The Biggest Lie in the Study of Earliest Christianity

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Biggest Lie in the Study of Earliest Christianity

Post by MrMacSon »

Ulan wrote: Fri May 11, 2018 1:21 am The usual answer to question b is that Christianity was recognized as separate religion by the Roman Empire when Nerva limited the fiscus judaicus to religious Jews in 96 CE. Of course, to come to this conclusion requires some interpretational work (see M. Heemstra 2010).
It also requires an assumption that Christianity [or 'Jewish Christianity'] was a separate religion or virtually a separate religion by 96 CE. It requires one to 'confirm the consequent' and circular reasoning just based on what is assumed to have happened based on entrenched narratives, and that's what Heemstra does, but it all begs the question about whether those narratives are true.

The fiscus judaicus was an incentive to not become Jewish, as it was problematic for Jews and by the time of Nerva's changes or b/c of them Gentile believers relatively new to the Jewish faith who had never previously identified with the Jews: they found themselves the recipients of a growing anti-Gentile polemic within the Traditional Jewish communities. And to renounce the faith was to renounce any hope of being part of a proposed 'world to come'.

And, interestingly, one of the characteristic features of Nerva’s short reign was his attempt to relieve the poor.

Those would have been incentives to look for a messianism outside Judaism, but they don't mean a Jewish messianism then separated from Judaism.
Post Reply