Professor of Early Christian History here, ask me anything!

[billsherman]

How did early Christians see the sacrament of marriage? Is it commonly accepted that they even saw it as a sacrament among academics?

They certainly didn’t view the same way we view it today. During the early Church, they even ran into issues over the preference for celibacy (that is, not enough children and dealing with a growing social stigma against celibate adults). This helped push Christians in the late early period and early medieval period to more formally define the sacrament and create ceremonies to celebrate it in various ways (what we would today see as secular and non-secular way, but that is a modern view).

How come the early church did not feel the need to be involved in witnessing marriages?

I believe it came from the idea that celibacy was superior. Why be involved in what was clearly viewed as an inferior practice?

 

[Pattylt]

I’m baffled by accusations of Christian hater of these authors. I have been on Dr Ehrman’s blog for years and while I certainly understand rigid believers not liking some of his scholarship, this respected professor was once a very devout Christian, did not leave his faith due to his research and is married to a Christian. He deals in what history can tell us about Christianity, not the theological views. His most recent book is on The Triumph of Christianity…doesn’t sound very hateful to me. The only area of Christianity that he has issues with is fundamentalism and he fully explains why.

Statements of someone hating Christianity usually comes off sounding like…I don’t agree with him, therefore he hates me and my faith. I’ve also never seen any other professor misquoted more than Dr. Ehrman. There may be some, I’ve just never seen any.

I don’t think he’s the end all, be all, of the field but he’s a very nice approachable man that wants scholastic knowledge to be accessible to the masses, not locked within college walls. And for that, he is hated.

 

[billsherman]

Any comments on this theory? I thought the Church of England itself claims to have begun in the 1500s for more practical and less glamorous reasons perhaps, being anti-Rome in any case.

I really can’t shed any light on the rise of the various Protestant churches. It’s just too far out of my field. There are some excellent books on the creation of the Church of England, though. You might be interested in Eamon Duffy’s “Stripping of the Altars.” It’s been a long time since I’ve read it, but I remember enjoying it and learning much.

 

[billsherman]

Do you get any new ideas, motivations on further topics to study, or further understanding of your field by posting here on CAF?

No. CAF is just for fun. My research and teaching is inspired primarily by my colleagues and my students.

One of the fun things about posting here, is that I get really different questions than what I get from students. They aren’t better or worse, just very different, and I like the variety. Mixing things up every now and again is good for the soul.

 

[billsherman]

There seems to be a lot of blind acceptance of the answers given in this thread.

I don’t agree with this. Already, and the thread is only a couple of days old, at least two people have challenged my answers. Which is perfectly fine, I would be remiss if they accepted everything I wrote at face values, but is far from “blind acceptance.”

I will write more on this in a few posts, but you have also fallen into the trap of confusing history and theology. They are different. Far different.

 

[billsherman]

The claim that Fr. Raymond Brown’s books are “highly respected” may have been accurate 20 or 30 years ago, but the demographic of Catholic academics and clergy who hold this view are aging.

This is just flat out wrong.

There is a much better group of orthodox Catholic Biblical scholars working today.

Fr. Brown, for the umpteenth time, was orthodox. As is his Fr. John Meier. All of their books bear the imprimatur, which should be evidence enough of their orthodoxy for any Catholic. If it isn’t, they have also been praised by Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[billsherman]

There is an inscription with these bones, as stated above.

Very cool. I appreciate the information.

 

[Fauken]

Clearly, the non-Fiction New Testament is the Prime “book” for Earlist Church History…

But does not cover all of what is considered early Church history. So your response doesn’t help nor answer my question.

 

[fhansen]

Thank you. It just seems a bit hard to not trace the CoE through the RCC, rather than around it.

 

[billsherman]

What size were other notable religions at this time, and do we know much about how they faded away in the following centuries?

I can’t think of any attempts to put numbers on them off the top of my head. I’m also not sure we have any real hard numbers from the period. Most of the population numbers come from archaeological surveys, as things like censuses have very rarely survived over time. I’ll update this post if I can think of some.

Were there specific persecutions against them as there were against Christians?

Not in the same way. Christianity was a “new” religion that didn’t enjoy the protections afforded to “old” religions like Judaism. In fact this was initially a motive for many Christians to continue worshiping in synagogues, it made it easier to claim the protection of Judaism from persecution.

 

[billsherman]

Is there historical evidence that Jesus rose fr the dead?

No. Miracles exist outside the know constraints of the physical universe, and thus can neither be proven or disproven by historical methods. The best we can say, is that people believed the resurrection happened.

Miracles are one of the weak spots in the historical method. You can look at John Meier’s work “A Marginal Jew, vol II” for examples. He methodically goes through each miracle story in the gospels and attempts to trace the historical roots. Basically trying to answer: can this story be traced back to an event in Jesus’ ministry? For many, the answer is “not enough information to say in either direction.”

 

[GKMotley]

I agree. But there are some folk, not the CoE officially, who try to do so. As in the Glastonbury/Joseph of Arimathea and related pious legends I mentioned.

 

[billsherman]

This was an immediate red flag which was confirmed with the Christian hating atheist book recommendations

Sorry I don’t enjoy discussing my faith in public.

I can also assure you that I have not recommended any books by people who hate Christianity. They may have different interpretations of it than you, but they don’t hate it.

My field isn’t very large. I’ve met nearly all of the major people in it, and Bart Erhman is one. He is a kind gentleman, who certainly doesn’t hate Christianity or Christians. He has different views of its development, and some with which I don’t agree myself, but that hardly means he hates it.

As with others, you are confusing theology and history. They are different fields, and one can never disprove the other. That’s just the way it is. I base my work on written sources, not tradition, creed, or faith. I would, on the other hand, never expect a theologian to base his or her work on exclusively written sources that I use. That would be silly.

The world is a beautiful place in which exposure to different ideas makes us more appreciative of others, and ultimately strengthens our own lives.

 

[EndTimes]

But does not cover all of what is considered early Church history. So your response doesn’t help nor answer my question.

It’s not intended to cover all history.

It’s the Foundational Book of Earliest Church History…

I can easily supply a Bunch of very Early Source Docs -
which sit atop the GOSPEL // NEW TESTAMENT
along with some which sit alongside Post NT History…
Such as those of Church Fathers and Doctors and theologians
as well as Church Magisterial Teachings
as well as Ancient Secular Historical Docs…

As well as those which fit into the category of False Historical Revisionism

 

[Pattylt]

Professor, do you think the question of interpolations in Josephus will ever be settled? (Barring a new discovery). Do you think the main disputed passage is all interpolation, partial or none? Also, do you accept that every copy now in existence all trace back to (I think) Eusebius…even the odd one that was thought to be independent but latter challenged?
Sorry, I can’t remember what these various copies are called!

 

[billsherman]

What is the evidence for Q.

Q is defined as the material the Matthew and Luke share in common that isn’t found in Mark.

In that sense, it is a very real thing.

It’s the next level where the speculation begins. Historians generally, and I am one of them, believe that Q was a written document. There are many reasons for this belief, but yet, no evidence outside Matthew and Luke exists to support the idea.

Also what do you think of this:

I’ll try to read through it in the next couple of days and give you some thoughts.

 

[EndTimes]

It’s the next level where the speculation begins. Historians generally, and I am one of them, believe that Q was a written document. There are many reasons for this belief, but yet, no evidence outside Matthew and Luke exists to support the idea.

Varying Attempts to debunk Sacred Scriptures are Legion.

 

[billsherman]

Would you read a book on Islamic history written by an Islamophobe?

John Meier, a Catholic priest, recipient of more awards from Pontifical Institutes than I can name, praised by Pope Benedict XVI, and who’s books all carry the imprimatur, came up with a thought experiment. He imagines something he calls the “unpapal conclave.” For this experiment a Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew, and atheist - all of whom are honest historians - are locked in the Harvard Divinity School Library. They are not allowed out until they all agree on a view of the historical Jesus.

Meier, with this experiment, is trying to get away from letting theology inform history. Rather, he wants only the historical method to inform his history.

Meier, one of the finest scholars working today, most certainly doesn’t hate Christianity. He loves it dearly. Loves it more than most, in fact. He has dedicated his whole life to it. Yet some of his historical work would no doubt have people in this thread calling him a Christian hater, or an atheist, or any one of other unfair names. I recommend his books without hesitation. I wish that I were half as good a historian as he is, and a tenth as good a Christian.

 

[EndTimes]

Meier, with this experiment, is trying to get away from letting theology inform history. Rather, he wants only the historical method to inform his history.

This method has been stomped upon by popes (plural)

Some historians hold that Q’s speculative hypothetical nature can never be dismissed…

 

[Fauken]

It’s not intended to cover all history.

It’s the Foundational Book of Earliest Church History…

And my question was about early Church history in general. You cited a book which does not cover Church history in general, so you did not answer my question.

I can easily supply a Bunch of very Early Source Docs -
which sit atop the GOSPEL // NEW TESTAMENT
along with some which sit alongside Post NT History…
Such as those of Church Fathers and Doctors and theologians
as well as Church Magisterial Teachings
as well as Ancient Secular Historical Docs…

I already have a couple books with those texts and those still wouldn’t answer my question. Magisterial texts and other primary sources are not history books. History books cite primary sources. Primary sources do not elaborate on the context of people and events in history; I can read a bishop’s letter to Nestorius refuting his heresy, but that bishop isn’t going to talk about Nestorius’ past, or all the events leading up to that point in his letter refuting Nestorius. And it’s that elaboration of context I want. I know the what already. I want to know the who, how, and why.