So if we are talking about Adler's method, then Adler in his book is clear that he is:
(1) Studying the social history of a distinctly identified people, the Judeans.
(2) Studying the archaeological material for the general populace from the Judeans.
(3) Studying the evolution of particular practices for a known people on the basis of archaeology.
(4) Drawing a conclusion regarding the point in time this known people adopted a set of practices that can be associated with implementing Torah-based religious practice in everyday life in the society at large.
The OP quotes Adler describing what he called his "simple and straightforward method" in his own words at the timestamp provided in the OP:
25:40
The method is actually quite simple and straightforward. I take a period of time in which we have ample evidence (etc)
The method is actually quite simple and straightforward. I take a period of time in which we have ample evidence (etc)
This is the method specified in the OP. It relates to dividing the time periods of his study (1-4) above into centuries. In the 2nd century BCE the archaeological objects of his study are no longer present in the data.
The OP draws a parallel between the known population of the Judeans as determined by the archaeology in terms of Torah observance and the supposedly known population of the Christians as determined by the archaeology in terms of Christian iconography, and any archeological records supporting the observance of key figures in the NT Bible such as Jesus Christ. The method of going backwards in time century by century need not be resticted to a study of Judaism. Such a method can be validly applied to almost anythingThe differences in method are clear. While Adler is able to study a known population (Judeans), you're looking for the origins of a particular identity or sub-population, exactly the kind of thing that Adler doesn't try to do.
The OP understands that Adler is concerned with the societal practice of Torah observance and not the origins of the Torah. Nevertheless this does not imply that the societal practice of Torah observance and the origins of the Torah are unrelated issues. Adler steers clear of making any conclusions in this. He simply presents the data. However this does not mean that other people looking at Adler's study cannot draw various provisional conclusions about the historical origins of the Torah.While Adler explicitly disavows trying to look behind the curtain to find out when the Torah originated, before being "put into practice as a way of life by an entire society," the OP sets its sights specifically on finding out when the earliest Christians or New Testament originated (in the form of a Bauer thesis), instead of when the Christians formed an entire society providing archaeological evidence for distinct practices in the populace as a whole.
Adler's study appears to demonstrate that the evidence for the societal evidence for Torah obvervance, using a method of going backwards in time century by century, effectively disappears completely in the 2nd century BCE.
The OP applies the same method to the societal observance (whether whole or partial) of the NT and Christianity in the Roman empire. Such a study appears ** to demonstrate that the physical archeological primary evidence effectively disappears completely in the 3rd century CE.
The OP then additionally and further considers what theories of Christian origins best explain this pattern of evidence and suggests that Bruno Bauer's theory appears to be the best fit. But perhaps with more relfection some of the theories involving some form of 2nd century Marcionite origins would also be just as likely.
** Exceptions have been noted such as the Pompeii graffito.
Statistics: Posted by Leucius Charinus — Wed Dec 11, 2024 8:44 pm