The process begins with a social expectation of divine intervention. In the case of multicultural Judaism spread throughout the Hellenistic, Persian, and Semitic worlds, these were messianic expectations recorded in the Tanakh, the LXX, and the Targumim.
Messianic expectations were so popular that they were further developed by newly formed sects. Some proclaimed their leaders as the Messiah, while others actively awaited his coming, introducing various religious practices. Flavius Josephus described the sects and their leaders called Jewish Sign Prophets in first-century Palestine. In Rome, during the time of Claudius, conflicts related to messianism and a certain Chrestus led to the expulsion of the entire Jewish community from the city. The Gospels describe the sect of John the Baptist, which awaited the coming of the messiah. All this activity led to riots within Judaic communities, conflicts with the state administration, and bloody military interventions. Messianic communities were persecuted because they disrupted both social order and the Pax Deorum by their mere appearance. Their existence and activities were considered a dangerous superstition. All sorts of misfortunes were attributed to their ungodly practices and beliefs, even the burning of Rome under Nero.
One of the Messianic sects was led by Jesus, who was crucified by Pilate based on accusations from the Jewish elite in Jerusalem. This was a local endeavor, whose only success was that 65 years later, the Jewish historian Josephus wrote about him. If these events actually happened, we have no way to verify Josephus’s text. This only known information about Jesus sparked enthusiasm among the Messianic communities in Rome, resulting in the birth of Christianity as we know it. Some people awaiting the Messiah believed that he had appeared 65 years earlier in Jerusalem. Communities awaiting a miracle received their long-awaited Messiah.
Of course, effectively selling such a long-awaited figure is impossible when you have a few dozen words from the Flavian Testimonium. It was necessary to attach prophecies, LXX exegesis, philosophy, and create a broader, appealing narrative for a mass audience. The Gospels, the Great Apostle and his letters, and a whole host of apocryphal literature are creative extensions of the Flavian Testimonium.
Because religion builds social communities of believers through the content it offers.
The entire NT and the apocrypha are purely fictional literature. The authors filled the gap between 30 CE and the beginning of the 2nd century by inventing stories about Jesus, the disciples, and the Great Apostle. Creating an artificial continuity in time was intended to provide a fictitious tradition from the 1st century for the sects that emerged in the 2nd century.
Jesus came again thanks to Josephus—he appeared at a completely different time and in a different place, and appealed to different people than the first time. And it was these new audiences who managed to create religion as we know it.
The case of Christianity illustrates the universal mechanism of religion creation. Just look at the histories of Judaism, Islam, Mormonism… Concocted narratives, invented heroes. An attractive content idea will always sell. We just need to skillfully blend God into our dealings. It’s harder now than it used to be, but for talented creators, nothing is impossible.
Robert said
Cool story, brah. Evidence?
I’m glad you liked the story. It’s the simplest reconstruction based on available evidence, and it doesn’t contradict any of it. And it will remain so until there’s new evidence from the first century confirming the existence of Christianity based on Jesus. Any author can place the narrative of their texts at any historical moment. Whether it’s the author of Daniel or the author of the Gospel of Mark. But… no author can provide evidence of the existence of these texts in the past. The first known readers of the New Testament and the Apocrypha are from the second century. Not only do we not have manuscripts from the first century. Did they exist? No evidence. We have nothing: no symbols on the walls, on pottery, no graffiti. Nothing. The first century is just stories written down later.
It’s like with Marian apparitions. Some manage to build a small chapel, others a small church. A few large pilgrimage centers are widely known, thanks to people who were able to develop their projects to great dimensions.
What is Devine Intervention?
If someone says “drink this spirit” and all will go well with you, you’ll always feel good, you’ll have a new clarity about yourself, other people, and the world we live in. You’ll feel grace, peace, and a spiritual love that surpasses anything you’ve experienced before.
What if this “spirit” isn’t a glass of something or other, but the Spirit of Christ?
Never mind all the dogma and things, and all the blah-blah-blah, that have been written about him, and so on and on and on and so forth.
Is that Devine Intervention? . . . Can it change the world? . . . Is this what people are looking for?
Robert said
So, no evidence, and your claim to legitimacy is that no other accounts are supported by any evidence. Which is why much of history, especially rather ancient history, is based upon plausibility, based upon subjective and communal judgment.
Robert,
It’s exactly the opposite. The consensus dating of the Gospels is after 70 AD. The upper limit of this dating is the first evidence of the Gospels’ existence. The first readers of the Gospels who testify to their existence are the second century. This is the correctly defined time window for the creation of the Gospels. And within this window, there is no evidence for any reconstruction. The same applies to Paul’s letters, to himself, and to the congregations. We only have this in texts we know from the second century. Reconstructing Christian history based on such uncorroborated evidence, intended to create historical policy, is nothing more than believing these stories without evidence. It’s impossible to distinguish fiction from truth based on the text. The authors of these texts didn’t recreate anything; they simply created a tradition that didn’t exist. They believed Josephus, who wrote after 70 AD, and whose works captured the imagination of readers. Only groundbreaking discoveries can change this. So far, there are none.
Robert said
I agree that Jesus is a legendary figure of history. That doesn’t justify individual experience of him as a divine being. Of course, you’re free to believe whatever you like …
I’m not justifying anything here, because of the legend or for any other reason.
This doesn’t negate anyone’s and everyone’s experience of him, his light, insight, and his divinity.
& of course, we are all free to believe whatever we like, who isn’t?
Robert said
Helen Young said
I’m not justifying anything here, because of the legend or for any other reason.
This doesn’t negate anyone’s and everyone’s experience of him, his light, insight, and his divinity.
& of course, we are all free to believe whatever we like, who isn’t?I thought you were in this thread.
Do you still think so?
There’s been some discussion going on on that thread.
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
So, no evidence, and your claim to legitimacy is that no other accounts are supported by any evidence. Which is why much of history, especially rather ancient history, is based upon plausibility, based upon subjective and communal judgment.Robert,
It’s exactly the opposite.How exactly are you claiming this to be the opposite of what I’ve said here?
The consensus dating of the Gospels is after 70 AD. The upper limit of this dating is the first evidence of the Gospels’ existence. The first readers of the Gospels who testify to their existence are the second century. This is the correctly defined time window for the creation of the Gospels. And within this window, there is no evidence for any reconstruction. The same applies to Paul’s letters, to himself, and to the congregations. We only have this in texts we know from the second century.
None of this seems to be the opposite of anything I’ve said here.
Reconstructing Christian history based on such uncorroborated evidence, intended to create historical policy, is nothing more than believing these stories without evidence.
Is this what you think I’ve been doing???
It’s impossible to distinguish fiction from truth based on the text. The authors of these texts didn’t recreate anything; they simply created a tradition that didn’t exist. They believed Josephus, who wrote after 70 AD, and whose works captured the imagination of readers. Only groundbreaking discoveries can change this. So far, there are none.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that all of the gospels were dependent upon Josephus?
Robert,
In the second century, writings appear whose narratives are set in the first century. These narratives lack independent corroboration. The earliest readers, artifacts, and manuscript fragments date to the second century. This makes my reconstruction satisfy the criterion of Occam’s razor far better than other reconstructions do. After all, establishing the authenticity of these texts requires external evidence. In the absence of such evidence, Josephus remains the primary source of information about Jesus. There is, of course, the question of whether and when he wrote about Jesus. Yet, we have no evidence that the *Testimonium Flavianum* (TF) was absent from *Antiquities*. Perhaps the TF was originally part of *The Jewish War*, as the Slavonic manuscripts suggest? No one knows the form in which it circulated through the world over time. The past is gone; our reconstructions rely on a limited body of evidence. Mine is the simplest explanation—at least until new evidence emerges to falsify it. I am setting sail today. Keep in touch
Robert, before Christians wrote a single word, someone had to tell the world about Christ. And a significant portion of the public must have embraced that message with enthusiasm—otherwise, nothing would have been written. If it were established that the Gospels were written after 120 CE while the first artifacts bearing Christian symbolism date back to 60 CE, this hypothesis wouldn’t exist. His disciples and their successors could have told the world about Jesus, but they didn’t—because nothing of theirs remains. Instead, it was the opportunists of the second century who did so, to cater to new audiences.
The earliest evidence we have of a Christian community is through Paul, when he states he was persecuting the Christians. This was before Paul’s conversion.
These Christians didn’t have a book or any of the Christian texts that we are now aware of.
How many Christians were there in these earliest days? The number must have been large enough for people to have thought of them as a threat and as a sizeable community.
What were these earliest Christians doing? Could they just have been centered around their spiritual experiences and the experience of Christ’s Spirit?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)