Christianity a Roman Counter-insurgency Ploy?

[sologdin]

you racist against extraterrestrials or something, guy?

[Clueless Northman]

This theory is nothing new, it's been around for decades. I wouldn't even be urprised if 18th century people already had a version of it.

And as said, it fails big time because Roman historians are absolutely positive that Christianity had already spread to Rome before that, and were persecuted by Nero after the great fire, years before the alleged invention of it based on Titus campaign. So, the whole chronology is totally off, the religion being widely spread before it should even exist.

That or these fools assume that Tacitus and Suetonius were parts of the plot. Meaning they bank on the fact that 100 AD Romans had forgotten all about the 64 AD fire and no one was alive to remember what actually happened right after it. But then, these fools also assume that 75 AD Jews could be fooled about what had happened in 30 AD, as if no Jew alive was left to remember if there had been a local prophet that caused trouble and was crucified afterwards - and worse, as if schemers 1.500 miles away could fake a cult that was supposed to have existed for decades without the people having lived where it's supposed to exist noticing it for 40 years...

[sologdin]

the roman historians are generally subject to critique on these points, no? i.e., josephus features an interpolation; tacitus, seutonius, and pliny are writing during the time of the antonines, and are accordingly as useful as witnesses as i would be writing about WWI?

[Clueless Northman]

Sure, Tacitus writes 30-40 years later. Still, do you think that if someone was writing now about the Reagan administration, he could totally make stuff up - let's say Islamic State being the ones supporting the Contras - and it would stick? I have a hard time believing old Cornelius would dare to write about executions that never happened of members of a group that didn't even exist - his Roman readers would know it's fake and that would seriously ruin his credibility.

[sologdin]

dunno, most people believe that reagan is somehow great, whereas it's plain to me that he hangs at nuremberg.

[ThinkerX]

I have come across the argument that Paul was some sort of Roman agent (one of the ideas put forth in 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail).  From his own letters, he appears to have gotten on much better with pagan romans than with the early church - Peter was about the only (original) disciple willing to tolerate him.  A couple times Paul complains about 'those sent by James,' - who apparently also had letters certifying their status, something Paul did not.

As to the existence of Jesus, I recently read a long argument in BAR (Biblical Archaeology Review) that argued a convincing case can be made for the existence of Jesus outside the bible.  The key, according to the article, is the SECOND Josephus quotation about Jesus, usually overlooked, because its not really about Jesus.  Rather, its about Jesus's brother James.  To distinguish which 'James' he was talking about, Josephus added the identifier 'brother of Jesus,' to the name. 

The Gospels themselves are suspect - because, after those events, according to both Acts and Paul's letters (as well as commentary by the early heresy hunters) the original disciples and their descendants held theological positions very close to Judaism, and vehemently disagreed with key Christian concepts.  (Acts tried to whitewash this dispute, but Paul was pretty blunt about it.)

To me, Jesus comes across as a wandering wonder-worker and teacher, while Paul was more of a salesman. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

10 hours ago, Weeping Sore said:

 

More or less plausible than magic guy who rises from the dead and can cure blindness and leprosy?

Less plausible than the charismatic preacher, possibly influenced by Eastern philosophy, who was executed by the Romans. And whose life story, in the years and decades after his death, got a little exaggerated.

[Iskaral Pust]

I always thought that Paul hijacking Christianity is the biggest and most overlooked theft in history.  

[Rorshach]

7 hours ago, sologdin said:

the roman historians are generally subject to critique on these points, no? i.e., josephus features an interpolation; tacitus, seutonius, and pliny are writing during the time of the antonines, and are accordingly as useful as witnesses as i would be writing about WWI?

Bonus points for arguing. 

Negative points for writing off the entire field of history in your comment on Tacitus, Seutonius and Pliny. 

[Seli]

10 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

This theory is nothing new, it's been around for decades. I wouldn't even be urprised if 18th century people already had a version of it.

And as said, it fails big time because Roman historians are absolutely positive that Christianity had already spread to Rome before that, and were persecuted by Nero after the great fire, years before the alleged invention of it based on Titus campaign. So, the whole chronology is totally off, the religion being widely spread before it should even exist....

That is assuming that what we label christians at that time and the obviously Roman engineered post-Nicene christianity have much in common.

[ThinkerX]

14 hours ago, Seli said:

That is assuming that what we label christians at that time and the obviously Roman engineered post-Nicene christianity have much in common.

Christianity was a fractured beast from the very beginning.  Paul laments over this in his letters. The author of revelations puts forth bitter complaints against deviant sects, as does the author of II John (or is it III John?  memory is a little hazy.  Even gets referred to in the gospels, though these post date Paul...with the possible, dubious exception of the now lost first version of Mark.

[DireWolfSpirit]

There's no first hand historical evidence whatsoever, of Jesus having existed. Josephus' account suffers from Christian interpolations and is not reliable. On a question so heavily debated I think its safest to rely on the expert scholars of antiquity manuscripts.

Ehrman believes Jesus existed. But there is such scant evidence, I have no trouble with theories asking whether he was a hoax. I think thats a reasonable question given the gap in the record and the evidence of forgery and interpolations scholars see from the early century Christians.

I prefer to think of Jesus as a hoax, there is no reliable record he existed.

[James Arryn]

I love alt. history discussions.

My main issues with this, outside of historiographical debate, would be;

1) it's just not how the Romans thought/worked.

2) if it was, why only do this with that relatively insignificant region/people? The Romans were big believers in using what works, so if they pulled this off, why stop there?

[James Arryn]

On October 15, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Seli said:

That is assuming that what we label christians at that time and the obviously Roman engineered post-Nicene christianity have much in common.

Very true. Niccea was first and foremost a political directive that hosted a theological conglomeration. It's the birth of Christian Orthodoxy, and I agree that the before and after pics are remarkably different from one another.

[Rorshach]

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

There's no first hand historical evidence whatsoever, of Jesus having existed. Josephus' account suffers from Christian interpolations and is not reliable. On a question so heavily debated I think its safest to rely on the expert scholars of antiquity manuscripts.

Ehrman believes Jesus existed. But there is such scant evidence, I have no trouble with theories asking whether he was a hoax. I think thats a reasonable question given the gap in the record and the evidence of forgery and interpolations scholars see from the early century Christians.

I prefer to think of Jesus as a hoax, there is no reliable record he existed.

As to whether Josephus suffers from Christian inerpolations - yes and no. There are two mentions, one which is believed to be changed at a later date to support a more Christian interpolation (but believed to be a reference originally), and one which is only under question from those on the very outskirts of knowledge - the mythisists. Of the latter there are none (AFAIK) working in the field - that is universities etc.

As for the scant evidence - that's something that the entire period suffers. A parallell here, often dragged forward when that point is raised, is Hannibal. No, not that one, the other one. There are no contemporary references to him either.

[Darzin]

I feel like Christianity is a pretty good argument for the existence of Jesus. Almost all religious movements start with a charismatic leader I don't see why Christianity would be any different. Absent evidence pointing otherwise it seems reasonable to assume any religion started the same way.

Also the lack of references to Jesus isn't really surprising he wasn't to big a deal a the time and his followers thought he would come back soon. Once they realize this might not happen soon they began to write stuff down. And as Christianity grew we see it referenced in secular sources. I think ideas like this come from wondering how something so important could have a lack of contemporary sources but what they overlook is at the time it wasn't important. Jesus was just one of many preachers in Judea at the time. 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

On 10/14/2016 at 6:02 PM, Weeping Sore said:

So even if this research doesn't hold up, it's an interesting idea. The contention here is that in the first century, Jews in Palestine were rebelling violently against the Empire so the thought was to co-opt their Messiah narrative and say he already came, and btw he said it was better to be non-violent and "give to Caesar what is Caesar's".

http://www.corespirit.com/ancient-confession-found-invented-jesus-christ/

If it turns out Christianity was a cynical fiction invented by the Romans, does it mean Christians should discard it? Or does it just legitimize worshipping other fictional characters?

Who the fuck is Joseph Atwill? 

On 10/15/2016 at 7:33 AM, Iskaral Pust said:

I always thought that Paul hijacking Christianity is the biggest and most overlooked theft in history.  

This is a popular misconception. I suspect many people, particularly liberal Christians, want to turn Paul into Christianity's ideological scapegoat, often for the purposes of constructing their vision of Jesus from the Gospels: i.e., "Here's the true message of Jesus Christ without the later negative Pauline influence." Of course, this conveniently ignores the fact that Pauline epistles are the oldest recorded Christian texts we have in our possession. 

4 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

There's no first hand historical evidence whatsoever, of Jesus having existed. Josephus' account suffers from Christian interpolations and is not reliable. On a question so heavily debated I think its safest to rely on the expert scholars of antiquity manuscripts.

Ehrman believes Jesus existed. But there is such scant evidence, I have no trouble with theories asking whether he was a hoax. I think thats a reasonable question given the gap in the record and the evidence of forgery and interpolations scholars see from the early century Christians.

I prefer to think of Jesus as a hoax, there is no reliable record he existed.

Thankfully good historians don't care about your shitty bias-laden preferences. 

[Weeping Sore]

3 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Who the fuck is Joseph Atwill?  

Um, an "American biblical scholar", who may or may not be full of shit? Discussion of which is the purview of this thread?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

1 minute ago, Weeping Sore said:

Um, an "American biblical scholar", who may or may not be full of shit? Discussion of which is the purview of this thread?

Never heard of him. Admittedly, I focus on Old Testament, but even OT people are half-way expected to keep up with trends and names of our colleagues in NT scholarship, but he has not even been a blip on the radar. 

Doing further research, Atwill claims in his blog description to be an "independent scholar who has set the world of New Testament scholarship in a new direction," but the only thing that appears to be true in that statement is that he is independent. You know what's damning in scholarship? It's not being the source of heated debate and controversy, but being a complete non-presence in discussion: the sheer silence about you and your work. If you have the gumption to claim that your work has set the field in a new direction, you better have the evidence to back that up. His "biblical scholarship" appears to be limited to co-writing an article on radiocarbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls and this Caesar's Messiah book, and no one in Biblical or New Testament studies is talking about either. I suspect that if they are, it's only to groan and roll their eyes at yet another bullshit mythicist conspiracy theory. 

[Rorshach]

Well, in the link in the OP, it said he would appear alongside this scholar (since that isn't a protected title), so mythisist was always on the cards..