Professor of Early Christian History here, ask me anything!

  • Thread starter Thread starter billsherman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
phoage said:
I have been reading Church history for some time and have come across several references to a Counsel of Jamnia where Jewish leaders supposedly decided on a formal canon ofJewish scripture after the destruction of the Temple.
Click to expand...
I don’t think any scholars still hold this view. It was a nice idea, but there is no evidence such a thing ever happened.
 
annem said:
How many people do you think the ear stud wearing Erhman has caused to lose their faith? One million, or a mere 100,000?
Click to expand...
If someone’s faith can be lost by reading a book by a historian, did they ever have it in the first place?
 
gazelam said:
Does historical evidence point to an Early Christian belief in Real Presence/transubstantiation?
Click to expand...
Things get really interesting here. The simple answer is: yes. The more complex answer is: it wasn’t a universal Christian belief. In fact, it has been debated all throughout Christian history. There was no point at which all Christians were united in a single understanding of the nature of the Eucharist.

And yes, there is no doubt that Gnostic beliefs played a role in early Christian beliefs. Much of modern research is on trying to untangle precisely what role they played.
 
You can’t give a person a position and demand them to prove it wrong " or else they are wrong".
Click to expand...
billsherman
You are aware that Luke himself is explicit that his gospel was based on other existing sources, right?
Click to expand...
Yes… it comes across somewhat harsh, and yet it must be understood in Context.

billsherman’s statement is stating the obvious and does not lessen that Gospel account

All Written/Scriptural accounts of Events are first: based upon EyeWitness Oral Accounts.

That does not lessen Luke’s Gospel Account

The NT is the Primary (certainly not all) Historical Account of Early Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Faith can be lost by assenting to any belief contrary to it. Sure some people have a much more fragile faith than others, but if we start questioning whether they ever had it in the first place we get into an appeal to purity fallacy. You might question the worth of a fragile faith. I understand your reluctance to discuss your own faith, but I’m curious is there a Catholic or Orthodox historian that you particularly respect and recommend?
 
Neithan said:
I’m curious is there a Catholic or Orthodox historian that you particularly respect and recommend?
Click to expand...
I have recommended two in this thread already. Fr. Raymond Brown and Mgr. John Meier.
 
I have long enjoyed reading about both biblical scholarship and early Christian history. I find that some of the work referred to as biblical studies, or religious studies, overlaps with work called history. I would have thought of Fr. Brown as a biblical scholar, but you have also called him a historian (not that he can’t be both). When I first got interested in the topic, I listened to all of Mark Goodacre’s podcasts (lots of content, FREE on line, easy to understand), but Mark is a theologian who is a Professor of Religious Studies (I think), and I think of him as a bible guy, rather than a historian.

Can you illuminate for us the differences and boundaries between the related fields of biblical scholarship, early Christian history and whatever theologians call inquiry into the same material?
 
billsherman said:
There is no doubt whatsoever that my work has pushed me to care deeply about migrants and racial minorities in the US. Is that the essence of Christianity? I think so, but I don’t want to get preachy here. Just like with history, there are other perspectives.
Click to expand...
🧐 …Thanks for the interesting response. I very much agree that looking after migrants and groups that have been persecuted is a significant part of Christianity.

However to respond to what you’ve said and ask one more question…

When I read the new testament, I really see Jesus discussing an economic system too. For example the parable of the talents, the fate of the fig tree with no fruit and just leaves, Matthew 26…the poor you will always have, and the parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16). This is certainly not a socialist economic system.
  1. Did the early Christians see Jesus as proposing any type of economic system?
  2. If so, how did they see they view the economic system Jesus was proposing?
 
billsherman said:
Please note: I am NOT comparing early Christians with suicide cultists, I’m comparing the argument that since the Apostles died for their faith that can be used as evidence for the Resurrection.
Click to expand...
They died for their faith because they were witnesses to the Resurrection. That is evidence.

People have died for beliefs which are true.
People have died for beliefs which they think are true but are not.
However, nobody dies for something they know to be false. The Apostles are not going to suffer and die if they did not know the Resurrection was true.
 
Thank you for those resource suggestions, I have not read them yet.
 
annem said:
Alas, Hatch appears not to have done any research whatsoever.
Click to expand...
gazelam said:
Does historical evidence point to an Early Christian belief in Real Presence/transubstantiation?

Along those lines, what do you make of Edwin Hatch’s comment in this matter?

“ it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ. ” ( Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, p. 308. )
Click to expand...
Of course Hatch had done his research. The misunderstanding here arises from his use of the word “realize,” or more fully, later in the same paragraph, “vividly realize.”

If you read what Hatch wrote from the foot of p. 307 to the end of the chapter (link below), you will see that he is not here discussing the origin of belief in the Real Presence. As he points out in a footnote, that belief is already attested in Chapter 66 of Justin’s First Apology. Hatch’s subject here is not so much doctrine as liturgy. He says the Gnostic societies incorporated the Eucharist into their “mystic and magic customs,” and these customs, in turn, contributed to the elaborate ceremonial surrounding the Eucharist that subsequently developed in the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

 
Last edited:
billsherman said:
Feel free to ask anything about that period, and I’ll do my best to give you an honest historical answer.
Click to expand...
In Corinthians 15:29 Paul makes a references to the practice of vicarious baptism of the deceased.

Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?

Jesuit Scott Lewis wrote the following on the topic:

Verse 29 is one of the most vigorously disputed passages in the NT. On the surface, it seems rather simple . Using the statement of the opposition as a springboard—there is no resurrection—Paul points to the inconsistency and futility of a practice of the Corinthians, i.e., being baptized on behalf of the dead. Despite the numerous attempts to explain this passage away, or get out of the difficulties and discomfort it causes, it seems better to accept the obvious surface meaning of the passage: Some Corinthians practiced a form of vicarious baptism . What is meant exactly by that, and when and under what circumstances it was practiced is impossible to answer . . . . (Scott M. Lewis, So That God May Be All in All: The Apocalyptic Message of 1 Corinthians 15,12-34 [Rome: Editrice Pontificia Universitá Gregoriana, 1998], 70-71, emphasis added)

What are you thoughts regarding this brief mention by Paul of vicarious baptism?
 
gazelam said:
What are you thoughts regarding this brief mention by Paul of vicarious baptism?
Click to expand...
It is definitely an intriguing passage. It makes it apparent that the Jewish diversity of beliefs on life after death remained in the earliest forms of Christianity, even though the gospels depict Jesus as being clearly in favor of resurrection of the dead.

Also, it does appear as if there was some form of baptism for the dead going on there, but unfortunately it doesn’t give enough detail to really say what was happening. It’s probably of more interest to theologians than historians on that point, though.
 
Pelikan was Lutheran and Chadwick was Anglican. Both important historians, of course.
 
Pelikan was Orthodox, at the end. To add the Anglican was to broaden the field from the original question.
 
billsherman said:
And these earliest attempts were all localized - that is, different churches would accept different documents as part of their canon.
Click to expand...
That has been my impression of the canon as well. Local canonicty – if that is even a word, was a thing in the first few centuries. Clement’s epistle was widely used by some and he wasn’t even a apostle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top