Toto

I should note that the hypothesis that Christianity started after 70 CE is not the same as mythicism. Doherty (and, I think Wells) accept the standard dating of Paul, but are mythicists.

On the other hand, it is a possibility that the historical Jesus who inspired the religion lived close to 70 CE and died about that time (or later?), and the gospels were written to place him in an earlier period of time for some theological reason.

Amaleq13

I was interested in non-Christian examples for comparison purposes.

I'm not sure what a "prima facie right" is and I'm not sure what you mean by "true" but there can be no question that we have a prima facie story from a specific time and place in history (though I've found several here unwilling to accept this). Whether that appearance is accurate is another question, entirely.

I was asking about other examples from the writings of the time that also purport to be from a specific time and place in history but this is known to be false. Toto has given exactly what I requested, if that helps.

Nope. I'm just trying to determine if there is any other similarity between the expressed view of the Gospels and other "propaganda" writings of the time besides the mere fact of propaganda. IMV, the offered comparison was insufficient for any reliable conclusion and more common points are needed.

neilgodfrey

Unfortunately Toto's reply went up some time during my time on my editing screen and coffee break so I was responding before it appeared in my browser.

But if Mark's was the first gospel I'm not convinced the first gospel narrative was originally meant to be understood as history.

aa5874

I answered all your questions. You probably missed.

neilgodfrey

The reason I dislike the mythicist label and find it unhelpful is because both sides are dealing with myth. The Jesus in the gospels is clearly a myth whatever historical Jesus may have existed behind the pages. My interest is in the origins of Christianity. Myths originate in social groups and I like the concept of them drawing on the most survival-worthy "memes". That's where the question of origins needs to be directed, and it's why the post 70 hypothesis has a hellovalot more going for it than some time in the mid 30's.

Looking again at Crossley's "Why Christianity Happened (or via: amazon.co.uk)" -- he disagrees with Crossan, but like Crossan, takes socio-economic models and applies them to Galilee in the 20's and 30's solely on the basis of a few pro-poor/anti-rich precepts in the gospels. This application violates the broader literary, cultural and theological contexts of those sayings and consequently distorts their significance. For all its faults, there's a lot more sense re Christian origins in Thomas Thompson's "The Messiah Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk)" than in a dozen cross-disciplinary studies of peasant life in Galilee.

aa5874

If a person wants to find the origin of Christianity, he can read "Church History" by Eusebius and perhaps some information would be found.

"Church History" 2.16 entitled "Mark first proclaimed Christianity to the Inhabitants of Egypt"
So, Eusebius claimed Philo described the Christians converted by Mark in Egypt, however the words " Mark, Jesus, Christ, Paul, Peter, Christians, Matthew, Luke or Gospels" are NOT found anywhere in the extant writings of Philo. Also, Philo did not write about any Christian Church in Egypt.

The information from Eusebius appears to be fictitious or fundamentally erroneous, Eusebius have mistaken either the "Therapeutae" for "Christians", or perhaps the "Essenes" for "Christians". There appears to be no known Christians in Egypt , no Mark, and no Christian Churches during the time of Philo, circa 55 CE. See The Contemplative Life and Hypothetica 11.1 by Philo.

But these blatant fundamental errors may cause a person to question Eusebius' credibility. Did he also make errors with Peter, Matthew, Luke, Paul, John, Jesus and the origins of Christianity?

Eusebius has a history of errors and fiction, see "Church History"

andrewcriddle

The followers of Valentinus are attempting (for ideological reasons) to link Valentinus with Paul. All this requires is for Valentinus as a young man to have known an elderly Theudas who as a young man knew a rather elderly Paul.

Theudas is born shortly after 40 CE. he meets Paul in Rome 60-65 CE. Valentinus is born c 90 CE (he seems to have died c 160 CE). As an elderly man Theudas meets the young Valentinus c 110 CE (who later on develops Valentinianism).

The issue is that elderly people in the early 2nd century who remembered meeting the apostles (on their traditional date) would be rare but they would still be around.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

One general issue does seem to be that this supposed subsequent redating of Christian Origins (from c 75 CE to c 30 CE) does seem to require a very late date for works such as Acts in which this dating of Christian Origins is presumed. ie a mid 2nd century date for Acts.

I have strong doubts whether the generally good knowledge of the world of the mid 1st century CE shown in Acts is compatible with dating Acts this late.

Andrew Criddle.

andrewcriddle

This claimed absence of early evidence for Christianity does involve various issues of interpretation eg the Chrestus mentioned by Suetonius who led to the Jews being expelled from Rome has nothing to do with Jesus, and dating eg dates for the Gospels well after 70 CE.

These positions may be true but they also may not be. Assuming them to be true as part of an argument from silence may beg the question.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

A mid-2nd century date for Acts has been proposed by several scholars. I don't know if they would all date the origins of Christianity to later than 70 CE.

I am not sure why a second century author, with access to Josephus and other works that we have lost, would not be able to construct a decent picture of the mid first century.