ApostateAbe

The strongest school of thought is the conservative Christian Biblicist Jesus, whose Jesus is apocalyptic, for sure, but not in a way that you and I have in mind. Among critical scholars (the only scholars who matter), the "apocalyptic prophet" model really is predominant, though it doesn't get much attention from the outside. Such a model holds that Jesus and the early Christians believed the apocalypse to be imminent, right around the next corner, not far off in the future. The phrase, "apocalyptic prophet," seems to be more diplomatic than descriptive--I prefer to call the same model of Jesus, "doomsday cult leader." The model was popularized among critical scholars 100 years ago by Albert Schweitzer, and it was the beginning of three "Quests" for the historical Jesus. Today, the foremost advocate of that model is Bart Ehrman. I recommend his book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (or via: amazon.co.uk). It seems to be the only book of its kind--introducing and justifying the model for lay readers.

Doug Shaver

Fundamentalists have their interpretation, and yours seems to agree with theirs. I don't think it's safe to assume that theirs is correct, if that's what you're assuming.

DCHindley

Hi David,

It is not clear to me what you mean by "collapse of the social order." Whose order? Certainly not Roman rule. Are you referring to social dislocations caused by economic repression, a la Theissen and Crossan, or apocalyptic expectations and extreme preparations dashed by the failure of the Jewish rebellion of 66-74 CE?

There is a theory, originally proposed by Moritz Friedlander and revived in the 1990s by Birger Pearson, that explains the strong Jewish element in some early schools of Gnosticism as the product of Jewish "intellectuals" (he means learned individuals who were very familiar with Jewish apocalyptic works and the techniques of mystical ascents in Aramaic and Hebrew). These, when their apocalyptic expectations were dashed by the Jewish rebellion's failure, renounced their faith in their ancestral God and reinterpreted their place in the Cosmos under the influence of Middle Platonic and Persian concepts. Based on my cursory reading on this subject, these would include Plato's Demiurge, the world of Platonic Ideas, Plato's theory of Souls, and Plato's concept of Necessity, mixed with Zoroastrian Dualism.

IMHO, early Christianity developed along a parallel path to these early Jewish Gnostics, not necessarily under the exact same influences. My vision of the early Christians is not Jews steeped in Jewish apocalyptic and ascent mysticism who developed high Christology as natural development of Jesus' teachings, but gentile proselytes to Judaism, quite familiar with Jewish scripture and some Apocalyptic works like Enoch in Greek translation, who revised their self definition and understanding of Jesus' significance under social pressures caused by the Jewish rebellion: broken families, a sense of betrayal by God and native born Jews, etc.

Like the way Eusebius belittles Papias's intelligence for transmitting "millinarian" notions (i.e., that there would be a fruitful 1,000 year messianic reign on earth), supposedly from Jesus, that in spite of having just said that Papias was a learned man. Eusebius' 4th century version of Christianity no longer had a place for such eschatological ideas.

No offense intended, but isn't that notion (Jews naturally love rules and ordinances) a little cliche? It also makes some assumptions about the history of early Christianity that are subject to considerable debate (and not just by Jesus Mythers). See above.

DCH

PS: Nice to see someone who likes to think. Beware though, this board is heavily populated by folks who like arguing for the sake of arguing, and a lot of gratuitous teasing and taunting and insulting. These will nit pick on irrelevant details and make mountains out of molehills just to see others twist in discomfort. Don't let that drag you down. Just stick to facts and well-thought-out interpretations and proposals, and ignore the flak.

davidstarlingm

I don't think there's any assuming going on here. It's a fairly valid line of reasoning:

A. Suffering a major apocalyptic failure in the first few decades would have likely ended Christianity,
B. Christianity did not end,
.: Christianity probably did not suffer a major apocalyptic failure.

The question, then, is not whether Logical is "assuming" the fundamentalist interpretation is correct -- clearly he isn't -- but whether premises A and B are correct.

B is a matter of evidence: did Christianity grow steadily from the Ascension to Nicaea, or was there a major break between the Christianity described in Acts (inasmuch as Acts is accurate) and the first manuscripts we have? There is no evidence to support such a break; attacking B is, currently, an entirely ad hoc endeavor.

A is the big question. Do cults that make failed doomsday predictions usually survive the failure without major reformulation? Is there significant evidence of such a doctrinal reformulation -- are later texts fundamentally inconsistent with earlier texts, or do they harmonize in a straightforward fashion? In what ways is first century Christianity different from other cults; in what ways was it the same?

There's an additional option: perhaps the general assumption was an apocalyptic one, just as we see it today, but that this was not the primary conviction. Perhaps the testimony of the apostles and others who claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected was so sincere and so convincing that early Christians easily excused the apocalyptic failure as a misunderstanding.

mountainman

We are assuming that there were in fact christians in the second and third centuries. Do you think that this assumption is necessarily 100% correct, or is there room for doubt? What does the evidence say?

That's what history says happened. However we must also understand that when it became the official religion of the empire it was not possible to question the canonical authority. We know this was the case because most of the non canonical books that survived to this day were prohibited and buried.

ApostateAbe

Neither should we assume that the fundamentalist interpretation is incorrect. He gave an argument, not an assumption, and the argument is the important thing to look at.

aa5874

But, you have NO evidence that Christianity was an apocalyptic cult Before the Fall of the Temple.

First of all, Jesus did NOT even tell the Jews that he was Christ.

Secondly, he did NOT tell the Jews that there would be an Apocalypse.

Let us DEAL with the ACTUAL written evidence in the NT.

In the NT there were NO cult called Christians when Jesus was alive.

Mt 16:20 - In the NT, Jesus SPOKE in PARABLES so that the Jews could NOT understand him. Jesus DELIBERATELY preached in an INCOHERENT way so that the Jews would NOT be saved nor would they be healed.

Not even the disciples understood Jesus if he did NOT explain the Parable in the NT.


Matthew 13 In the NT Jesus DELIBERATELY did NOT want the JEWS to know about any Apocalypse. Jesus wanted the JEWS to DIE in their SINS.

Jesus called the Jews a WICKED and ADULTEROUS generation and that he would NOT give them a sign but the sign of Jonah.

Matt 16 It MUST be clear that Jesus did NOT PREACH about any Apocalypse to the Jews but he ONLY had a PRIVATE discussion with FOUR disciples in gMark.

Mark 13. Just FOUR disciples was PRIVATELY told about the Apocalypse in gMark.

It is EVIDENT in the NT that Jesus was NOT known as Christ and was NOT PREACHING any Apocalypse to the Jews. In the NT the JEWS must NOT understand Jesus so that they would DIE in their SINS.

Well, once you understand that Jesus in the NT did NOT preach any Apocalypse to the Jews and was NOT KNOWN as Christ then you may begin to understand that it was the UNKNOWN AUTHOR of the Jesus story who was APOCALYPTIC.

It was most likely an APOCALYPTIC character who wrote the Jesus story and BELIEVED THE END of the WORLD was NEAR based on supposed PROPHECIES in Hebrew Scripture and the Fall of the Temple.

If one reads the Gospels, then there is ONLY ONE event that actually happened and it was the Fall of the Temple. All other so called prophecies of Jesus failed from the Resurrection to the Second coming.

It was an APOCALYPTIC writer who invented the Jesus story.

But, this INVENTION most likely happened in the 2nd century because that is when we have ALL the DEBATES and ARGUMENTS about the NATURE of Jesus. It was in the 2nd century that we HEAR about HERETICS and ALTERNATIVE views of the Jesus story.

One of the very significant Jesus story is gJohn's.

The author of gJohn REMOVED or did NOT include the so-called FAILED prophecies in his Jesus story.

The FAILED PROPHECIES are MISSING in gJohn and it was gJohn that CHANGED Jesus into GOD himself rather than the Child of the Holy Ghost.

It was when the original Jesus story was seen to be A FAILURE when the Jesus story was CHANGED to a SALVATION story.

The original Jesus story was likely to have been written about the time or some short time BEFORE the APOCALYPSE was expected.

It was when the Synoptic type Jesus was deemed to be a failure that the Jesus story was CHANGED to a SALVATION story, salvation through the crucifixion. And then even LATER, "Paul" claimed it was SALVATION through the RESURRECTION.

It is very CLEAR that the character called Jesus Christ had ZERO influence on the Roman Empire when a Jewish Messiah would have been the MOST SIGNIFICANT character at least to the Jews.

We have the writings of Philo and Josephus which covers virtually the ENTIRE 1st century and there is NOTHING about the supposedly MOST SIGNIFICANT Jew, a Messiah called Jesus.

The THEOLOGICAL and Political implications of a Messiah should have been DEBATED and ARGUED but we have NOTHING for Jesus Christ.

It appears to me that it was the very so-called FAILED PROPHECIES which INITIALLY JUMP-STARTED the Jesus cult when it started sometime in the 2nd century.

It would seem that when the Jesus story was FIRST CIRCULATED that it was BELIEVED the TIME for the APOCALYPSE was at hand and that it was the very END of the Generation.

Based on the evidence that I have seen so far it would appear to me that the Jesus story was first INVENTED very close to the EXPECTED time of the END of the Generation.

davidstarlingm

Yes, I'm referring to the failure of the Jewish rebellion and the fall of Jerusalem.

Regardless of what it eventually became, Christianity was first and most importantly a sect of Judaism. Though it had spread rapidly (if Acts is to be at all believed), it had begun in Jerusalem, and Jerusalem was still very important. We surmise from Acts and various epistles that there were strong attempts to harmonize Jewish ritual and Christian doctrine. Clearly, the Jewish religion and culture was still a big part of Christian thought.

The fall of Jerusalem changed all that. There was no Jewish state, no temple, no king, no self governance, nothing. In a major way, all organized aspects of the Jewish religion and culture disappeared. Christianity had left a sinking ship "just in time". All those who had pushed for a more complete break with Judaism were vindicated. Anyone (and I'm sure there were plenty) who had applied the apocalyptic teachings to Judaism were hailed as "rightly dividing the Word of Truth".

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." That's what I mean by the dissolution of the standing order.

Perhaps it is a little cliche, but I am Jewish, so I guess I can get away with it. The characterization of Jewish authorities in the Gospels certainly seems to support this, and while there is obviously some disagreement over how much trust we should have for them, it wouldn't make sense for the gospels to describe something that bore absolutely no resemblance to reality. Even fable is based on something.

Besides, as I previously noted, there seems to have been much pressure for harmonization of Jewish ritual with Christian doctrine, as evidenced by parts of Acts and various epistles.

Anyhow, thanks for the welcome. I like to think I keep a pretty thick skin; being a scientist and an open-minded Jewish Christian is an invitation for abuse, hah.

Sheshbazzar

Might I suggest that you make the distinction that exists between the Ger tzedek 'righteous proselyte' and the Ger toshav the 'resident proselyte'?
The 'Ger tzedek' was a full convert to Judaism, and to all intents became a Jew. These in proving their allegiance and devotion to keeping the Laws and precepts of the Jewish religion, tended to be the most radical and meticulous about the details of obedience to the 'Jewish' Laws.

The Ger toshav'im however were not full converts, did not practice circumcision or obey Jewish kosher restrictions (they were even forbidden to do so by Jewish authority)
They remained Gentiles whom in their practice of religion were only subject to the Noachid Laws. These also were included among the 'righteous' of mankind who would have place in The Kingdom under Messiah, and in The World to Come 'ha' Olam' ha'ba.

Shaul's (Paul's) writings to Gentile believers, the Ger toshav'im, was to assure, and to reassure them in their synagogues, that they did NOT ever need to become 'Jew's' or to practice circumcision, dietary, or other 'Jewish' kosher Laws to be accepted by ha'Elohim as equal partakers in the promises, in the face of those that demanded full 'conversion', observance of, and obedience to all Jewish Laws.

This would have been utterly contrary to that scenario that is clearly laid out within both The Law and The Prophets, that of the Jews -and the Gentiles- both together, living in peace and harmony under One Messiah, and all worshipping One and the same Elohim YHWH.
(Judaism, and some church denominations still hold that same ultimate vision today. Although there are 'church's' that now so enjoy their hold upon their own gentile power, and their control over men's minds, that they just don't want that Day to come around any time too soon. )

After 70 AD misunderstandings arose, and various sectarian factions struggled for power and dominance by using many contrived religious propaganda writings to further propagate their views. And here we are.

DCHindley

Personally, I make distinction between the Jesus movement, predominantly Jewish but including gentile converts, and early Christians, who were the remnants of gentile convert faction who created the high Christology after ther rebellion.

The death of Jesus may have caused the Jesus followers to develop the idea that Jesus, as messiah, would be the first man resurrected on the Day of the LORD, which they likely considered immanent.

The failure of the Jewish rebellion and its social aftermath was the crucible that caused the decrease of the Jesus movement's messianic expectations and the split of some ex-gentile converts, who were the ones to create the high Christology (Jesus as son of God taking human form to perform a vicarious sacrifice for the sins of faithful mankind). These latter, who are the early Christians, also rejected the notion that they (relapsed converts holding these views) were the ones who really understood God's plan for mankind and that God had cancelled the covenant with the Jewish people and transferred the blessings to them.

Who knew? Cool.

I would just question whether Judaism of this period was about rules and ordinances, at least not for their own sake, which is how many modern Christians like to portray it. How familiar are you with the "New Perspective" in early Christian studies? It seems to me that those who use it to understand Jesus, his disciples, and Paul as Jews (whether fully observant or not), have a much more nuanced view of 2nd temple Judaism.

Are you then familiar with the works of Mark Nanos wrt Paul? Although I have my own unique idea as to who Paul was and how his letters came down to us (letters from a non-christian paul were edited for use by early Christians, adding the christological statements), Mark Nanos has come closest to being able to use the letters just as they have come to us to explain Paul as a Torah observant Jew of the Diaspora. Both he and I see him as recommending that non-Jews did not have to become circumcised (and thus subject to the law of Moses) to be considered children of Abraham, as they are justified before God on the basis of their faith in God's promise to Abraham, just as Abram was before he circumcided himself to secure the covenant.

I'd love to get a serious discussion going here about Mark's books Mystery of Romans (or via: amazon.co.uk) and especially Irony of Galatians (or via: amazon.co.uk).

DCH