Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 02-05-2008, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Abe - you can find archeological remains of Christianity from the late second century. There are amulets with Jesus' name. There are manuscripts that fit a second century date. There is a fragment of the gospel of John that has been dated paleographically to the second century.

But there is no similar evidence for the first century.

Are not all four of the gospels and the genuine Pauline Epistles dated by the majority of critical scholars somewhere within the first century?

Solitary Man · 02-05-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

I don't know of any evidence for Christianity before 70 C.E. The usual explanation is that it was all destroyed in the Jewish War.

But the Dead Sea Scrolls and Philo, (first century AD sources) do not indicate that Christians even existed before 70. Add in the fact that Tacitus and Josephus do not mention Christians as any sort of power bloc before the revolt and the whole picture starts to look rather slim.

Both the Scrolls and Philo are too early to count. Second, why would Christians be any sort of power bloc? It doesn't make any sense for them to be so.

Solitary Man · 02-05-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Abe - you can find archeological remains of Christianity from the late second century. There are amulets with Jesus' name. There are manuscripts that fit a second century date. There is a fragment of the gospel of John that has been dated paleographically to the second century.

But there is no similar evidence for the first century.

Are not all four of the gospels and the genuine Pauline Epistles dated by the majority of critical scholars somewhere within the first century?

Luke and Acts usually just cut in, and John in the late first century at the very earliest.

aa5874 · 02-05-2008, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

I don't know of any evidence for Christianity before 70 C.E. The usual explanation is that it was all destroyed in the Jewish War.

But the Dead Sea Scrolls and Philo, (first century AD sources) do not indicate that Christians even existed before 70. Add in the fact that Tacitus and Josephus do not mention Christians as any sort of power bloc before the revolt and the whole picture starts to look rather slim.

I agree.
The extant non-apologetic historical sources cannot account for "Jesus Christians" in the first century. Jesus appears to have been fabricated in 2nd century and then deliberately mis-placed in the 1st.

Solitary Man · 02-05-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

OK, it's a current theory. What is your current theory?

It's not very current. Wandering sage isn't taken as serious. Chris Zeichmann had to try to defend the Cynic hypothesis. Anti-Roman apocalyptic is far more current.

Quote:

You must have a different definition of handwaving.

Perhaps. I don't count ignoring the conspiracy theories.

Quote:

The relevance of recent (or not so recent) history depends on how much you think human nature has changed in the past two millenia of our species' history. Rodney Stark assumed that religion could be studied as a human social institution, and came up with some interesting conclusions that have some explanatory power. I think someone here compared the religious situation in ancient Rome to that of Victorian England (it was in the Carrier thread).

Compare it all you want, it's still bunk pseudo-science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

I think the evidence is early Christianity. I don't see how it is simply illogical.

I'll repeat:

You have to posit people with extra motives to construct a Messiah, horribly so, out of scripture to predict this...for what reason?

Solitary Man · 02-05-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copernic

Particularly if any remaining religous leaders were under the thumb of the Romans who had an interest in pacifying the Jews and avoiding further agitation.

Non sequitur.

Toto · 02-05-2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Abe - you can find archeological remains of Christianity from the late second century. There are amulets with Jesus' name. There are manuscripts that fit a second century date. There is a fragment of the gospel of John that has been dated paleographically to the second century.

But there is no similar evidence for the first century.

Are not all four of the gospels and the genuine Pauline Epistles dated by the majority of critical scholars somewhere within the first century?

The overwhelming consensus of critical scholarship dates the gospels after 70 C.E. A few try to date Mark to a few years earlier, but the range of possibilities for the date of Mark is from 68 C.E. to the middle of the second century. This fits the idea that Christianity began after 70 C.E. quite well.

The "genuine" Pauline epistles are generally dated to the middle of the first century, but we have had several threads here where we tried to find the basis for this dating, and it is quite conjectural. We have no clear evidence that the Pauline epistles existed before the second century.

In short, given two hypotheses:

A. Christianity arose after 70 C.E. and the destruction of the Temple, and constructed a history for its movement backdated to 30 C.E.

or

B. Christianity arose around 30 C.E. and did not start to record its history until after 70 C.E. or make any impression on Roman or Jewish authorities - and then recorded a fairly mythologized version of that history.

I would think A is simpler.

Solitary Man · 02-05-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

A. Christianity arose after 70 C.E. and the destruction of the Temple, and constructed a history for its movement backdated to 30 C.E.

or

B. Christianity arose around 30 C.E. and did not start to record its history until after 70 C.E. or make any impression on Roman or Jewish authorities - and then recorded a fairly mythologized version of that history.

I would think A is simpler.

B is a mischaracterization, considering that the "no basis" for 1st century Pauline dating is based on spin's objections (yet to be fully rebutted, I'll admit), and ignoring circumstantial evidence and internal composition (not just historical allusions, mind you). A is far more complicated as it first has to account for a conspiracy to create this movement, and then it has to require a full active conspiracy from all its members, even deviants, and then has to require without a doubt that the passages in Josephus and Tacitus are full forgeries. There's a major silence, however, in that nothing of this creation is mentioned, and there's no major alternative to the orthodox view of dating Jesus.

neilgodfrey · 02-05-2008, 01:44 PM

What I was really wondering was if there has been any attempt to explain the rise of Christianity in terms of the broader historical and cultural (include sociological, psychological, and any other pertinent ological) context of post 70 events. Responses so far seem to confirm that there is no obvious factual reason that would make such a question a nonsense.

The sort of study I'm imagining would include an approach to the texts similar to how Copenhagen School (the so called minimalists) attempted to locate the biblical texts in the archaeological and political-social-ethnic etc contexts that made the most sense of both their production and contents. e.g. the requirements of identity for peoples who were part of a mass deportation, the social structures required for the production of such a literature, etc.

The sort of thing that comes to mind with the New Testament texts is the notion of a replacement identity - reclaiming the Jewish scriptures and heritage for an alternate "people of God" identity, for example.

That such a notion should take off at all would seem to me to be best explained in a context where old identities had been suddenly and traumatically lost -- including those of diaspora Jews -- with the events of 70 c.e.

Neil

Clivedurdle · 02-05-2008, 01:50 PM

Abomination of desolation - Hadrian?

Xian as a generic term for messianist or cult of perfumers?

02-05-2008, 01:44 PM	#29
neilgodfrey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Darwin, Australia Posts: 874	rephrasing the question What I was really wondering was if there has been any attempt to explain the rise of Christianity in terms of the broader historical and cultural (include sociological, psychological, and any other pertinent ological) context of post 70 events. Responses so far seem to confirm that there is no obvious factual reason that would make such a question a nonsense. The sort of study I'm imagining would include an approach to the texts similar to how Copenhagen School (the so called minimalists) attempted to locate the biblical texts in the archaeological and political-social-ethnic etc contexts that made the most sense of both their production and contents. e.g. the requirements of identity for peoples who were part of a mass deportation, the social structures required for the production of such a literature, etc. The sort of thing that comes to mind with the New Testament texts is the notion of a replacement identity - reclaiming the Jewish scriptures and heritage for an alternate "people of God" identity, for example. That such a notion should take off at all would seem to me to be best explained in a context where old identities had been suddenly and traumatically lost -- including those of diaspora Jews -- with the events of 70 c.e. Neil

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-05-2008, 01:50 PM	#30
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Abomination of desolation - Hadrian? Xian as a generic term for messianist or cult of perfumers?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.