About six months ago, C.J. Cornthwaite posted a video on his channel with the above telling title. I quote: “But when you actually audit the evidence behind those dates (consensus), it’s surprisingly thin, and the real window for gospel composition may extend much later than most scholars admit.” “The argument isn’t that the Gospels were definitely written late—it’s that the dating window is much wider than the received consensus suggests.”
Earlier, David Trobisch clearly demonstrated that Paul’s letters are all we have and that we don’t know how to distinguish the literary fiction of an epistolary novel from real correspondence. The letters could be from the mid-1st century, but they could just as easily be from the early 2nd century.
Add to this the well-known archaeological silence for the first 200 years of Christianity.
Of course, historical research is not meant to prove the nonexistence of anything. The phrase “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” clearly shows that our reconstructions are provisional and can be effectively refuted by new evidence. And this evidence can appear at any time.
The game of building reconstructions and deciding which is best is based on simple principles. Consistency with sources, reliance on known facts and archaeological discoveries, and the razor. Occam’s razor (the principle of economy of thought) is a key methodological tool in historical reconstruction. It states that the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest unconfirmed assumptions, is usually closest to the truth.
That’s why the reconstruction I presented wins the competition over the others.
This is how it is with historical policy based on invented tradition.
Moreover, this is not a unique situation.
In Poland, we teach that Poland was founded by the first native Piast dynasty, descended from the local Slavic tribe of the Polans, which through conquest united the surrounding Slavic tribes in the 10th century. Unfortunately, our neighbors do not share this story. The Swedes and Germans claim that Poland was founded as a state organized by the Vikings on the lands of conquered Slavs.
And in light of the limited evidence available, their reconstruction is much better. I state this with regret as a man raised on the prevailing Polish historical policy
Why are other reconstructions worse?
They assume a continuity that cannot be proven. This is a movement that, by the first half of the first century, had already reached Corinth, Rome, Antochia, and Alexandria, leaving nothing material behind in all these places. At the same time, it created texts – an elite form of communication inaccessible to 90-95% of society – intended to consolidate the message among members of the movement’s elite. After 200 years, Christians decided that it was worthwhile to draw, sculpt, and generally use symbolism and visualization of their stories???
The Christian Big Bang is delayed until the 2nd century, when we know that there are those who write, and finally those who read and comment. Numerous texts are written in the name of Peter, John, Paul, Barnabas,…
Therefore, Jesus and his sect were not the impetus for the Bing Bang.
The impetus for the Christian Bing Bang was the information about them that appeared over 60 years later. Different time, different people different location. Same hero and his companions with new extended resumes.
Just as anunknown Viking needed a new name: Mieszko of the Piast dynasty and the legend of the Polans, early Christians added what they deemed necessary to create the missing tradition. Social engineering is as much a tool for shaping society as law, administration, or the apparatus of public security and order.
Jarek said
About six months ago, C.J. Cornthwaite posted a video on his channel with the above telling title. I quote: “But when you actually audit the evidence behind those dates (consensus), it’s surprisingly thin, and the real window for gospel composition may extend much later than most scholars admit.” “The argument isn’t that the Gospels were definitely written late—it’s that the dating window is much wider than the received consensus suggests.”
Earlier, David Trobisch clearly demonstrated that Paul’s letters are all we have and that we don’t know how to distinguish the literary fiction of an epistolary novel from real correspondence. The letters could be from the mid-1st century, but they could just as easily be from the early 2nd century.
Add to this the well-known archaeological silence for the first 200 years of Christianity.
This is interesting and even rather fascinating. It’s good to know what we don’t know, and what we don’t know for sure.
Except for the noncanonical Gospel of Thomas, we have no record of Jesus telling anyone to write anything down, and we have no record of Jesus writing anything himself except once in the sand. Again, there’s a profound silence from the earliest years of Christianity.
One tends to believe something must have been happening. Just because we have no written records, or no sure written records, doesn’t mean nothing was happening. Perhaps we can only wonder and speculate, but that’s another subject.
Robert said
Jarek said
Why are other reconstructions worse?
They assume a continuity that cannot be proven.And you assume discontinuity. You’ve cut yourself by a sloppy use of Occam’s razer. I don’t disagree with Cornthwaite (especially with respect to Luke and John), but if I recall correctly he does not argue for later dates, just realistically assesses the thinness of evidence. Could they be later? Sure. Lots of possibilities. Do most critical scholars judge that Mark and Matthew are as late as you want to place them? No, not at all.
Robert,
The possible placement of Mark and Matthew goes back to 120 CE (Papias). The possible placement of Luke goes back to 144 CE (Marcion). The possible placement of Paul goes back to at least 100 CE (Zuntz’s sketch). Everyone knew all this starting with Bruno Bauer. But radical critics failed to see the simple pattern associated with popular religiosity, with the expectation of a miracle, and the desire to participate in something greater. They all considered the Testimonium a forgery. They treated Christianity as a project with a tradition of a divine Jesus or divine Christ, to which an earthly hero was later adopted. Of course, these were proposals without any trace. Yet, what is the Testimonium? It is a folk message about a miracle, recounted by a man of the elite, further propagated through an elite text. The message reached the elite from the grassroots, thereby gaining weight and credibility. It was retold to the people in a completely different time and place. No wonder those who always want to believe in divine intervention believed. An ideal hero, validated by the elite. A hero with a small flaw. A very modest legacy. It was creatively expanded because people wanted it. You know the mechanics of invention well, as they abound in early Christian literature. All heroes wrote, even two were brought to Rome to die heroically. The Roman community went a bit overboard with this – it’s clear they orchestrated most of this creation. You’re struggling with Occam’s Razor, because writing a fictional book is easier than all the reconstructions of Paul’s supposed expeditions and letter collections or first century congregations gone without any trace.
Someone simply released an epistolary novel. That’s what happens when you have to incorporate sacred content with a character you’ve created. A certain character from the past experienced a revelation and wrote beautifully. Such things aren’t unique to Christianity.
Even if the TRUE successors of the Jesus sect described in the Testimonium existed at the time of the publication of Jewish Antiquities, they would have had no chance in this race. The new enthusiasts who claimed to be successors were much more efficient in their organization and project management. This is evident from the amount of fabricated material identified by most critical scholars. I’m just taking a small step further than Ludemann and others—it’s all fabrication.
Helen Young said
Jarek said
About six months ago, C.J. Cornthwaite posted a video on his channel with the above telling title. I quote: “But when you actually audit the evidence behind those dates (consensus), it’s surprisingly thin, and the real window for gospel composition may extend much later than most scholars admit.” “The argument isn’t that the Gospels were definitely written late—it’s that the dating window is much wider than the received consensus suggests.”
Earlier, David Trobisch clearly demonstrated that Paul’s letters are all we have and that we don’t know how to distinguish the literary fiction of an epistolary novel from real correspondence. The letters could be from the mid-1st century, but they could just as easily be from the early 2nd century.
Add to this the well-known archaeological silence for the first 200 years of Christianity.
This is interesting and even rather fascinating. It’s good to know what we don’t know, and what we don’t know for sure.
Except for the noncanonical Gospel of Thomas, we have no record of Jesus telling anyone to write anything down, and we have no record of Jesus writing anything himself except once in the sand. Again, there’s a profound silence from the earliest years of Christianity.
One tends to believe something must have been happening. Just because we have no written records, or no sure written records, doesn’t mean nothing was happening. Perhaps we can only wonder and speculate, but that’s another subject.
That’s right. It’s impossible to prove someone didn’t exist or that an event didn’t happen. History, therefore, leaves us with the opportunity to reconstruct it in the future.
This is the simplest reconstruction to date. Jesus is known only from a few dozen words of the Testimonum Flavianum. He was human and spoke.
We don’t know what he said.
Jarek said
Helen Young said
Jarek said
About six months ago, C.J. Cornthwaite posted a video on his channel with the above telling title. I quote: “But when you actually audit the evidence behind those dates (consensus), it’s surprisingly thin, and the real window for gospel composition may extend much later than most scholars admit.” “The argument isn’t that the Gospels were definitely written late—it’s that the dating window is much wider than the received consensus suggests.”
Earlier, David Trobisch clearly demonstrated that Paul’s letters are all we have and that we don’t know how to distinguish the literary fiction of an epistolary novel from real correspondence. The letters could be from the mid-1st century, but they could just as easily be from the early 2nd century.
Add to this the well-known archaeological silence for the first 200 years of Christianity.
This is interesting and even rather fascinating. It’s good to know what we don’t know, and what we don’t know for sure.
Except for the noncanonical Gospel of Thomas, we have no record of Jesus telling anyone to write anything down, and we have no record of Jesus writing anything himself except once in the sand. Again, there’s a profound silence from the earliest years of Christianity.
One tends to believe something must have been happening. Just because we have no written records, or no sure written records, doesn’t mean nothing was happening. Perhaps we can only wonder and speculate, but that’s another subject.
That’s right. It’s impossible to prove someone didn’t exist or that an event didn’t happen. History, therefore, leaves us with the opportunity to reconstruct it in the future.
This is the simplest reconstruction to date. Jesus is known only from a few dozen words of the Testimonum Flavianum. He was human and spoke.
We don’t know what he said.
Yes. We have to use our own intelligence and insight (God-given if one is a believer) to discern if the ideas and words given to him are good and positive or not. Perhaps there’s more to this and our ability to understand and discern than we give ourselves credit for.
I’m a believer (I hope this is ok and I’m Not trying to convert anyone), but as a believer, I tend to think/speculate that something spiritual was happening. Something spiritual and very positive. If it was meant to be written down, we don’t have the words, or many of the words, from that era. Perhaps it was never meant to be written down. Just experienced. A new reality that was meant to be experienced and lived. Not written down and dogmatized.
It’s the dogmatization that seems to be hampering, distorting, and even destroying everything that Jesus set out to do and accomplish.
Yeah dating falls apart. She was pleasant enough company but we wanted different things. And she didn’t get my sense of humor at all…
Wait…you’re talking about dating the gospels. My bad.
It does no harm whatsoever to occasionally revisit the assumptions behind our dating of the gospels. It’s exciting to see we’ve entered such a period of reassessment. If we start from a non-faith based position we have to concede there are a lot of gaps in our knowledge. Our maps have lots of blank spots. But that doesn’t mean every notion is on the same level of possibility.
But the main point for me is this: Ok, question the verities. By all means! But the essence of historical-critical study is that the gospels should be analyzed with the same approach taken to all ancient texts. The point is that they’re not special. So if we’re going take a super skeptical approach to say, the letters of Paul, are you willing to take the same approach with other ancient writings? Plato? Cicero? If we take this recommended approach to Paul we’re not just going to lose him.
Jarek said
Why are other reconstructions worse?
They assume a continuity that cannot be proven. This is a movement that, by the first half of the first century, had already reached Corinth, Rome, Antochia, and Alexandria, leaving nothing material behind in all these places. At the same time, it created texts – an elite form of communication inaccessible to 90-95% of society – intended to consolidate the message among members of the movement’s elite. After 200 years, Christians decided that it was worthwhile to draw, sculpt, and generally use symbolism and visualization of their stories???
The Christian Big Bang is delayed until the 2nd century, when we know that there are those who write, and finally those who read and comment. Numerous texts are written in the name of Peter, John, Paul, Barnabas,…
Therefore, Jesus and his sect were not the impetus for the Bing Bang.
The impetus for the Christian Bing Bang was the information about them that appeared over 60 years later. Different time, different people different location. Same hero and his companions with new extended resumes.
I wonder if there could have been an earlier, perhaps smaller, Christian Big Bang. One that was based on spirituality, faith, oral communication, gathering, and celebration.
It didn’t have any written texts or documentation, but something was really happening, even though we don’t have any written or archaeological records of it.
I wonder if there could have been an earlier, perhaps smaller, Christian Big Bang. One that was based on spirituality, faith, oral communication, gathering, and celebration.
It didn’t have any written texts or documentation, but something was really happening, even though we don’t have any written or archaeological records of it.
My own pet theory is that when Jesus made his ill-fated trip to Jerusalem he left behind a community of indeterminate size spread out in several Galilean towns. This would have been the source of the Jewish Jesus sectarian movement, i.e., the Ebionites, about whom we hear of well into the second century.
Robert said
Not just in Galilee. We already hear Paul urging his gentile communities to donate for the needy in Jerusalem, who would have been referred to as the הָאֶבְיוֹנִים (ha-evyonim) in Hebrew, no doubt the origin of the name for the later Ebionites
Yes. I was thinking post-Revolt, post 70. The Jerusalem community having been either dispersed or destroyed. I don’t know how seriously to take the story of a “Flight to Pella”. That interval between Jesus’ death and the First Revolt, about which we know only from Paul, must have been tantalizing to say the least. The Gentile mission must have been very early, since it predates Paul. And even in Paul’s day there were already established mixed communities as far as Rome. It seems clear that wherever there were Jewish communities, the Jesus movement made inroads, and consequently there were Gentile converts. It’s exasperating. All those silent years! What was going on? Where’s my time machine?
Fact is, what was going on with most people from the end of Jesus’s ministry till the first revolt is not written down. What they were thinking, how they experienced their faith, what their understanding of Jesus was: we have no real written records of this.
I’d like to think they were having positive faith experiences, and that something positive and eye-opening was happening among them. Something good and positive was happening, but we have no words or writing to go with it.
Helen Young said
Jarek said
Why are other reconstructions worse?
They assume a continuity that cannot be proven. This is a movement that, by the first half of the first century, had already reached Corinth, Rome, Antochia, and Alexandria, leaving nothing material behind in all these places. At the same time, it created texts – an elite form of communication inaccessible to 90-95% of society – intended to consolidate the message among members of the movement’s elite. After 200 years, Christians decided that it was worthwhile to draw, sculpt, and generally use symbolism and visualization of their stories???
The Christian Big Bang is delayed until the 2nd century, when we know that there are those who write, and finally those who read and comment. Numerous texts are written in the name of Peter, John, Paul, Barnabas,…
Therefore, Jesus and his sect were not the impetus for the Bing Bang.
The impetus for the Christian Bing Bang was the information about them that appeared over 60 years later. Different time, different people different location. Same hero and his companions with new extended resumes.
I wonder if there could have been an earlier, perhaps smaller, Christian Big Bang. One that was based on spirituality, faith, oral communication, gathering, and celebration.
It didn’t have any written texts or documentation, but something was really happening, even though we don’t have any written or archaeological records of it.
The concepts of Christianity, broadly understood, do not require a specific Messiah. The announcement of his arrival is clearly sufficient, as demonstrated by the narrative of John the Baptist’s sect in the Gospels. John announced the Messiah’s arrival, recommended certain rituals for purifying body and soul, prayer, gathered people, and taught. All that remains is the Josephus narrative, adopted by the evangelists, who creatively wove a specific messiah into John’s life. Messianic expectations were so popular that kings and high priests laid claim to the title. If we assume that Josephus provided credible information about Jesus and his sect, it is clear that it achieved limited success. However, Luke, using Josephus, and the evangelists, who invented most of the narratives, do not constitute strong evidence that second-century Roman Christianity had anything in common with the descendants of the original Jesus sect.
Robert said
Helen Young said
The unknown is being aware of what one doesn’t know.“Let’s keep it that way.”
And:
“The more you know, the more you know what you don’t know.” Aristotle?Frequently misattributed to Aristotle, but it fits much better Plato’s characterization of Socrates, for example:
πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν δ᾽ οὖν ἀπιὼν ἐλογιζόμην ὅτι τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι: κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὗτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴομαι: ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι. …
ὅτι ‘οὗτος ὑμῶν, ὦ ἄνθρωποι, σοφώτατός ἐστιν, ὅστις ὥσπερ Σωκράτης ἔγνωκεν ὅτι οὐδενὸς ἀξιός ἐστι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πρὸς σοφίαν.’
and so, as I went away, I thought to myself, “I am wiser than this man; for neither of us really knows anything fine and good, but this man thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not think I do either. I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either.” …
“This one of you, O human beings, is wisest, who, like Socrates, recognizes that he is in truth of no account in respect to wisdom.”
Apology 21d, 23b
But let’s keep learning anyways. Because it’s fun!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)