[roman]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

You talk of the Q source and say it should be examined in its own context. I'm not an early Christian scholar, but I was under the impression that the Q source was hypothetical and was first put forward in the 19th Century. If that is correct, how can we examine it?

It is hypothetical and every now and then it's existence is challenged (most recently by Mark Goodacre), but since the synoptic problem was formulated it's been consistently, for about 150 years, weathered he storm, the Q source has been examined to death and the synoptic problem has, so it's not 100% sure (nothing is in history) but it's solid enough that one can do scholarship assuming it. there have been many reconstructions, John Klopenborg's is one that is often used, but most of them are more or less the same with a few variations here and there, but he core has been more or less established.

[roman]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Per Meek, :

Meek wrote:

The followers of Jesus have often been called ‘peasants’, but that is a very imprecise use of the term, which in its most direct and simplest sense denotes ‘free men and women whose chief activity lay in the working of the land with their own hands’.23 The gospel traditions depict Jesus himself as a tekton¯ or the son of one (Mark 6:3; Matt 13.55), thus of a family of independent carpenters or builders. Among his disciples are sons of fishing families with slaves and hired workers; one is a ‘tax collector’ (Mark 1:16–20; 2:14). Support for the itinerant band is provided by women who evidently have some means, including the wife of a commissioner of the tetrarch (Luke 8:2–3). In the cities, as we have seen, the patronage of householders, some of whom had wealth and even civic status, like Gaius and Erastus of Corinth, was indispensable. There were slaveholders as well as slaves among the faithful.

Though, this from another chapter may be telling

Freyne wrote:

 On the basis of scattered pieces of information from Josephus, as well as from archaeological surveys, the trend was towards larger estates, and thus a move away from mere subsistence farming of the traditional Jewish peasant class. Pressure could fall on small landowners as the ruling aristocracy’s needs had to be met. In a pre-industrial context, land was the primary source of wealth, but it was in short supply in a Galilee that was densely populated by the standards of the time (BJ 3.41–3). Increased taxation to meet the demands of an elite lifestyle meant that many were reduced to penury. These landless poor and urban destitute correspond to the lowest level on Lenski’s pyramid (Vit. 66f ). The slide from peasant owner to tenant farmer, to day labourer – all recognisable characters from the gospel parables – was inexorable for many and, thus, gave rise to social resentment, debt, banditry and, in the case of women, prostitution.

and

Freyne wrote:

It is not surprising, then, that the first century saw an increase in social turmoil in the Judaean countryside: banditry, prophetic movements of protest and various religious ideologies which can be directly related to prevailing conditions. Thus the Essenes’ practice of a common life in the Judaean desert away from the city, as well as the Pharisees’ espousal of a modest lifestyle (AJ 18.12 and 18.18) represent classic counter-cultural responses to the prevailing aristocratic ethos, treating poverty as an ideal rather than shameful. A similar stance seems to have been adopted by the Jesus movement both in its Galilean and later, Jerusalem, forms, as we can infer from the earliest strata of the gospels as well as from Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2:44–7, 4:32–5).

Freyne, S. (2006). Galilee and Judaea in the first century. In M. Mitchell & F. Young (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Christianity (Cambridge History of Christianity, pp. 35-52). Cambridge: Cambridge University So, it wasn't so much the poorest, perhaps it was the just-about-managing…

Right. "peasant" is an inprecise term, but we can't really use "working class" either. What Meek says abut Tekton however is a little misleading, what that term actuall means is not clear, but Crossan and others have shown, convincingly i think, that in the Palestinian context it was more of a day laborer (who would usually be from a peasant background but lacking land).All of this is laid out in my book as well, the constant dispossession and from taxation and rent (utlimatel what killed the poor was rent).But yes, the followers, in the earliest, were not the most destitute, they were the anxious just-about-managing, as you say, along with some (mostly women) patrons with some disposable income (the earliest christians were financed basically by women with some extra cash). However, the movement was an apocalyptic one, and an apocalyptic one that was based on the idea of a class based reversal.

[roman]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Wiki explains Origen was not canonised because of certain of his beliefs were considered hereticalhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OrigenSame with Tertullianhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TertullianSeems it's all dependent on accepting Father Son and Holy Spirit…the Trinity as you mention.Roman may be able to explain the theology but for a couple of hundred years there were plenty of schisms explained by the diverse geography of the Christian world of the time…Rome was still striving to be the centre.http://www.biblescholars.org/2013/05/heresies-controversies-schisms-early-church-part-ii.htmlThat site gives a summaryFirst time i came across all this confusion was decades ago when i read Marco Polo wasn't such a great adventurer…his journey to China was via all the Nestorian monasteries that lined the route to Cathay and i didn't know at the time about them.

Origen was a universalist (everyone gets saved) and a subordanationist (the Son is lesser than the father), both very iffy for the later Church, he also had other issues, such as his ransom atonement theology, and his semi pelagianism. But a lot of modern theologians are drawing from him.Tertullian usually gets a lot more love, and he was much closer to orthodoxy (I would argue he too was a subordinationist, but most theologians would say I'm wrong), but he was rather critical of Roman power and culture, and especially Christian cooperation with that power and culture. But he's definately considered a great Christian father in Catholocism.The schisms happened all the time, you have the Jamesean/pauline conflict, that lasted a while, until Jewish Christianity lost out after 130, you had the Arian controversy, the two natures controversy, the fililoque and so on … most of those were theological on the surface, and political deep down. Take the Jamesean/Pauline conflict. Paul (more so his followers though), was about the law and the nation of Israel, although you can see in the conflict issues of Jewish nationalism and liberation on one hand, and universalism on the other hand.

[roman]

You're right, I was specifically talking about the Galilean/Judean communities directly. Outside of Judea and Galilee it was more equal. The socio-economic message in Christianity made a lot more sense within the palestinian Jewish worldview than it did outside.The way to see this is to compare "Q" to Paul.

[roman]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I accept your caveat but he is also not a complete novice to be totally dismissed.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Stark

Absolutely, there are non scholars of Early Christianity that do great work … however, in Rodneys case, at least what I've read, he's not really studied the scholarship .. which is why he says things like it's "tradition" that says that the early CHristians were primarily peasants/workers … if he read the scholarship on it he'd know it's documented and argued to death … saying it's "tradition" ignores the scholarship and then he goes on to just quote texts without doing property exegesis, historical analysis or cultural analysis.

[roman]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I linked to it on another thread a while back, but i suppose people forget…i did.https://www.gordon.edu/ace/pdf/F&EF09Stark.pdf

Quote:

Did early Christianity also attract lower class converts? Of course. Even when a wealthy household was baptized, the majority would have been servants and slaves, and surely some lower status people found their way to the church on their own. The point is that early Christianity substantially over-recruited the privileged,

 

Rodney Stark is NOT a New Testament scholar, I've read his work, his a good sociologist, but his work on the first couple centuries is just not up to par … it's not due to "tradition" that people say that early Christianity was mostly made up of the poor, it's due to serious scholarship. See John Dominic Crossan and Richard Horsley's work.One of his arguments that Jesus was middle class was that his family traveled to Jerusalem for a festival (in one of the gospels), he doesn't argue for the historicity of that even, nor argue that a poor family would not be able to do that, nor does he bring up the fact that in the story his family coudlnt' afford animals for scrifice (the offered birds). But either way, that story is NOT part of the earliest material most likely to be historical and thus one would have to argue for its historicity. The fact that Jesus is called "rabbi" doesn't mean anything since it wasn't an actual title until AFTER the 70 C.E. where the pharisaic movement became the main Jewish religious sect.It IS true that some wealth people became christians (as seen in pauls letters), but as other actual scholars have pointed out the prophets and traveling teachers required the rich people for financial support, but that's not how you do history, you can't just take a text and accept it at face value, you have to examine it and see how it could fit in different social contexts, and compare it to other texts.In short, be careful when someone who isn't a scholar of early Christianity comes out and says all the actual scholars of early Christianity are wrong.If you look at the Q source without the Matthean and Lukean context, in it's own context, as well as the Markean material in it's oral tradition form (take the individual stories and sayings), it's clear the audience was peasantry.The writings are BY DEFINITION coming from the middle class and up … but that doesn't define the movement as a whole. The fact that Paul includes AS TRADITION, the communist ethic, and then complains about people who aren't working but living off the rich, is exactly what you'd expect when someone from a wealtheir background joins a movement made up of peasants. When you go to the second century you see the same thing, the tradition sounds like it comes from the peasantry where as the writers recording them and framing them are clearly educated and middle to upper class.

[roman]

Vin wrote:

roman wrote:

‘Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.’

I would be interested to know what your take on this qoute is. I see it as a fine religious sentiment with nothing whatsover to do with communism/socialism.

Luke 3:11 quoting John the Baptist, it's also quoted in some of the Qumran documents, and I think also some early Rabbinic literature.

[roman]

Marcos wrote:

The mentioning of Jesus on Josephus works is an interpolation.( the bible has 2,700 interpolations )  He never mentioned him because he never existed.Christianity was a working class movement which existed in Rome. Paul existed and he wrote ( or others wrote for him )  a lot of crap too, and he was not killed because of his beliefs, they killed him becausehe was part of the Herodian family and he was considered a criminal. He was not a Jewish either, he was a  Syrian and a citizen of Rome. He suffered from Syphilis and the medication to treat it was  Opium or Hashi and that is the reason why he had those illusions about the third heaven and his encounter with Jesus. It is all crap too

Josephus mentions Jesus twice, the first one contains interpolation but the whole thing is not an interpolation, (if you take away the interpolated parts it reads exactly how a pharisaic Jew who didn't really care about Jesus would mention him) the second on is in reference to his brother and is not an interpolation.Christianity existed in Rome, and many other places, it wasn't a "working class movement" though, perhaps origionally in galilee and Jerusalem it was, but once it got outside it attracted many different people.He was not part of the Herodian family, and the Herodian family were loved by the Roman government.Jews were all over the roman empire …Source for the Syphilis?Where are you getting this interpolation numbers? And what does that even mean?I dont' know where you're getting any of this but it's completely bunk.

[roman]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But let us move on. Let's try again. This thread was begun by me because i came across a writer who had studied the early Christian movement and determined that the idea of common ownership was widespread. He endeavoured to use this information to convince present day Christians to be communists. Interesting enough, wouldn't you say, for socialists like ourselves to look into a bit more.The thread as threads tend to do spun off into a tangent about the existence or non-existence of Jesus. Not a debate about God and his existence or non-existence. But a discussion on the historicity of a human being. Having read a fair amount of specialist books on the Gospels on the balance of probability i think someone called Jesus, most likely a member a John the Baptist movement, itself a part of a general religious revival/revolution with the Essenes and part of the broad political division Sadducees and Pharisees and Zealots/Sicarri  in an occupied part of the Roman Empire thus religion was being reflected and driven by political and economic realities. (not so different from modern day Israel/Palestine)Now ALB weighed it up on his scales of probability and concluded that Jesus was a fictitious figure…a myth around which a religion developed.No-one has disagreed that Jesus the Christ is a myth but dispute is about Jesus the Man having lived.ALB and myself disagree. We put forth our case. I sought flaws in his argument. He searched for flaws in mine… that is what is called debating…. Neither of us can prove 100% if we are right and the other wrong…so we agree to disagree. Some may consider that ALB got the better. But neither of us have definitive proof of our views. They are opinions only. We comradely came to different conclusions. No acrimonious exchanges took place. None should have. I'm not alone on this thread, at least broadly agreeing are YMS and DaveB who i think share some of my scepticism about the argument that Jesus did not exist. Again no-one is denying that believers like Paul, and also organisationally later through the State – Constantine and the Nicea Council – chose to shape and mould Christianity which was not historically accurate of its early growth – the basis of Roman's book, i think.I say the real Jesus was lost in the mists of time and deliberate shrouded (no, not the Turin Shroud) but a few fragments of his original teaching can be detected in the Gospels. The Q source points to a core message, adopted by extinct Jewish Christian communities.Whether Jesus really existed for me is only of academic interest.More important to me was why and how the movement spawned from a local Jewish heresy turned into a world-wide movement that has existed for hundreds of years. The spread of religious ideas is an important part of the understanding how socialist ideas will spread. Was it all down to Popes and inquisitions and burning at the stake? Or were many Christian always searching for salvation – on Earth – not in some after-life but through common ownership. Secondly, with a audience in their millions, could we, to return to the author's hopes, can we use the early Christian beliefs on common ownership to our advantage.This depends on whether they existed in the first place, and i have not read the book to comment yeah or nay.Add to this summary as you wish if you think i overlook anything of importance. 

I joined up to see if anyone had any questions on the actual scholarship in the book, or historical questions, not to endlessly argue about the historicty of Jesus (which isn't even a question in academic scholarship).I'm not trying to convert people to Christianity, nor am I really trying to make christians communists (maybe slightly), my main interest, at least as it concerns my book, is the actual scholarship on early Christianity and their practices and standing in society and so on.It's not really worthy my time to argue about the historicity of Jesus with people who haven't read the scholarship on it.

[roman]

Gnome, it doesn't matter what theists or atheist think or want to be the truth. What matters is the scholarship on the matter. If you care about he actual scholarship then read that. I have the deal with mythecists and their terrible arguments more often than I would like, and they very often come with a total ignorance of how historical scholarship isn't done, a complete ignorance of the literature on the subject, and a lot of arrogance. So forgive my harsh response.  Anyway, I'd much cry prefer to talk about the actual arguments in my book.

[roman]

What artifact would you expect? He was a day laborer … how would you even know if came from Jesus of Nazareth? The same with the dwelling, you think they'd find his signature? What self written manuscripts?have you studied the sources for any ancient figure? What autograph manuscripts do we have for ANYONE in the ancient world. You're talking shit Gnome. What contemporary account is there for any ancient figure? Even most of the important people, Kings and so on, come from later sources.its obvious you haven't studied anything on how ancient history is done. And frankly you're making an ass of yourself; to anyone who knows how history is done you sound like a creationist saying "well if we used to be monkeys, why are there still monkeys." 

[roman]

Spartacus, for one, has MUCH less evidence for his historicity than Jesus. All second hand accounts, no one from his actual community, and, all accounts after his death. I'm not sure what source criticism has been done on the Sparticus account, but I'm quite sure there are probably only one or two sources which the ancient historians used.The High Priest Ciaphas, Ponteus Pilate, and so on.We would expect MUCH MORE evidence for those guys than we would for Jesus (given that during his lifetime Jesus was just another rabble rousing prophet, most of whome we don't know anything about, and a few who get a passing mention in Josephus).For Jesus we have many indepentant sources (Q, Mark, Paul, John, Matthew and Lukes individual sources) with varying degrees of historicity all of which agree on the basics, and the basics fit with everything else we know about second temple Judaism.

[roman]

I appreciate the interest. :)First thing about the historical Jesus: There is no doubt in historical scholarship that Jesus of Nazareth existed and that the basic picture they paint of how people viewed him is correct (an apocalyptic prophet, social agitator, torah polemicist, and exorcist/miracle worker from Nazareth who, while in Jerusalem, got hiimself in trouble by causing trouble in the Temple and got himself killed by the Roman State for sedition with the sanction of the High Priesthood). The sources are there, they agree on the basic outline, and yes Josephus did refer to Jesus of Nazareth, yes there was interpolation, but we know what was interpolated and what wasn't. The evidence for the historicity of Jesus is as good as anyone else in the ancient world, we have more than we would expect. Also yes Paul knew Jesus as a historical figure, but his main argument was that Jesus as a historical figure wasn't as important as the idea of himi (his opponants would argue that he didn't actually know Jesus in the flesh). The opponants of Christianity attacked the Gospels as writing things that were false, but NOBODY questioned the historical Jesus up until around the 19th century, where it ingered for a bit and then died, in scholarship that is.Whether or not Christianity is true or not is a different issue altogether, but if you're going to argue against the historical Jesus to argue that Christianity is untrue you're really up shit creek; it's like trying to argue against evolution to prove that God exists … you're gonna be up shit creek without a paddle.The actual facts in my book I will stand behind 100%, the evidence for Christian communities around the Roman world in the latter half of the first century through the second century that practiced communism to a signifiacnt degree (so much so that it stood out as strange to the outside word) is overwhelming.

[Author]

Posts