Vorkosigan

If the historical Jesus is a late invention, why should anyone invent artifacts for a spiritual Jesus early on?

Doherty's point still has merit, I think. Since Christianity presents itself as a historicized faith, where is its history? In almost all other religious cultures holy sites, tombs, and relics are venerated. Why not early Christianity? After all, material objects such as the communion chalice (mentioned by Tertullian) were in use.

A pertinent question: did the early mystery cults venerate/not relics?

Vorkosigan

lpetrich

Also, Paul, when he visited the Jerusalem Church, had absolutely zero interest in the place where his Lord and Savior had been crucified -- and that crucifixion was central to his theology.

And the date of that alleged event was never specified, nothing like "in the seventh year of Pontius Pilate's reign".

Toto:
I think that the tendency to collect mementos and souvenirs is so ingrained in humans that its absense must be explained.

I agree; I think that there has to be some strong counterpressure to keep that from happening. Something like saying that "idolatry" is a Very Evil Thing.

This reminds me of a curiosity. Many Muslims have long been averse to representational art, especially of human beings. But nowadays, even militant Islamists wave around pictures of their leaders and heroes and saints. Where would Al Qaeda be without pictures of its leader, Osama bin Laden? A major exception may be Mullah Mohammed Omar, head of the Taliban and now-deposed ruler of Afghanistan -- he did not like being photographed, and only a few pictures of him exist. But Osama bin Laden himself has been willing to apepar in his home movies.

And Muslims are also willing to be relic-mongers. In Kandahar, Afghanistan, there is a cloak that had allegedly belonged to the Prophet -- a cloak that allegedly has curative powers.

Rick Sumner

Third century or so isn't "early on." Heck, even second century isn't, when there was apparent wide acceptance of historicity. They clearly had absolutely no qualms about editting their gospels, if artifacts were important, why weren't they made up as well?

In the only other specific Jewish sect of the first century of which we have some information--the Qumranites--no artifacts are collected surrounding their deified leader. Why should we expect Christianity to be different? The parallel is rather strong here, particularly if one allows (as I do) the Groningan hypothesis as likely.

I don't know. I'm not sure how it's pertinent to my point either?

Regards,
Rick

Bernard Muller

lpetrich wrote:
Also, Paul, when he visited the Jerusalem Church, had absolutely zero interest in the place where his Lord and Savior had been crucified -- and that crucifixion was central to his theology.

'Acts', in my view, is half fiction, half truth. So it would have been easy for "Luke" to have Paul visiting the crucifixion site, even if there was no report of that, but that does not appear in 'Acts' (or Paul visiting Nazareth and Capernaum). What to conclude of that? Maybe, veneration of Jesus' sites had not started in the Christian world yet (80-90). If it was so, then "Luke" would have Paul as an eminent Christian pilgrim (and also Peter & company making frequent trips to the crucifixion site and the empty tomb and Bethlehem).

Toto:
I think that the tendency to collect mementos and souvenirs is so ingrained in humans that its absense must be explained.

I agree; I think that there has to be some strong counterpressure to keep that from happening. Something like saying that "idolatry" is a Very Evil Thing.

I think the views from Jesus' believers before 70 were of three kinds:
- From the (Jewish) "Nazarenes", Jesus had been no more of a prophet. He was dead man and succeded by Peter & then James. Because of that, and Jews do not encourage idolatry, there was probably no worshipping from them of Jesuine site (as for the crucifixion site).
- From Jewish Christians, the execution was an act of shame, a non-fatal accident (Jesus saved in heaven and ready to come back as the King) with nothing special associated to it, like THE Sacrifice. (however those ones were the most likely to visit the calvalry, but we know very little of them in the early years)
- For (Pauline) Gentile Christians, HJ had little importance and Jerusalem was far away in Jewland. And despite the efforts of Paul & Apollos, the idea of sacrifice on the cross was not too well accepted, looking at GMark, but more so GLuke & GJohn. Troubles were starting ...

Furthermore, all of them were thinking short term, and waiting for the Day.

Then Jerusalem got destroyed in 70.

Of course, the empty tomb started with GMark (70-71), Bethlehem with GMatthew & GLuke (80-90).

Best regards, Bernard