Vivisector

The work of Mack and others seems convincing that, from a very early date, there were several - very different - flavors of Christianity. It's almost as if Christianity originated not from a central point, but from several points simultaneously. So my question is, what situation could explain this early diversity? And my follow up would be, which explains the situation better: MJ or HJ?

I visited with a (very liberal) minister who suggested that the various communities originated within Jesus's lifetime as a result of his ministry to different groups. I'm unconvinced, though, because it seems one would have to paint Jesus a very different color than is common (namely, that he was a fairly Hellenized Jew himself).

Cheers,

V.

andrewcriddle

Although the diversity of early christianity is real it can IMO be exaggerated.

In particular I doubt whether genuinely 'Gnostic' versions of Christianity existed before the very late 1st century CE.

Andrew Criddle

Chris Weimer

Andrew Carr,

But gnosticism predated Christianity by hundreds of years in various forms, starting with Plato, why would it be so impossible that a Gnostic-Christian sectr existed in the first century, given that even Christianity in the first century wasn't even close to being what is was in the 2nd C.

rlogan

Hi Viv.

On the Jewish side, you have the occupations of Judea. A religion in crisis. The diaspora. Hellanization. The pot is certainly being stirred for more than a century. On the gentile side you have a polyglot of gods and an adaptation with the Jewish superstition would be nothing unusual.

If you have various saviour cults, how do you consolidate power? It is done under the pseudo-authority of the savior himself - who already came!

Vivisector

I think cweb225 has a good point related to the lines of my original question. First, it seems that even during the first century, Christianity was no single set of beliefs and practices; i.e., there was no Christianity, there were Christianities. Very early, there was the Christianity of the Markan "community," the Jewish Christianity, Gnostic Christianity and, if you like, the Q community. There were undoubtedly more, including a Hellenized Jewish Christianity to which Paul was perhaps first exposed. So it seems that the normal model - a single trunk with multiple branches - is inverted, and that Christianity almost began as multiple branches with later attempts to force those branches to converge (or to cut them off completely).

So, to try to tighten my question a little more, what - if anything - was the original, common element of the branches?

Cheers,

V.

Peter Kirby

It would repay us to dwell on how we establish distinct "communities" or "branches" from the existence of texts, rather than other models for understanding the material contained in texts, such as the invention of the author, the selection of traditions, the demands of genre, and development of ideas through time, to name a few.

Already there have been named 5 branches that are supposed to exist, and whose features we are supposed to understand (Q community, Markan community, Jewish community, Gnostic community, Pauline community). I would like to know what can be known about the constitution of the communities.

What, for example, is the Markan community? Is it being thought of as the church of a city, or as a movement across various places, or something else? What are the ideas of the author of Mark that are not shared with the community? What are the ideas of the community that are not shared with Mark? What has Mark left out? What has Mark made up? What are the influences upon this community? Things like that. It would seem more profitable to me to begin discussion with this kind of thing, which would help to make our conceptions more sharply defined, which can only aid any attempt to explain how these groups of people came to be as they were in the first and second centuries.

best,
Peter Kirby

Clivedurdle

Can we work out an evolutionary tree or ecology here? The propaganda is about one true church and heresies.

Is the reality loads of different ideas with in reality not a lot in common, which have been shoehorned together with varying degrees of success, dependent on power relationships?

Had a friend around who is in to New Frontiers Church and another who is Catholic, and was playing with different flavours of Pentecostalism and Evangelicals and Catholics and what they believe. I would argue that the variety of beliefs now is not that different to that when this all started - which sounds like it could go back to Plato and earlier!

There is really nothing in common between one person who believes Mary is the Mother of God and another who emphasises sin and images being idolatrous, although they both call themselves xian!

Vorkosigan

There might be a Markan community, but there's no community in the Gospel, Peter. Mark's gospel is a composition about discipleship, or perhaps for baptismal initiation, that does not appear to have any "community" in it at all. In terms of its community standpoint, it faces out, toward the world, and seeks to recruit more people into the community.

The emphasis in GMark is on action and movement. Jesus is pictured as a model to be emulated, rather than as a teacher to be studied, for while he describes what the kingdom of God is like, he never says what it is. That's standard recruitment tactic -- one is brought slowly into the community, and the doctrines are not fully displayed to outsiders. Rather an enticing face is presented.

You might, by looking at Mark 3:31-5, argue that Mark's community was one that practiced a family ideal, but I would respond that the writer is presenting an idealized picture of what the community should be for outsiders, rather than depicting anything that actually went on. The reality is better judged by Paul's letters, in which the Christian communities are cesspits of internecine fighting under the aegis of authority figures. Most of the communities must have resembled something like David Koresh's Branch Davidians, with a charismatic leader, a loose collection of doctrines refined on the fly as specific issues came up, tight control of the membership, and a loose feeling of belonging to or at least, identifying with, a larger movement of such communities.

Vorkosigan

Wayne P

I was under the impression that most churches in the early years were churches 'of a city'. Each church being founded by missionaries from another city to whose theology they would then adhere. Sort of like monastic communities in the middle ages. Add to this the existing pagan theology of the city which would predispose converts to certain cult- rituals - theologies , the distance some of these cities were from the founding church which would limit 'instant' communications, and many other factor that I would probably never guess at. Wouldn't that explain why there were so many so soon? I would think that the human genius for being fractious would also be a consideration.

Vivisector

I think you're exactly right, obviously. I see the texts as products of the communities. If this is the case, then it seems that what one can know (or reasonably infer) regarding the communities should take one at least one step closer to ground zero, if there was such a thing.

I totally agree again, and I anticipated that the thread would turn in this direction. It stands to reason that, if we want to explain the diversity of communities, we need to establish that there was a diversity of communities (which my OP assumes) and then the differences/similarities among those communities using criteria such as you've suggested. As far as that goes, maybe we need some further discussion in the criteria themselves that we would use to define and differentiate the communities.

Cheers,

V.