Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver Quote: Originally Posted by GakuseiDon It's not in my review, but it's probably something to do with high-context/low-context societies, I've seen references to that theory before. I take that the theory acknowledges the existence of both kinds of societies. To your knowledge, has anybody well versed in the theory undertaken whatever research would be needed to determine whether first- and second-century Christians were a high-context or low-context society?

The Context Group is an international team of scholars that merges historical exegesis and the social sciences to interpret the Bible in its social and cultural contexts. It initially organized in 1986 as the "Social Facets Seminar," headed by John H. Elliott as Chair, meeting in conjunction with The Jesus Seminar under the direction of Robert W. Funk and the Westar Institute. In 1989 it broke ties with the Jesus Seminar and reorganized in Portland, Oregon, as The Context Group, A Project on the Bible in its Social and Cultural Environment.

At the root of the Context Group's social-scientific method is the belief that biblical scholars have taken western cultural assumptions for granted when interpreting the Bible, an ancient document produced in a much different culture.

The key difference is that the modern western world is an individualistic, industrial society, whereas the society of the ancient Mediterranean world was collectivistic and agrarian.

The ancient Mediterranean was also a high-context society, where discourse took shared cultural values for granted. This contrasts with the modern western world, which is a low-context society in which discourse tends to be more specific and specialized (i.e. to particular groups, subcultures, etc.). According to the Context scholars, the interpreter must learn the cultural assumptions and values behind the text in order to understand it correctly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver Quote: Originally Posted by GDon as well as a suspicion of the written word as inferior to rhetoric (as Plato has Socrates say, and Papias refers to). OK. We've accounted for and Socrates and Papias. Is there any evidence that would tell us whether this was the prevalent view among early Christians in general?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver Quote: Originally Posted by GDon By the time you get to Origen, Paul doesn't look so strange. By the time we get to Origen, the gospels have been circulating long enough for Christians in general to be familiar with them. What do we find from that point onward?

The first Christian text that did not become canonized but was respected as authentic is the first epistle of Clement of Rome, reasonably dated to 95 A.D. (M 40), and contained in many ancient Bibles and frequently read and regarded as scripture in many churches (M 187-8). This is relevant because even at this late date two things are observed: Clement never refers to any Gospel, but frequently refers to various epistles of Paul. Yet he calls them wise counsel, not scripture--he reserves this authority for the OT ("Old Testament"), which he cites over a hundred times (M 41-3). On a few occasions he quotes Jesus, without referring to any written source...

Of greatest note is that in his letter to the Philadelphians, Ignatius recounts a debate he held with Judaizing Christians in which it is clear that only the OT was regarded as an authority (M 48-9). Instead of referring to any NT writings as evidence, he simply says that Jesus Christ is the witness to the authority of the tradition. This suggests that none of the NT was regarded even then as an authority. Like Clement, Ignatius and other Christians probably regarded these texts as wise counsel or useful collections of their oral traditions, and not as "scripture" per se...

In the same period, Polycarp wrote a letter which cites "Jesus" for certain sayings a hundred times, and the sayings match closely those appearing in the Gospels (and even things written in numerous Epistles, which were not originally attributed to Jesus), but he does not name any sources (M 59-61). We see the authority of oral tradition is again elevated above the written--like all the previous authors, no NT text is called scripture, though many OT texts are...

In all the texts examined so far, the only recognized authority is "Jesus Christ" as related orally by unnamed evangelists, and not any written text apart from the OT. It is always "the Gospel" and never any particular Gospel. In such a state of affairs, it is no wonder that Gnostic and other heresies could grow in a century of transmission where NT writings were of little account in contrast with oral authority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver Quote: Originally Posted by GDon Start with Tatian's "Address to the Greeks". Is that what you would expect from a believer in a historical Jesus? Should we conclude that Tatian was a member of a non-historical Jesus Christianity? That depends. Are you talking about all the second-century apologists, or most of them, or just one or two of them? ... Unless you correct me, I'll construe that to mean "just one or two of them."