The Origins Of Christianity: A Radical Hypothesis

[poliphilo]

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.

Comments

[apollinaris.livejournal.com]

michaleen:
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.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

You certainly are courageous; I'll give you that.

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.