aa5874

So if it is almost certain the victors would re-write history and the victors acheived victory in the 4th century, then all we have to find out is what exactly did the victors write/re-write in that century.

razlyubleno

Well, I seem to have a little time. I'll keep the ball rolling.

Rabbinic Judaism engaged in a kind of propaganda. The Mishnah is self-validating, it picks up where Moses left off, speaks with the same kind of authority. It speaks as if it speaks for all Jews, broadly, as if there is no other Judaism but rabbinic. Its singular voice drowns out the Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, and the rest, who were all quite prominent until the collapse of the 2nd temple. The Mishnah retrojects itself into the 2nd temple period, by implying a normative Judaism. It doesn't for a second remind us that it is a product of the post-temple period.

razly

spamandham

I make no claims of being an expert, but I am a well read layman, and I do not get the impression that we have a deep understanding of the culture. Much of it seems to be a mystery.

...maybe a thing or two.

steve_bnk

What's not to understand? Is it possible you lack understanding other people may have?

spamandham

A lot. If we had a deep understanding, the differences among experts would be what a layman would consider quibbling. That isn't what I see. Even several well qualified experts are starting to doubt that we know what we thought we knew in regards to early Christianity.

It's not only possible, it's certain.

gentleexit

and their inward-focus left the door open for a softer, more-Greek Judaism. If you like a "reform Judaism". There were too many beyond Palestine and of the Greek world whose lives could not be true to "their ancestors".

I think you have to distinguish "Christian studies" from every other study of late antiquity. Late Rome and its structure. Consensus, no rancor, good insight. Ditto for later sophists, late Platonism. These are "dead things" you see no matter how much an enthusiast feels them out.

But touch Christ and Church and you touch what is a universal, ongoing story for many. For most, quiet contemplation goes out the window. Its polemic is as alive today as it was in the time of Celsus or Porphyry. I think I said it here before but it's no surprise that Amazon categorizes Church History under Religion not History.

This can't go on though. There will be a consensus. Christianity, Judaism will join their peers. Eventually.

angelo

Of course the Jesus story is myth. It couldn't be anything else. The laws of physics were not breached over 2 thousand years ago.
The whole story dates back to ancient Egypt's mythology.
But there are scholars alive today who have devoted their lifetimes into the study of this myth. People like Burton L Mack, Robert W Funk, Domenic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Albert Schweitzer, ect, ect.
More than 85% of scholars into this subject are in agreement that there actually was a historical man called Jesus of Nazareth.
I repeat that the this man was Clark Kent who was made into Superman by mainly Paul and other early christian writers who were clueless as to what this man was all about. He was nothing more than a rabbi.

dog-on

Of course, martyr cults are not solely Jewish, now are they.

dog-on

Problem being that you cannot tell us who, in fact, this rabbi actually was. It could have been a group of rabbi's, a single rabbi, not a rabbi, or even more simply, no one in particular, at all.

The scholars you mentioned have arguments that basically boil down, in various forms, to this.

An historical Jesus existed, because he did...

angelo

There are many clues in the telling of this story that prove he existed. The birth story for example. That he was born in Nazareth which was an embarrassment, not Bethlehem was nothing to be proud of for a messiah to be coming from, hence the birth myth. The execution was turned into a victory by the clever writing of his followers. It took researching the Hebrew scriptures so the death could be transformed and enfolding Jesus into those scriptures. All this are clues that the apologists were defending the indefensible, that their hero died by crucifixion. The death usually used for enemies of the Empire or criminals.