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

  • Thread starter Thread starter billsherman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ajg said:
What is the earliest record of Marian devotion? What about asking saints for intercession?
Click to expand...
The earliest records of a Marian devotion are only found in pieces. There were hymns and dedicated prayers to her by the third century. Whether these can be considered “devotions” is a little bit more delicate. Certainly by the Second Council of Nicea Marian devotions were becoming popular and widespread.

On the saints, this idea goes back to some strands of Judaism. Obviously, since there is no cohesive Jewish view on an after life, it was not universal. The earliest records are actually archeological here. Shrines to Christian martyrs develop in the first century.
 
Hi, nice to meet you!

well it seems we have some good people here with this research focus. Frankfurt for example has a growing faculty of christian archaeology. To your question: It depends on the faculty. In the theologic faculty, yes, they still read it, but I have to say I don´t now about the current standing. In the history department, we hadn´t read it, but not because of the age. It´s very critical to work with older literature on the crusades or the medieval power structures in central europe, because there we had several new views in the last decades. This is not that critical when it comes to early christianity.
 
goout said:
What I am specifically addressing is not the methodology of historians. I am looking at your casting of evangelization in a suspicious light from an historical point of view. Evangelization does not diminish history.

It is not the same thing as propaganda.

The fact that something is good news does not diminish it’s historical objectivity.
Click to expand...
So, you believe that a book written for evangelical purposes is above historical scrutiny? It sure sounds like that’s what you are arguing. That doesn’t work, though. Because if you follow that premise, the Book of Mormon and Koran must be given the same historical weight regarding Jesus as the Gospels. Or the Infancy Narrative of James, or the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, or the Gospel of Judas . . . etc. No historian would agree with that premise.

It’s fine if you’re not a historian, though. Then you let faith dictate which books contain Truth. That is a theological answer.
 
Thank you very much! I will leave my “home” faculty this summer and you´re right, it was a really wonderful experience. I think nothing changed me more than the years there with this little office full of books and paperwork and nice work mates 🙂
Authors to disagree are always enough on the desk. We have the joy to still hold a very wide field of co-operation with differend faculties and the (name removed by moderator)ut is sometimes surprising, sometimes strange, but always a benefit. Sadly, there is not much support for the history faculties in germany anymore (“wasted money as it is not something technical or economic”) but I´m glad for threads like this where the contact to “daily life” is not lost in a fluffy, pink academic bubble 😃
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
What is the current standing of these authors in German academic circles? Are their books still on students’ reading lists, or have they been superseded by more recent authors?
Click to expand...
I can’t speak to German academics, but in the US these are still well regarded books. They have been built upon, and I don’t assign them to undergrads. Graduate students have to read them and be familiar with their arguments, though.
 
Hunho said:
I ran across an article originally printed in the Huffington Post that reported that the “International Geology Review investigated an earthquake that was said to have occurred the same date as Jesus’ crucifixion. Biblical citations [Matthew 27:51] combined with geological research suggest the date may have been Friday April 3, 33 A.D. Taken alone, geological research has identified a window from 26 to 36 A.D.” The article in the Huffington Post online is dated 25 May 2012 and is titled “Jesus’ Crucifixion Date Possibly Friday April 3, 33 A.D., According To Earthquake Study.”
Click to expand...
Studies like these come out all the time. Others try to fix the date based on eclipses. Issac Newton actually was the first to try that method, and came pretty close! Not being a geologist, or an astronomer, I can’t meaningfully comment on any of these things. I’ve always been of the opinion that the post-Crucifixion stories of that nature were intended to be symbolic (i.e. dead people didn’t start walking around Jerusalem, and the veil was never torn), so I’ve never worried much about these sorts of studies.
 
Curious11 said:
Did Paul and Peter really go to Rome?
Click to expand...
Paul did, obviously. Peter is a more complex question. The bottom line is there is no historical evidence he did, but the tradition of him being there is pretty old. Most people believe he got there, but somehow left no record of it.
Curious11 said:
And did James really evangelize Spain?
Click to expand...
No, he was murdered in Jerusalem.
 
There’s no chance he might have returned to Jerusalem following a trip to Spain?
 
Given that there might have been skepticism about the reality of Jesus’ miracles, why did the author of John give so much detail about the raising of Lazarus? Why did he tell us his name, his two sisters’ name and the name of the town which wasn’t far from Jerusalem? Why would he make it so easy for people to go there and try to refute said miracle, unless of course it really did happen
 
Last edited:
What would be your top 5 or top 10 books to get a really thorough historical view of the Early Church?
 
Curious11 said:
There’s no chance he might have returned to Jerusalem following a trip to Spain?
Click to expand...
When it comes to history, it’s best not to worry about chances. There is either evidence, or there is not. In this case, there is no evidence James went to Spain.
 
Curious11 said:
Given that there might have been skepticism about the reality of Jesus’ miracles
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is evidence of this. Miracles were commonly accepted in the first century. There is no reason to think there was an heightened skepticism of Jesus’ miracles.
Curious11 said:
why did the author of John give so much detail about the raising of Lazarus? Why did he tell us his name, his two sisters’ name and the name of the town which wasn’t far from Jerusalem?
Click to expand...
John’s approach to all of the miracles is to one-up the other Gospels. Every miracle recounted in John is bigger, better, and more amazing than its closest counterpart in the other Gospels. His level of detail is provided to show the raising of Lazarus as more fantastic (wasn’t he dead for two days as well?) than the other raisings.
Curious11 said:
Why would he make it so easy for people to go there and try to refute said miracle, unless of course it really did happen
Click to expand...
Considering that John was almost certainly written well outside Palestine and 60-70 years after the events, there was little chance of people being able to forensically audit the miracles.
 
RKS89 said:
What would be your top 5 or top 10 books to get a really thorough historical view of the Early Church?
Click to expand...
Excellent question!

In no particular order, I recommend the following to the educated non-specialist (meaning they are scholarly works that are accessible):
  1. “A Marginal Jew” - John P. Meier, 5 volumes. The best work on the historical Jesus.
  2. “Christianity in the Making” - Joseph Dunn, 3 volumes. The most comprehensive work on the overall Early Church.
  3. “Paul” - E. P. Sanders. Exactly what you think it is.
  4. “Lost Scriptures” - Bart Ehrman. Covers the non-canonical gospels and related writings.
  5. “Lost Christianities” - Bart Ehrman. Covers Jewish Christianity.
I put two by Ehrman on there, largely because I think his work is pretty easy to read if you aren’t a specialist. Meier and Dunn, while fantastic, may require a little more effort to get through. They, Dunn more than Meier, assume you already know a lot about the subject.
 
I’m not a specialist by any stretch but Church history is a pretty serious hobby for me. I don’t mind heavy reading. Thanks so much for the recommendations, I’ve not read any of them!
 
People could have gone down there and talk to the locals. The raising of Lazarus would have been a story so amazing the grandkids of those who witnessed it would have heard about it independently from their parents who heard it form their own parents. It would have been Vox populi, like if you lived in a village you would probably know about the guy 80 years ago who could lift a cow with both arms and appeared in the local paper
 
Last edited:
I disagree. The Eastern, or Byzantine, Orthodox Christianity is very much Roman… Eastern or New Rome (Constantinople) that is. Their history is intimately tied to the Eastern Roman Empire which endured through the 15th century. They aren’t Latin Romans… but still very much Romans, which is what they called themselves up until the fall of Byzantium. They are Hellenic Romans ;).

If you look at the Oriental traditions (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian), you have a point. They’re far more Middle Eastern than Roman in this praxis. This is also true of the Assyrian Christian tradition which developed in the Persian Empire.
 
Hey @billsherman, what is your take on the possible conflict between James and Paul? As we know from Paul himself, he was doing a massive collection for the Jerusalem Church, but when Paul goes to Jerusalem for the final time in Acts 21, the author of Acts makes no mention of Paul’s collection which I’ve seen some scholars interpret as James having rejected his collection, and out of embarrassment, the author of Acts chooses not to mention any of this. They further support this by showing that James possibly turned a blind eye to Paul’s arrest since he made no attempt to defend him, suggesting he didn’t care what happened to Paul and/or wanted him out of the picture.

What are your thoughts on this?
 
Assyrian or East Syriac Christians brought Christianity to China in what we would call the Early Middle Ages. The influence of Assyrian Church, prior to the rise of Islam, stretched from the Near East and across all of Asia… territorially it was far larger than the Latin Church of the same era.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top