![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Origins Of Christianity: A Radical Hypothesis
If Jesus died c. AD. 30 how come his name doesn't start appearing in the archaeological record until 100 years later?
There were two Jewish revolts during the reign of Hadrian. Evidence for Jesus (mostly in the form of fragments of gospels) starts appearing at just this time.
It wasn't that easy to get published in the Roman world. If lots of manuscripts of a given text are in circulation it argues official connivance or even sponsorship.
Christianity is a radically Hellenized version of Judaism- outward looking and friendly to the Empire. Jesus is a God-man on the Hellenic model- like Hercules, Dionysus, Alexander, Mithras, Antinous, etc. The early Christian texts show the Romans in a favourable light and demonize the Jewish authorities. ("Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.").
All this fits with Christianity being a creation of the Hadrianic period- a state-sponsored religion designed to draw adherents away from Judaism. Its leading personalities- Jesus, the Apostles, Paul- were all "invented" at this time- and placed (conveniently beyond the reach of living memory) in the golden age of the early Empire. The gospels and other early Christian writings are essentially "black propaganda" aimed against the Jewish rebels and their separatist ideology
This is the barest outline of the hypothesis. The detailed evidence and arguments are here.
There were two Jewish revolts during the reign of Hadrian. Evidence for Jesus (mostly in the form of fragments of gospels) starts appearing at just this time.
It wasn't that easy to get published in the Roman world. If lots of manuscripts of a given text are in circulation it argues official connivance or even sponsorship.
Christianity is a radically Hellenized version of Judaism- outward looking and friendly to the Empire. Jesus is a God-man on the Hellenic model- like Hercules, Dionysus, Alexander, Mithras, Antinous, etc. The early Christian texts show the Romans in a favourable light and demonize the Jewish authorities. ("Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.").
All this fits with Christianity being a creation of the Hadrianic period- a state-sponsored religion designed to draw adherents away from Judaism. Its leading personalities- Jesus, the Apostles, Paul- were all "invented" at this time- and placed (conveniently beyond the reach of living memory) in the golden age of the early Empire. The gospels and other early Christian writings are essentially "black propaganda" aimed against the Jewish rebels and their separatist ideology
This is the barest outline of the hypothesis. The detailed evidence and arguments are here.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Judaism and Hellenism were both cultural "borrowers" off of one another and various other influences in the region. Hellenism in particular was heavily shaped by Judaism starting around 200 B.C.E. with the relocation of the capital of the Seleucid dynasty to Antioch. In particular, Zoroastrian notions of "good and evil" both found their way into Hellenism and Judaism.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Or are the authors claiming that there was no native Judaic element in Christianity? I am unsure.
That the Jews were coerced or forced to convert to Christianity sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem seems entirely plausible. I have seen it suggested, based upon recent genetic evidence, that the Diaspora may have been largely a myth and that the Biblical Jews became Christians, under Roman rule, and later converted to al Islam under the Saracens.
no subject
I'm hoping a book will come out of this- with the material presented in better order and the structure of the argument clarified.
no subject
"Unsystematized" is a very kind way of putting it. I think the central thesis, as you state it, is plausible at the very least. The difficulty for the authors and ourselves is that there is unlikely to be a smoking gun, somewhere, some piece of evidence proving that Hadrian was the force behind normative Christianity. The case for the claim is certain to be circumstantial, sort of defining the edges of the hole where the conclusive evidence should be but isn't -- if that makes sense.
As for Paul, there is a discussion of him on the site, somewhere. I bumped into it yesterday. I did not however come away with a clear idea of how he fits in, though.
There are other puzzlements, too. What of the gnostics, both Christian and otherwise? And what really became of Mithraism? Why does it not figure among heretical doctrines and why did Christianity take on so much of its symbolism and terminology?
no subject
no subject
On St Paul: the authors apparently accept Robert Eisenman's theory of Paul being a Roman agent and member of the Herodian house. I like this theory and it might be my favorite take-away so far.
If true, it means that the Saul or Saulus, mentioned by Josephus, is the same as the biblical Saul of Tarsus. This man was a key figure. After the rout of Cestius Gallus at Beth Horon, during the First Jewish-Roman War, Josephus claims that Saul and his friends were sent by Cestius to Nero, in Achaia, to bring word of the catastrophe. As a result of this mission, Nero recalled Vespassian from the wilderness and hurled him at the Jewish problem with peculiarly fateful results.
no subject
no subject
Jospephus is interesting, but always questionable. The oldest copies of his work date only to the Middle Ages and have been obviously corrupted.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
On the whole, Hadrian was not a bad emperor, as emperors go. From a Jewish standpoint of course he was one of the great monsters of history, but the Seven Hills had witnessed much worse. And I think in order to swallow some of this argument one must make the worst of his story, such as assuming that he deliberately sacrificed his teenaged lover in some bizarre exercise in god-making. We cannot know exactly what happened, not for certain, but Hadrian was not a madman. The emperor we see portrayed on these pages resembles a high-functional Caligula or Elagabalus. This does not seem warranted and that give me pause.
There is a page on which Antinous is referred to as a catamite, a term seldom used in 21st-century prose, at least not with a straight face. To my mind, either someone just learned a new word and all that implies or they are unsuccessfully hiding a certain schoolboy homophobia. Given the apparent tone of several such passages, I am just not willing to give Mr Bartram and company the full benefit of the doubt.
On the bright side, the site is a goldmine of historical factoids, many of which may turn out to be true. As I say, I love a house of cards like this and many thanks. I think exploring the relationship between Alexandria and Palestine and Rome is interesting and may prove fruitful in understanding both the development of early Christianity and the dynamics of the early empire. I just do not see the authors of these pages being up to that challenge.
no subject
no subject
Tony's summary of our hypothesis is surprisingly good, considering how our study is spread in fragments (a result of posting blog-style, as our work progresses).
Justin: no original work bearing his name exists - they are from later centuries. We have shown how NT texts have been altered to changed 'Chrest' to 'Christ' and scholars generally accept how many early 'sacred' texts went through stages of development.
Antinous: apotheosis was a common phenomena in Classical Antiquity, as was assassination and murder for simple, political ends, so killing somebody then declaring them a god happened many times. Think of an emperor killing his wife, or mother-in-law, then declaring her divine - and you'll see that what happened to Antinous is not as odd as one may think. Even without that, consider the date and place - wouldn't these make his drowning by accident even more incredible? Archaeology deals with the balance of probabilities.
I posted an article today to provide a history for the first century: When evil mixed itself with good and befuddled the world
http://historyhuntersinternational.org/2010/11/11/when-evil-mixed-itself-with-good-and-befuddled-the-world/
no subject
I wrote this post mainly for my own use- in order to get the main points of your thesis straight in my head. I'm pleased you think I've grasped the essentials. I find what you're doing fascinating- and I've friended you so as not to miss future developments.
And now I'm going across to read your latest post.
no subject
The problem, as I see it, is that we can just as easily take the mass of evidence you have collected as proof that there really was a man named Jesus and that rumor of his miracles and good works had spread across the Mediterranean in just a few score years. Whether we interpret this individual as a magician or prophet or the divinely chosen and annointed king of the Jews is just that: a matter of interpretation, having no particular relevance to the question of the man's existence. The Jews claim one thing, the Romans another; I cannot see that it matters. What matters is hard evidence and that evidence is wanting, on all sides.
Christianity did not arise as traditionally claimed. This fact has been kicked around for at least a century and is really nothing new. For that matter, the traditional origins of Judaism are equally mythical and absurd. All available evidence suggests that the Mosaic tradition was invented out of whole cloth at the end of the Babylonian captivity. Even such basic claims as the Jewish Diaspora have come into serious question, in light of the genetic evidence now in our possession.
no subject
My response here made no claim at all for Justin, nor for those texts bearing his name, other than stating that no original work bearing his name exists - they are from later centuries.
Maybe he did exist. If so, nobody can be sure of exactly what he may have written. Perhaps, if any part of this opus is genuine, he wrote of Chrestians, for which we do have good evidence and then, as you say, it is a matter of interpretation: what was a Chrestian? That is a question I have been exploring, based on what evidence I have.
We know for certain that there was a Jesus - it was not an uncommon name and there is reason to believe that there were High Priests of that name before the First Jewish-Roman War. For me to accept that one of these was also 'Jesus Christ', or a messiah in any form, I would need evidence and I do not know of any. Do you?
My method has been to work with reliable evidence and the balance of probabilities. I would be happy to work with any other such evidences which you may have.
no subject
Did Justin Martyr exist or was he a myth? A simple "yes" or "no" might be preferable and we shall go from there.
no subject
Yes-no question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes-no_question
"...the answer "yes" asserts a positive answer and the answer "no" asserts a negative answer, irrespective of the form of the question. But in fact simple "Yes." or "No." word sentence answers to yes-no questions can be ambiguous in English. For example, a "Yes." response to the question "You don't beat your wife?" could mean either "Yes, I don't beat my wife." or "Yes, I do beat my wife." depending from whether the respondent is replying with the truth-value of the situation, or is replying to the polarity used in the question."
So I won't be playing that game with you.
Your use of the term "Justin Martyr" indicates to me a prejudgment, which is not conducive to a balanced debate on evidence.
The Latin name of this Justin, in the texts attributed to him, is Flavius Iustinus. I think a better question than yours is: was he a Christian and martyr to Christian beliefs?
Do we know of him from any contemporaneous source? Do we know anything of him, other than what appears in the texts purportedly by him, or from later writers? I don't have any such evidence; do you? If not, then what exactly is there to believe?
There may have been a Flavius Iustinus and I know of no reason why there should not be. If he existed, who he may have been and what exactly he may have believed, though, is an open question.
no subject
There is more probative evidence for the existence of Justin Martyr than there is supporting any of your theories, on any point, yet you dismiss him with a wave of your hand.
Best of luck.
no subject
The death of Antinous must have been a horrific blow. The technology for his deification lay readily to hand. Such a deification makes some sense, in the context of the imperial cult.
Conversely, the Romans abhorred human sacrifice and I cannot see how the premeditated pumkinification of Antinous might be seen as anything other than human sacrifice. The authors are asking us to believe that Hadrian flaunted Roman sensibilities like this, to a truly unprecedented degree, and no one questioned it. As Bartram himself notes, it is a matter of probabilities and in this case I am afraid the probabilities are against him.
The Hadrianic Conspiracy