Talk:Early Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives of older discussions may be found here: Archive 1, Archive 2


Contents

[edit] help for Lima

Here is the shorter recension of the Letters of Ignatius:

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE MAGNESIANS SHORTER VERSION "CHAPTER X.--BEWARE OF JUDAIZING. Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour ye shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God. "

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE ROMANS SHORTER VERSION: "CHAPTER III.--PRAY RATHER THAT I MAY ATTAIN' TO MARTYRDOM. Ye have never envied anyone; ye have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions ye enjoin [on others]. Only request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but [truly] will, so that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really found to be one. For if I be truly found [a Christian], I may also be called one, and be then deemed faithful, when I shall no longer appear to the world. Nothing visible is eternal. "For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. The Christian is not the result of persuasion, but of power. When he is hated by the world, he is beloved of God. For says [the Scripture], "If ye were of this world, the world would love its own; but now ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of it: continue in fellowship with me."

75.15.204.88 17:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Current errors in the article

1. [1] is "Shorter and Longer Versions", it says so right at the top

2. The Roberts-Donaldson translation of the Shorter recension is in [2], just under Roberts-Donaldson English Translation (Shorter and Longer Recensions)

Lightfoot's The Apostolic Fathers, Part II: S. Ignatius. S. Polycarp. was published in 1885. It has since been revised a number of times, current revision is: The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Paperback) by Michael W. Holmes (Editor), Baker Academic; Revised edition (November 1999), ISBN: 0801022258. My copy, 1992 hardcover, has "ἀλλὰ μεγέθους ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστιανισμός, ὅταν μισῆται ὑπὸ κόσμου" - "Christianity is greatest when it is hated by the world." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.0.5.199/75.14.214.67/75.15.202.142 (talk • contribs).

Yes, many sites give the Roberts-Donaldson English Translation of both recensions for each little chapter, placing the shorter recension first, the longer immediately after. Two sites implicitly indicate that in the printed volume the two versions were placed in parallel columns. When I first looked up one of these sites, I failed to advert to this, but Anonymous 75 was good enough to draw my attention to it. And yes, almost as many sites present what they claim to be the shorter recension in a form that, with the sole exception of chapter 3, corresponds exactly with what the other sites also claim to be the shorter recension. And yes, the Lightfoot translation is presented on several sites in modernized form, but I thought it better to give what seems to be what Lightfoot himself wrote. Thanks also to Anonymous 75 for giving another source for the view that the word "Χριστιανισμός"/"Christianity" is in the Greek text, and for thus, it seems, confirming that the shorter recension does contain the word. Lima 04:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew c says this is off topic, care to explain?

The idea of an orthodoxy and orthopraxy is found in the New Testament itself, which contains warnings against teachings considered to be only masquerading as those of Jesus (for example, the Sermon on the Mount, Olivet discourse, But to bring a sword, Rejection of Jesus, Matthew 23, Matthew 24:4-14, 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; 2 Peter 2:1-17; 2 John 7-11; Jude 4-13), and shows how reference was made to the leaders of the Jerusalem Church to decide what was correct doctrine and practice (Acts 15, see Council of Jerusalem) and they in turn looked to God: "We ought to obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29), heading the earlier warning of Jesus: "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matt 15:9, a quote of Brenton Septuagint Isaiah 29:13)

And I stand by my revert. The last clause with the biblical quotes doesn't follow. This paragraph is discussing false teachings and conflict within the Church found in the New Testament. The first quote, being 10 chapters prior, doesn't even follow from the previous mentioned verse, nor do I understand how it relates to the previous content. What, exactly, is problematic with the previous version, and what, specifically, does this new content (the bible quotes) add?--Andrew c 02:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a theme of Acts, do I have to provide cites? The Apostles appealed to God. They did not teach of their own authority. 68.123.64.135 02:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you addressed any of my questions, and I still do not understand what exactly your point is. This article is not on "themes in the book of Acts". I understand that Acts covers some aspects of Early Christianity, but I do not see how your quotes fit in the existing paragraph. Care to slow down, back it up, and explain a little futher in detail? Thanks.--Andrew c 02:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

One example: the Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15:19 "For which reason...". What reason? The previous (16-18) quote of Jeremiah 12:15, Septuagint Amos 9:11 and Isaiah 45:21. Also, there are many who believe, see Council of Jerusalem, that the basis of the Apostolic Decree is the Noahide Laws.68.123.64.135 02:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Is this better?:

...shows how reference was made to the leaders of the Jerusalem Church to decide what was correct doctrine and practice and they in turn looked to God: "We ought to obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29), heeding the earlier warning of Jesus: "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matt 15:9, a quote of Brenton Septuagint Isaiah 29:13)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.64.135 (talk • contribs).

returning to the lead sentence:

The idea of an orthodoxy and orthopraxy is found in the New Testament itself, which contains warnings against teachings considered to be only masquerading as those of Jesus ...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.64.135 (talk • contribs).

This article needs major revisions, but this is not the way. The orthodoxy / orthopraxy verbiage sounds like something from turn-of-the-century Tubingen, a school which many of the articles here pay unashamed homage to. This section has been made more obnoxious with some irrelevant comment about heterodox within the RCC. Whatever the case, the response is to develop improvements articulated through solid sources and careful revision where more points of view are expressed, while allowing the hyper-critical views to remain in the broader context of the scholarship. All of these theories have been examined, and good scholarship exists concerning various PoV's. But clipping on raw Biblical quotes is not the way, nor will it help to add personal commentary to those quotes. If this is important to you, go to your local library and grab a couple books, give them a read, then come here and contribute some of their points, with references. My dream for this article is that one day it will draw on principle historical sources, rather than just biblical scholars and theologians — nothing against them, of course, they have something worth listening to, but early Christianity moves well beyond a biblical context and into antiquity, and thus into inter-disciplinary areas. Lostcaesar 06:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the supposed importance of "and they in turn looked to God". Any who disagreed with the decision of the apostles and elders would say they too looked to God. What does the looking to God of any individual or group have to do with the point being made, namely that early Christians did refer to a group seen as central for deciding orthodoxy and orthopraxis? Lima 09:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Christians, aka Jewish Christians, were a sect of second temple Judaism. Second temple Judaism, following the Bible, settled theological disputes by convoking a Sanhedrin, and this is what we see in Acts 4-5: "the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came to them, much annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming that in Jesus there is the resurrection of the dead ... rulers, elders, and scribes assembled in Jerusalem, with Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family ... they inquired, ‘By what power or by what name did you do this?’ ... But Peter and John answered them, ‘Whether it is right in God’s sight to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge ... After threatening them again, they let them go, finding no way to punish them because of the people, for all of them praised God for what had happened. ... Then the high priest took action; he and all who were with him (that is, the sect of the Sadducees), being filled with jealousy, arrested the apostles and put them in the public prison. ... The high priest questioned them, saying, ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring this man’s blood on us.’ But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than any human authority. ... But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up ... I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them — in that case you may even be found fighting against God!’" How do you interpret that? 68.123.65.69 19:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Would Anonymous68... please explain what, if anything, in all this either contradicts or illustrates the article's statement that early Christians turned to the leaders of the Jerusalem Church to decide what was correct doctrine and practice (Acts 15). I regret that, at present, I can only see it as obfuscating the point that the article is making. Lima 20:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also and anarchism

This article does not mention anarchism at all. The Christian anarchism briefly mentions a pre-pauline Christianity (that this article doesn't cover), and the martyrdom of some early Christians. The idea is that Christian Anarchism, something that isn't disputed a modern concept, somehow represents some hypothetical "original" form of Christianity. I believe every sect believes this, or at least isn't going to admit that their brand of Christianity is actually something dating centuries after Jesus' death. For this reason, and because there are already way too many see also links, I feel strongly that the link to Christian Anarchism is off topic and should be removed. Anyone agree with me? What is the counter argument to include it? Thanks.--Andrew c 17:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge "Divisions in the Early Church" to Section on "Orthodoxy and orthopraxy"

This is a substantial duplication, alternatively that article could be developed and this section summarised (currently "Early Christianity" is 30 kb). Paul foord 05:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article is nearly worthless from a historical perspective (sorry)

1. Jesus is described as a historical figure. However there is as yet no conclusive historical/archaeological evidence as to his being a non-fictional person.

2. The main source used for this article is a text from the bible itself, ie. Acts of the Apostles (Acts).
WP: "The traditional view is that both the two books [Gospel of Luke + Acts] were written c. 60 by a companion of Paul named Luke — a view which is still held by many theologians. Alternatively, many modern scholars view the books as having been written by an unknown author at a much later date, sometime between 80 and 150."
So for the extremely interesting decades immediately following the death of Jesus there are no sources available, in fact there is likely a large gap and the only sources that follow are far from being at least somewhat independent, being texts designed to promote the Christian sect. This argument is equally valid for all the gospels by different authors.

3. The bible is not an accurate representation of history. It should not be treated as such.

4. Thus the reasoning of the article is based on a unverified (and unverifiable) religious text and presented as fact!
WP: "Modernly, many scholars have come to doubt that the author of Luke-Acts was the physician Luke. Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who was not an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text."
WP: "While the precise identity of the author is debated, the general consensus is that the author was a Greek gentile writing for an audience of gentile Christians."
WP: "Scholars also point to a number of apparent theological and factual discrepancies between Luke-Acts and Paul's letters."

5. This is bad, bad, bad. (IMHO)

I would love to read here a critical article about the historiography of Early Christianity, about recent trends in the perception of the biblical texts, about archaeological finds and ONLY THEN conjecture about what may have happened according to some dead chronicle. This would be best backed up by official Roman documents:)

That would be awesome.

I'm actually posting this:)
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks for reading. Must sleep. --Boo 00:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Boo, the primary text for the history of the early Church is Acts. No one thinks the text is just some literary fabrication. There are far to many accurate historical details (the description of Paul's boat ride is a famously valuable one for historians, though not relevant here). It is a challenging text to use historically, but so are many texts, including Roman documents. I will say, however, that I don't know exactly what "official Roman documents" you speak of, for if you are looking for extended material concerning the first century Church, you will be disappointed. Neither do I know what archaeological evidence you would like mentioned. I agree the article needs improvement, but I don't understand what you are looking for here exactly. Lostcaesar 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, here lies the age old problem. You let extremist scholars like Elaine Pagels run around, and all of a sudden you've got the rumor going on out there that the Bible was fabricated in later centuries and isn't a good source. Besides Revelation, II Peter, and often II Thesselonians among probably a few other books, the vast majority of scholars who don't accept the traditional authorship still accept a first century composition. Acts is the main source, along with the four almost unanimously pauline epistles. Thanatosimii 04:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


The thing is, even if one is a rigorously agnostic scholar, the Biblical texts do bear some historical weight. How do I mean this? Think of it this way: we have reliable non-Christian sources (i.e., disinterested sources, which is what I assume he means by "Roman documents") that Christians existed -- for instance, Tacitus mentions followers of "Chrestus" being blamed for the fire of Rome, and the basic text there is not seriously disputed. Hence, Christians must have existed and been as far as Rome by the 60s. Now, what would these "Chrestians" have believed? Well, something about Christus, i.e., Christ. Eeven skeptical historians date the Gospels at between 70 and the early 100s (depnding on the scholar and the book). Hence, we know that we have people in the mid-first century so committed to a set of beliefs, apparently reflected in at least some of the New Testament books, that they were willing to undergo execution for them.

This does not prove that Jesus was God, of course. It is, however, a fair indication that a man named Jesus from the conquered kingdom of Judea was the source of some religious movement. All of the documents agree that he was of Jewish background, and the apparent fact that early believers made the unlikely boast that he was executed indicate that that is most probably true.

Ok, so, so far, our acknowledged first century sources seem to be good historical indications that a 1st Century rabbi named Jesus, in Judea, launched a religious movement but died at the hands of Roman authorities. That this belief spread so quickly, and so fervently, even to the point of torture and death under nero, is good indication that there were people who had first-hand knowledge of this Jesus, and many others who received that knowledge second-hand: few people, and certainly not significant crowds over many years, are willing to undergo deprivation, torture and death for a mere literary fiction.

Again, none of this is proof of Divinity, or of miracles. But just as the mighty myths of the Trojan War are rooted in history (there was a Troy, and there seems to have been a war), so the story of Jesus appears to be rooted in history. What one makes of this wandering rabbi is another matter.

FYI, in case you didn't know, there is, uin fact, a group of scholars known as The Jesus Seminar, a cross-denominational, cross-disciplinary group that for decades has been debating and discussing the question of who the "Historical Jesus" was and what he in fact taught (as distinguished from, possibly, what later followers or believers developed as their own theology). There are articles covering their work, so look them up.HarvardOxon 05:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment — to the original poster of this section. If you think this article has as a main source "Acts" then you aren't paying attention. This article goes up to 325 AD. I would say Acts stops well nigh short of that goal. Wjhonson 05:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new addition removed

I removed a new addition which purported to discuss the sources relevant for early Christianity, but was really just a highly speculative exercise in various theories, with many errors or dubious remarks. It dated Paul's letters 59-61, and unusual range. It said that his letters show "an influence of the Kerygma of the risen Christ" — a buzzword for certain disputed theories. It stated as fact that Colossians was non-Pauline and written about 80, and that Ephesians was written in 90 — this is highly disputed and clearly a minority view. It said that Luke was " supposedly the author of the fourth Gospel" — Luke is third traditionally. It also said that Luke knew John's Gospel, a startling hypothesis to say the least. It stated the Q documentary hypothesis as fact. It even said that Acts "clearly" represents a Gentile position in a supposed conflict between Gentile and Jewish Christians, showing a remarkable willingness to take Ebonite claims at face value, whilst remaining utterly skeptical about anything said by orthodox Christians. It claimed the Gospel of Judas was Galilean in origin and early — both are disputed if not fringe views. It stated that Constantine's "conversion at Nicea" took up the matter of the canon, but there is no record of such. Though I have said enough, it is worth observing the following statement that a certain "Gospel to the Hebrews" drew "upon an early Aramaic shorter version of the Gospel of Matthew which lacked the birth and resurrection stories, composed in Galilee about 110-120 CE if not before the end of the 1st century." That is an amazingly creative hypothesis, utterly controversial and wholly unsupported by facts. I know exactly how this theory was pieced together and it in no way belongs here, stated as fact and as a well accepted (and unsourced) view. None of this flies in my book, sorry to say. Lostcaesar 15:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point of View

The article as it stands takes a high pro-Christian point of view and is thoroughly uncritical of its sources. Attempts to overcome these weaknesses with a little modern scholarship have been immediately removed. John D. Croft 18:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There's room for some "critical" scholarship, but remember that despite how much they protest, the "critical" position is not the majority, and we must avoid undue weight. Thanatosimii 18:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this is an interesting discussion. I think we should present the views of scholars who focus on early Christian history. Right now, sourcing is an issue, and giving a plot summary of Acts is not the same thing as describing early Christian history. I personally would like to see all the references to Acts removed, and replaced with scholarly interpretation of Acts. For example, what is better, citing a scholar who names and describes the early Jewish sects, or cherry picking verses from Acts that mention the Sadducees, Zealots, Pharisees, and Essenes (except the last one which isn't mentioned in the NT anywhere). I agree with LC that John's edit was a bit over the top. I think a better way of going about this (instead of adding a 'critical' section) is to get a few books from a library that cover Christian history, and start reworking the whole article. As for "critical" position and majorities. I think what is meant by "critical" isn't a term to mean "negative" but a term that refers to the scholarly methods used by biblical scholars. Critical, as in Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment, not critical as in Inclined to judge severely and find fault. In this instance, I feel it is much more important to put the views of actual scholars in the article, than to try and represent a Sunday School style fluff piece. I think a good comparison is evolution. Just my thoughts.--Andrew c 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have wanted to work on this myself, but I have been spending most of my time reworking Christian Views of Jesus on my project page. When I am done there then I can help here more. I agree that we need secondary sources that deal with acts, and the other material. If someone is worried about an overly critical view (critical here in the less technical sense) then there should be no problem there, as plenty of historians have views that basically respect orthodoxy. John, I detailed my problems with your write up above, if you would like to discuss them. Lostcaesar 19:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's certainly what critical ought to mean, but it rarely is the way it is used. Scholars can be petty people who call each other names all too often. Thanatosimii 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew c on the use of scholarly resources. I suggest the Journal of Early Chirstian Studies as one source of such material. -- Cat Whisperer 18:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
By "...respect orthodoxy" I hope you mean that "there will be plenty of scholars who respect orthodoxy to balance the ones who do not." WP should be a source that represents 'proportionately all snotablesourced views. It is possible that the article may get too long, but there are ways to deal with that. Some of the views here really need to be discussed. (And by "discussed" I mean presented in an objective way, and major criticism of the work from all sides included.) .DGG 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like us to use real historical scholarship, the kind that is "critical" in the sense Andrew means it - rather than taking one side or another at face value, methods are used to see what can be known / verified historically. By "respect orthodoxy" I mean we avoid scholars who think "critical scholarship" means "criticize Christianity" — i.e. I want to stay clear of people who made a career grinding an axe. Lostcaesar 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request for material

The later period between the death of Peter and the Council of Nicea also needs more material--and much of the history of the succeeding periods is also a little weak--the Councils are of course the major events, and probably a good way of dividing periods, but a good deal went on between them. I am only an hobbyist with respect to this, and probably not the best person to write this, but perhaps others might help. DGG 19:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The period of the councils would be Nicene Christianity. Also, the complete overviews are History of Christianity and Timeline of Christianity. 75.14.210.40 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/a/r/Talk%7EEarly_Christianity_1b4f.html"