Chunk

I thought maybe Q would cause some discussion. I will change the point about it.

If Luke uses Matthew, are we still not left with sayings in Matthew that have to have been completely made up by Matthew, if they did not predate the gospels in some form? Is this likely to be the case? The gospel of Thomas contains many sayings similar to those in Luke and Matthew, if it is likely that this predates the cannonical gospels, does this add further evidence to there being some sort of pre-gospel sayings source?

Regarding 15: From Pauls epistles, we know that a belief in a risen Jesus was in place before the gospels were written. Is it therefore likely that nothing was being passed round orally or in document form about the passion, until Mark wrote his gospel?

I just find it very difficult to believe that Paul would make claims like that and there not be some sort of tradition or story about the resurection being circulated.

There also seems to be reference to old traditions within Marks passion. (For example: Mk 15:21, Mk 15:34)

But, in summary, is it not safe to say that Jesus wasnt what they expected or were looking for in a Messiah. The point about the Messiah being for Israel and Gods chosen people, seems to add more wait to this, as Jesus is shown to be a Messiah for ANYONE willing to follow and believe in him.

Paul tells us that he visited the Apostles and that his gospel was in line with theirs. At times he doesnt seem too happy with this group of Apostles and we see a bit of a power struggle. I cant see a reason for him to mention them in this way and it not be true that they had a similar message to his.

Good point. I think an interesting way to look at it too, is that looking at it as Christian sources and non-Christian sources, is to look at it from a 21st Century point of view. Surely any non-roman that wrote something in support of Jesus, in the first century, instantly becomes a Christian source.

I also think it should be pointed out that if all of the bible claims are true, we have a big big problem here. How can Jesus perform so many miracles, darkness fall on the Earth, whole towns flock to one mans door, talk of Jesus spread through whole cities etc and there be suck a lack of anyone writing anything about this? I think this supports point 14.

I will add a point about the gospel of Thomas.

Chunk

I cant seem to edit my first post. Can someone show me how to do this please?


17) A non cannonical gospel called the Gospel of Thomas exists. It is a collection of sayings rather than a biography. Some of the sayings can be seen in the cannonical gospels. The Gospel of Thomas makes no attempt to provide a biography of Jesus, nor does it reference his crucifiction or resurection.

Fair point. Unfortunately, my knowledge is too lacking for me to be able to do this. If you would like to do it, that would be very interesting to read.

Thanks.

yalla

One of the things that I regret about how I first studied the whole historical Christianity question[s] is that I believe I started from the "wrong end''.
I can't do antything about it now, it's a fait accompli, but if I could start from scratch I would:
[1] have done a lot of preliminary reading about ancient cultures/history/religion/languages etc..
[2] THEN started at the "front", that is Paul and the epistles. In other words with some semblance of chronological order. That way I would have avoided reading into texts material that came from later texts. The "gospel coloured glasses'' syndrome.
[3] Then gone onto the gospels/Acts including the non-canonical material along the way.
[4]Then all the other stuff that is so fascinating.

Unfortunately I jumped in at the middle and went off at all sorts of tangents in an eclectic manner, not organized at all.
To a certain extent it is unavoidable that I carried vague pre-suppositions into my reading, it is, I would suggest, impossible to avoid that given the dominance of the orthodox paradigm as presented generally in the western Christian culture in which I was nurtured.
Easter for example, Christmas also, with all the images and concepts that are part of the "mother's milk'' of my culture.

For those that have studied this topic formally, how was your learning structured?

Peter Kirby

Like most history, it is organized around a series of cause-effect patterns arranged in a roughly chronological order, when taught formally. This means starting with Jesus did this and that, the apostles did this and that, and so on. And there's barely enough time in the semester to cover the centuries of church history, so doing a lot of background (besides Jewish background a bit) isn't an option.

The best advice I've seen for self-starters (with a lot of time to spend on it) is to ground yourself in the tools used in serious study first, e.g., by learning Greek as much as possible, by learning about historical practice in general, and by learning about the cultures in which the material is set. Though it shouldn't be the ultimate goal, the exercise of producing a chronology of your own can be useful (it's been the focus and inspiration of much of my study). For this you will have to start in the third or fourth century, work back into the second, and only make furtive forays into the first. The mistake everyone makes is diving straight into the first century, and then getting upset when everything is constantly shifting around...and often because of different assumptions about what is found in the second century.

For example, Ignatius or Justin Martyr; when the writings were created, what their sense was, what their sources were. What sense does it make to debate Paul if we can't get a conclusion on Ignatius or Justin Martyr? Likewise, why talk about Ignatius or Justin, if our biggest issue is with Eusebius? We need people who study Eusebius as seriously as they do the New Testament, but they are in short supply. (This means going deeper than having a Penguin edition of the Church History and knowing the 'Eusebius the Liar' canard. Maybe we could get a group of people to read the book Eusebiana for example.)

regards,
Peter Kirby

S.C.Carlson

I really liked your post, Peter, and I agree wholehearted about Eusebius and the need for more people to study him. Based on my own reading of this field, it looks like that it is still largely untapped. For example, J. B. Lightfoot's work on Eusebius of the 19th century is still fresh.

Some reading materials about Eusebius that I recommend are:

• Schwartz's critical edition for GSC in three volume. In addition to supplying the Greek text (and Rufinus's Latin translation), he expounds his reasons for why the Ecclesiastical History went through four separate editions.
• Hugh Jackson Lawlor, Eusebiana (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1912; repr. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1973) has some material but is somewhat dated. How he reconstructs Hegesippus from Eusebius is interesting, though.
• Robert M. Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980), is very nice and quite thought provoking.
• Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata, Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Detroit: Wayne University Press, 1992), has a nice set of essays about Eusebius and is up to date.

Stephen

Tholzel

Paul's letters are now considered by some scholars to be pseudoepigraphs, written in the second century [See for example: "Hermann Detering: The Falsified Paul - Early Christianity in the Twilight" at http://www.radikalkritik.de/ . Scroll half-way down to this English language account.] When you read this theory, scales fall off your eyes.

Toto

Detering's The Falsified Paul is a pdf of 1600 KB, or can be downloaded in smaller segments here on Michael Hoffman's egodeath website.