Amaleq13

Are you plan on keeping the same (ie that generally accepted by scholars) relative chronology with regard to all the texts and epistles regardless of where you place them as a whole? IOW, Paul's letters precede the Gospels, Markan primacy, late Pastorals, etc.

Suetonius is misinterpreted as referring to Christ and both references in Josephus are forgeries, correct?

What about the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan?

Would the resurrection be a defeat of the cross and, therefore, a defeat of Roman power?

Amaleq13

I understand the rest but I'm not following this one. Why would this have been a motivation or goal?

schilling.klaus

not in my worst nightmares,
this scholarly consensus is hilarious


no doubt about that

equally faked

the resurrection is the defeat of the flesh
as already the old Orphics deemed the flesh the tomb of the soul.

Klaus Schilling

neilgodfrey

No plans at all yet. I don't have a scenario. I'm still wondering what sorts of evidence we need to look for to support the idea of a link between 70/130 and development of christianity -- and not just within the limits of the christian texts themselves.

Not forgetting those. (Till new evidence turns up I suspect they'll continue to be debated for a long time yet.)


Presumably something like that, but I don't know how far to take "defeat of Roman power". My understanding of what would be involved in new identities is too shaky at the moment. I'm thinking back on how Troels Engberg-Petersen sees in Paul's writings the development of new personal and group identities after the Stoic model. But I'd have to have another look at the other christian writings from that perspective.

Amaleq13

This one?:

Paul and the Stoics (or via: amazon.co.uk)

neilgodfrey

Yes, that one. But I don't know if I'm going to live long enough to do much more than raise questions -- I would like to compare what he wrote there with other studies by Munro et al relating to interpolations in the texts he uses. Have to choose between earning a living and satisfying curiosity. Unless you have thoughts to share re 'that one' in the meantime.

A worthwhile companion set of articles to Paul and the Stoics can be found in JSNT for anyone who has access.

spamandham

I don't know, but in terms of Christianity, my guess would be it was introduced by the author of Mark, sometime after the fall of the temple. The description of the suffering servant of Israel in Isiah 53 closely mirrors the passion - too much so to be a coincidence.

The crucifixion appears to be constructed from Isaiah, but set to a common form of humiliation known in the 1st/2nd century, which is Roman crucifixion.

It's possible that the author of Mark was aware of a real crucifixion, yet designed his story around Isiah 53 nonetheless. But I don't see any reason to prefer that position. It seems simpler to me to presume Jesus is allegorical altogether, representing the Jewish people, just as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is an allegory for the nation of Israel (as explicitly clarified in Isaiah 49).

I really can't support any of this with scholarly works. I'm just answering the question as posed in regards to what I think.

spamandham

Speculation on this board is usually just self inflicted pain, even if you DO take care to clarify that it's speculation. I'll probably end up regretting having opened up the comono.

...a bit of hyperbole perhaps...

Yes, it's possible that Jesus really existed around 30 CE, started a cult that outlived his death, and that Paul grew the cult to the point of being self sustaining, but I don't see how that's the simplest explanation, nor do I see any good reason to suppose it based on the evidence.

I think Price has done a reasonably good job of demonstrating that Paul as we know him is actually a composite character. If that's true, then this begs for a late 1st century origin at the earliest.

Christianity looks to have taken off in the 2nd century, so why suppose it was lingering in a diminished form for half a century or more prior? It could be argued that it existed prior to the fall of the temple, and that the fall of the temple caused it to grow, but I don't see why that's a better explanation of the facts.

Amaleq13

IIRC, the Romans were still crucifying folks into the fourth century.

Why do you think the use of Isaiah 53 was done "in a way pungent to late 1st century Jews"?

spamandham

Would you agree that late 1st century Jews were acutely aware of Roman execution via Roman crucifixion?