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

[billsherman]

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

I prefer 30, with the caveat that it is far from exact. Based on astronomy, the Jewish calendar, information about the reign of Pilate, and using the clues provided by the Gospels, 30 fits the best in my opinion.

(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?

Pilate is certainly a man any historian would like to know more about. I tend to doubt he was very concerned about which official had his back in his dealings with the Jewish people. According to Josephus, Pilate had a well earned reputation for cruelly and arbitrarily dealing with anyone who caused trouble.

 

[billsherman]

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?

Two reasons: First, evangelizing is fundamentally about convincing someone of your point of view. That means it is by definition, not objective. Second, even though the Gospels are the most significant sources on the life of Jesus, they can not be seen as simply objective views of history because of both their heavy editorial content and because all four Gospels narrate the same scenes differently, in different order, or place sometimes very different words in the mouths of characters.

This does not mean they are useless historically. The exact opposite is true: they are the best sources we have. They just have to be used with the same critical eye any source is given.

What was the role of the Pope at that time?

We know so little about the activities and power of the Pope for the first few centuries (including even the proper order of the Popes), that any answer I give would be hopelessly speculative.

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

Really, you just need to find someone to pay you a salary to do it. That is easier said than done, however.

Historians can only work with the source material we have, we can’t create it. The source material from the ancient world it extremely limited. In fact, Early Christianity and the life of Jesus are rather well attested, compared to other major happenings of the era. While what we know fills libraries, what we don’t know would fill many times that. There are some astounding things we know nothing at all about historically. Later traditions have arisen to fill the gaps, but there is rarely any evidence that tradition is based on anything approaching reality.

 

[billsherman]

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

What evidence do you have to support this assertion?

I refer you to “A Marginal Jew” vol 2, by John P. Meier, pp. 19-181. That is by far the best summary of the evidence. The evidence is derived primarily from the synoptic Gospels, with a small amount of Josephus thrown in. The relationship between Jesus and John is one of the areas in which scholarship has exploded in the previous couple of decades. Thanks to the efforts of historians like Meier, we know so much more about this relationship than we previously did.

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?

One historian ties it to the fact that John’s ministry require his physical presence, and Jesus’ didn’t. To follow John, you had to be baptized by John. To follow Jesus, you needed to be baptized by a follower of Jesus. As John Dominic Crossan famously put it “John had a monopoly, Jesus had a franchise.” Once John was killed, his movement was dead. Jesus’ has outlived him by close to 2,000 years.

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

It becomes a major religion in Rome, and eventually the official religion in Rome. It was born in the empire, grew up in the empire, was quickly headquartered in the capital city, heavily influenced Roman culture, and in turn was heavily influenced by Roman culture. That’s what I mean by “Roman.” These traits all helped it spread rapidly through the empire. Christianity has proven over 2,000 years that it is readily adaptable to any culture, and that tradition began in Rome.

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?

Sorry, I don’t understand your first question. And no on the second, hence the reason it is conjecture.

 

[billsherman]

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.

If I were a theologian, I would agree with you. As a historian, though, all source material must be subject to the same scrutiny.

Do you think a scholar should use the Quran to provide historical information about Jesus? He appears in it. It is a book written for the purposes of evangelization. While a theologian might use the Quran this way, no serious historian would. Because historically, it fails to pass methodological muster. The same can be said about the Book of Mormon. Historians have to always be careful that they are not writing religious propaganda disguised as history. Hence the need to be critical of all sources.

Edit: I want to be very clear on this point: The Quran fails to provide historical data about Jesus of Nazareth, not a variety of other topics. The Quran (although outside my particular field) is a book that can be used historically precisely in the same way, and subject to the same scrutiny as, the Gospels.

 

[billsherman]

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.

Fierce battles are waged over this in my field all the time. In the 20th century, the greatest find was the Gospel of Thomas. When that thing was pulled out of the sands of Egypt, scholars tripped over themselves to prove that it was the source material for the synoptic Gospels. But recently it has been demonstrably proven that instead, the Gospel of Thomas relied on the synoptic Gospels. There are a few hold-outs (notably Robert Funk, and John Dominic Crossan, and the others are all American for some reason), but just about everyone else has moved back to the previous view: that the synoptic Gospels provide the be information we have about Jesus’ life and ministry.

 

[billsherman]

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.

Of course. I appreciate the sentiment. We wouldn’t be historians without doing this. We would be wikipedia.

 

[billsherman]

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

Read my other posts, because this isn’t the case. Scholars rely on the Gospel accounts almost exclusively to create their portraits of Jesus. There are some, mostly a couple of generations ago, who tried to avoid this, but all they proved is that it can’t be done.

The Gospels are wonderful resources. They still need to be read critically, and subject to proper methodological scrutiny, though.

 

[billsherman]

I almost certainly have missed a few questions. That was unintentional. If you posted one, and I missed answering it, just post it again.

Sorry, the format on this forum is something I’m still getting used to. I fear I may have missed a few posts.

 

[fredystairs]

all four Gospels narrate the same scenes differently, in different order, or place sometimes very different words in the mouths of characters.

The Gospel writers were not trying to put things in chronological order. This is from The History of the Church by Eusebius.

This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

Book III, Chapter 39

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

Mark was trying to write down what he heard Peter saying and Peter was not trying to get things in order. In fact, that there were variations actually provides some support to the fact that they are actual accounts. If they were identical, it would raise the suspicion that the authors had colluded in their writing.

I remember reading Walter Lord’s book A Night to Remember which was the story of the sinking of the Titanic. In it he describes the memories that the survivors related. None was exactly the same, because they had different backgrounds and experiences and each would think that something different was important. One little boy had strong memories of the rockets going off. That’s because that’s what little boys are fascinated with. So like the variations in the narration of the sinking of the Titanic, the variations in the Gospels show, more than anything, that the Gospels are authentic.

There is an article concerning the authenticity of the Gospels on the Catholic Answers website:

The Authenticity of the Gospels | Catholic Answers Magazine

Blessings

 

[BartholomewB]

Bill, I have another strictly historical question. What exactly were the silver coins that the Temple authorities deemed acceptable for payment of the half-shekel yearly tax and other dues, requiring the presence of money-changers? Different NT scholars seem to give (or at least to imply) different answers. Furthermore, it is sometimes said that, in the Augustus/Tiberius period, the Roman Empire never allowed the minting of silver coins anywhere else than in Italy, as a means of keeping the imperial provincial governors and client kings on a tight rein. Is that true?

 

[BartholomewB]

I almost certainly have missed a few questions. That was unintentional. If you posted one, and I missed answering it, just post it again.

Bill, you missed my question about Pompey’s intervention to sort out the dispute between Aristobulus and Hyrcanus. My original question was, “Is it an exaggeration to say that the rivalry between the two brothers resulted in a state of virtual civil war, which gave Pompey an excuse to step in and seize Judea for Rome?” but I think it needs rephrasing. Even if Queen Salome had bequeathed her throne to an heir who had what it takes to make Judea a well governed country, was there a real chance that it might have survived as an independent kingdom? Or would Rome have stepped in anyway? I may be projecting a twentieth-century Cold War mindset back onto the Augustan age, but I suspect that Rome would never have tolerated a neutral buffer state anywhere on the coast of the Mare Nostrum, in particular at a point so close to Parthia.

 

[Hope2]

I am so glad to have your (name removed by moderator)ut here, after wrestling on for years about which doctrinal and /or Biblical claims are true, and therefore worthy of faith and practice.

I would love to take your course. After reading so much lately, I must say that so many of the disputes regarding what is actually true (as opposed to human opinion) amount to a discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, from our passing thoughts to our deeds to our beliefs in this life, the CC seems to be compelled to categorize into one of three categories. Forbidden, Obligatory, and Permissible. Then, it produces LITERALLY volumes of if-ands-or buts that can fog up one’s thinking. I’m is always wondering if I’ve committed some accidental sin, which can sap the joy of the good news right out.

I find that to be out of wack with Christ’s teaching. (“Your Father in heaven, Who sees in secret, will reward you openly.” That is one of dozens of Christ’s words on how to pray, think, and reason). God created us with reason so we could USE it. Jesus’ teaching was simple (see His words on the wise and the simple).

I think I’m going to start sticking to the words of Christ and spending less time wondering if my God-given conscience does not align with what the magisterium claims.

How and when did the simplicity of Christ’s teaching, and His church get so gummed up and complicated?

 

[Hope2]

Quite right. There are things no one can know.

 

[guanophore]

First, evangelizing is fundamentally about convincing someone of your point of view. That means it is by definition, not objective.

Ok, how about subjective views of the actual events? There is very little of history that is objective, in any case, as it is documented through the eyes of the recorder. Certainly there are some sources that try to be more objective. Subjectivity does not necessarily preclude objective truth being present.

even though the Gospels are the most significant sources on the life of Jesus, they can not be seen as simply objective views of history because of both their heavy editorial content and because all four Gospels narrate the same scenes differently, in different order, or place sometimes very different words in the mouths of characters.

Indeed.

This does not mean they are useless historically. The exact opposite is true: they are the best sources we have. They just have to be used with the same critical eye any source is given.

And what critical eye would that be?

Historians can only work with the source material we have, we can’t create it.

That seems fair.

There are some astounding things we know nothing at all about historically.

If you could time travel, where would you go, and when? If you choose Ephesus during the Pauline era, there is something you could pick up for me.

“So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. 10This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.” Acts 19.

I would really like to get these discussions on MP3.

The relationship between Jesus and John is one of the areas in which scholarship has exploded in the previous couple of decades.

I have read some works supporting Jesus being an Essene.

John Dominic Crossan famously put it “John had a monopoly, Jesus had a franchise.”

John seemed to plan it that way - his self identification as the bridegroom who would decrease as Jesus increased.

The stumpy part for me is John’s statement that Jesus should baptize him, instead of the other way around. Jesus comes to John for baptism just prior to setting out on his own ministry apart from John. If he were a follower of John, why would he not been one of the first baptized? And why would John consider Jesus’ baptism better?

 

[guanophore]

It becomes a major religion in Rome, and eventually the official religion in Rome. It was born in the empire, grew up in the empire, was quickly headquartered in the capital city, heavily influenced Roman culture, and in turn was heavily influenced by Roman culture. That’s what I mean by “Roman.” These traits all helped it spread rapidly through the empire. Christianity has proven over 2,000 years that it is readily adaptable to any culture, and that tradition began in Rome.

The Pax Romana, Roman Roads and other transport options, and commonality of language certainly faciliated spread. But I think the Roman influence, more common here in the West, is quite foreign to Eastern Christians. The traditions were so different a schism eventually developed when the East did not conform to the language and culture of “Rome”.

One of the shortcomings of the Eastern Church, though, is that lack of adaptability to culture that exists in the Latin tradition. It has been, for the two millenia, tied to certain governments, cultures, and languages, which has inhibited the spread of the faith.

Do you think a scholar should use the Quran to provide historical information about Jesus?

I would say that, as an historical document, it should be examined within it’s context. Certainly the fact that it contained a reference to Jesus would seem to indicate that he may be an important historical figure.

Because historically, it fails to pass methodological muster.

That is what I was asking about. What is themethodological muster?

Historians have to always be careful that they are not writing religious propaganda disguised as history. Hence the need to be critical of all sources.

Of course. But it sounds like you are ruling out certain texts based on that criticism.

subject to the same scrutiny

Which would be what, exactly?

 

[o_mlly]

We wouldn’t be historians without doing this.

Historians can’t be trusted; they read other people’s mail.

 

[o_mlly]

It [Christianity] becomes a major religion in Rome, and eventually the official religion in Rome. It was born in the empire, grew up in the empire, was quickly headquartered in the capital city, heavily influenced Roman culture, and in turn was heavily influenced by Roman culture.

Persecuted sporadically, the early Christians hid in their homes to worship, cloistered themselves in catacombs to celebrate Eucharist, and existed apart from the world of the Roman Empire. The early Church insured its very survival by closeting itself from a sometimes-hostile world. Living apart from the world was not strange for the early Christians. Christ’s first disciples were untutored men, his initial followers were the poor and the already marginalized in the Empire. But by the third century, Christianity began to spread. The loss of appeal of the Graeco-Roman paganism brought on by the advances of Greek rational monotheism made Christianity attractive to both the rich and poor, educated and illiterate. By the early fourth century the number of Christians had so increased that some form of recognition became inevitable (Hayes 45). Legally tolerated by Constantine’s Edict of Milan (313), Christianity quickly flourished in the following decades becoming the imperial religion in 381 under Emperor Theodosius. In just four centuries, Christianity had triumphed over its external enemies, and begun a new relationship with the world, a relationship, no longer apart from, but very much in the world (Bernier 82).

Called under the auspices of Constantine, the Council of Nicea sought to address the problem of heresy. Nicea, the first of several ecumenical councils, demonstrated the Church’s early ability to organize itself and coordinate its authority against its enemies. The councils also served to perfect and adapt the Church’s internal organization. Although generally conciliar in its governance, the Council of Chalcedon was further distinguished by the active leadership of Pope Leo I. His letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, which was accepted by the assembled prelates as the authoritative expression of orthodoxy, establishes the importance of the bishop of Rome. By 451, the councils firmly established the institutional model of church by adapting the political model used by Rome.

History of Western Civilization
by Carlton J.H. Hayes

Ministry in the Church: A Historical and Pastoral Approach
by Paul Bernier

 

[Raafat]

Why is their a disagreement between Protestants/Jews and Orthodox/Catholics on the subject of Deuterocanonical books?

Why did the early church father think of them?
Why did some accept it while the Jews didn’t.

How accurate are the Gospels in relation to Jesus’ ministry and life?

Is there any source that mention anything miraclous about Jesus?

 

[o_mlly]

There were a lot of layers added on over the centuries. For example, being a bishop or presbyter in the first few centuries wasn’t a “job” as it later would become.

Perfecting and adapting its organization to fight the heresies of its time directly affected ministry because the efforts at centralizing authority inevitably capsize local authority. As mentioned above, the local authority, although certainly providing some governance, was primarily ministering the sacraments to the community. The idea of “office” now developed within the Church organization (Cooke 49). The local churches had designated their ministers based upon the needs of the community and the gifts, or charisms, of individuals in the community. Therefore, the Holy Spirit, the source of all charisms, provided the community with ministers (the bishop and his deacons) to teach, heal and govern as needed. A new notion of “office,” while not totally displacing the Holy Spirit as the ultimate source of charism, instigated a process of ordination as an intermediate and necessary step to the empowerment of those in pastoral care. By virtue of ordination, the individual became endowed with the authority and responsibility of the pastoral office. Teachers, healers and rulers who were, heretofore, acknowledged by local acclamation, now required official proclamation and that proclamation was no longer local, but from afar.

A second ministerial effect of centralizing authority is the creation of hierarchy. Presbyters, who worked alongside the bishops in joint care of their communities, had become by the end of the fifth century, the bishop’s assistant (Cooke 49). The rapid spread of Christianity into the countryside created the need for community leaders outside the cities where the bishop’s had established their sees. Losing their prior lateral relationship, the presbyters now reported to the bishop, becoming the permanent, but subordinate pastors of these rural churches.

A third ministerial effect flows from the “hierarchy” effect: the objectification of the laity. If members are not “official” (recognized somewhere in the hierarchical structure) then they are without authority. Having no active ministerial role to play in the institution, the “non-ordained” or laity, become the passive objects of the ordained. The laity, perforce, assume a passive role as the people “to be saved” in the church (Cooke 49).

Cooke, Bernard, Th.D. Church, Sacraments, and Ministry. The Loyola Institute for Ministry
Extension Program. New Orleans: Loyola U, 2003.

 

[TOmNossor]

I almost certainly have missed a few questions. That was unintentional. If you posted one, and I missed answering it, just post it again.

Sorry, the format on this forum is something I’m still getting used to. I fear I may have missed a few posts.

I didn’t see a response to this question. I will check again after sleep.
Thanks, TOm

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