Christianity post-Bar Kokhba?

Hereafter, it is possible to trace the process of separation from the end of the first century C.E. until the period of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–135 C.E.), when the tannaim outlawed the writings of the early Christians, declaring that Torah scrolls or texts with divine names copied by Christians had no sanctity. This was clearly a polemic against the Gospels, which must have been circulating in some form by now.

ChristianityProf. Lawrence H. Schiffman.

Textual differences? I think that there was some infusion of Christianity and normative Judaism even until the Fourth Century, perhaps even into the fifth when we read of Chrysostom ranting against Christians with Jewish leanings.

But Dr. Schiffman has some really interesting points.

Also, I believe that Christianity was not visibly noticeable until after the destruction of the Temple when the Jesus-followers pushed a new community without the Temple, something textually culminating with II Peter in the middle of the second century.

Thanks to Jim West for the link…

You Might Also Like

17 Replies to “Christianity post-Bar Kokhba?”

        1. Actually, Bauckham is not my teacher and I was unaware the Holy Spirit lied, deceived, or required is to follow with blind devotion those who do.

          Try again. Oh, and use real facts unless you are claiming to be God, otherwise I will question them.

    1. Is there something to this reference to Bauckham that isn’t obvious? The reason I ask is because Bauckham (wrongly) dates 2 Peter to the first century.

        1. Ant, you realize the 3rd century is post 200, right? I am unsure who actually proposes a 3rd century dating for 2nd Peter.

          Most scholars propose a late first century (90) or early to mid-second (130-150).

          1. It depends when you ask me 🙂 My professor in seminary (a long time ago) had a very good argument for it being Peter, or his scribe.

            Then the same professor also gave an argument for it being someone who knew Peter well, or traveled with him.

            But there really is no basis to Bauckham’s remark that Second Peter is fictionally represented as written shortly before Peter’s death. Peter himself heard the remark made by the Lord (as did John) and was only commenting on it in 2 Peter, as John did in John 21:19.
            And the way things were in 65 AD

          2. There is no basis for your denial of a basis.

            Further, you suggest it was written in 90, yourself.

            The idea that an author cannot superimpose the former person upon the latter. In other words, since there was already a (an)Christian tradition coming from the Gospel of John, a later remember of Peter – the author of 2 Peter – could have used it to cement his letter’s authority.

          3. Hmm..what I wrote got cut off..anyhow I said I waiver between 90 AD and 65 AD depending on my mood or the phase of the moon. Both arguments have good points.

          4. Not really. The early date only has the argument of “the bible says.” The later argument is more substantial, but the archeological evidence of text and tradition points to a still later date.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.