Professor of Early Christian History here, ask me anything!

[billsherman]

Here are some statements which we commonly see, both in books and on the internet (including here at CAF). Which of these statements are known to be true, which are known to be false, and which are uncertain, pending confirmation/rejection?

You’ve stumped me here. I’m going to have to look some of these up. Give me a day or so on it!

 

[billsherman]

My question is this: Are there any works on the history of Christianity after the Reformation that have the same attention to detail as Schaff’s and Hughes’s books?

Yes. The problem is that after the Reformation the source material involved explodes. The Church begins operating in the Americas, Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, so the story becomes far too large for individual volumes and even authors to cover. You might want to look into authors who cover specific geographical areas. Because of my own interests I’m most intrigued by the Church in early Latin America. Richard Greenleaf has a number of excellent books on that topic, I can recommend.

 

[billsherman]

Did Adam and Eve speak to each other ? If so, what was their language ?

That one is well beyond me! Sorry.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Hi billsherman, thanks for the offer! I’d love to hear everything you know about early Christian thoughts on two things:

• Their notions about the trinity (or the relationship between Jesus and the Father
• Their notions about man attaining godhood/divinization/apotheosis/etc.

Thanks!

 

[Tommy999]

Thanks for your previous answers, Professor.

Do you know how concerned, if at all, the early Christians were at not knowing for sure who wrote the Book of Hebrews?

 

[BartholomewB]

My apologies, Bill. I didn’t realize I was asking you to do so much work! This is the book where I found at least the main outline of that theory, but I read it several years ago and unfortunately I no longer have it on my shelf, so I can’t go back and check the details. Barnes also says, if I remember correctly, that there never was such a thing as the “Edict of Milan”.

https://www.amazon.com/Constantine-Dynasty-Religion-Power-Empire/dp/1405117273

 

[BartholomewB]

Because of my own interests I’m most intrigued by the Church in early Latin America.

That’s interesting! I’m quite a fan of Antonio Vieira, though his ornate Baroque literary style can take some disentangling.

 

[annem]

I am aghast at the recommended reading suggestions.

Erhman is a vicious, Christian hating agnostic, and his books are without merit. I would be delighted to defend this statement.

Crossan is even worse. Much worse. He was once a Catholic seminarian, before he become an atheist who hated Christianity with a white hot passion. To give you an idea of how hysterically Crossan detests Christianity, when the Mel Gibson movie about Jesus came out, Crossan frantically penned a book giving his alternative version of the last week of Jesus. Anything, anything to prevent another person from being drawn back into Christianity. And his scholarship! Horrible. Laughable at times. His defense of the Gospel of Thomas was idiotic - claiming some of it was earlier than the four gospels (now, with all the new information about Thomas, Crossan has ended up with egg on his face).

Raymond Brown was a Catholic scholar, but the poor man (a priest at that) simply caved in to the latest fad scholarship. For example. he argued that the birth narratives were all myth. And he followed slavishly along with such pet fads, a la Bultmann, that each gospel was aimed at a specific audience, which is now regarded as utterly wrong. I would never, never suggest a Catholic with little background in biblical scholarship to pick up Brown.

And why are all these people he suggests from about 20 years ago? Where are the current orthodox biblical scholars, such as
John Bergsma???

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Do you think the days of protecting the masses should be over and we should start having honest discussions or should Priests, Pastors and Theologians continue teaching the comfortable stories and hiding the knowledge?

The knowledge isn’t “hidden”. It is all widely available to anyone interested in finding out. You must bear in mind that historical knowledge and practice of faith are two very different things. It is not the priests’ job to act as church historian.

 

[Fauken]

What are your recommendations? I admit, early Christian history is not my forte, so I don’t know who is who when it comes to that sort of thing.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I quoted the post I was responding to…

 

[AlbMagno]

I don’t want to derail the topic, but I think we should distinguish between modernism and honest new theories about the “historical Jesus” and early Christianity.

I think (as a member of the Church) it’s great if we can know some details about the life of Jesus, with some minor modifications, like for example the possibility of him being like a contractor as opposed as a carpenter for the translation of the word. Or details like some Pauline letters being written by other christians.

But another totally different thing is these “negative hypothesis” that try to cut parts of the story, like speculating that the Magi don’t exist because it sounds like a pious addition. This cuts, I think, are more akin to modernism and they shouldn’t be stated as facts in catechesis, as they usually have little real evidence.

To me the truth (the Gospel) is in the middle, like the phrase says.

I won’t derail the Q&A any further.

 

[Pattylt]

I’m not here to defend historical scholarship. The scholars are out there. You need to understand that you, as a Catholic, rely on Tradition for many of your historical information…information that scholars have studied for years and often have severe problems with. I’m not Catholic and I am able to read and understand the information they do and do not have.

I found much of it eye opening but I’m not studying it as a Christian. I study it as a history lesson and the evidence they bring up to defend themselves. Your argument is with them. I merely accept them and until new information is presented, I remain there. I realize you probably have counter arguments…I’ve read many of them. They didn’t sway my opinion. Ask or argue these points with the OP. He’s the one that has studied these and earned a PhD, published and teaches this information.

 

[Pattylt]

No.

It will resolve nothing and it is off topic to this thread.

 

[billsherman]

Barnes also says, if I remember correctly, that there never was such a thing as the “Edict of Milan”.

Yeah, that’s an argument that’s made the rounds a few times over now. As I understand it, it basically is a technical argument about legalities and such. That the basic idea came to pass, is uncontested. Got to love it when historians spend their time acting like lawyers…

 

[billsherman]

I’m quite a fan of Antonio Vieira, though his ornate Baroque literary style can take some disentangling.

Don’t I know it. If you ever want some real fun, try your hand at some of the 19th century German historians and theologians. There are few I’ve just flat out never been able to read. The 19th century was a wasteland of obtuse language.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

I have a question about early churches. When were the first churches built, and how were they designed? Were the altars in the center, or were there altars like we would envision? What would it look like walking into an early church when they were first being built?

Thank you! God Bless

 

[billsherman]

I am aghast at the recommended reading suggestions.

You shouldn’t be. They are all legitimate historical scholars. Do I agree with all their ideas? Of course not. But what exactly is the point of scholarship if you agree with all of it? You can’t learn new things if you don’t challenge yourself.

Erhman is a vicious, Christian hating agnostic, and his books are without merit. I would be delighted to defend this statement.

Erhman is a perfectly fine gentleman. Indeed he isn’t Christian, but so what? Christian history isn’t the exclusive domain of Christians. And no, his books are with merit. You can disagree with his conclusions - and I disagree with some of them too - but that doesn’t make them without merit.

Crossan is even worse. Much worse . . . And his scholarship! Horrible. Laughable at times. His defense of the Gospel of Thomas was idiotic - claiming some of it was earlier than the four gospels (now, with all the new information about Thomas, Crossan has ended up with egg on his face).

While I agree with you that his conclusions about the Gospels of Thomas and Peter are incorrect, that doesn’t mean his scholarship is lousy.

Raymond Brown was a Catholic scholar, but the poor man (a priest at that) simply caved in to the latest fad scholarship.

That is just mean, and perhaps even slander. Brown was a pioneer who remains one of the greatest scholars of the Gospel of John that has ever appeared. Additionally, as I mentioned above, his books were all given the imprimatur, which should be good enough for any Catholic who is concerned about such things.

In the end, you have fallen into the trap of confusing theology with history. The people you lambast, along with myself, are historians. None of us are, or were, theologians. History is a discipline based on using a methodology to try and better explain events and people from the past. It isn’t based on faith, tradition, belief, or creed. Your main complaint is that these men aren’t using Catholic faith as evidence for their history (which is extra problematic, because two of them aren’t even Catholic).

 

[billsherman]

When were the first churches built, and how were they designed?

The first churches services were almost certainly held in synagogues. After that, they would have been held in private houses. The first actual dedicated physical buildings specifically for Christian services probably would have been built in the second, and unfortunately I don’t think we have conclusively found any examples of what they looked like.

Were the altars in the center, or were there altars like we would envision?

Almost certainly every church would have been somewhat unique until Christianity begins to seriously standardize itself after Nicaea. The early centuries of Christianity were far less structured than it is today, the religion was still defining itself as an institution.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Thank you for the answer!!