Chunk

If the New Testament is in fact a work of fiction, developed over time, betweem the death of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels, how unique is it?

If you take the dating of Mark to be 75ad, which I believe is the typically accepted date (http://earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html), that leaves about 40 to 45 years for this work of fiction to be developed. Im aware that as the gospels were written the stories became more ellaborate, but the ressurection and some miracles are still present in Mark.

Im not sure about the estimated number of Christians by the year 75ad (can anyone help me with this?), but surely we can assume that some people had been converted to this work of fiction by this time.

My question is can this development of a religion and conversion of people in be seen elsewhere in history, or is it unique?

Maybe it could be argued that the society back then was perfect for such a movement to be created and flourish. However, surely the threat of persecution would have hindered not helped, despite the fact that people might have been looking for a Messiah to come.

I have, in my mind, some of the comparisons that may be drawn, but I will wait to see what peoples opinions are. It would be good to see some Christian opinions too, if any Christian members post here.

Thanks.

GakuseiDon

Mormons and Scientologists, for a start.

cloudyphiz

Keep in mind, the start point of 33CE or so is only important if there was a historical Jesus that died at that time. If that's not the case, there's no reason to assume the mythology couldn't have been developing from much earlier.

Gary

Zeichman

What evidence is there that any Christian communities could go back before then?

Chunk

Im not sure it is fair to use Scientology as a comparison.

From the reading I have done on the religion, it appears to be more of a philosophy than an actual religion. There are no wild claims in it that are difficult to believe. It isnt based on the life of someone who lived half a centuary ago and the people who follow it are not under the threat of persecution.

It seems to be more of a way of embracing the spiritual side of life, rather than accepting wild claims about somebody being the son of God.

The idea of an exiled race from 75million years ago seems like something blown out of proportion by the media, something not fully understood by people outside of the higher levels of the religion and something that the vast majority of Scientologists do not believe in.

Julian

A minority view, to be sure, but even so:
Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard

Julian

Doug Shaver

The absence of evidence for their nonexistence prior to 33 CE is sufficient evidence that they could go back that far.
I am not aware of any direct evidence that they did go back that far.

Doug Shaver

During the first century, what threat was that?

Didymus

I assume that your use of an interval stems from the dates of Pilate's rule (which ended in 37 CE). As such, the interval would apply only to the Passion narrative, and more specifically to Pilate's role in it. The rest of the gospel could have been "in the air" for a much longer time.

No one knows the number of Christians by the year 75CE. If Jesus wasn't historical, then it's certain that Luke's 3000 conversions in Jerusalem after the Resurrection were also fictictious (Acts 2:41). The same is probably true of the rest of the Jerusalem section of Acts, a view supported by the fact that there's no archeological evidence of a Christian population in Palestine until the middle of the third century, and what there is is of Byzantine origin.

The other source of information about the demographics of early Christianity is Paul. But aside from those he names as members of his Diaspora congregations, he gave us little to go on.

I have heard that there's a book on this subject, but I don't know what it is. (Anybody know?) I have also heard that some scholars estimate the size of the Christian church ca 100 CE to be "a few hundred." That seems like too few to me, but I don't have the data.

Your last assumption is an interesting one. Although there were Pauline "mystical redeemer" Christians well before 75, it's not necessarily true that any significant number of people had been "converted to this work of fiction," i.e., the MARKAN notion of a Jesus in recent history, by then.

The fact that the story was written down shouldn't lead us to conclude that there was already a church based on it. Indeed, Mark and his circle may have been the first to extrapolate from scripture that the legendary teacher Jesus was crucified by Pilate. The sayings and pericopes may have been part of Q or the "oral tradition," and nearly all of the elements in the Passion were gleaned from various parts of the Old Testament. And some of the gospel - the Eucharist? - may have come indirectly from Paul. It's quite possible that "Mark" himself was the first to merge these traditions into a single, more-or-less coherant narrative.

Aside from the remaining two synoptic gospels, there's no other indication of belief in a historical Jesus until the very end of the first century, with the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch. Even John wasn't written until the beginning of the 2nd. So first-century conversions to "Jesus in Recent History" Christianity must have been few and far-between.

Of course, the 2nd century is a much different picture. As the interval grew, so did the credibility of the gospels.

(Do Christians post here? Sure. And, I'm starting to think, crypto-Christians as well.)

Didymus

Julian

The book discusses the number of believers, as far as I recall: The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark.

If you search for his name here on BC&H, you should get some more info, I am pretty sure we have talked about this.

Julian