RE: Gamaliel Never Existed
May 17, 2011 at 1:59 pm
(This post was last modified: May 17, 2011 at 2:05 pm by Nimzo.)
I like your version DeistPaladin, except for the fact that you refer to a number of things and people for which there simply isn't any good evidence. You refer to these "early Hebrew books", when there is simply no evidence that they existed until the second century BCE. And I am aware of no contemporaneous accounts for "Marcion's" life.
A strong point in your version is the bit about the Christians rewriting history. I think this line of enquiry has a lot of potential. If there was a complete rewriting of 1st century history to make room for their "Jesus" character (or characters), an interesting question arises for consideration:
We already know that the Christians rewrote whole sections of Josephus' writing - what is to say that whole books of his were not written by the Christian forgers? In fact, Josephus himself could be an entirely literary creation to provide a "Jewish" perspective. After all, the Christians had already forged whole books and letters in people's names - Josephus would seem to be the perfect candidate for a Jew to validate the Christian version of history. Of course, there are many Christian factions at this point, which explains the discrepancies between "Josephus'" own writings (think of the contradictory portrayals of his period as "general" in 66-67 CE), and with other "1st century" writers (compare the irreconcilable versions of Cumanus' registration with Tacitus for example).
A strong point in your version is the bit about the Christians rewriting history. I think this line of enquiry has a lot of potential. If there was a complete rewriting of 1st century history to make room for their "Jesus" character (or characters), an interesting question arises for consideration:
We already know that the Christians rewrote whole sections of Josephus' writing - what is to say that whole books of his were not written by the Christian forgers? In fact, Josephus himself could be an entirely literary creation to provide a "Jewish" perspective. After all, the Christians had already forged whole books and letters in people's names - Josephus would seem to be the perfect candidate for a Jew to validate the Christian version of history. Of course, there are many Christian factions at this point, which explains the discrepancies between "Josephus'" own writings (think of the contradictory portrayals of his period as "general" in 66-67 CE), and with other "1st century" writers (compare the irreconcilable versions of Cumanus' registration with Tacitus for example).
