Clivedurdle

Are there underlying assumptions in much thinking about the history of xianity that ought to be challenged?

A common theme seems to be xianity is primarily a Jewish or Essene sect that grew out into the world of that time - both Roman and Eastern worlds. It is said to have influenced the world at the time from Jerusalem. There are disputes about whether Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek sources were more influential, but the location is thought to be the Middle East.

The snag is that at the time there was a superpower - Rome - that was directly or indirectly controlling the Greek/Egyptian and nearby Eastern provinces as well as North Africa, Spain and Gaul. We forget that the capital of the Greek World was Alexandria - in Egypt - and the Romans had had control of the Greek world for a long time. We think the story of Jesus as a baby going to Egypt is related to the Pharoah's, not realising the Pharoah's had been Greek since Alexander, who had been conquered by the Romans!

We get comments about links between Mithras and xianity for example.

What if we start with an assumption that Rome as the superpower was controlling and creating all the thinking of everyone around there, including Eastern Empires that were not under Roman influence or control. People were reacting to it yes, but they were reacting against something. The memes in everyones minds then were Roman, similarly to the memes of the muslim fundies now are Western, although they will never admit they are reacting against modernism!

Toto

I'm not sure where this will get us. Suppose you make this assumption - where do you go with it?

The politics of the area were Roman, which is why you find a lot of references to Rome in Acts. But the culture was derived from Greek, or Hellenistic as it is called. The memes were a mishmash of all these, plus Egyptian and who knows what else.

Scholars who think that Christianity was of pagan origin emphasize the Hellenistic elements in Christianity. Christians who reject this emphasize the Jewish elements. But the Judaism of the time contained a number of Hellenistic elements.

And you have to consider that people back then drank wine or beer; coffee and tea had not yet entered their diets, so their thinking may have been a bit muddled and not very sharp. Add to that a bit of *hemp*, and it's a wonder they could string two sentences together, much less notice all of the contradictions in their holy scriptures.

Clivedurdle

Explanatory and theoretical power.

I'm assuming on that on this Board a "goddidit" hypothesis is not acceptable.

Ok, why then do we have now this very powerful and influential religion?

Mixes of paganism, possibly some drugs, some history of the Jews, are not really sufficient. Politics and social ideologies often are.

Who had the power? The Romans. The Greeks and definitely the Jews had far less real power.

The reason Romans killed xians was primarily political - they were seen as treasonous by not bowing down to the gods, ie not accepting Roman rule. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's unto God that which is God's" was completely unacceptable to the Romans.

Clivedurdle

I would argue further that xianity did not capture the Roman Empire but that the Roman Empire created xianity as a way to ensure it's survival - quite successfully!

Amaleq13

The Romans created Christianity to ensure its own survival yet the members were persecuted by the Romans because their beliefs were considered treason.

I don't get it.

Bede

This sounds a bit like the Pico conspiracy (which IIRC was a hoax).

B

Toto

Piso, not Pico

But the links there do not work.

Piso homepage explains the theory. This page attempts to show why the Romans needed to invent Christianity.

Clivedurdle

I had not heard of this PISO stuff and I'm not arguing that!

Xianity feels primarily Roman, probably from the underclasses and slaves, which would include Diaspora Jews in Rome, Corinth, Alexandria, Antioch - not the ruling classes.

What happens if we assume for the sake of argument that we are talking about a Roman Jewish religion that gets grafted onto Jerusalem? Am I right that all the earliest xian archaelogy is around Rome, not Jerusalem?

Clivedurdle

Apologies, I've been using the phrase Roman Empire loosely. I didn't mean the rulers, I meant of the Roman Empire - in the sense that Spartacus and the slave revolt was of the Roman republic. It is a sort of co-evolution concept, but the beginning point may be Rome....not Palestine.

Paul5204

Clive:

The problem you have is that other Paul. He was not merely evangelizing pagans for the sake of evangelizing pagans. He was evangelizing pagans in order to evangelize Jews. And contrary to Maccoby, that other Paul's thought processes appear to be as Jewish as Jewish can be. Your premise otherwise makes it rather hard to explain why that other Paul would make such an intensely emotional appeal to the gentiles of Rome to not join in the anti-Judaism rife in imperial circles at the time. He otherwise reports that his mission among the gentiles is part and parcel of God's fulfillment of the ancient convenantal promises re Israel. To take one example, that other Paul sees his getting the gentile converts to give aid to the "saints" in Judea/Jerusalem as fulfillment of the prophecy that one day the gentiles will bring offerings to Jerusalem in the Name of the Jewish God.

That other Paul's thinking was otherwise Jewish apocalyptic. His so-called conversion can be understood in that context. Whatever it was that happened on that road to Damascus, the event made clear to that other Paul an apocalyptic fact, to wit, that God had raised Jesus from the dead. You've read Daniel, yes? Your father Nebuchadnezzer let live whom he would, and slew whom he would, i.e., God had given him dominion over the nations...so like many other Jews of the time, while no doubt more than a little conflicted, the Jewish apocalyptic tradition had prepared that other Paul to accept Roman rule as the will God, even if only, to borrow from Daniel once again, for "a time." But if one crucified as an enemy of Roman peace had been vindicated by being raised from the dead by God, then the time given to Rome was at an end.

That other Paul's persecution of the early Christians is explainable on the same basis. Before the road to Damascus, it was plain for anyone with eyes to see that the time given to Rome had not ended, as Roman imperialism continued unabated. So in the eyes of that other Paul, not only were the messianists wrong about what "time" it was, they were dangerously wrong, as their agitation risked provoking further violence from the Romans. So for the sake of all Israel, the messianists must be silenced. Acts ascribes that same motivation to Gamaliel, to wit, better that one man should perish than the whole nation. But again, once that other Paul could no longer deny the apocalyptic fact of Jesus' resurrection, his rationale for persecuting the messianists instantly disintegrated. As an add-on not only would it seemingly appear that the messianists were wrong about what "time" it was, given that the Jewish apocalypses ascribe world domination to God's will, rebellion against that domination would also be simply irreverant.

You might otherwise wish to compare Judas of Gamala with that other Paul. Both denied that violence of Rome was the will of God. However, Judas of Gamala apparently believed that God would nevertheless vindicate himself through force of arms. That other Paul instead believed that God would not be vindicated via the application of superior force, but rather by the sheer life giving power that had raised Jesus from the dead. I'll otherwise leave it for you to decide whether Judas was a Hellenist, although my opinion is that he was most likely not.

As to why Christianity is so "powerful," that requires a wholly different answer. First is the matter of what percentage of the population controls what percentage of the wealth? So to the extent one is preaching the reversal of that social order, it would seem that such preaching would find fertile ground among the many with less. That explains the early Christians and much of the later Christians. However, since religion is a powerful social force, those wishing to control can also use religion for that purpose by infiltrating the faith [as it were] and directing the religion towards the desired end. Unfortunately, that too has occurred.