Historian of Early Christianity waiting for school to start . . . ask me anything!

[mbmulkern]

Sorry. I realizethat was a stupid question. I think what I meant was do we know where the first church was built? You answered that. thank you
Do you know around what year did Christianity begin in Spain? My ancestors are from the Iberian Peninsula and as far as we can tell on my mother’s side we’ve always been Catholic but I was just wondering how far back could that all have begun?

 

[NotThatHarvey]

1. When Pompey reached Syria in his march of conquest, the warring brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobolus suspended their hostilities to petition Pompey for their support. Pompey chose Hyrcanus mainly out of respect for Hyrcanus’ main general, who was Herod the Great’s father. Aristobolus was arrested and sent to Rome, but his son escaped and returned to the East and was used by the Parthians as a puppet to give Rome quite a bit of trouble.
2. The problem here is that Herod the Great did not have any Jewish blood- he was a short and probably a plain-looking arab. His wife was of Royal Asamonean blood, the famous Mariamne. She persuaded Herod to appoint her brother to the High Priest’s position. But he was tall and handsome and the Jews responded to him so positively that Herod finally had enough and personally oversaw his strangling in a pool at Herod’s Jericho palace. After that, he appointed puppets.

John Hagan does a nice job, I think, in his “Year of the Passover” and “Fires of Rome” in painting the historical picture of those times, relying heavily on Josephus.

 

[CountrySteve]

I am not sure if this question has been asked or not, as I did not read through the thread. But, what is considered the first reliable reference to the papacy?
Thanks!

CountrySteve

 

[steido01]

Have you read his two books on the topic? I would start there.

Paged through Jesus the Magician about 7 years ago for a paper in undergrad. I confess, I dismissed the book as a shock-seller and mostly abused it for prooftexts and general scapegoating. Probably could give them an actual read.

By the end of his life, when I knew him (he was quite a bit older than me), he seemed to lament that the only thing he would ever be remembered for was Secret Mark. He wrote ten(!) other books, and no one ever reads those. He was a great scholar, who held some unorthodox ideas. And there is nothing wrong with that. It’s only by rocking the boat that some of the greatest progress is made.

Which would you suggest for an informative or even entertaining read?

 

[gazelam]

I am not sure if this question has been asked or not, as I did not read through the thread. But, what is considered the first reliable reference to the papacy?
Thanks!

CountrySteve

I’m not the scholar that the OP is, but I’ll share something at least related to your question, if not answering it. In the book “The Rise of the Papacy”, the author shares part of a letter by Firmilian about Pope Stephen I which states:

He who so glories in the place of his episcopate and contends that he has the succession from Peter on whom the foundation of the church was established, should introduce many other rocks and constitute new buildings of many churches while he maintains by his authority that baptism is there. (Ep. 75.17) (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, WIPF and Publishers, Eugene, OR, 1990, p. 64)

The author then goes on to say:

Since we do not have Steven’s own letters, such a comment, however sarcastic, is precious insofar as it indicates Steven’s own view of the source of his authority, the authority by which he directs not only Carthage but far distant Cappadocia to change their basic customs and conform to Roman ways. This is the first known appeal of a Roman bishop to Peter’s authority, indeed to the classical Petrine gospel texts. But we must note as well that Firmilian not only does not except the claim, he seems never to have heard of it before. He notes for example that in many liturgical customs. Rome differs from Jerusalem. There are variations from one church to another. “And yet, on account of this, there has been no withdrawal at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church”. “How can you live in communion with such a person?” Rome insists on uniformity but other bishops, such as Irenaeus and Firmilian note that all have gotten along well up until now with varying customs. (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, WIPF and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR, 1990, p. 64)

I hope this helps…

 

[RedFan]

Thanks, gazelam. Firmiian’s letter to Cyprian, from which this quote is excerpted, was penned the middle of the third century as a challenge to Pope Stephen’s views regarding the efficacy of baptism by heretics. I am curious to know whether it was in response to this letter that Cyprian summoned 87 bishops to a Council of Carthage, at which Pope Stephen’s views on baptism – at least as Firmilian portrays them – were rejected. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm

If so, it would indicate that the authority of the Bishop of Rome over distant churches in the mid-third century was simply not recognized in Africa. Any insight you can share here would be appreciated.

 

[gazelam]

Any insight you can share here would be appreciated.

I’ve shared all I know on this topic. Good luck with your delving into Church history!!

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello! Thank you for answering questions, this has been an interesting thread!

My question concerns receiving revelation and the canon of scripture.

I have read many of the documents that exist from the earliest Christian times. I understand that the Pastor of Hermas and 1st Clement were viewed remarkably similarly to scripture by some congregations, but they were not included in the canon. 2nd Peter was not as well attested in many congregations than most (all) the other books that made it in. Revelations fell into disfavor before the 4th century and barely made it into the Bible. That being said, 2nd Peter, 1st Clement, and the Pastor of Hermas (and Revelations) were all written after the synaptic gospels. The Early Church embraced these books and 2 of them were made part of the canon.

The most famous late (late 2nd early 3rd century) piece of purported revelation I know about is the Montanist prophets. Tertullian the brilliant Early Church Father and apologists embraced these revelations as being from God. From what I know about these revelations, they do not align with Catholic or hardly any other modern Christian view of truth. I do not point to them because I wish to argue they were revelations from God, but because I think their reception by Tertullian indicate that the idea that all Public Revelation ceased is later than Tertullian (or at the time of and in response to the Montanists).
The “orthodox” response to the Montanist was that “revelation had ceased.” Revelation was not in the Church and it certainly was not outside God’s church.

My HISTORICAL question is, “Are there any other ‘end of revelation’ comments/teachings from before Tertullian?" Today (and after Tertullian), folks point to some AMBIGUOUS Biblical passages, but those (Jude) pre-date 2nd Peter, 1st Clement, and the Pastor of Hermas (not to mention Tertullian’s reception of the Montanists).
Thanks for any insights. If you are aware of a book I should read (other than all the ECF which I plug away at when the mood strikes me), that would be great too.

Charity, TOm

 

[billsherman]

Do you consider the New Testament and other pre-Nicean Fathers to be valid historical documents?

Of course, they just have to used with the same caution any historical source material receives. They were typically written as tools of evangelization, not as objective reviews of the past.

And the role of the Pope prior to the formation of the Papal States?

For the most part the Pope was heavily involved as a political figure in state politics from sometime in the early history of the Papacy until 1870. Whether he was placed on the throne by a Roman emperor, or chosen by an Ostrogoth king, he was not solely a religious leader. Again, just my view. Others can, and do, hold their own views.

 

[billsherman]

Which Jewish groups were present in the Israel area? We know of the Samaritans, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes… and what else?

Those, along with the groups following John the Baptist and later Jesus are the major ones. There were undoubtedly many smaller ones, but we know pretty much nothing about them.

To which of those did Jesus likely adhere?.. I’d say it would be the same as John the Baptist. (clearly, not the Pharisees )

Jesus did not belong to any of them (like the majority of Jews of his time). There have been historians who try to wedge Jesus into one or more of the groups, but they all far fall short on evidence. Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist until he started out on his own. Somewhat ironically, John was more popular in his life than Jesus was in his. That changed rapidly after Jesus’ death, of course.

Could belonging to a pre-existing group have fueled the propagation of christianity during the 1st/2nd centuries?

I’m not sure exactly what you mean here, but all of the groups died out except the Pharisees fairly quickly after the Jewish-Roman War. That was also destroyed most of the Jewish-Christian groups based in Jerusalem. Fun fact: Josephus claimed the war was divine retribution for the murder of James.

 

[billsherman]

Do you know around what year did Christianity begin in Spain? My ancestors are from the Iberian Peninsula and as far as we can tell on my mother’s side we’ve always been Catholic but I was just wondering how far back could that all have begun?

Rather early for certain. Paul, in fact, writes of his desire to go to Spain. Few historians believe he ever made it there, though. Once Christianity becomes “Roman” it spreads like fire through the Empire. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were Christians in Spain by 100.

 

[BartholomewB]

Bill, would you care to share your views on the date of the Crucifixion? 30 or 33? Or none of the above?

Plus a couple of follow-up questions. (1) Some people claim to have detected a causal connection of some kind between Aretas’ invasion of Antipas’ territory and the arrest and trial of Jesus, leading to the conclusion—so they say—that the Crucifixion can only have occurred in 36. Does this make sense?

(2) Those authors who favor 33 commonly argue that the Crucifixion must have occurred after the fall of Sejanus in 31 because in 30, when Sejanus was still the pretorian prefect, Pilate would have been bolder in facing up to the Temple authorities. But this begs the question about Sejanus’ alleged animus toward the Jewish nation. Is his anti-Semitism an established historical fact? Or is it no more than wishful thinking on the part of certain German scholars who had reasons of their own for portraying Sejanus as a Hitler prototype?

 

[billsherman]

Which would you suggest for an informative or even entertaining read?

“Palestinian Parties and Politics” is his most influential book, but you might find “The Ancient Greeks” to be a better read. I believe they are both out of print, so perhaps a library can snag a copy for you.

 

[guanophore]

Of course, they just have to used with the same caution any historical source material receives. They were typically written as tools of evangelization, not as objective reviews of the past.

How did you go about determining that these are mutually exclusive? How does their purpose of evangelization prevent them from being objective views of the actual events?

For the most part the Pope was heavily involved as a political figure in state politics from sometime in the early history of the Papacy until 1870. Whether he was placed on the throne by a Roman emperor, or chosen by an Ostrogoth king, he was not solely a religious leader.

I agree with you. What I am asking is what you speculate about his role before he was given the title of Pontiff by the Roman emperor, and given secular authority. There were centuries between Peter and Paul laying the foundation of the faith and annointing successors for themselves before secular politics became involved. What was the role of the Pope at that time?

we know pretty much nothing

This is starting to look like a pattern! One begins to wonder how a person becomes qualified to be a “historian of Early Christianity”!

esus was a follower of John the Baptist until he started out on his own.

What evidence do you have to support this assertion?

John was more popular in his life than Jesus was in his. That changed rapidly after Jesus’ death, of course.

How do you account for that?

Once Christianity becomes “Roman” it spreads like fire through the Empire.

Can you explain what this means? How did Christianity become “Roman” and what does that entail about it “spreading”.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there were Christians in Spain by 100.

Can you explain the relationship between your state of “surprise” and what actually occurred? Do you have any evidence to support your conjecture?

 

[goout]

guanophore:

Do you consider the New Testament and other pre-Nicean Fathers to be valid historical documents?

Of course, they just have to used with the same caution any historical source material receives. They were typically written as tools of evangelization, not as objective reviews of the past.

I believe there is a false dichotomy at work in your separation of evangelization from history.
The incarnation is God entering into history in an elevated way, and the Gospels or evangelion are history proclaimed and made living.
Evangelization does not detract from historical rootedness, it elevates it. What the good news is -not- is mere journalism.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is starting to look like a pattern! One begins to wonder how a person becomes qualified to be a “historian of Early Christianity”!

Are you under the impression that scholars are supposed to pretend to know things that they do not know – indeed, things that no one knows?

 

[guanophore]

Are you under the impression that scholars are supposed to pretend to know things that they do not know – indeed, things that no one knows?

Not at all, but I am aware of many resources on this topic that do not seem to come into evidence. More can be “known” if less is excluded as a source.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Not at all, but I am aware of many resources on this topic that do not seem to come into evidence. More can be “known” if less is excluded as a source.

The question is which sources are reliable, and how we substantiate the reliability of these sources. That’s the meat and potatoes of historical scholarship. I imagine Bill is open to suggestions about why different sources might be reliable, though I could be wrong.

 

[guanophore]

The question is which sources are reliable, and how we substantiate the reliability of these sources.

Indeed. The decision has already been made that the Gospel accounts are not considered accurate historical accounts of the events they describe.

 

[NotThatHarvey]

This might help.
[Album] Gospel Commonality- from Hagan's "Year of the Passover"