Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Kapyong wrote:
Carrier, OHJ, Background Elements to Christianity

"Element 2.
When Christianity began, Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse.

Element 3.
When Christianity began, many Jews were expecting a Messiah.

Element 4.
Palestine in early 1st C. CE was experiencing a rash of messianism. See: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&start=170#p14594

Element 5.
Even before Christianity arose, some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end times would actually be killed.

Element 6.
The suffering-and-dying servant of Isaiah 52-53 and the messiah of Daniel 9 (which may have been seen as the same person) have numerous logical connections with a man in Zechariah 3 and 6 named 'Jesus Rising' who is confronted by Satan in God's abode in heaven and there crowned king, given all of God's authority, holds the office of high priest, and will build up 'God's house'.

Element 7.
The pre-Christian book of Daniel was a key messianic text, predicting the messiah's arrival in early 1st C., even 30 CE.

Element 8.
Many messianic sects were searching the scriptures and extra-canonical texts for secret messages about the messiah.

Posted previously by Kapyong; p21 of this thread

MrMacSon wrote:

pakeha wrote:Is this a sign my Sunday reading should include Tertullian?
I think so.

Might pay to try to determine to what extent writings attributed to Tertullian are considered authentic ...

pakeha wrote:Apparently 31 of his surviving works are considered authentic

A fascinating word-weaver, was Tertullian, even in translation.

Kapyong wrote: [ . . . ] Peter's escape from prison is constructed from Priam's escape from Achilles.9[ . . . ]

MrMacSon wrote:

pakeha wrote:Apparently 31 of his surviving works are considered authentic

Cool

A fascinating word-weaver, was Tertullian, even in translation.

It was Tertullian who popularized the notion of the 'Trinity': I think he got the proposal from somewhere else.

Bernard Muller wrote:to hjalti,

But just because he often said stuff like "brother of X" and "my brother" it doesn't mean that he should always use constructions like that (with the genitive) when speaking of familial relationships. There's no reason to think that.

But Paul used that construction all the times when talking about familial relationship. Prove me wrong. Show me one or more exceptions. If you do, I'll analyse them graciously.

and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”

Bernard Muller wrote:

And in Rom 8:29 it means that Jesus is one of the brothers (the first-born among them).

Yes, with "brothers" meaning "Christians".
Carrier contends that all "brother(s) in the Pauline epistles mean "Christian(s)". In element 12, he does not use Ro 8:29 specifically to make a point.

Bernard Muller wrote:And if you look at the examples given in the blog-post I linked to you'll find similar examples without the article:

Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. (Mt 11:11)
blessed art thou among women (Lk 1:28)

Kapyong wrote:Richard Carrier writes
"Indeed, even if we blow past all probability and imagine that some­how Tacitus is paraphrasing or adapting a story from an earlier historian of Nero, Christians could already have been preaching the exoteric myth (some form of proto-Mark, for example) in 64, as an allegory (an extended parable) whose real meaning (it's esoteric meaning, that of a cosmic event) would be explained only to initiates (see Elements 13 and 14). Thus even a mention of Christ being crucified by Pilate at that date, if such a detail was only learned from Christians, would not strongly confirm historicity. And even if Christians hadn't yet gelled this exoteric myth by then, their claims that Jesus was celestially crucified by the 'rulers of this world' during the reign of Pilate could easily be misunderstood by a half-interested Roman audience as crucified by Pilate. Thus, even the 'cosmic crucifixion' of mini­mal mythicism could so easily be misreported in a historicist fashion that our inability to rule that possibility out further complicates third-hand evi­dence such as this.

andrewcriddle wrote:

Kapyong wrote:Richard Carrier writes
"Indeed, even if we blow past all probability and imagine that some­how Tacitus is paraphrasing or adapting a story from an earlier historian of Nero, Christians could already have been preaching the exoteric myth (some form of proto-Mark, for example) in 64, as an allegory (an extended parable) whose real meaning (it's esoteric meaning, that of a cosmic event) would be explained only to initiates (see Elements 13 and 14). Thus even a mention of Christ being crucified by Pilate at that date, if such a detail was only learned from Christians, would not strongly confirm historicity. And even if Christians hadn't yet gelled this exoteric myth by then, their claims that Jesus was celestially crucified by the 'rulers of this world' during the reign of Pilate could easily be misunderstood by a half-interested Roman audience as crucified by Pilate. Thus, even the 'cosmic crucifixion' of mini­mal mythicism could so easily be misreported in a historicist fashion that our inability to rule that possibility out further complicates third-hand evi­dence such as this.

I'm taking out of context one paragraph from what is in many ways an impressive analysis of Pliny and Tacitus. But this passage does seem bizarre.

It seems obvious that IF Tacitus provides evidence that Christians in Rome c 64 CE were saying things that were understood by casual listeners as claiming that their founder Christ had been executed in Palestine by Pontius Pilate, then this is rather good evidence for a historical Christ.

Andrew Criddle

maryhelena wrote:How on earth does one get a date for a celestial crucifixion?