J-D

Why would you expect to find that sort of evidence? Are your expectations based on analogous cases where analogous evidence has been found? Would an archaeologist consider the absence of such evidence significant? Why? Not everything leaves archaeological traces.I know what Christians believe. I am not one. I see no difficulty in explaining why most contemporary and near-contemporary Palestinian Jews did not believe that Jesus had performed miracles, since I don't believe that he did perform miracles.I think that there's at least an arguable case that the ben Pandera legend, which you brought up, implies something of the sort: we remember the guy you're talking about, but what you say about him isn't true. On the other hand, I've never heard of any early Jewish literature which responded to early Christian claims by saying: there never was such a guy, we would have heard of him if there was. Doesn't that absence of evidence strike you as an 'argument from silence' against your case?No, but if earlier worship was in 'house churches', then there is nothing significant about the absence of purpose-built churches in Palestine before that date.If by 'messianic Jews' you mean 'Jews who accept the traditional doctrine of the future coming of the Messiah', then there must have been many messianic Jews in first-century Palestine. I see no reason to suppose that they acceptance of this traditional doctrine would have been any less common among Jews in Palestine than among Jews elsewhere. It is natural to suppose that the people who created the doctrines of the Christian Messiah built on the foundations of Jewish doctrines about the Messiah, but I don't see how believing in those traditional Jewish doctrines would have made them a specially noteworthy kind of Jew.

(Not that it makes any difference, it is not true that 'the' Lubavitchers believe that Schneerson is/was the Messiah. Some Lubavitchers believe he is/was the Messiah, but others do not, and the belief receives no official support from the Lubavitcher hierarchy. However, I'm sure that all Lubavitchers believe in a general sense in the doctrine of the Messiah, and by that definition could still be considered 'messianic Jews'. It's just not an enlightening description. Also, for what it's worth, I don't think it's accurate to describe Schneerson as having been the 'rabbi of a synagogue in Queens'.)

J-D

And didn't I refer to a change in doctrine/belief? And isn't a loss a change? So where's the discrepancy?

Amaleq13

The part where you characterized my "model" of MJ origins as involving "an original belief in a traditional doctrine of a fleshly Messiah". That was mistaken.

J-D

In your model, were the people who originated the myth not Jews? Because if they were Jews, they had a traditional doctrine of a fleshly Messiah as part of their background.

Amaleq13

That would relate to the part where the movement starts with a realization that the traditional expectations appear to have been wrong. I have no idea whether this group ever truly embraced those expectations or started out their efforts focused on minimally reinterpreting them or what. Your "summary" seemed to attribute more to my theory than is true. IOW, just stick to what I've actually said and you can't go wrong in summarizing it.

Didymus

Yes, but the "preacher with a following" is not the only model for a virtually mythical Jesus. It's quite conceivable, and likely, I think, that the Jesus movement didn't begin until years after this Jesus lived. Here's a little hypothesis:

An innocent, deranged man named Jesus is unjustly crucified in Jerusalem. He is remembered, not for the events of his life, which are unknown, but for the injustice and brutality of his execution, and for the coincidence of his name, which means "Yahweh saves." Over time, the memory of the injustice takes on greater significance, especially in the Hellenized diaspora with its mystery cults and its Wisdom tradition. The memory of the murdered preacher is merged with messianic expectations and with seemingly relevant biblical passages. A cult worshipping the savior Jesus begins to form in the diaspora. Referring to the LXX, and especially to Proverbs, Paul writes the theology of such a descending/ascending savior who suffers a terrible injustice at the hands of mankind; two or three decades later Mark constructs a biography from various sources, mainly scriptural.

(Of course, such a hypothesis rejects the notion that a "criterion of embarrassment" can be applied to the crucifixion, but it's a weak standard anyway. It is probably impossible to fathom the significance of "crucifixion" to a Jew or God-fearer living in Antioch in the year 60.)

Does that constitute a historical Jesus? I dunno, but I think not.

Didymus

Didymus

I assume that those who worshipped Jesus would expect others, even Paul, to pay deference to a man whom he chose to accompany him in Galilee. If they really knew about all that, of course. But if they didn't, they would expect Paul to treat Peter exactly as he did.

Didymus

Didymus

Analogous cases? Well, there are the DSS. There is Nag Hammadi. And there are codexes found in Egypt that have been dated to the 2nd century. Nothing like that in Palestine.

But he isn't even faintly similar to the guy the Christians were talking about! That's exactly the issue.

Yes. It is not airtight. But not much would be expected from Judaism during that turbulent period. The fact is that all we have is the ben Pandera stuff, which certainly suggests to me that Palestinian Jews didn't know who or what these Christians were talking about. YMMV.

That's just argumentative. I didn't say that I would expect earlier churches. I made it clear that I only mentioned Megiddo because it is the earliest evidence of Christianity of any kind in Palestine/Israel, and that it's of Byzantine, not local Jewish, origin. Far as I know, there have never been any early Christian codexes found in Palestine. I guess I should have mentioned that instead.

Didymus

Didymus

I meant that there have been no similar Christian discoveries in Palestine. The DSS, of course, were at Qumran near the Dead Sea.

Didymus

aa5874

The Mormon religion is a classical example of how a religion can be started with all mythical characters. One man, Joseph Smith, claims to hear from an angel, Moroni, and basically gets manuscripts written on gold plates and he then copies the words to produce the Mormon Bible. Not one single follower of the Mormon religion have ever seen any of the characters of this Mormon Bible, yet in just under 200 years, this religion have millions of followers. The angel, Moroni and the golden plates have never been seen nor heard of.

The fabrication of the Jesus story appears to be a copy of other stories prevalent at that time and just modified, as Joseph Smith had done to the Christian Bible itself. Joseph Smith cleverly 'piggy-backs' on the 'Gods' of the day and propagates a new religion. It is my view that Jesus was similarly 'piggy-backed, but this time by the unknown Saul or Paul