neilgodfrey

Has the possibility that Christianity originated post 70 c.e. ever been seriously raised or discussed anywhere?

Of course such a question would have to assume that Paul's letters were the product of the time in which they are first attested - in the second century.

The reason I ask is that the whole notion of a Joshua centred replacement of a Moses cult seems prima facie to be made as the natural answer to that cult's sudden loss of its geographic and Temple focus. We know Rabbinic Judaism was one response, but is it completely silly to even raise the question that Christianity might have been another response to the events of 70 c.e. that must surely have initiated a major crisis of collective cultural and ethnic identity?

Neil Godfrey

Solitary Man

Hebrews certainly is a response to the loss, and Matthew deals with it as well (both of these assertions are well-evidenced, but still highly contested).

But I think you miss two important things - one is that Rabbinic Judaism wasn't entirely a response from the loss of the Temple, that it somewhat preceded it, and only came full into the fore many years afterwards; and that if Christianity came only as a response to the Temple, why was that never made clear? Why do the Gospels and early tradition place Jesus' death before the end of the Temple, and his disputes with groups that fell away after its destruction? Why Pilate? Occam's Razor negates the idea.

neilgodfrey

Possibly quite so, and I don't want to build a question into anything more than a question. And my question is not intended to debate the point because I am not prepared to do that, certainly not yet anyway. But when I look at the amount of evidence that is at least arguably of second century origin -- including Matthew's reference -- I wonder if the question has been raised seriously at all anywhere.

You mention the founding myths. I doubt that these are the first steps to appear in any new social phenomenon. The gospel narrative as such is not attested till mid second century. And it's hard to accept that Mark's gospel was initially written as literal history. Not to mention that various early claims about Jesus stressed his incognito status anyway.

There seems to have been some grappling with rationales for the destruction of Jerusalem in the early stages -- first it was attributed to the martyrdom of James, later Jesus was deployed as a neater explanation? -- And we have the tomb carved in a rock idea in Mark apparently taken from an Isaiah description of a ruined Temple, suggesting that the tomb burial part of the story at least was a post-70 ce construction??

I have no doubt that whatever responses there were to the fall of Jerusalem that they built on what was there before 70 c.e. Margaret Barker points to the heterogeneous nature of what is loosely labelled "Judaism" pre-70 c.e. Philo shows allegorical interpretations were already an accepted thing.

Is there anything definitely unarguably first century or pre-70 c.e. that removes the question from the right to be raised?

Neil

aa5874

Christians, that is, followers of Jesus, the son of God, in my opinion, appear to have developed after the writings of Josephus.

Christians, the anointed of God, maybe all Jews, appear to preceed 70CE, as recorded by Suetonius and Tacitus.

neilgodfrey

And the Suetonius and Tacitus references are not unknown in the halls of controversy.

Solitary Man

Now hold on - writing with the Temple destruction as a backdrop does not automatically equate to a second century dating. The second temple was destroyed in 70 CE, so anytime afterward (with other qualifiers) the gospels could have been written (Mark is usually the exception).

Unless Paul is around. He may not know of the Gospels, but he does know of the gospel narrative.

But that doesn't mean that Mark's gospel doesn't include history. Vergil's Aeneid was not written as literal history, yet it has therein Julius Caesar being assassinated and Augustus as the new leader for the Romans who ushers in a Golden Age like that of Saturn.

But that works equally well with a relatively unknown crucified founder, and probably actually better than some sort of hero/savior.

Kloppenborg argues that a ruined Temple is not necessarily indicative of the ruined Temple. One must keep in mind that before the destruction in 70 CE there was plenty a reason for thinking so. Where does one begin? We have Pompey in 63 BCE who desecrated the Temple, a Roman puppet with Herod on the throne as basileus, Herod's temple after 20 BCE, and before 70 CE, you have a four year long war with Vespasian and Titus in Judaea. One must be more cautious when dating works by not-so-clear allusions to historical events.

I don't see how these are connected?

Good question. It's something I should look more into.

Toto

Harold Leidner, in The Fabrication of the Christ Myth, proposed that Christianity started after 70 C.E. Leidner was an amateur, but had some interesting ideas (and some that seemed to go off the deep end). His book was discussed here and on the JM list a few years ago.

There are some old threads: One is here

My review of the book.

I don't know of any evidence for Christianity before 70 C.E. The usual explanation is that it was all destroyed in the Jewish War.

Solitary Man

There are better explanations, like that the belief in an immediate parousia prevented people from investing in long term religious writings. Logically once the hope of immediate parousia fades away within the lifetime of Jesus, and when the movement grows to a certain point, that's when you'll see more writings. And of course, you do.

neilgodfrey

Granted. No argument. That's why I said Matthew's reference was "arguably of second century origin" -- as per Detering et al -- not "automatically equated to a second century dating."


That is debatable of course.

Maybe so. But my initial question remains open.

It's the "works equally well" bit that leads me to the question in the first place. The question has in its favour, I think, that it posits an external rationale for the rise of a new religion of the sort that Christianity was.


So why not add the 70 c.e. fall to the list and throw it into the question pot with the rest?

Only pointing to potential pre-70 roots for whatever might have emerged afterwards.

[QUOTE=Solitary Man;5134764]Neil

aa5874

Controversy many times preceed acceptance.