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

[hvizsgyak]

I wasn’t sure where this question should go either under “traditional Catholicism”, Catholic philosophy, or casual conversation but then I saw this thread (BillSherman) so I thought I’d throw the question your way and hope other may add to and answer since you only deal in the historical side. This might be more of a speculation but I’ve always wondered why it seems the Roman Catholic Church always seemed to align with a strong military leader/ruler. Before Constantine, Catholics had no one to protect them except God. But then we started aligning with Constantine, the Merovingian rulers Theodoric and (I think) Clovis, the Carolingian rulers Charles Martel, Charles the Bald, (I think) Charlemagne, the French kings and so forth. Was the Roman Catholic Churches’ reputation as being the Church Jesus started hurt by these alignments? Should we have distance ourselves from worldly power?

 

[billsherman]

Are the 15 letters of Ignatius supposedly written in 110 A.D. forgeries and written by someone else in 250 A.D.?

There are different opinions on these, but most scholars accept 6 or 7 of them. The primary evidence for their acceptance comes from the fact that they are mentioned by two other early writers.

They aren’t as well known as some of the other early letters because their written style is not as refined.

 

[billsherman]

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

Or maybe not. The population of the region was decimated by the Jewish War, with Jewish Christians being largely obliterated.

While these things could have happened, historians require evidence.

 

[billsherman]

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?

There is no doubt that James and Paul were not always the best of friends. Same with Peter and Paul. The collection is just one example. What happened to it? Many historians suspect (without direct evidence) that it was refused or ignored by James.

Why did they not always get along? It appears, from Acts and the various extant letters, that they had some serious theological differences. James wanted to focus on Jesus’ message, but Paul wanted to focus on Jesus as the message (closer to the theology found in John’s Gospel). Some scholars believe that the conflict was also rooted in controversy over the divinity of Jesus. There is only scant evidence that the earliest Christians viewed Jesus as divine. Paul did, but James was far less bullish on that question.

Paul won in the end anyway, largely because his vision of the Christian church defeated James’ vision. From the available evidence, most historians conclude that James envisioned a Church much closer to Judaism at the time than Paul desired. An additional point in Paul’s favor is that by the fourth century the Church began to minimize the importance of James due to the growing importance of the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. James as the brother of Jesus is problematic for this doctrine, so pushing him to the sidelines makes a certain amount of sense.

Both James Dunn and Bart Ehrman’s works I listed a few posts above tackle this intriguing problem head on.

 

[billsherman]

OMG, Bill!!!

You have to see this!

These things pop up all over the place too. There are LOTS of bizarre fringe groups with even more bizarre fringe beliefs about Jesus.

 

[AlNg]

You have to see this!

Swami Abhedananda says that he has proof from the Himis Monastery that Jesus went to India. I am guessing that was when He was about 14 or 15 years old. So perhaps a few years later, when He was 21, Jesus visited Japan as testified in the document you posted.

 

[billsherman]

Was the Roman Catholic Churches’ reputation as being the Church Jesus started hurt by these alignments? Should we have distance ourselves from worldly power?

This is largely outside my area. You might want to look into some histories that handle the Medieval Church, which is also a fascinating topic.

The best I can tell you is that among other things, the Church is also a political entity. At times it was even primarily a political entity. I suspect that accounts for things like what you are asking about.

 

[thephilosopher6]

From what I have gathered in the most of the scholarly literature, the general agreement I have found is that the divinity of Christ developed quite independently from Paul. I suggest the book, “Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity” by Larry W. Hurtado.

Now, I would agree with you that the Jerusalem Church initially didn’t accept Paul’s collection, but James in Acts 21 presents a “compromise”, asking Paul to be be purified with four Nazirite men. Perhaps James asked Paul to undergo this so that his collection would be accepted by the rest of Jerusalem? This is just my hypothesis. It just seems to me like some scholars have tried to blow the tension between James and Paul out of proportion, though I don’t doubt there was probably some tension, but it was hardly over belief, but more likely over purity

Indeed, James seems to be more concerned over purity laws than even his own relative (brother?) Jesus was, as can be indicated when he sent men to rebuke Peter for eating with Gentiles in Antioch. We must remember that James, like Paul, wasn’t present during Jesus’s ministry, and didn’t come to believe in him until after the Easter event.

I like James Dunn’s notion that Peter was the bridge man between James and Paul. As indicated by both the author of Acts, and Paul himself, Peter was open to the Gentile Christians, even having table-fellowship with them, to which, he probably saw himself as imitating Jesus. Of course, for some reason, Peter abruptly stopped this when James sent men to rebuke him, yet Paul implies that Peter still held to justification by faith and not by works of the law (Galatians 2:15-16). Again, it doesn’t seem like there is difference in belief between Paul and the other apostles. The contention between Peter and Paul is more about their particular missions rather than belief. Peter was closer to Paul over purity and faith, but was closer to James over Jewish identity and mission to the Jews.

 

[billsherman]

I don’t doubt there was probably some tension, but it was hardly over belief, but more likely over purity

I’m not sure there is a difference. Ask an Orthodox Jew if there is a difference.

This will get me in trouble, but I’ll go for it anyway. I follow John Meier on this point (over Dunn). The Gospel accounts of Jesus revoking purity laws are a post-Easter Christian invention, according to Meier. James sided with purity laws, Paul against them. Paul won.

To be extremely brief (Meier covers this in great detail, and includes a detailed historiography of the debate, in volume 4 of “A Marginal Jew”), the historical evidence that Jesus revoked purity laws is non-existent. In a nutshell, Meier argues that since purity laws were at the center of Jewish belief, the revocation of them would have been a far bigger deal than the very few lines in the Gospels about them. He argues that it wasn’t until Christians began preaching to non-Jews that the purity laws were relaxed, and that this relaxation was written backward into the Jesus tradition.

Through detailed analysis of the text, Meier concludes that “Jesus never made any programmatic pronouncements on issues like handwashing before meals or the distinction between clean and unclean foods.” Meier goes on to argue that “for Jesus ritual purity is not only not a burning issue, it is not an issue at all.” It was the Early (non-Jewish) Christians who made purity an issue. Paul was willing to compromise on the issue, and evidence suggests that James was not.

 

[thephilosopher6]

I respectfully disagree. I’m just more convinced from what I’ve read in the scholarly literature that Jesus emphasized inner purity and “relaxed” the outer laws of purity.

 

[billsherman]

I respectfully disagree. I’m just more convinced from what I’ve read in the scholarly literature that Jesus emphasized inner purity and “relaxed” the outer laws of purity.

And you’re not the only one! That is not only OK, it’s how scholarship works. If we all agree on everything, what fun would it be?

As a side note, I’ve been very pleased with how respectful of each other posters in this thread have been. I was concerned that it would get ugly when I started it, but I have been pleasantly surprised. With this, and more significantly the “Ask a Muslim thread,” perhaps a new civility is coming to the internet? We can only hope.

Disagree away, it will never offend me!

 

[goout]

goout:

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.

So, you believe that a book written for evangelical purposes is above historical scrutiny?

No, I didn’t say that.

 

[billsherman]

No, I didn’t say that.

Then I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you are saying. If you want me to address it, you’ll have to rephrase it. Again, I’m sorry for lack of understanding.

 

[Entwhistler]

I think it might have something to do with the tone of the original poster.