Professor of Early Christian History here, ask me anything!

[Mhkc]

As this is the Epiphany time, what is your take on the magi? Where they sorcers or occult? is the MT account legit? how does this pertain, if at all to God’s divinity? Is there implied occultic or sorcerery psychic astrological forces concering the birth of Christ?

 

[billsherman]

What do you think of the statement that not a single Christian perished in the siege and subsequent destruction of Jerusalem and Judea (67-70 AD)?

I think that is incredibly unlikely. The story of Christians fleeing before the siege dates no earlier than the third century I believe. And it is, to me, most likely a later invention to make Romans appear to not have been hostile to Christianity. In essence, a myth created to differentiate Christians from the rebellious Jews.

is there enough historical and archaeological evidence to back this assertion?

No, I don’t think so.

 

[anon91549587]

As a professor who spends a big portion of your life researching , how do you take care of your eyes and posture?

 

[billsherman]

Just curious if there is actual factual proof that St James made it all the way to Spain and to Santiago de Compostela. I’d like to believe he made it there but hope there is historical proof to bolster the tradition.

No, there isn’t. One of the remarkable things about early Christianity is how quickly the Apostles vanish from the historical record. Go back and look at Acts, except for Peter, they are insignificant figures. And he wrote that book within living memory of them! Where did they go? What happened to them? We only have pious myths (most of which can only be dated as early as the fourth or fifth centuries) that fill in the blanks.

Even Peter, the Apostle about which we know the most, has enormous blanks in his history. As a number of historians have pointed out, there is no actual historical evidence that he made it to Rome, or of how he died. Please note: that doesn’t mean he didn’t make it there, just that historians haven’t found evidence to prove it.

 

[billsherman]

Also, is there documentation that definitively explains why Ephesus was chosen for the Church council to declare The Blessed Virgin Mary as Mother of God in AD 431?

I don’t think so. You can try John McGuckin’s “St. Cyril of Alexandria” which is the definitive work on the council. His notes might be helpful on this point. I don’t have a copy of it, or else I would look it up for you, sorry

 

[Isearch]

I had heard the theory that the four canonical Gospels depict Christ to be more peaceful than He really was. What’s your position on this?

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Hi Bill,

Regarding the “spurious” letters of St Ignatius of Antioch, where can I find the reasons for each of them being labelled as such? Is there a good resource?

 

[Zach]

What was the relationship between Mark the Gospel writer and Peter? According to scholars how much of the Gospel was either dictated by Peter or at least influenced by Mark’s direct association with Peter?

 

[billsherman]

Do you think Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic preacher?

I think that pigeonholes him a bit, but I think he was an apocalyptic preacher who molded himself on Elijah.

Do you agree or disagree with Mark being first and written about ~70AD? If not, what Gospel is first and about what year?

Yes, I do agree with Markan priority, and I also agree with the Two Source Hypothesis which broadly states that Matthew and Luke used Mark and a second written source (“Q”) to write their own gospels.

Most scholars think Mark was probably in its complete form somewhere between 66 and 70 AD.

Do you accept that there are interpolations in the Gospels?

Yes. Like most scholars, I can demonstrate that the Gospels in their forms today took shape over some time with different redactors being involved. For example, none of the earliest copies of Mark are identical. Each one shows some change - all relatively minor - from the others.

Do you accept that Paul did not write some of the books attributed to him?

Again, like nearly all scholars, yes. Many of the Epistles were attributed to people who didn’t write them. This was a common practice in the Greco-Roman world, and they did not view it as problematic or dishonest like we do today.

 

[billsherman]

Have there been any studies on how many Christians were killed in early Rome?

Possibly some archaeologists have tries to extrapolate numbers from burial sites, but historically there are no reliable sources that give us solid enough numbers to draw any meaningful conclusions. It would basically just be guessing.

 

[billsherman]

I thought Raymond Brown was censured by the Vatican.

No, he wasn’t. He was in fact praised by virtually all Catholic scholars, and is held in the highest esteem today. He was also a legendarily kind man. Hunt down anyone who knew him, and they will agree! A generous and kind man.

His books all bear the imprimatur, and that should put any questions aside for a Catholic concerned about such things.

There are a lot of Catholics that find his work troubling, but they misunderstand both his work, and its purpose. Brown was a historian, doing the work of a historian. He used historical methods to try and answer significant questions about the life of Jesus and people around him. He was only concerned, in his writings, with what could be proven historically. That differs significantly from a theological approach.

I heard that a lot of his works contained serious errors.

Not theological errors, according the Vatican. And not historical errors according to a generation of scholars who have continued his work.

 

[billsherman]

What was the name of the first church building that was called a Catholic church ?

Sorry, but that one will probably remain unknowable. I wish I knew!

 

[billsherman]

As this is the Epiphany time, what is your take on the magi?

Timely question!

Matthew, I believe, used them as a way to show that the divinity of Jesus was recognized immediately by even the unlikeliest of places - “the East.” They were obviously inspired by Zoroastrian magi, but beyond that there is little more I can give you. Brown wrote a whole book on it though - “The Birth of the Messiah.” Check it out!

In terms of the Nativity in general, most historians regard them as later creations by early Christians to “fill in the blanks” of Jesus’ life. Remember, the gospels are really sparring with biographical details, and people then, just as now, wanted to know these things. So it makes sense that Christians would do that with his birth.

Historically speaking, there is no evidence that any of the events narrated by Matthew or Luke are based on the actual birth of Jesus, and it is certain that some of the details didn’t occur. The Gospels, remember, were never intended to be historical. They were intended to be theological.

 

[halogirl]

Cool! Thank you how come,do we think, that nobody started to record the life of Jesus and actually compile the Bible until many years after His life on Earth ?
And are there any other contemporary texts other than the a bible itself that support the claims of Jesus being a real man, at the time, that people followed as the Messiah

 

[billsherman]

As a professor who spends a big portion of your life researching , how do you take care of your eyes and posture?

I didn’t realize my wife was on this board

Seriously, I take care of both poorly. My eyesight has been stable over my adult life, and even as I spend a greater portion of my days looking at a computer screen it hasn’t gotten worse. My parents always had reasonably good vision, so I’m hopeful mine will hold out.

My posture is less solid. I hunch over or slouch when reading. And I generally type with my feet on the desk. Yes, I have back pain, but I’m too stubborn to change my ways. I’m a bad example. Don’t be like me.

 

[billsherman]

I had heard the theory that the four canonical Gospels depict Christ to be more peaceful than He really was. What’s your position on this?

I don’t think there is any evidence that he was violent, or that he advocated violence in any direct way. With that said, I don’t think there is any evidence that he was a pacifist either. As an apocalyptic preacher, things like politics and war didn’t interest him. He was interested in the coming Kingdom of God - and what exactly that means has been the subject of theological and historical inquiry pretty much since the first century!

 

[billsherman]

Regarding the “spurious” letters of St Ignatius of Antioch, where can I find the reasons for each of them being labelled as such? Is there a good resource?

Have you picked a side here? I jest, but seriously, not that long ago the debate over the authenticity of Ignatius’ letters was one of the most heated and dramatic in the field. People lost friends, and there is a story about a fistfight breaking out over them at a conference.

The scholarship over their authenticity is, thus, enormous. Bart Ehrman published a translation of them some years ago, and his commentary would probably be your best bet for a nice summary.

 

[Bithynian]

fistfight breaking out over them at a conference

I didn’t know historians could be so pugilistic!

Professor, I studied Classics and Patristics in my undergraduate, but my knowledge of early Christian history scholarship has always been quite weak. Are there any current debates or topics that you consider to be especially important from a research or scholarly perspective?

 

[billsherman]

What was the relationship between Mark the Gospel writer and Peter?

Traditionally Mark was supposedly a companion of Peter. There are some historical problems with this:

1. the Gospel is anonymous, we don’t actually know who wrote it.
2. we don’t actually know anything for certain about Mark.
3. the link of Mark to Peter is only found in later tradition, and can’t be dated earlier than the second century - several first century sources (including the Gospel of Mark itself!) make no mention of it.

As to the composition of the gospel itself, most scholars now believe that it was a compilation of a number of preexisting written sources. There are clear narrative breaks and changes in style, that make it highly unlikely to have been dictated by a single person.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

irenaeuslyons:

Regarding the “spurious” letters of St Ignatius of Antioch, where can I find the reasons for each of them being labelled as such? Is there a good resource?

Have you picked a side here? I jest, but seriously, not that long ago the debate over the authenticity of Ignatius’ letters was one of the most heated and dramatic in the field. People lost friends, and there is a story about a fistfight breaking out over them at a conference.

The scholarship over their authenticity is, thus, enormous. Bart Ehrman published a translation of them some years ago, and his commentary would probably be your best bet for a nice summary.

Thanks for the tip. Yes, I will take sides if the reasons aren’t compelling. No punching though