Derec

What about genuinely 'orthodox' versions of Christianity existing before 2nd century?

CX

Underlying that claim is the implication that some other versions of Xianity as we know it did exist? What is your evidence? I'd recommend reading Ehrman's Lost Christianities, if you haven't already. It's a great overview of early diversity in the various Jesus movements which is quite well supported. An argument against your claim would be the widespread acceptance of Marcionism and Marcion's publication of the first widely disseminated gospel.

Clivedurdle

Is there a common ancestor here? An HJ may be a possibility, another perspective is a Roman piece of social engineering.

Or is it completely the other way around? Loads of different groups who actually have nothing in common that have coalesced over time to look as if it was a growth from a common ancestor?

Vorkosigan

Well, it is certainly rife with Pauline ideas and information. But the Gospel's main focus is on discipleship: it answers the question What is a real follower of Jesus like? by displaying examples of them as well as exampls of failures of those who don't get the message. It provides authoritative answers on questions that potential recruits might ask:

What foods are ok? (Mk 7:1-23)
What will our bodies be like in heaven? (Mk 12)
What about our marriages? (Mk 10)
What about our families? (Mk 3)
What is our stance toward the governing authorities? (Mk 12)

Wouldn't community members already know the answers to these questions?

Note that it nowhere addresses the question of:

What doctrines do we believe in?
What is the organization of our community?
What is our relationship with similar communities?
What about our own children? When do they undergo baptism?

and similar. So I guess the answer to your question is really found in what is lacking -- information about the community -- as well as in what is present.

At least, that's how I see it.

Vorkosigan

Vivisector

Yes, that's the real question, isn't it? In my own mind, at least, the basic common feature of all the groups is Jesus; when you get into specifics is when the differences become more prominent. Whether it's HJ, MJ, I don't know, but to my way of thinking, *something* started it.

I still have a homework assignment to do, namely to review Mack's book (as well as to buy and read Ehrman's book) to see if we can get a tighter handle on characterizing the various groups that existed early.

When are you suggesting that this coalescence occurred - early/mid 1st CE, or later (4th CE or so)?

Cheers,

V.

Fortuna

Mr Valla, Mr Kirby,

Yes, the OP talked about Vurton Mack and more specifically, his book,"Who wrote the NT".

Mack equates the various literary pieces to communities. To go a little further than Valla, his chapters include ;

Chap 2 - The Jesus Movements (p 43)
Chap 3 - Fragments from the Christ Cult(P 75)

HE then goes on to decribe the early literature,Paul, the gospels in the next few chapters.

And he has appendixes for early Chrisitan Lit(p311), Contents of Q(p312), and Pronouncement stories in Mark(P314).


In any case, I agree that using the literary streams to represent various communities might not be the best approach, at least not on its own.

I think we might also look at the content of this and the literature of the early church fathers. For example, Paul (soomewhere) talks about other missionaries teaching different gospels. One church father speaks of the Carpocretions. While Valentinius shows up early to mid second century, I have to wonder if Val was indeed a first generation gnostic.

More generally, before we talk about the diversity of early Christianity, we should find where(historically) we can identify that diversity by establishing a corpus of texts that identify it.

andrewcriddle

I have read it thanks it's very interesting.


There clearly were forms of full blown Gnosticism including Christian Gnosticism in the early 2nd century and they may well go back to the late 1st century.

Marcion, although in many ways an original is an example of this world view.

I see no evidence that full blown Gnosticism of any type predated say the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. And specifically Christian Gnosticism is probably somewhat later.

If I'm right it would mean that Gnostic Christianity can be left out when discussing the diversity of Christianity in the time of say Paul.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

Why only one coalescence?

A first one when Gospels etc originally written, a second when it was culled down to 27 books?

Clivedurdle

Doesn't Pagels contradict this? I thought it was accepted Paul is very Gnostic.

Solo

You are right: this is unconvincing. Jesus was most likely a small-time prophet during his time whose small band of disciple then joined up with a Qumran-like church of James (no blood relation to J.) Within the church his posthumous fame exploded due to many factors - most of which have to do with some of the Jesus 'hieropantic' practice of live burials. This practice had some sensational effects which were readily seized upon by the Hellenic Jews who then spread the practice of sensory deprivation resulting in visions/psychosis into the diaspora. (notably Antioch, Corinth and Rome) The interpretation of these visions (and visions naturally occuring through what today we call the manic-depressive cycle) then resulted in different 'gnostic' teachings. The Hellenic-Jewish gnostic schemes were reworked by Paul (a natural manic-depressive) who re-interpreted Jesus as a cosmic pre-existent being and invested his death with a complex paradoxical meaning. Pauline Christianity spread among Gentiles and soon made some significant inroads into the Jewish following of the Jesus magic which basically accepted the psychic happenings as God's messages channeled through the agency of Spirit. The idea that these 'peak experiences' were the risen 'Lord' Jesus stabilized around the break of the first century.....