Jesus of Nazareth in the short gMark.

Bernard Muller

To Duvduv,
You have not answered my questions and now you bring something totally different.

And do you have positive empirical evidence for all that (whatever it is!)?

If Christianity was created in the 4th century, how do you think "the themes" (please specify them) were transmitted from the 1st century? By whom, from generation to generation?
How do you know 1st century Christian writers could not utilize the "perceived failure" of the Jews in 70 CE? I do not see why not, and that was something to take advantage, which they did (Mt 21:41, Mk 12:9-12a).

It looks you have here theories without evidence, but with a huge lot of empirical evidence against it.

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874

I am extremely delighted that you admit that Tatian's Address to the Greeks did NOT mention Christ.

That is exactly what I wanted you to observe.

You have exposed your own error that the lack of mention of Christians is an indication the Pauline letters were early.

Writings that do NOT mention Christ or Christians were composed in the LATE 2nd century.

May I remind you that Tatian was a Christian, a follower of Justin Martyr and that it is claimed that Tatian compiled the Diatessaron a form of the Gospels.

See Church History 4.

Duvduv

Indeed, how curious that so little is known also about this Tatian and what texts he allegedly knew or did not know about even according to Eusebius and Jerome. A harmony called Diatessaron to eliminate the individuality of each of the gospels said to have been composed with the "holy spirit" which his alleged teacher Justin knew nothing about, with no concern at all for these same distinctions among the gospels called memoirs of the apostles.
And then "Irenaeus" labels this same disciple of Justin a heretic.

mountainman

Hi Andrew,

I am not convinced by this argument. It appears to rely upon the contention or hypothesis that a 2nd century pseudo-Paul would not have avoided the term Christians. Such an hypothesis must always remain uncertain on a great variety of counts.

One, the Pauline manuscripts may have been in the hands of a later editor who did not need to rely exclusively on the so-called Pauline letters.

Two, the very hypothesis of a 2nd century pseudo-Paul by its nature must include massive unknowns.

Three, the absence of the term in any writer of the 1st century (ignoring the claim of Acts for the moment) is consistent with the known evidence.

Best wishes.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874

The presumption that the Pauline letters were early cannot be defended.

There was never ever any real defence.

The Church itself had NO idea when Paul really lived, had No idea when he really died, had NO idea what he really wrote even the author of Acts wrote nothing of the Pauline letters.

Duvduv

If the texts, which intended to present the fulfillment or replacement of Judaism, do not stand up to the test of knowledge or understanding of Jewish teachings, practices or history, then they fail in their most elementary task, i.e. to serve the purpose of fulfilling Judaism, its mother religion. And if the texts or their interpreters fail to reconcile glaring internal contradictions and discrepancies, they fail in their second task of presenting a coherent religious system for universal applicability and adherence.

aa5874

There is really no evidence that the early story of Jesus was composed for a cult or was written by a member of a Jesus cult.

The earliest Canonised story of Jesus appears to be anti-Jewish propaganda and was not suited for a religion until it was RE-WORKED.

There is virtually nothing in the short gMark story to show that the Jesus character intended to start a new religion.

1. Jesus ordered his disciples NOT to tell anyone he was Christ.

2. Jesus deliberately did NOT want the outsiders to understand him so that they would Remain in Sin.

3. Jesus claimed that one must Obey the Commandments to obtain Eternal life.

4. Jesus claimed one of his supposed main disciple was Satan and implied that he would deny him before his Father in heaven.

It is clear that the author of the Jesus story in the short gMark was not writing about a new religion but mere anti-Jewish propaganda that was Later manipulated and made into a new religion.

Roger Pearse

Erm, but then could we not say something like "None of them use the term; therefore all of them are first century" (on this argument)? (Which indeed they are; but not for this reason).

May I say, without offence, that I dislike this kind of argument. It makes my bones itch. Unless we knew certainly the history of the use of the term, as attested by a good quantity of data, such an argument could only be very risky.

Yet we see that, even using the small quantity of data available, the theory is controverted. Acts (which I know of no rational reason to date later than 61) mentions the use of the term very early on, pretty much as soon as the non-Jews come into the church.

To me, this is exactly when I would expect a term to appear. Because at precisely that point a term will be needed, by non-Christians, especially by hostile Jews, to identify this group of people? At precisely this point there is a definite constituency, the Jews, who very much want to emphasise that these people are NOT Jews?

This same constituency then proceeds to attack this group, arguing that they are not a religio licita, a legal religion. We see it in Acts, where Jewish groups try to get the Roman authorities to attack Paul. In Acts we see Gallio refuse to be taken in by the game with words and (rightly) seeing it as a Jewish internal dispute.

At some point, presumably under Nero (Tertullian refers to the Institutum Neronianum, and since we know no better, why not go with it?), the repeated claim of difference, made by the Jewish authorities, is accepted by the Roman state, and becomes the basis for "non licet esse vos", "you are not allowed to exist", the jeer against the Christians recorded by Tertullian (in the Apologeticum).

Perhaps I am wrong, but to me this all fits very naturally together. We would expect the term to appear just when Acts says it does. What else would these people be called (by others), other than after their leader, about whom they talk all the time? Nestorians, anyone? Basilidians? Ebionites is a good example, precisely because there was no Ebion; but people quickly assumed that there was, so common was the usage of leader-name.

Is this thesis correct? Well, the manipulation of language in order to exclude, to marginalise, to demonise and criminalise should be drearily familiar in our day. That the term was coined for the benefit of the non-Jewish authorities is suggested (to me anyway) by the fact that clearly it does not mean "messianists" in any Roman source, but rather "Christ-ers".

All the best,

Roger Pearse

stephan huller

But why if the use of the term Christianoi originated in Syria in 61 CE would the Marcionites have taken over the group identity in many or most Eastern provinces and territories. Marcionite was what outsiders called this group just as the Catholics were call refugees (palutians). I don't believe Christian was a name developed by the believers themselves. It was a name given to them by the Roman authorities