aa5874

You have not pointed out a single CATEGORICAL ASSERTIONS.

You are SHORT on the facts and LOOOOOOONG on propaganda.

How does one tune out my good points?

Once you have identified my valid points how then can they be obscure?

avi

I am not disagreeing with you. I simply wish to encourage you to elaborate a bit more on this notion.

From my vantage point, it would seem that your thinking here reflects a couple thousand years of knowledge, which was not available back then. My own argument, much less sophisticated than Bacht's, is this:

Wars disrupt more than economy. They change lives, change families, change communities. It is difficult for me to envision the spread of Christianity before the conclusion of the third war. Soldiers would deny access to highways, so apostles would be stymied. Citizens were desperately poor, crops were not harvested, beasts of burden were all confiscated by the military leaving the poor farmer with no easy means of plowing his fields. The infrastructure would have been looted, and Roman soldiers, not Greek intellectuals, would have prevailed.

I simply cannot imagine a worse time for the spread of any new ideology. Again, this is opinion, not data, it is very possibly incorrect, and one hopes, by writing it, that the Petergdi's of this world, would take note of the absence of data, and the presence of long rambling argument: quite the contrary of "evidence".

Reading Paul to determine the date when Paul was published, seems to me, ludicrous. But, even if some clarity were to be introduced, by proposing a date before mid second century for authorship of Paul's letters, such a proposal would still amount, in my view, to mere speculation, not evidence.

Very fine argument. Excellent point, in my opinion. Another good post, as usual. Thanks.
Agree, thanks, I have learned a lot.

avi

bacht

Well I don't claim to have an answer to how and when the Christian message started. But I think it's more than coincidental that not only are all the NT books ascribed to 1st C authors, but the fall of the temple is never mentioned explicitly, and Rome is never criticized openly (cf 'Bablyon' in Revelation, a mid-90s reference to Domitian?)

You're probably right that war is a terrible time to propagate new ideas. But if Christianity actually started outside Palestine then the situation looks different. We don't even know if the first Christians were Jews. Paul was preaching to gentile converts in diaspora synagogues, after his own conversion and preparation in Syria.

The proto-orthodox Catholics had to walk a fine line between claiming Jewish roots and avoiding suspicion from Roman authorities. To the Jews they would seem to be pagans, and to the Romans they would seem to be Jews. Once the Christians were barred from synagogues (late 1st C?) they were unprotected from charges of lasciviousness, atheism etc. while still clinging to the now disgraced Jewish tradition.

All through the NT the pre-70 Jewish authorities are portrayed negatively and the Romans are portrayed positively, as in Paul's appeal to the emperor against Jewish accusers (Acts). Even Pilate gets off easy, surrendering to Jewish pressure to kill Jesus against his own inclination to mercy.

Pro-imperialism and anti-Semitism may have seemed necessary to early 'universalist' Christians.

gurugeorge

It is most blatantly obvious that you haven't been paying attention. I have told you where I locate some lying - quite a bit in Acts, and some in the gospels (most of the gospels aren't so much lying as confabulation, filling-in, elaboration, etc. - i.e. falsehoods, but falsehoods we have no reason to doubt were sincerely believed).

Surely it must tend to indicate nothing of the sort, unless you have some indication from the "Paul" writings how big a "church" was. Notice that some of the churches are specifically mentioned as being in peoples' houses. So, failing any more specific internal hint about the numbers, it's reasonable to conjecture perhaps a few dozen in each house.

You are bamboozled by Acts, and you are retrojecting Acts' confabulation and lying back into the "Paul" writings. From the "Paul" writings alone, the indication is of a teensy-weensy cult. His cult is spread out geographically, true, but there is no indication that there are any great numbers involved at each place, and since houses are specifically mentioned, that OBVIOUSLY narrows the numbers down considerably.

And this is perfectly consistent with lack of external evidence. (i.e. as I said way back at the beginning of our discussion, IF there was any movement at all, it MUST have been teensy-weensy - WAS there a movement at all? Well, see my argument numbered 1-4 below. It's plausible that there was, it's plausible that there was some kind of small cult pre-Diaspora, since, by the 2nd century, orthodoxy found "heresy" already established, and in big numbers, wherever it set up its missions).

Also, since these are in peoples' houses, the picture is of a middle-class movement, with moderately well-off people lending their houses to small gatherings of, as I say, middle-class dabblers in the occult (cf. the "tongues, prophecy, discerning spirits", etc., etc. mentioned in Corinthians)

That's because you're looking at the same evidence as me, but retrospectively interpreting it through the lens of the later Acts, with its inflated numbers.

More unthinking acceptance of gospels crap and Acts crap.

I've told you, there's no solid indication in the "Paul" writings of anybody being a personal disciple of anybody, and yet there is talk of a Jesus entity. The option you are missing that makes these two facts gel is that the Jesus character was, as I am suggesting, not actually a Jesus character anybody knew, or even claimed to know, but a revision of the Messiah idea itself, which placed an imaginary (but sincerely believed-in - THEREFORE NOT LIED ABOUT) entity in some vague, recent-ish past, but not in the lifetime of ANYBODY mentioned in "Paul".

I've given you evidence, you're just putting your fingers in your ears and going NANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOOOOUUU . The evidence is:-

LACK of external support for a living human Jesus, LACK of mention of personal discipleship of Jesus of any "apostles" anywhere in the "Paul" writings, POSITIVE EVIDENCE of visionary and mystical experience both from "Paul" and his congregation, POSITIVE EVIDENCE from orthodoxy's own mouth, that by the 2nd century they found "heresy" already firmly established wherever they went (cf. Bauer) - a claim which, unlike the claim of "our own vast numbers", is highly likely to be true, since it's a peevish complaint, and not a boast (i.e. it "gives the game away", it's an internal bit of evidence that lets a truth slip out).

The second of these knocks out your rationale for ascribing lying on the basis of there having to be no Peter if there was no real Jesus (which itself rests on the gospels/Acts claim that Peter was a personal disciple of the cult figure, a claim that is not found in the "Paul" writings themselves).

WHY must Acts be read into the Pauline writings WHEN WE HAVE ALREADY AGREED that lack of external corroboration strongly suggests that there was NO LIVING JESUS, and the Pauline writings are CONSISTENT with that (because their Jesus is VISIONARY, MYSTICAL and CONCEPTUAL, and there's NO MENTION OF LIVING DISCIPLESHIP) whereas Acts and gospels are NOT consistent with the same lack of external corroboration?

At the very least, while we might not be willing to reject Acts completely (and of course since the standard dating does somewhat rely on Acts, I can't reject Acts completely myself), IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY, we should prefer "Paul", we should rely more on "Paul", and give him more weight. (And in partial support of this, note that a "Road to Damascus" conversion looks more like an elaboration of the simple claim to visionary experience in the "Paul" writings; the meeting between "Paul" and "Peter" is more elaborate in Acts than in the "Paul" writings - this is internally consistent with the way I'm interpreting these two texts if we place them side-by-side.)

Moreover, we have already agreed that there's no external corroboration for large numbers in the earliest days, so anything that claims large numbers is suspect (as I said, it doesn't matter who claims it). The "Paul" writings DO NOT necessarily claim large numbers, not unless one interprets "church" through the lens of Acts. But we have reason to suspect Acts, because it's in the "there was a living Jesus personally known by the first apostles" camp, whereas the "Paul" writings ARE NOT.

Yes, but we both agree there is no external evidence of any Jesus. So any part of the Canon that has a living Jesus intermingling with its protagonists is immediately suspect. But the "Paul" part of the Canon DOES NOT HAVE THAT. Therefore it is LESS SUSPECT.

Ok, pick up that ball and run with it, what does it get us? It gets us a standard-issue religion starting with visionary/mystical experiences. That might have been the case if there was a human Jesus too (perhaps Jesus was the one who was inspired by visionary/mystical experiences, or perhaps Paul had visionary/mystical experiences in response to the existence of a real person), but since there's no external corroboration for a living Jesus, until something better comes along, a startup in Jerusalem/Pauline visionary/mystical experiences, followed by an accretion of pseudo-historical detail, confabulation and lying (including confabulation and lying about PERSONAL DISCIPLESHIP of the very earliest cult members in relation to the cult deity) is the best explanation for the existence of the whole rigmarole.

i.e. it's an EXPLANATION, unlike your theory, which, as I said, is a mere noting of discrepancies with a totally random ascription of lying as reponsible for the discrepancies.

Yes, but the Peter/Cephas in the Paul writings is not mentioned as being a personal disciple of Jesus, as he is in the Acts and gospels.

No it doesn't. And even if it did, my logic above still holds: ANY writing that mentions PERSONAL DISCIPLESHIP to an entity that we have reason to believe DIDN'T EXIST is immediately SUSPECT. The "Paul" writings do NOT mention personal discipleship, so they are exempt from this stricture, therefore inherently more reliable, plus:-

1. From Bauer we note that orthodoxy (the creator of this suspect Canon) found what it called "heresy" already established wherever it went to establish its missions (remember this is from 2nd century on).

2. For "heresy" to be already established, and in large numbers (which would not have been reported BY ORTHODOXY unless it was true - this is the "smoking gun" aspect of it that Bauer points out, i.e. that orthodoxy gives the game away unconsciously by its own peevish complaints) it must have been going for some time already.

3. This leaves room for SOME kind of startup prior to the Diaspora - but, again INITIALLY the numbers can't have been that great (there is no external corroboration for large numbers pre-Diaspora).

4. "Paul", in orthodoxy's own (later) words, was the "apostle of the heretics" - i.e. the "heretics"' self-ascribed founder. Again, this is a strange thing to say out of one side of one's mouth, while canonising the works of said "apostle of the heretics" out of the other side of one's mouth (which is what your theory demands). It's even weirder if you posit (as you do) that this "apostle of the heretics"' writings were INVENTED BY ORTHODOXY ITSELF.

Why would "Paul" make the first reply "I never knew him"? Devotees of pagan deities would never have claimed to know their cult deities personally, would they? Yet those religions would have had no problem gaining the occasional convert!

Again, at the back of your mind, you are still glued to the orthodox story (that some personal contact must have existed, or - on the total fabrication hypothesis - been claimed to have existed, between some early apostles and the cult figure), you aren't freeing yourself of presuppositions enough, so you aren't looking at the evidence clearly and logically. You only go half way - you note the discrepancies, you note the lack of external corroboration, but you buy your "lying" theory too quickly and too cheaply.

But in a general way, you are noticing something that I've already covered - cf. the argument, as made in the Pseudo-Clementines, that I mentioned a few posts up, that IF you can claim to have your bishops descended from people who DID know the cult deity personally, that TRUMPS other bishops' claims to be descended from people who knew the cult deity only in visionary experience (it's not that the Pseudo-Clementine argument totally disses visionary experience, it just says its less reliable, less certain, than a lineage descended from eyeballing and personal discipleship).

Consider: the initial idea (as I am hypothesising it) was "Dammit, we've gotten this Messiah idea all wrong - he's not to come, Scripture tells us he's already been, and moreover his victory was spiritual, over death". At this point THERE IS NO CLAIM TO PERSONAL CONTACT WITH THE CULT DEITY, except in terms of visionary "seeing". So far as the direct evidence in "Paul" goes (which, remember, we are trusting more than we trust Acts, because Acts is more suspect, because it accepts the existence of an entity for which we have no external corroboration) it's myth and vision and mysticism all the way down.

Now that's all very well and good. Many religions have gotten on quite well with some fiery-eyed ranter convincingly reporting his visions to others (think of common or garden shamanism, for example), and people being swept away by their conviction. But the trouble is, the premise of THIS visionary religion is a claim that the Messiah has already been, i.e it's a historical claim about a fairly recent past. And yet the timing of this recent-past advent is fuzzy (notice how fuzzy it is in Hebrews - and notice how people like Wells and Ellegard have found it plausible, on the evidence, to ascribe the Jesus figure revealed in Hebrews and maybe even Paul, to a past maybe a few hundred years before 0 CE).

At that very early stage, it's some kind of recent-ish past, but it's not very well defined (perhaps Scripture, as they were reading it, as they were, as they believed, unveiling this "great secret", wasn't all that forthcoming about precise dates, it only gave them the general idea of this revision of the Messiah idea).

So in a way you are correctly noticing something: the recent-ish past historical element DOES invite questions (albeit the questions would not, on my hypothesis, involve the type of direct questioning you are positing, i.e. "what can you tell me about the cult deity from your personal acquaintanceship with Him?" - the questioning would be more like "but what exactly did He do, how exactly did He fool the Archons, how come it was all hush-hush?").

The recent-ish past historical element leaves a gap for historical "filling in", especially post-Diaspora (post-upheaval, post-dislocation). And "fill in" they did! GMark filled in, perhaps a Q, then GMatthew, then GLuke and Acts, then GJohn. All merrily "filling in" psuedo-historical pseudo-detail, partly sincerely (on the basis of what they thought must have happened, given their theological positions), partly with deliberate, lying intent, in the process of political infighting within the movement (as in the tall story of Acts).

As I say, at first I think the link between the earliest apostles and the cult figure (the personalisation of the link, the notion that the earliest apostles were personal disciples of the cult deity) was a sort of innocent mistake of GMark's (it suited his theology - and by the time of, say, 90 CE, perhaps nobody was any the wiser, and nobody thought it a bizarre idea). But it definitely ceases to be such an innocent thing when the confabulation is enshrined in Acts - there it becomes a LIE and a political tool ("roll up, roll up, OUR lineage has the real deal!").

Petergdi

On the contrary, it is the only sensible way to proceed especially when we can't get a more definite date from external attestation. If we don't have the sort of evidence you desire, then the only sensible course of action is to look at the evidence we do have and see where it points. You may say that the various arguments I have made aren't absolutely definite. And if all you say is that they don't amount to rock solid proof, then you would have a point. But simply discounting the evidence we do have as if it amounted to nothing is silly.

Peter.

Loomis

In the example of the bird and the person who repeats mistakes you’re right. But how does that relate to Numbers 13:16, Barnabas 12:8, Sirach 46:1, or Philippians 2:9-10?

Did Moses name Hoshea son of Nun “Joshua” because it was symbolic? :huh:

If so what did it symbolize?

A bird?

Joshua is short for Jehoshua. It means something to the effect of "Yahweh is salvation."

Right?

So what did 'Jesus' symbolize?

And assuming that it symbolized something how dos that make it not a title?

Please explain.

Loomis

But I thought that your point was that Jesus was just a common name.

So then what did Josephus think the name Jesus symbolized?

Tell us.

-----------------

Let's be honest. It is no longer clear what your point actually is.

Right?

Will you admit it?

Loomis

You don't have a point. Every point you tried to make was shot down in flames. You have gone 180 degrees from claiming that Jesus was a common name to claiming that it was symbolic of something.

Here’s my point; here's my post that started this whole thing.
Please review our posts.

Now, after carefully considering the arguments that you and I have presented, how can you find fault with it?

Petergdi

What do you mean by secondary? Paul's letters are prima facie primary evidence.

Even if true, what is the relevance of this? I'm not claiming that the whole NT is definitely first century, but stating that it is silly to claim that none of the NT dates from the first century.

That might be on topic if I had claimed that all thirteen Pauline epistles were definitely by Paul, but I very certain I made no such claim. On the contrary, I pointed out that if Ephesians and Colossians were not by Paul, it must push the date of the core collection towards the time of Paul. Ephesians, if not by Paul, was written by someone who had a collection of Pauline epistles which included Colossians. And if Colossians was not by Paul (I do think Paul wrote it) the writer had a collection of Pauline epistles. Each of these works, if pseudoepigraphic, pushes back the date of the core collection.

Since we do have such clues, it is silly to ignore them for the sake of maintaining a hypothesis based on something weaker.

If there had been such evidence, how does the completely effective suppression of such evidence (to the point that there is no sign of anyone having argued against it) fit in with what we know of Church history? We know about contrary points of view chiefly because people argued against them. And in general, people liked to preserve the arguments long after the position being argued against had otherwise vanished into obscurity. The idea that someone went about suppressing orthodox counter-arguments doesn't fit with anything we know.

Only a few very dry histories are ever written with scientific history as the main goal. My textbooks in school had obvious purposes in addition to telling about the past, so did yours. Modern academic history has improved because of rigourous requirements for sources and not because historians have become disinterested parties in the marketplace of ideas.

Peter.

Loomis

Fwiw, this is excellent. Please make more posts like this. :wave: