stephan huller

No one should believe that there is an organized conspiracy to reinforce certain beliefs about early Christianity. No one should put forward that scholars are 'scared' of going against the established 'truths' in the study of religion. Nevertheless from what little I know about 'the facts' of early Christianity it would appear to me at least that there is very little that we know for certain about the earliest period of the religion. This doesn't mean that nothing happened in that period (as some here would contend). But it raises interesting questions about 'how much we know is true' about the period 30 - 130 CE.

Oprah used to have (does anyone actually watch OWN?) a segment where people would come on her show and announce to America what they were sure of (= 'I know this much is true'). I'd like to start a thread asking the same question - what truths about Christianity should everyone accept as unassailable?

I would like to start with a rather timid assertion - if there aren't a set of established 'facts' about the early period, a lot of professional scholars would be out of a job (or at least have their self-confidence or self-respect greatly diminished). We expect there to be some point in studying something. It would be hard 'in the real world' to get paid for fixing things that didn't exist or improving things that hadn't even been invented yet.

In other words, 'authorities' need to have things upon which they can pronounce judgment. Dostoevsky is associated with the saying "if God does not exist, everything is permitted" (the actual quote is 'without God and immortal life. All things are lawful then, they can do what they like?') but it isn't just God that is at stake.

The less 'facts' there are about the early Church the greater the justification the less authoritative our judgments become and perhaps -the greater the justification for using imagination to interpret what facts remain (to 'fill in the gaps' in our knowledge).

tanya

early judaism?
early islam?
early buddhism?
early, middle, or late zoroastrianism?
mathraism?
Manichaeism?
Druids?

And, what about that famous city, a thriving metropolis midway between Euphrates and Jerusalem, gone for 3000 years
?

stephan huller

Right but we can't answer all the questions in one thread. Tanya am I correct to assume that you think the only thing that we can be certain of in this period (30 - 130 CE) is that there was no such thing as Christianity?

Toto

The only thing I feel reasonably sure of is that there were groups of "Christians" who got together for mutual support, common meals, and singing hymns.

At some point they developed stories about why they did these things.

outhouse

I think its almost unanimous with a high degree of certainty, which is just about as good as its going to get.


A man from Nazareth taught Judaism to the poor and healed, he was baptized by JtB in the Jordan and possibly traveled around with a 3-4 followers. He caused a stink in the temple and was put to death on a cross over the Roman infection and corruption in the Jewish government.

After his death oral traditions grew in the Diaspora and Proselytes to Judaism began to compare his divinity with the emperor's. Decades after his death people played off this oral tradition and were writing what they found of importance down. Almost none of these early writing survived less Paul's epistles, and possibly others that may or may not have influenced later writings.

We know the movement grew within Hellenistic communities of Proselytes and Gentiles, and failed early on in Judaism.

They worshipped around dinner tables in houses in secret.

tanya

a. Yes;
b. I am unsure when "christianity" began;
c. I am unable to define "christianity", especially with respect to its earliest genesis;
d. How do we know anything? We know for certain, only those things, or features, or qualities that our sensory system permits us to detect.

Consider vision. We are unable to see light outside the narrow window 400-700 nm. Birds, on the other hand, can readily observe wavelengths as low as 300 nm. We are constrained by the limitations of our senses to know anything, accordingly, when it comes to attesting to the veracity of one or another piece of evidence, we need to ensure that this datum is genuine, not falsified.

Yeah, I use the USA meaning of the term, aka, FAKE, FRAUDULENT, FORGED, the primary definition of "falsified" in the dictionary, rather than the German derivative, so attractive to those who would seek to write with a "scholarly" demeanor: REFUTED. Jeffrey Gibson and spin, for example, are both fond of employing this word, as if all the world understood "falsified"'s secondary, antithetical, Teutonic derivative.

So, it is not surprising that we have such different understandings of the ancient data, supposedly underlying earliest "christianity". Did that religion exist, at the time of Justin Martyr? How about late second century: Irenaeus? I have doubts that such a person ever lived in Lugdunum. It is difficult to explain any tradition, absent artifacts, coins, statues, documents, etc. We first see these in abundance only in the fourth century.

It is painfully clear, that a segment of society will do just about anything to "prove" that the tradition began in the first century: Constantine's mother apparently discovered "the cross". Someone else discovered the famous shroud of Turin. Someone decided to change Chrestos to Christos on a document reputed to be a copy of Tacitus' Annals. Clark Hopkins chanced upon a fragment of the diatessaron, which just happened to be sitting, conveniently, on top of a pile of dirt, a fragment, without which, according to him, the "discovery" of the mid-third century CE "house church" at Dura Europos would not have been possible.....

mountainman

Aside from the Pliny Letter exchange what ancient historical evidence underpins this feeling of reasonable surety? Was an empty place reserved at the table for the god? Did they make toasts to the god?

And finally why do we not find inscriptions on dinner plates, goblets and wine glasses and on headstones with the abbreviated name of Jesus Christ as found in the earliest greek codices "J_S C_T"? This was a simple code name ("nomina sacra") that was replicated through their holy writ. Why is the encoded name of "J_S C_T" not found amidst the non literary ancient historical evidence?


How Much Do We Know For Certain is True About Early Christianity?


Absolutely nothing.








εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller

I will start by saying - 'i know this much is true' (1) - what we know of Judaism and Samaritanism in that period show signs of 'being Hellenized' and that synthesis of scripture and philosophy (= Justus of Tiberias, Philo, Marqe etc) form the natural basis for producing the earliest documents of Christianity. I can't think of another period where either Judaism or Samaritanism would be more naturally suited for producing the gospel (especially John), the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Pauline writings. By the second century there is a turning away from Hellenism evidenced by the derogatory use of the term 'Epikuros.' Yes there were Samaritan philosophers all the way to the fourth century. But the tide seems to irrevocably turn against assimilation with Greek culture in the second century especially in what we know of Judaism from the period.

outhouse

Its my opinion Christianity swallowed Hellenism whole.


The rift between Hellenistic Proselytes and Judaism was set in motion long before "our" Passover martyr ignited the Hellenist to create their own theology surrounding Judaism they found so valuable. When the temple fell it was icing on the cake and it was full steam ahead.

stephan huller

There is this fascinating Hellenistic Jewish culture (which didn't just exist in Alexandria). When did it die out? How did it die out? It would seem that it continued in Samaria longer than within Jewish culture. But then again, what do we really know about any of this. I have Alon's Book on the subject from a few years back. Damned if I could tell you anything definitive about this period other than Judaism was 'in transition.' From what, I couldn't honestly tell you.