Indisputable Historical Facts About Early Christianity

[robert j]

... deleted by the author

[Jax]

Or maybe by "Jewish" you meant "Hebrew?"

Yes. Sorry for the confusion. What I actually meant was that we have no Christian texts written in either Hebrew or Aramaic from the early Christian cult.

Speculation on whether or not there is a Semitic base to some early Christian writings cannot get around the fact that texts in Greek are all that we have for the original writings. That said, I personally believe that at least an early stage of Revelation was a Jewish text, but we are supposed to be dealing just in what is fact on this thread and the only examples of Revelation that we have are in Greek. That is an Indisputable historical fact.

6: Only κύριος, KY, KC, etc. is consistently abbreviated in the early Christian writings and always as the first letter followed by a case ending.

[Jax]

5: No Christian writings have been found in the caves at Qumran.

Not all Christian writings use the word "Christian," and Acts says Christians were first called such in Antioch. And there are DSS writings that have the same characteristics as Christianity, particularly the Damascus Document, which mentions a place called Damascus and rejects the oral Torah and believes in a "new covenant" and the coming of a singular Messiah (and says "they will see" God's "yeshua" at the End Time, which is Jesus' name), and as Lim notes, "the [Dead Sea Scrolls] sectarians and early church were the only ones to have used the concept of 'the new covenant' from the prophecy of Jeremiah. Other Jews did not comment on 'the new covenant' nor did they use it in their writings."

And since it also mentions (and is hostile towards) a figure I think resembles Paul (in that they rejected the written Torah), I think it is not out of the realm of possibility that it was written by the kind of Christians who are said to have opposed Paul (in his letters and in Acts) and were called Ebionites after 70 CE (for which reason I call them proto-Ebionites).

Just a few quick notes:

1: Early Christian texts are usually identified, I think, by the use of the Nomina Sacra. Nothing like this has been found in the caves at Qumran.

2: yeshua means YVHV saves. Or God's salvation at the end of time. I think.

[Jax]

3: The original language of the early Christian texts is koine Greek.

AND

Oh? Are there Jewish and Aramaric Christian writings associated with early Christianity? I am aware of only Greek texts.

Here is a real problem for the Early Christian Scholars out there and it - perhaps predictably - occurs at the start of Christianity.
Suppose you have a collection of writings centered around the Middle East and Rome, in multiple languages.

Is this a "Gospel" yet?
No.

Suppose you wish to create a story around a character and a group of people who speak and are intimately familiar with Hebrew and Aramaic.
You pull together and collate a number of pages of text, beginning a Framework for your story, written in Greek, with the other pages laid out between this Framework.

Is this a Gospel yet?
No.

Someone notices that there is a Word-Play: There is a Hebrew word for "Lamb" which is found in the OT. That word is " אמּר ". It is "Immar" and it is exactly the same word as "Immer", a group found in the Groups of the Temple Worship Apparatus. You begin to map out a story. Some friends, who are really irritating, know a little History and start calling out a Phrase "Behold the Lamb-of-Yah". They laugh. They're very sophisticated.

So you write a story with all the little secret parts. Your part is written in Greek with some difficulty. Your part has expanded but there are many sections that are in Aramaic. It reminds of what you heard about that book "Daniel". Someone asks you to include a section from a Latin Text. It involves a Latin word "Soudarion". What a pain. "OK. Sure." You lay out a small Latin part at the end of your story.

Is this a Gospel yet?
No.

You translate this into a completely Greek only Manuscript with the Loan-Words and Word-Plays hidden. After all, "Lamb" in Hebrew is not the same as "Lamb" in Greek.

Is this a Gospel?
YES!!! It is now.

Though this is a Toy Analysis, you may find the Aramaic Bible Groups, the Latin Loan-Word Groups and other Groups as well who will expand Linguistic Analysis until you become sorry that you ever brought up the subject.

Was it never a Gospel until it was written solely in Greek? Why? Why not?

Jes' wondrin'.

CW

[Jax]

• I agree with Vermeiren/Doudna about the historical Jesus being Jesus b. Sapphat.

• I agree with G. Solomon that the Pilate bit is derived from the false Samaritan prophet slain by Pilate. Which means: if Pilate had not punished the false Samaritan prophet, then the name "Pilate" would have not become the most mentioned name of the history in absolute (because of the recitation of the Creed)

• I agree with Klinghardt about Mcn preceding even Mark.

I agree with Buggs Bunny that carrots are yummy. Does that make it a fact?

[Jax]

- Archaeologists have found Christian texts or art carbon-dated or otherwise scientifically dated to the 1st two centuries AD.

I'm hesitant to call that indisputable, but it's generally the kind of thing people agree on. For example, we have papyrus pieces from that time period with passages from gospels or otherwise about Jesus.

This is a little misleading and full of controversy. While your general statement of Christian texts dated to the first two centuries may be technically correct it is by no means undisputed fact.

Most scholars, I believe, are hesitant to assign dates earlier than the late 2nd to early 3rd century for the texts that we have. Usually, only scholars that have a vested interest in Christianity and a historical Jesus are bold enough to try and claim an 1st century dating for some of the material.

[Ben C. Smith]

6: Only κύριος, KY, KC, etc. is consistently abbreviated in the early Christian writings and always as the first letter followed by a case ending.

There may be an instance of ΚΟΥ in one manuscript. It would still be the first letter plus the case ending, but it would not be entirely consistent with the usual two-letter ΚΥ.

(For the record, this one looks to me like it may well simply be a scribal slip. But it is recorded in lists of the nomina sacra such as that found in Paap, so it might not be completely indisputable or noncontroversial.)

Also, whether or not the word κύριος gets abbreviated is not 100% consistent. It seems close, but I think there are exceptions to whatever rule one wishes to suggest.

[Ben C. Smith]

Also, there is this, which Paap also lists.

[Jax]

6: Only κύριος, KY, KC, etc. is consistently abbreviated in the early Christian writings and always as the first letter followed by a case ending.

There may be an instance of ΚΟΥ in one manuscript. It would still be the first letter plus the case ending, but it would not be entirely consistent with the usual two-letter ΚΥ.

(For the record, this one looks to me like it may well simply be a scribal slip. But it is recorded in lists of the nomina sacra such as that found in Paap, so it might not be completely indisputable or noncontroversial.)

Also, whether or not the word κύριος gets abbreviated is not 100% consistent. It seems close, but I think there are exceptions to whatever rule one wishes to suggest.

I am actively looking for any deviation of κύριος being anything other than an abbreviation of the first letter followed by a case ending in the first three centuries of the common era. Thanks for pointing out the KOY variant, what dating is proposed for that text?

Lane

[Ben C. Smith]

I am actively looking for any deviation of κύριος being anything other than an abbreviation of the first letter followed by a case ending in the first three centuries of the common era. Thanks for pointing out the KOY variant, what dating is proposed for that text?

Bonner's manuscript is dated to century II.

Also, there is this, which Paap also lists.

This one, containing the abbreviation with the rho (which is not part of the case ending), is dated to century III.