spin

When you talk about "the church" on thinks of the unified organization that reflects the whole religion, rather than the earlier regionally based "churches" seen in the more veracious Pauline letters. The cores of the different gospels reflect the communities that supported them, so shouldn't they represent a religious phase prior to "the church"?

Perhaps you were using "the church" more loosely, but, if I understand correctly, the Jesus story we have emerged from a web of communities each separated enough to develop independent traditions, but not far enough apart to prevent cross-pollination from itinerant preachers who brought tellable traditions and gleaned new material from each community they visited. The developments in one community were absorbed and retold in others. A number of communities committed their traditions to "paper".


spin

stephan huller

What kind of nonsense is this? THERE ARE DOCUMENTS from the first century (gospel, apostolikon), from the second century (Irenaeus, Polycarp etc, New Testament texts), from third century (Hippolytus, Tertullian) from the fourth, fifth century. It doesn't matter what they say or don't say - they are witnesses to how Christians thought, felt, imagined in the period whatever.

In the study of Samaritanism for instance archaeologists have found business contracts from an early period. In other fields we find the most mundane things and try to squeeze as much information out of them as possible. The situation really isn't any different in the study of early Christianity.

I am not sure for example that the Acts of Apostles is actually a witness to the first century Church. Nevertheless even if it is a second century document posing as a first century witness it is still invaluable.

I don't know that you are familiar enough with the Patristic literature to realize that there isn't just 'theology' contained in these texts. There are references to historical events - some are of course vague reference even legendary, but others are very accurate and useful.

I know you tend to focus on the question of the 'historical Jesus' and yes this thread that I started asks the question if we can ever have absolute certainty about anything related to the earliest period. Nevertheless your statement about the Apostolikon being essentially 'useless' because it was theological in nature was just so wrong headed I had to respond.

The writings of the Apostle were used by groups who did not believe that Jesus was a human being. The Apostle wasn't just 'Paul' - i.e. the familiar Catholic character in Acts. The evidence can be used in a number of different ways depending on which ancient group you listen to. The fact that the evidence is often ambiguous doesn't mean that we should dismiss it and look for another kind of certainty (i.e. that it is all rooted in 'myth').

Sometimes you just have to leave things at 'I don't know' or 'it needs further study.' It is impossible to expect certainty in these things. I sometimes think that the mythicist position is just the old religious certainty rebaptized as something entirely negative and hostile. Good scholarship is rooted in adiaphora. We have to shrug our shoulders and say 'I don't know right now' more often than we condemn or praise the things we are studying.

It may be theology, it may even have legendary elements but it is all we have and we have to work through it in order to find nuggets of useful information. Above all else we have to stop passing judgement on things. That's the way religious minds work. We should be above that.

maryhelena

'Nonsense' because I asked you to support your asserting that 'historical evidence.....manifests itself as theology...' - come off it Stephen - it seems to me that it's you talking nonsense re expecting to establish early christian history from christian theology.

Actually I never used the word 'useless'...

I have never said the NT documents are 'useless'. I am saying that one cannot establish history by using theology. So lets not talk at cross purposes here. One can use the NT literature in an endeavor to document the developing theological/spiritual ideas contained therein. The storyline within the pages of the NT re early christian origins has not been historically established.

stephan huller

It all comes down to how you want to define 'history.' One generally can't use early Christian documents to define an exact 'who' 'what' 'where' 'when.' But you can get a general sense of what was going on wiithin certain groups in the second century and from there it is possible to develop theoretical models for how they - in the second century - reconstructed the general shape of events in the first century.

Again, its not perfect. Any attempt at reconstructing such 'theoretical models' necessarily open one up to criticism. But isn't that what scholarship is really all about - developing theories, supporting them with rational arguments and waiting for the flood gates of criticism?

show_no_mercy

Theology doesn't exist in a vaccuum. There are historical/sociological antecedents that force certain types of theologies to the forefront.

For example, it is quite absurd to think that Jesus resurrected and preached to native Americans or that native Americans were a lost tribe of Israel. But this theology was created because of historical events - namely the discovery of the "new world" and Christians in early America interacting with native Americans.

Similar historical precedents might be behind 1st/2nd century Christianity.

I don't think stephan has ever suggested this.

maryhelena

:thumbs::clapping::thumbs:

maryhelena

Agreed. My point was in regard to working backwards - from the theology to the history. Agreed.

Steve Weiss

That would be a massive jumping to conclusions that re-inforce one's presumptions. A few broken and incomplete artifacts mentioning a name is far from what would be necessary to establish possibility let alone probability.

Doug Shaver

Christianity is older than the oldest Christian writings. Anything that we would recognize as "the church" probably did not exist before the second century.

stephan huller

Count me in with the people who don't believe there ever was a primitive Church.