judge

Neil godfreys blog, in a recent article makes the following claim.

Just what evidence is there that xtianity was riotously diverse prior to the gospels being written?
I don't really care either way but I just wonder how strong the evidence actually is, as this sort of claim seems quite common.

Toto

I think that the evidence is in the NT, in particular Paul's letters, where he condemns those who follow a different teaching, and in the early church fathers who seem to spend a lot of time railing against heretics, implying that there were quite a few heretics of some importance. And then Constantine had to knock heads together to get his Christian subjects to stop fighting among themselves.

This all assumes that Paul's letters were written before the gospels.

judge

Yes but is there anything that identifies these "false teachers" as xtian rather than jewish?

But can we place any of these before the gospels?

I think it's clear that at some stage there was diversity (which was later quashed to some degree), but I dont see any evidence that there was riotus diversity early on.

There is course Galatians, which is thought be early, where Paul disagree with Cephas.

aeebee50

You are opening a can of worms. Basically, people just disagree, which was that way before Christ and it is that way today.

judge

Yes but if evidence for the "riotous diversity" exists then we can examine it, whilst if no evidence exists then we cant make pronouncements with any certainty.

We cant say that "riotous diversity" exsited, prior to the gospels, if we have no evidence for that.

Toto

You are looking for the sort of evidence discussed in Bart Ehrman's The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (or via: amazon.co.uk).

It can be previewed on google books

Whether all of this diversity predates the gospels depends on how you date the gospels, which is a hairy subject. But certainly, the diversity predates the canonization of the gospels.

Some of the evidence Ehrman discusses predates the gospels by the usual dating schemes - Paul's letters in particular - and the letters of Clement of Rome are usually dated to the period in which the gospels were being written, but show no clear signs of knowledge of the gospels.

Toto

Christianity and Judaism might not have been so clearly differentiated, but the fact that they were completing with Paul means something. It might mean that they and Paul were all Jewish, and Christianity hadn't been invented yet.

The earliest days of the church are unknown. The orthodox view is that everything was harmonious until some mistaken gnostic heretics tried to corrupt the church, but the gnostics were squashed and the church went on to greater unity. The problem with this story is that there is no evidence for it: it is laid out in the Book of Acts, which is generally regarded as highly fictionalized; and it violates everything we know about how people in organizations act.

show_no_mercy

There was riotous diversity in Judaism before 70 CE so I would expect Christianity to share that fate.

aeebee50

I was coming from other posts with similar comments. Some will just keep posting, but I enjoy reading the posts.

aa5874

Ehrman is obviously very wrong.

The Pauline letters do show knowledge of the Jesus story and the Church claimed "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke.

Even "Paul" claimed he persecuted the FAITH which he NOW preached.

Ga 1:23 - Based on the Pauline writings, "Paul" MUST have been able to IDENTIFY the Jesus story and PERSECUTE those who propagate the Jesus story.

How can so-called Scholars be so HORRIBLY wrong?

It is ALREADY known that it was the Roman Church that put out the ERRONEOUS information that the first Christians were Jesus believers and that Peter, the disciple of Jesus Christ, was the 1st bishop of Rome but once one becomes FAMILIAR with the writings of Antiquity it is QUICKLY realized that the Jesus Cult most likely began LATE in the 1st century, that is, AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70CE or early 2nd century.

The Pauline writings had ZERO influence on the authors of the Gospels and Revelation.

The very argument that gMark is the earliest Gospel DESTROYS the argument that the Pauline writings were EARLY.

If the author of gMatthew copied gMark then we SEE MASSIVE influence where the author of gMatthew used almost 100% of gMark and USED word for word copying throughout.

There is NOT even a SINGLE PHRASE of TEN words in any verse in gMark that can be found in the Pauline writings.