gurugeorge

This reminds me of another point, made by by many writers, and as I recall reading recently Ehrman, in his Lost Christianities: the Romans were ok about weird and wonderful religions, so long as they could demonstrate an ancient pedigree. This was the "cool" thing about Judaism, that it had ancient scriptures and figures purporting to date way back, such that it was nearly as "cool" as the Egyptian religions in terms of antiquity.

However, of course, cutting your winkie wasn't popular with the manly Romans so it was something they admired from afar; but a new religion that could demonstrate a Jewish pedigree that didn't require cutting your winkie? Now you're talking!

Of course this point fits equally well for an HJ or MJ scenario, but it's an important one overall I think.

I tend to think of Judaism at that time looking to young "anti-establishment" people a bit like Tibetan religion looks to young people (who look for alternative religions to get into) now - sort of cool and exotic, mysterious, complex and intriguing.

DCHindley

Lucretius and Gurugeorge,

Don't you think it appropriate to mention Richard Horsley at this point, as he made these exact points (down to comparing the Roman fascination with the "cult of Isis" to modern fascination with "Tibetan Buddhism") in _Religion and Empire_?

mountainman

You will find that one of the inscriptions used to bolster
these conjectured and theorised "senatorial christians"
will be the Prosenes inscription.

Have you ever examined the actual inscription?
It is massively conjectural to term it "christian".

Does the author give any sources for his 32 christian
senators other than Eusebius? What are they?


I can assure you the pagan spirit is still alive.

"A daemon is assigned to every man
At birth, to be the leader of his life".

--- Menander ca. 342–291 BC

Why are the frescoes considered "christian"?
How are they dated?

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Lucretius

If I am honest I have to admit that what I wrote was not all that original and merely something that I had remembered reading many years ago ,it may well have been Richard Horsley ,but I cannot be certain without looking at some notes I made many years ago which I did not have to hand when I posted ,hence the lack of a proper reference .
But if it is Horsely then fine I have no problem in giving credit where it is due

Edited to add Having now looked up Horsley it seems that his major works were only published after 1992 and my notes (when I get round to digging them out ) come from when I was was at University in the late 1970's early 1980's ,so it appears that possibly Horsley has used the same sources I did to reach a similar conclusion as a previous author ,but I will look out for Horsley's books as they do seem interesting,in particular I would like to see his list of references

Solo

I would say 1c was the most determining factor for the popularization of Xty. Early Xty succesfully copied (and extended) the community support patterns of the Diaspora Jews - in Francis Fukuyama's terms: the "social investment" was high, hence great loyalty among the masses.

For 1a, I would say that the emergence of orthodoxy was a great survival factor itself. Sure, it significantly "dumbed down" the original message(s), but it created the necessary "standard", culturally transportable, model of faith which assured internal cohesion, even during periods of a rapid spread of the religion.


Jiri

Clouseau

Perhaps Judaism in its 1st century form was sanctioned because it had compromised with Rome. Perhaps establishment Judaism rejected the true Messiah because it was heavily compromised.

'The church was everywhere free from persecution. Its steadfastness, its faith and its organization had carried it through its perils. But, in winning its freedom from its enemies, it had come largely under the control of the Roman imperial throne. A fateful union with the state had begun.' Walker, A History of the Christian Church, p.111.

How far was the church compromised by its forced alliance? Was its success illusory, due to popularisation of its teachings? How far were the old Roman religions carried on into the new one?

Magdlyn

Before our Jesus, other Jewish groups had messiahs, including Theudas, Judas the Galilean, and the Egyptian, also executed by the Romans. [Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.5.1, 18.1.1, 20.8.6]

This is confirmed by Acts, which discusses [Ch 5] the similarity between Jesus' story and those of Theudas, and Judas the Galilean; they are so similar that they can't be told apart -- only the "future" will tell if Jesus' story is different.


Jewish messiahs from around this time:

Jesus ben-Ananias
Simon bar-Giora
Carabbas
Theudas the Galilean
Judas the Galilean
Jesus ban-Sapphia
the Egyptian
Jesus bar-Abbas
Elymas bar-Jesus
Jesus Justus
the martyred Samaritan Messiah
Simon bar-Kokhba
[Robert Price, Deconstructing Jesus, page 246, 2000]

5 Jesuses! Hm.

andrewcriddle

How many of these explicitly claimed the title of Messiah ?

Andrew Criddle

Magdlyn

Why? Did Jesus the Galilean claim it? I think the title is thrust upon them by a willing public.

andrewcriddle

Sorry. I'll rephrase my question.

How many of these were explicitly called "Messiah" either by themselves or by their followers ?

Andrew Criddle