neilgodfrey

No, it does not require a conspiracy theory by any means. Origin stories are historically developed well after institutions (ethnic, cultural, religious) are established to the point where it has a need for its founding myths. It is standard scholarly explanation to explain many gospel narratives as being devised to meet the needs of practices that had become established in churches, for example.

Neil

Toto

The basis for dating the Pauline epistles to the first century is the Book of Acts. When you conclude that Acts is fiction and not history, the whole basis of the dating scheme collapses.

What circumstantial evidence is there? How can the internal composition date the documents to the first century?

Isn't every movement a conspiracy of sorts? All it takes is a movement, and someone in the leadership of that movement who has a knack for storytelling, who decides to construct the story.

Forgeries have been known to happen in Christian literature. In fact, they are commonplace.

So you make an argument from silence. Who do you think would have mentioned this, and why would that document have been preserved by Christians?

neilgodfrey

. . . best explained with the double-whammy events of 70 and 135 . . .

N

Solitary Man

And yet, Acts is not "fiction". We've been over this time and time again. It's author clearly considers himself as an historian.

Forgeries happen all over the place. You'd never catch me arguing that piltdown man is indicative of a major conspiracy in evolutionary biology.

We have a whole slew of "heretical" documents preserved at Nag Hammadi. He have Irenaeus and other heretic-hunters who mention scores of different heresies, and yet the Jesus Myth doesn't appear.

Solitary Man

So, are you preparing to argue that the Jesus story is in fact an origin myth?

neilgodfrey

I think Mack and others have done that quite well already. You deny stories of god-men with magical powers are mythical?

But yes, my point is to find a question that leads to the best natural explanation for the evidence we have relating to the origin of Christianity.

Toto

Yes we have, and it has never been established, and there is much evidence against the idea, that Acts preserves real history by our modern definition. Acts is Christian propaganda. Acts presents a false version of Christian history in which Peter and Saul/Paul are in complete agreement and preach the same message of welcoming the uncircumcized and eating all foods, and Paul preaches about the perfidy of the Jews.

That is because evolutionary biology and science in general are aware of the possibility of false or misleading evidence, and have evolved methods of testing theories and evidence. We don't have similarly exacting methods of dealing with Christian history.

But all of these are second century, written by people who originally bought into the Christian story, competing with others who bought into that story.

neilgodfrey

Which is exactly what we would expect of second century theological debates that involved the nature of Jesus. We take for granted what we grow up with. The only ones today who question the historicity of Jesus are those who have the means and interest to bring an eighteenth century Enlightenment-historical approach to the evidence.

N

aa5874

Well, what part of Acts is not fiction?

Is it the ascension of Jesus? (Acts 1)
Is it the speaking in tongues with something like fire on the disciples' heads?(Acts 2)
Is it the healing of the man born lame by Peter?(Acts 3)
Is it the killing of Annias and Sapphira by God? (Acts 5)
Is it "Paul's" conversion? (Acts 9)

Acts appears to be fundamentally based on fiction, so I consider any similarities to known persons dead or alive and any event are purely coincidental.

neilgodfrey

We don't have to posit them when we know they did. Jews posited a variety of different Messiahs out of their scriptures. And we can see Justin Martyr constructing events and biographical details directly out of the "OT" scriptures to build around one such Messiah. With but a tiny handful of exceptions everything he says about Jesus is by his own admission drawn from the Jewish scriptures.