Up until now I have only shared thoughts of others and sometimes added my own commentary. Now I think I am in a position where I can put my years of reading together and propose how it appears to me that “Christianity began”.
What we recognize as “Christianity” — embrace of the gospels and letters of Paul, Jesus as the saving Christ and fulfillment of Jewish Scriptures, organized assemblies — emerged on the scene after the second great Jewish revolt, the Bar Kokhba war of 132-135 CE. Before that time, though there were beliefs associated with “Christ”, and with Jesus, we have to conclude that they knew nothing of the Jesus of the gospel narratives. Among Judeans themselves there were various ideas about the Messiah or Christ, but after 135 we can say, generally speaking, that “Judaism” divided: rabbinic Judaism appeared on the one hand and “Christianity” on the other.
The gospels were part of a wider literary effort to make a former “Judaism” after the genocidal catastrophe of the Bar Kokhba Revolt respectable to the Roman world. Ever since the time of Augustus, Judeans had established themselves with favour in the imperial court. Just as back in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes there were pro-Hellenists and anti-Hellenists, so a similar division appears again with Roman rule. That favour was savagely lost with Trajan’s and Hadrian’s wars against the Judeans. An academic in personal correspondence with me suggested that what the “Christians” were doing after 135 was seeking to reestablish the favour Judeans had long held up until the days of Trajan and Hadrian. (The war of Vespasian and Titus that resulted in the destruction of the temple in 70 CE did not have the same overriding consequences for Judeans.)
I need to explain my approach to sources that has given rise to the above picture. I treat the gospels as products of the second century because, firstly, it is then that we have the first independent witness to their existence. Secondly, a comparative analysis of their literary and ideological content matches the conditions and ideas widely prevalent in second century culture and is in many respects a mismatch with the previous century. The historical background (political, social, cultural) throughout Palestine in the first century (both around the 30s, the time setting of Jesus, and the 70s, the time of the first war) can be demonstrated to lack the explanatory power of the contents of the gospels that is provided by the historical background of the early and mid second century.
The non-Christian sources likewise must be addressed, of course. The first secure record we have of “Christians” is Pliny’s letter to Trajan, written about a decade into the second century from Asia Minor. The practices described there raise questions when compared with what we learn from early Christian sources. The writings of Tacitus and Suetonius will require discussion with respect to what they reveal and do not reveal about early “Christianity”. As for Josephus, I don’t think the reasoned rejection of his testimony by some of the great scholarly luminaries of the past (Walter Bauer, Albert Schweitzer, Charles Guignebert) has ever been overturned. That can also be addressed in detail up ahead.
As for the early debates among Jewish teachers themselves, these, too, must be dug out as much as possible, and compared with the early ideas we find in the Christian literature. That’s another dataset up for discussion.
Along the way we will encounter a number of common arguments that attempt to cement the gospels and Pauline letters prior to the fall of the temple in 70 CE. One of these is the assertion that no-one would write failed prophecies after they could be clearly seen to have failed. I hope to show that in some cases this argument arises from widespread assumptions read into the prophecies, and in other cases the argument nullifies its corollary, that redactors regularly rewrote or omitted what they found embarrassing. The gospels and epistles will be interpreted through other literature and historical circumstances of the times.
Dates of other Christian writings will be determined primarily through the earliest external evidence for their existence and from that point assessing where their contents most closely match social or political circumstances. The self-testimony of documents will always need to prove itself against the above method. Self-claims of writings can never be assumed factual. That does not mean they are “guilty of fraud” by default, but it means we must suspend judgment until we have independent confirmation one way or the other.
So much for the methods. The conclusion being argued is that Christianity as we recognize it, the narratives of the gospels, the epistles as we have them in our canonical form, with Jesus the Christ and fulfilment of the Old Testament, appeared on the scene as a response to the conditions arising from the total devastation of the wars against Judeans/Jews in the first decades of the second century.
This is not a new thesis. Others have arrived at the same general idea independently, each with somewhat varying explanations. What follows will be mine.
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
2c:
Your argument lines up with a minority position in modern scholarship often called a “late dating” or “second‑century origins” model of Christianity. It’s a serious attempt to synthesize textual criticism and historical context, but most historians would say it overreaches the evidence at several key points. Here’s how your claims compare with the mainstream view and where the main tensions lie.
1) Did “Christianity” only emerge after 135 CE?
This is the biggest point of disagreement.
There is strong evidence for identifiable Christian groups before the Bar Kokhba revolt:
Paul’s letters are widely dated to the 50s–60s CE. These are not anonymous texts but situational correspondence with multiple communities across the eastern Mediterranean (Corinth, Galatia, Rome, etc.).
1 Clement (c. 95 CE) refers to earlier apostolic traditions and presupposes established churches.
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 CE) writes seven letters describing structured Christian communities (bishops, Eucharist, theology of Christ).
Pliny (c. 112 CE), as you note, confirms organized groups already worshiping Christ as divine.
Taken together, this makes it difficult to argue that recognizable Christianity only crystallized after 135. By the early second century, it is already geographically widespread and internally diverse.
2) Are the Gospels second-century compositions?
Your methodological point of prioritizing first external attestation is reasonable, but most scholars think it’s too restrictive.
Key counterpoints:
Papias (c. 110–130 CE) appears to know traditions about Mark and Matthew.
Justin Martyr (c. 150 CE) clearly uses written “memoirs of the apostles,” very close to our Gospels.
The Rylands Papyrus
P52 (often dated c. 125–150 CE) contains John, implying the Gospel already existed earlier.
Internally, many scholars argue the Gospels reflect first-century conditions, especially:
Knowledge of pre-70 Jerusalem and Temple practices
Concerns tied to the aftermath of the 70 CE destruction, particularly in Mark and Matthew
That said, you’re right that:
The Gospels are theologically shaped narratives, not neutral histories
They were likely edited and transmitted over time, possibly into the second century
But moving their initial composition entirely after 135 is considered unlikely by most historians.
3) Was Christianity a Roman-facing rehabilitation project?
This is an interesting idea, and there is partial support, but not in the strong form you’re suggesting.
Yes: Some texts (especially Luke–Acts) portray Christianity as non-threatening to Rome. There is a noticeable shift away from militant Jewish nationalism after 70 CE
But, other texts (e.g., Revelation) are openly anti-Roman
Early Christians were persecuted intermittently, not broadly favored. There is no clear evidence of a coordinated effort to regain imperial favor on behalf of “Judeans”.
So rather than a unified political project, the evidence points to diverse responses to Roman power (Kittim).
4) Did Judaism split into rabbinic Judaism and Christianity after 135?
This is partly right but oversimplified. The Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135 CE) was indeed a major turning point. After it, rabbinic Judaism becomes more clearly dominant
Christian groups increasingly become separate and largely non-Jewish
However, the “split” was gradual, beginning already in the first century. There were many Jewish-Christian groups well into the second century
“Judaism” itself was not unified before 70 CE, so it didn’t split cleanly into just two branches.
5) Your treatment of non-Christian sources
You’re right that Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius are crucial but limited. Josephus contains disputed passages (especially the Testimonium Flavianum)
But most scholars would say that even if Josephus is partially interpolated, it likely contains an authentic core reference to Jesus
Tacitus (c. 116 CE) independently confirms Christ’s execution under Pilate
Rejecting all of Josephus entirely is considered a minority position.
6) Methodological strengths and risks
Your approach has real strengths: Emphasis on external attestation, awareness of redaction and ideological shaping and sensitivity to historical context. But the risks are:
Argument from silence: assuming texts didn’t exist because earlier references are sparse
Over-weighting later evidence while discounting internal and indirect clues
Treating diverse sources as if they must fit a single explanatory framework
A simple illustration
Think of it like reconstructing a city’s history:
Your method says: “We only trust buildings once we have official records mentioning them.”
Mainstream historians say: “We also use architectural style, layers, and indirect references.”
Both approaches are valid, but relying only on the first tends to push everything later than it likely was.
So, your thesis is coherent and reflects a known scholarly minority view, but it conflicts with a broad range of evidence suggesting that Christianity already existed as a recognizable movement by the mid-first century, the Gospels were likely composed between ~70–100 CE, with later editing.
The Bar Kokhba revolt accelerated an existing separation, rather than creating Christianity from scratch
Thanks for the response. I have to depart from some of your some points, though.
I do not dispute “Christianity” or worship of Jesus before Bar Kokhba. I tried to allow for that fact in my definition of what I mean by “Christianity” as emerging post 135. But what we have before 135 are notions of Christ and Jesus for which we have no reason to associate with the ideas and literature of Christianity post 135. The Book of Revelation is another pre-135 text. Its Jesus has little in common with the Jesus we find in the gospels.
The datings and even analysis of the natures of these texts have been grounded in invalid and circular argumentation. I apply analysis and methods to them that are more consistent with normative historical methods.
The “too restrictive” argument with respect to methods is, in my view and according to normal historical practice, invalid. It generally appears to be an exception that “needs” to be applied for studies of early Christianity. I’m very aware of the examples you list. A broad outline of my responses is covered in the post and some of this comment.
Knowledge of historical data means nothing of itself. It is the use made of that data that counts, the larger ideological setting and function the details serve that count.
I am giving an overview. The book of Revelation is not the Christianity of the gospels nor of the Paulines. Persecutions were sought out by some early Christians — and all of that was part of the broader philosophical culture in the second century, too. As other scholars have noted, such sacrifices are in fact striking appeals to be part of the Greco-Roman ideals.
Again, I’m presenting an overview. But also we need to beware of confusing the Eusebian-Lukan model as the historical one.
I don’t see any relevance of (or dispute with) Tacitus. The Christianity I am speaking of — as even New Testament scholars agree — focuses on a theological figure, not a historical one. As for Josephus, if I followed the circular reasoning of the majority I would have no argument of my own. Most of the framework of New Testament/biblical scholars is build on fallacious methods. I’m more interested in following methods that can be demonstrated to be sound and the bread and butter of other classicists and historians. (Of course, I also depart from those non-theological historians who out of respect or habit tend to default to the claims and methods of theologians.)
I do not rely on argument from silence. If anyone has an alternative argument that arises from silence or self-testimony of sources then it is up to them to prove their validity and relevance.
My method relies on what we can see and observe and test. So where there are styles and indirect references in the sources to other material, literary or historical, then I address those references in that context.
But to build on your analogy. If there is no earlier architectural style or layer with which to compare a building before our eyes, then we are left in limbo. We simply have to wait till we can find the sources of the style or layer before our eyes. No-one says something was invented without precedent or influence of some kind. But from what and where is what needs to be established — not assumed from a sound of silence.
What we recognize as Christianity emerged only post Bar Kokhba, as far as I can see. There were precursors, of course, as there always are for anything. Christ worship was a precedent. So was Revelation. But the notion that a Jesus emerged who fulfilled the OT prophecies, who ushered in a “more spiritual Judaism”, — all of that was, as far as I an see, post 135.
Again, thanks for pointing out these details. I don’t overlook them; they are points to be addressed and I believe I do so with sound argument.
New Testament methods are not part of kit. Theologians and believers will have no interest in anything I have to say.
You say, “The Book of Revelation is another pre-135 text.” But do you still date the Book of Revelation to Hadrian’s reign?
Yes. It appears to have been written during the Bar Kokhba war.
That makes perfect sense. It’s the one of the worst books of the Bible in literary terms, and has had a horrible legacy over the past two millennia. It’s natural that it was an early response to disaster rather than the late summation of Christianity that it’s sometimes taken to be.
“Persecutions were sought out by some early Christians — and all of that was part of the broader philosophical culture in the second century, too. As other scholars have noted, such sacrifices are in fact striking appeals to be part of the Greco-Roman ideals. ”
The latter point is fascinating. Do you have a reference or a key word to help learn more?
Secord, Jared. Christian Intellectuals and the Roman Empire: From Justin Martyr to Origen. Penn State University Press, 2020.
Some extracts:
and
I get a look at Secord’s book, and immediately fell into a rabbit hole. The introduction mentions an Apollonius, who is said to have been martyred during Commodus’s reign; he is sometimes even said to have been a Senator. He was supposedly executed under the same law the Pliny asked Trajan about.
Secord expresses skepticism about the Acta of Apollonius’ trial, but not about historical kernel of the story. I’m more skeptical. Having been convinced by Hermann Detering and Chris Palmero that the Pliny-Trajan dialog on Christianity is fraudulent, I also doubt (following Palmero) that Christians were ever subject to widespread persecution. So I suspect Apollonius was invented from the same impulse that led Secord to write his book.
Of course Jews were subject to persecution, but apart from the extent to which they were confused with Jews, I doubt Christians were. What motive for that would there have been? Christians were eager to whitewash Pilate and throw the Jews under the bus.
By any rigorous application of objective historical method, the “Testimonium Eusebium” was inserted to Josephus by the known forger, Eusebius. No one before Eusebius noticed it was there, case closed, Josephus did not mention Jesus regardless of the opinion of “the majority of scholars”. This majority you appeal to are likewise believers and apologists. I prefer logic, reason and secondary evidence outside of the text itself.
I agree, it makes much more sense that the whole TF was a fraudulent interpolation. The ‘partial’ TF argument, in my view, is an apologist effort to salvage some historicity from Josephus, where pre-Eusebius there was none. This is a core understanding. Believers desperately try to prop up first century origins to try to prove historicity. Non-believers are quite ok with later origens of this fabricated story derived from many earlier sources. Take away the TF in its entirety and the whole passage makes so much more sense and signals the end of the historicity argument! Eusebius remains the greatest fraud in Christianity, in my opinion, amongst so many frauds and fictions. Case closed for me.
Some astrology groupies please. Matthew 2:10.
Nobody has given a satisfactory explanation of this story. Michael Molnar wrote a book about it back in 2013, but though it was widely discussed (and accepted) in scholarly circles, the astrology proposed was not what was practised in those times.
That rabbinical Judaism and Christianity were different developments of the Judaism that existed pre-temple destruction is an interesting one and has been around for a long time, of course. But while there is no doubt (in my mind, anyway) that Judaism and the Jesus movement splinter groups developed as a reaction to Roman occupation, I think it is a stretch too far to suggest Christianity before the 3rd century developed to accommodate and appeal to the Roman world.
From what I see, there is a broad scholarly consensus amongst early Christian historians that Christianity as we know it consolidated in the late 2nd century and centred around the Catholic canonical New Testament which was produced then.
The word ‘Catholic’ is the clue. This was an attempt to bring together under one umbrella all the various disparate Jesus movements that had been competing for bandwidth since Jesus himself had died. There would be no need for the word ‘Catholic’ if all Christians had been singing from the same hymn-sheet since the time of Jesus.
I think that in the 2nd century the main focus was consolidation and unification of the various Jesus sects and it was only in the 3rd century with Constantine that we see the Romanisation of Christianity. It had to happen in that order.
I think you are quite right about the catholicizing impetus. That doesn’t exclude the initial move, though, does it? The basis for the appeal to Roman ideals comes down to a question of survival and engagement. To be associated with “Judaism” was the way to be excluded, rejected, despised. It was not like that after 70 CE. Josephus himself did something similar to what the Christians were doing after 135 — making Judaism more acceptable in the eyes of Romans through his writings, showing his religion was like Greco-Roman philosophies only superior.
“There is a broad scholarly consensus among early Christian scholars” is irrelevant. This appeal to authority, this reliance on the apologetic believing “vast majority of scholars”, posits a very low standard. It presumes a special case for biblical history, the opposite of evidence-based, legit historical methodology. The unsupported conclusions by orthodox biblical scholars have been systematically debunked by objective, real historians like the esteemed Neil Godfrey, Russell Gmirkin, Israel Finkelstein, Yonatan Adler, Gad Barnea, Earl Doherty, Philip Davies, Niels Peter Lemche, Jason Beduhn, Markus Vinzent, Andrew Tobolowsky, Matthias Klinghardt, and Hector Avalos. Sorry, been deep in this since the 1980’s and the standard confessional “scholarly” majority opinions have run aground on the shoals of science and reason.
Neil’s take on the subject is respectful and well-grounded, using modern historical, higher standards of corroborating evidence.
Nothing you write explains the phenomenon of religion’s emergence, which begins at the individual level, as described by the psychology of spirituality. When the needs of many converge, a social phenomenon emerges, as described by the sociology of religion. Strong social needs arise, exploited for better or worse by creative people seeking to exploit them.
Therefore, there is the expectation of a miracle, then information about it, and the enthusiasm of the audience, which begins the process of creating content intended to strengthen the emerging religious community.
The scenario that it all began in Jerusalem (at the site of the miracle) around 30 AD is the first logical choice.
Unfortunately, there is no material evidence for this from the entire first century.
Therefore, the most likely scenario should be rejected.
We only have unconfirmed stories from religious texts written 100 years later. There is only one single testimony – the Testimonium of Josephus Favius.
We don’t know if it was invented or true.
But miraculously, it was only after this testimony that we see the real activity of the new religious movement. So, no Bar Kokhba, no Jewish uprising.
A simple message about a miracle, skillfully exploited by people who knew how to capture human interest and build on it. As of today, this message reached its recipients thanks to Josephus Flavius.
At the University of Białystok, there is a Miracle Studies Research and Documentation Workshop. The material they collected demonstrates the universal nature of the above pattern. This is particularly evident in the example of Marian apparitions.
We have a very large sample of projects based on them, and it’s easy to see that miracles are miracles, but human creativity and entrepreneurship are key.
I major part of my thesis will involve a phenomenological perspective. The significance for the individuals and communities is a plank of the discussion. I try to embrace the findings of sociology and anthropology as part of the explanation.
As for the psychology of “spirituality” I am not so sure, though. The explanation I explore has nothing to do with real miracles or even reports of miracles. Those are all relegated to the narrative of the historical past. I don’t treat the gospels and their miracle claims has having any credibility as historical reports or even “based on” historical reports/oral tradition. I have seen no evidence to justify that approach. Rather, only the contrary.
The problem of the origins of Christianity, or any other religion, would be solved if the same standard developmental model were applied. Everything begins with folk religiosity, which is counter-systemic in nature. There is no difference between the origins of Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, or Polish Mariavitism.
The reconstruction of Christianity has failed in academia because no one has seriously considered folk religiosity.
There is an official Marian cult with dogmas, prayers, hymns, pilgrimages, churches, icons, sculptures,…
But there is also a multitude of apparitions of Mary to the common people, most of which culminate in a small commemorative shrine. A few grow into large, stable projects over time.
There are biblical messiahs, kings, high priests, Cyrus the Great, Bar Kokhba, Vespasian. And it turned out that the common man won because he fulfilled the aspirations of the people.
For three centuries, messianic expectations were shared by people from three cultures: Semitic, Greek, and Persian, thanks to translations of Jewish literature. Messianic candidates appeared both in Jerusalem and Rome. And it always ended disastrously. Sects could be built on messianic expectations alone for those who couldn’t wait. They prepared by purifying their bodies and spirits, creating communities with a specific culture, ethics, and their own rules of group coexistence. The Messiah wasn’t necessary to create new values in his name. The announcement itself was sufficient.
The true miracle of these projects lies in the transition from a niche market to the mainstream through the development of content.
Biblical scholars continue to engage in fruitless debates about the authenticity of the Testiomonium Flavianum as historical testimony. Because they lack effective methods and criteria to provide a clear answer. But until we have the slightest proof that the text was added, we must assume it was originally there.
And no one saw the original source in the Testimonium. The first piece of information that started it all.
A real blind spot.
P.S. A certain British lawyer, a gentleman of Hindu origin, suddenly appreciated folk religiosity. He abandoned Western culture, donned peasant garb, and became Bapu. He began practicing folk religion and built modern India. Apparently, there was no other way.
Does every religion start the same way? There are different modes of religiosity: https://vridar.org/2020/06/20/modes-of-religiosity/
In the beginning was Judaism. From Judaism broke away Christianity and rabbinic Judaism. There was no “folk religiosity” stage here. Ditto for the origin of Lutheranism and other breakaways in the Reformation era.
I wonder if the idea of a primitive “folk” stage for Christianity originates from a naive reading of the gospels, reading them as attempts to explain real history.
It’s exactly the opposite. The Gospels are tailored to the mass market. To gain followers in the most effective way. That is the main goal of puppet masters called leaders. The Gospels are content products, like everything else that came after. The Church created, commissioned and produced both tangible and intangible content. This is the field of bullshit artists. Create Symbols, Heroes, Values, Rituals, establish Practices. In one church in Umbria, I found four frescoes depicting St. Sebastian from different eras. None of the artists were the author. Authorship belongs to the church. The same with the Pietà. Michelangelo didn’t invent it. He made another one at the client’s request.
Folk religiosity is not a phase. It is a permanent element of every religion. From always to always. The folk religiosity of rabbinic Judaism erupted in the 17th century in the form of Hasidism. Folk religiosity, through its enthusiastic openness to miraculous phenomena, is the main engine of the emergence and development of new religious projects. The real art is always moving from a niche market of enthusiasts to the mass market by expanding the content offering. What was initially simple and crude is developed, supplemented with new concepts to gain mainstream acceptance.
Essentially, biblical scholars caught the early Christians in this pattern. They just look at Zuntz’s sketch and don’t know what they’re seeing. The drawn line of 100 CE separates the world of invented tradition from the original creators and leaders. But everyone wants the Heroic Apostle, not some fiction created by an unknown bulshit artist commissioned by an unknown puppet master. Biblical scholars believe the Gospels are testimonies, and that’s why we have the Synoptic Problem. These are products made by the same team, and there’s no problem. Simple like that
Why not study what anthropologists have learned about religion and different types of religiosity? I linked above to one starting point.
I finally remembered which biblical scholar used the anthropological works you recommended. Of course, the well-known Richard Carrier, some 10-15 years ago, supported his theses in his lectures with stories about cargo cults. Religion is a content project with its own specificity, described by many complementary scientific disciplines. The problem is applying the right criteria to specific questions when seeking answers. We reconstruct history by creating the simplest possible scenario based on available data, applying Occam’s razor, eliminating contradictions.
Christian literature is a work from the late first and early second centuries – this is a correct, old conclusion that has not been accepted for some reason. We have no Christian artifacts dating back to the first century. Therefore, Christianity existed before Jesus in various forms – some awaited him, others proclaimed his coming in the divine pleroma, others identified themselves as Christ. Until finally, information about him emerged. And unfortunately. Everything indicates that the information appeared not in 30 CE, but some 65 years later. But that’s what creative writing is for. Missing stories were supplemented with coherent writing. When the audience really wants something, there’s always someone to deliver it.
“But until we have the slightest proof that the text was added, we must assume it was originally there.”
Proof is like pregnancy, it doesn’t come in measured quantities. I guess you meant evidence? But surely there’s plenty of that.
Indeed so. Richard Bauckham in his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses attempted to address the critical point here, which is how New Testament scholars should treat their sources. B flat rejected the notion of “hermeneutic of suspicion” and insisted on treating sources with a “hermeneutic of testimony”. This meant treating sources the way you would accept the testimony of anyone else — such as the report of a weather service, or an account of a neighbour that he needs an urgent lift to the hospital. We trust testimony until we are confronted with reasons not to do so.
But historical sources are not that kind of testimony at all. They all have lain in storage, having been created with their own agendas, curated through their own political or chance avenues, etc. The default approach of any historian must be the same as the detective’s. Test and check everything. Don’t trust. Make sources justify themselves. What are they? Who made them? Why? With what tools? What has been their history between then and now?
There is no such thing academic field of study as “psychology of spirituality.” The word “spiritual” has no academic definition and there is no way to study what can’t be defined. There is psychology of RELIGION, which is maybe what you meant, but as to how religions begin you are under-informed. For the definitive book on this I would suggest Stark and Bainbridge’s NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS, which was the textbook used in the class I took of that same name. There are three categories of cult formation, the first is the Psychopathology model, which is essentially the classic personality cult, usually precipitated by a psychotic experience by a single individual who comes to believe they are special or chosen and are able to convince others of this too. S&B say these individuals tend to arise in times of acute social crisis for a given group. The next category is the Entrepreneur model, also called Client cults, which operates sort of like a customer service industry. It provides services or items for a price and caters directly to the customer. This includes stuff like New Age and Voodoo, Wicca, etc. as well as psychics, mediums, alternative medicine providers and the like. It requires a low level of commitment, people come and go as they wish and the religion serves the client rather than the client serving the religion.
The last type of cult formation is the Subculture Evolution model which does not emerge from a charismatic leader or as a money making scheme, but slowly, incrementally over time within a close knit group. Over time the group validates each other’s unorthodox beliefs, especially beliefs that cannot be proven, such as miracles, ghosts, demons, conspiracies, etc. They mutually accept and validate and absorb each in a symbiotic way and over time, collectively and cooperatively, they create a narrative or internally consistent narrative which consolidates those beliefs. Flat Earthers would fall into this category, as well as conspiracy theorists and QAnon.
Christianity has a lot of those elements, though, close-knit communities with incremental changes over time eventually consolidating a shared narrative.
Claims that special individuals had been undergone some sort of apotheosis/translation/deification/ascension to Heaven after death were ubiquitous in the ancient world. Even Jewish tradition held that Elijah, Moses and others had bodily ascended to Heaven. It was not a remarkable claim in 30 CE, more like an assumption for certain individuals. I can strongly recommend Richard C Miller’s RESURRECTION AND RECEPTION IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY in which he presents dozens and dozens of examples of individuals mythological, legendary and real who are said to have undergone some sort of apotheosis and ascension to Heaven after death. Disappearing bodies, including from tombs, were a trope. I should add that I think all of the evidence, both internally and externally to the New Testament is that the original belief – the belief expressed by Paul, especially in Romans 1 – was not a belief in a physical resurrection followed by a secondary ascension to Heave, but simply an ascension straight to Heaven and that the physical interludes of Jesus on Earth are later additions to the narrative. There are no physical resurrection appearances in Mark. All this is to say that the early impetus for Christianity is very unlikely to have been precipitated by a belief in a miracle, especially not a miracle as mundane and commonplace as an apotheosis. Markus Vinzent has shown that the resurrection was seen as having little or no importance to Christian writers before Paul or independent of Paul and then it ebbed in importance even after Paul until the 2nd Century. The main focus of Christian writers independent of Paul is on the crucifixion and the redeeming power of Christ’s sacrifice. The resurrection was not always important outside of the Roman church either. There is no mention of it in the Gospel Thomas.
Paul’s innovation was in saying Jesus was the first fruit of the general resurrection and that the Parousia was at hand. Nobody seems to have thought that until Paul. Since Paul did not really become important to the Roman church until after Marcion published the first New Testament (he was the first to call it the New Testament and to call Hebrew scriptures “the Old Testament”). Since Paul was Marcion’s main weapon in promoting his radical view that Jesus was sent by a higher God than Yahweh the Roman church had to coopt and domesticate Paul’s letters and ended up amplifying Paul’s stress on the importance of the resurrection.
As to miracles, everybody believed in miracles in the ancient world. It wasn’t remarkable. It didn’t start religions.
Thanks for the in depth comment. Do you have the exact details of Stark Bainbridge’s NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS? Any other publications of more recent years also welcome.
I got the title wrong. My apologies. It’s been a few years since I was in college. The title is “The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival and Cult Formation”
https://www.amazon.com/Future-Religion-Rodney-Stark/dp/0520057317
This is the book which describes the three types of cult formation and those are the models currently used in sociology, or at least they were when I was in college (as a Religious Studies major).
Stark is Rodney Stark, the author of the more well known “Rise of Christianity,” which you may be familiar with.
Firstly, I don’t agree that Pliny can any longer be regarded as secure. In terms of content it is clearly odd in certain ways and analysis of the writing/style has at least downgraded it from “secure”.
Secondly, and I’ve mentioned this to you before, the content of Luke is almost obsessive about contrasting Jesus with John. This concern about who Christ was lasted long enough for someone to join a new opening chapter onto the book for no other reason than to stress that Jesus was recognised as the Christ by John even before the two were born. Luke tells us a lot about what people believed about John, and a lot of it is very familiar.
I feel that any discussion about the origins of Christianity needs to examine the question of whether the early Christians agreed on who the Christ was, not simply in terms of how they understood Jesus or Jesus’ role or what they meant by “Jesus”, but on whether they even agreed on Jesus being the Christ in question. Luke itself tells us that the followers of John claimed that he had risen from the dead, and Acts 18:24, 19:1-7 has references to Paul encountering disciples of *John*, not Jesus, people who we are told had never even heard the story of Jesus. Of course, Acts portrays Paul as dealing easily with these confused sheep. But the fact that the author felt that he had to deal yet again – after banging on about it in Luke – with some sort of cult of John is telling. The fact that he had to deal with them gently suggests to me that they were not a handful of ragtag villagers that had not caught up with the boxset, so to speak. He was in no position to dismiss them as heretics or fools that would not listen, as he often does the Jews and pagans.
Christianity was not, it seems to me from reading the Bible, always synonymous with Jesus. And we are repeatedly told that John is first. Indeed, the Jesus group turn it into almost his defining characteristic second only to his baptismal fervour. John is first and Luke constantly feels he has to explain the similarities.
I think any search for the origins of Christianity needs to look in detail at John and how the later Christians attempt to place him in relation to their chosen messiah figure.
Yes, we cannot be confident of the authenticity of specific details in Pliny’s letter. But it is very difficult to imagine how some reference to “Christians” was not authentic to begin with. Salm summed up the reason, “The construction of codex P, with quires, renders impossible the insertion of two additional letters (taking 2-3 pages); as does the presence of a table of contents to each book” — see https://www.mythicistpapers.com/2022/03/17/pliny-on-christians-ca-110-ce-authentic-my-view/](https://www.mythicistpapers.com/2022/03/17/pliny-on-christians-ca-110-ce-authentic-my-view/
As for John the Baptist, the early accounts are best explained as literary inventions. He began as the negative representative of the Old Testament (courtesy of Marcion) and came to be rewritten as a pro-Christian representation of the Old Testament. For the latter, I think Rivka Nir hit the nail on the head. https://vridar.org/tag/nir-first-christian-believer/
Well, I’m not going to flog this horse but I don’t believe that the depiction of John’s *cult* fits with him just being a literary invention. There’s no need, IMO, for such a figure to have so much ink spilt on explaining why his followers were wrong or why the author of Luke keeps mentioning him in relation to his disciples.
For example, saying that Jesus’s followers want Jesus to teach them a special prayer (i.e., the Lord’s Prayer) in the way that John has taught his disciples a special prayer. There’s no need to even mention John here if he is just a symbolic representation; doubly so to mention his disciples.
Luke/Acts’ continual desire to reach/correct/rationalise away these disciples without condemning them is to me very suggestive of an author trying to deal with a reality on the ground when out and about preaching rather than someone concerned with constructing a negative representation of anything. Which is not to say that he’s not trying to do that *as well*, but that he also has to deal with people who have a pre-existing idea of who John the Baptist was or did. Which seems to include the notion that he was Christ and had been reborn after his execution, possibly as Jesus (Luke 7) which I think is another example of “why mention it?”. It feels like the author is rehearsing arguments he’s expecting to have with people rather than inventing a story of John’s resurrection only to deny it happening. Otherwise, he’s being counter-productive by even bringing it up, it seems to me.
Anyway. I shall leave it there.
A historical John with a following that must be narratively shoved into a progressively subservant role is the argument that I made in Chapter 4 of my book. Enslin’s Christian Beginnings position, roughly, somewhat updated.
I’ve never been very suspecious of the John in Josephus. No apocalyptic content, no connection to Jesus, similiaries to Banus give Josephus reason to be more generous than with the rest of the rabble-rousers.
That said, I’ve moved to a second century date for the gospels over time, though 135 is too late for me, still. The revolts, because we have reasonable dates for them, are poles that have a magnetic pull on anyone trying to date gospels, and I feel like I should resist that pull because there must be other magnetic poles – the unknown unknowns – that we know nothing about.
That’s chapter 4 of Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem, yes?
For me the pull is not so much on the rebel movements per se. In fact it was the detail of the first rebel movement and other events preceding and during the first war that fed my doubts about the first century origin question.
But details we gleaned from events post 110 CE through to 117 and then in the lead up to the Second War, and of course surrounding that second revolt itself, now there were found rich overlaps with a range of Christian sources.
But again, it was more than “parallels” or “intertextuality” or “common allusions” — what emerged was an explanation for this new kind of “Judaism” that both rejected Judaism and promoted an idealized perfected Judaism. It began with an anithesis to Judaism but what won out was, to the horror of anti-Hegelians I suppose, was Christianity as the true (synthesis). — The program was to demonstrate Roman values/ideals and restore the once favourable high status position Jews had once held among the imperial elites. The former Judaism trailed off (in an initial sense) into “rabbinic Judaism”.
Yep, that one!
Every time I think about this, my internal dating inches closer to the 130s, but I haven’t quite pulled the trigger yet.
Good to see someone considering second-century dating.
But it becomes a little easier to date if you remember Justin Martyr could not quote “chapter and verse,” so there would not have been any as WE know it in 147 c.e.
I find the SYRIAC regions the curiosity. A LONG work 160s c.e., but “four” not appearing there UNTIL after 200 c.e.
The Syriac regions themselves…the frontier lands. Oshroene. Adiabene.
No adequate explaination why it took four plus decades to see “four” there.
And it raises the question of the LONG being in actuality…the PRECURSOR document.
Though I still think there was something else just after 70 c.e., not quite what we see in the 160s long or the 200s “four.”
I’m overnight looking at whether it was something combining the things in Shabbat 116b with the earliest and late-1st century layers of the Mimar Marqeh.
Two things about Justin concern me: his age and his view of the “memoirs of the apostles” as proof-text.
His conversion: 120-130s. No hint that the “memoirs of the apostles” are new in the 150s whn he’s writing. So that would suggest they’ve been around for awhile.
But also he doesn’t refer to any gospels as proofs when his whole shtick is proofs, and his Matt/Luke parallels are loosey-goosey.
It’s almost as if he has only heard them in church, maybe hasn’t even seen them save at a distance, and isn’t confident most will buy these internal read-aloud-only “memoirs” as authoritative. It’s just some stuff read a lot on Sundays in church. Important, very important, but not to anyone on the outside, not yet, and he has no reason to believe or think or even dream they will become widely known, even if he does think of them highly.
Kind of like using the Book of Mormon to make a point to a KJV evangelical, or me thumping the AAUP’s “red book” for a university administrator – there’s a text or two, it has authority in his church, but it is not the broad universal authority that Irenaeus is selling.
I got a JW pamplet in the mail today from a neighbor. In 2026, it’s still only one step ahead of Justin – it can quote chapter and verse but not in context or skillfully, and it acts like it’s 180 CE and I’ve never had the occasion to read a gospel or dwell on how there are also four winds.
This is where I arrived, too, although I am not a scholar of your caliber.
Looking forward to more posts!
I am not a scholar. Just a hobbyist who has had more time than many others. Perhaps a little “neurodiversity” helps focus the brain, too.
I had hoped to post a follow up to the above post by now but some unfortunate events have come up and my activity here has been slowed — just a passing emergency but hope to be out of hospital soon.
get well soon!
Best wishes for a speedy recovery
Very much looking forward to future instalments. But please get well soon and look after yourself first, Neil!
By the way, the first comment on this thread by TW had a number of ‘tells’ that it was written, or at least rewritten by an AI, for example:
“Here’s how your claims compare with the mainstream view and where the main tensions lie.”
“This is the biggest point of disagreement.”
“That said, you’re right that: {bullet point list}”
“Your approach has real strengths: {list three strengths} Emphasis on external attestation, awareness of redaction and ideological shaping and sensitivity to historical context. But the risks are: {bullet point list}”
“Think of it like {analogy}:
Your method says: “X.”
Mainstream historians say: “Y”
Both approaches are valid, but relying only on the first tends to push everything later than it likely was.”
Thank you for the best wishes. You are damn right about TW’s comment — I hope TW can come forth and prove us wrong or acknowledge he simply took a shortcut but till then I will have to keep alert on those comments. It did sound somewhat hyper-irenic and that should have led me to pause twice.
“Emerged on the scene after the Bar Kochba revolt.”
That’s pretty much what Dialogue by Justin tells us.
Technically, what he writes is the first time ANY of it seems to be mentioned in the broader empire.
Has anyone noticed the YEAR we see Martyr AND Hegessipus operating?
147 c.e.
The Tenth of Antoninus.
But also…the 900th year since the founding of Rome.
Why specifically then?
The true answer to that would probably freak us out.
We should perhaps analyse Dialogue as if we’ve never heard anything of Christianity before.
Then it starts getting weird.
Because he doesn’t seem to be talking of Jewish Christians as if they’re anything his stream derived from.
And some of his ideas are still very unfamiliar to modern Christians.
That;s because the Christian Church did by no means derive from that late phenomenon called Jewish Christianity. An early J.C. exists only in dogmatic and apologistic fiction, as its assumption was necessary for all the midrash employed in the gospels and epistles to be somewhat persuasive.
Apuleius’s Metamorphoses may also be useful to consider, because it is a 2nd century CE text written by a non-Christian mentioning Christianity and portraying a Christian.
I erred. Apuleius’s Metamorphoses is a 2nd century CE text written by a non-Christian not mentioning Christianity and portraying a person who is speculated to be a Christian.