Professor of Early Christianity - ask me (almost) anything!

[rosejmj]

How different is the historical Jesus vs. the Jesus mentioned in the gospel. What are some speculated differences by historians?

 

[blackforest]

Thanks. I just skimmed for dates - my bad.

 

[TNMan]

This question is not for my sake, but I wanted to ask. How common was the belief that Jesus was truly present, bodily and blood, in the Eucharist?

 

[TomH1]

With which institution are you affiliated?

 

[billsherman]

I have heard different things about betrothal in that time.

One of the dirty little secrets about history is just how little we know for certain. One of the complicating factors is that issues like betrothal, did not have universal definitions. Different sects of Jews applied their own rules to it, just like with other theological issues. Be wary of anyone claiming to “know” exactly what was believed in the first century.

Did betrothal allow the spouses to consummate their relationship, or were they still supposed to wait?

It’s my understanding, that in theory they were supposed to wait. Just like in the modern world, that didn’t always happen. In fact, we have pretty solid evidence that premarital sex was at least somewhat common in the first century (as with all centuries, I imagine!).

 

[billsherman]

To be a historian of this period does one have to know the biblical languages - Ancient or koine Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic?

Realistically, yes. You won’t get a job otherwise. If you’re wealthy enough that you don’t need a job, you could conceivably write books on your own, but that isn’t realistic for most.

Do you know any of these?

Yes. I have varying levels of proficiency in each of them. Hebrew is my best, Aramaic is my worst.

You also need to be at least familiar with classical and medieval Latin, and German helps a lot as well. You would be shocked at how much the Germans dominate the field, and at how small a percentage of it gets translated into English.

And to be a serious Bible scholar does one have to know these languages?

Depending on what you want to be serious about, perhaps. You don’t need them to write syntheses of other scholars, but if you want to break new ground, then you certainly do.

If you want to go into theology you certainly don’t need all of them. I would think Greek would be sufficient.

Since all of these languages are significantly different than English, I generally recommend everyone obtain some basic knowledge of them. It’s a great way to expand your mind, regardless of whether you ever intend to become a scholar.

 

[dpeisenbeisz]

I have a question that is a little different, but along similar lines as some of the others:

What do you think about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin? I know that there is a misconception regarding the shroud that carbon dating and similar methods have shown it to be newer than it would have to be for it to have been contemporary to the crucifixion.

But as a historian, and I assume as one who takes an interest in archaeology of the period, have you any opinions about the shroud? One does not have to be a Catholic to think it is a remarkable artifact, but what do you think its relevance is to history and should it be studied further?

 

[billsherman]

It is my impression that Christian scholars and theologians have been bullied by the proclamations of the British Museum into believing that the Shroud of Turin is only about 700 years old.

The British Museum has never bullied me. In fact, in my entire career (which is closer to its end than its beginning) the only time I’ve ever spoken with anyone from the British Museum is when I was on a tour there.

Historians rarely use physical objects when we do our work. And when we do use physical objects, we generally require some historical record to back up the provenance. The Shroud of Turin, like all other relics associated with Jesus, lacks a provenance on which historians can rely.

Historians don’t, in general, have the expertise to determine the authenticity of such relics, so we leave it to others. We rely almost exclusively on written records.

As a scholar, where do you stand on this issue?

The idea that the world of scholarship is full of people or organizations who bully or blacklist people who disagree with them could not be further from the reality. Scholars never agree on anything! The whole profession would collapse if we didn’t invest most of our lives into constantly refining our knowledge of the past. Little by little, generation by generation, it gets better over time because one scholar makes another scholar’s work better.

That, and no one would listen to the British Museum if they tried to bully them anyway. What could they do to me? My employer wouldn’t care. My publisher would actually love it, because they could try to use the controversy to sell more books. I would just be confused.

 

[billsherman]

Are there any Jewish records left of the temple procedures such as at the time of the presentation of Jesus in the temple or the angel appearing to Zachariah, John the Baptist’s father? The bible says everyone knew about the angel appearing and Zachariah not being able to speak. What about records of the time of John’s preaching and baptizing in the Jordan and the beheading of John the Baptist. Any out of the bible records at all?

If you mean like archival records created by the Temple authorities? No. They have all been lost (assuming they were created in the first place).

If you mean writings by contemporary historians, then Josephus writes quite a bit about John the Baptist - in fact he wrote a lot more about John than Jesus.

 

[billsherman]

As a non-historian, I have the impression that the 250 years or so that elapsed between the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, around 62, and the beginning of the reign of Constantine seem to have been a period of almost constant persecution of Christians. Even when they weren’t being actively persecuted as government policy, they were often, or even usually, unprotected from harassment and attack by their pagan neighbors. Is that pretty much a true picture, or wasn’t it quite as bad as that in reality?

In general yes, Christians were persecuted during this period. That persecution did not, however, mean the same thing everywhere, and it was often non-violent. Periods of violent persecutions were sporadic, and I wish we knew more about what caused them - were they reactions to economic stress, waves of immigration, etc.?

How bad was it? Well that depends on when and where. Many Christians were killed. Others were driven out of their homes. Others probably felt no effects at all.

 

[dpeisenbeisz]

I missed your post. I second this question. I thought the matter regarding the erroneous carbon dating was settled. Apparently it is not. Here’s the thing for me, in order for the shroud to be a hoax only 700 years old, one would have had to predict in about 1300 that someday photography would be invented. Then you would have to also predict that someone would take a photograph of the shroud and develop the film to a negative before the image would ever be visible. Seems like a miracle that the image was ever even found.

 

[steve-b]

ThomasMT:

I suppose that my first question would be… are you Catholic?

I appreciate the question, but my faith is one of the few things I’m truly uncomfortable discussing online.

So the answer is either

NO ?,

OR

maybe you don’t want (a label) what ever that label is, following you around, in your work?

 

[billsherman]

A separate question. Is it possible to summarize in a few words what is known about Roman censuses in general, during the reign of Augustus, and about Quirinius’ census in particular?

They were taken regionally (that is, only of one or two provinces), for tax purposes and to determine possibly military strength that could be mustered from those regions. Unfortunately we don’t know what questions may have been asked, or how the count was actually done.

There even seems to be conflicting information about the dates of Quirinius’ tenure of office in Syria.

There is, but generally this is only because some want to see Luke’s account as correct. The best historical evidence (and only evidence actually) is clear that Quirinius was governor of Syria after Herod was dead, and that the census did not count people in Galilee. Luke was just incorrect.

 

[billsherman]

Which schools in the US or elsewhere have good Early Christian history programs in your opinion?

There are a lot. If you are looking for undergrad work, pretty much any large school with a graduate program in the field will have a solid program. For graduate work, I would stick to the biggest and best like Notre Dame, Harvard, Yale, Michigan, Wisconsin, Princeton. Any school with a solid ancient history program will be good.

Can there be tension between departments that teach Early Christian history and departments that teach Theology at the same institution?

Not at a good institution. At some institutions that are driven by religious ideology instead of scholarly integrity, it does happen. Every now and again some school (usually an unaffiliated fundamentalist Christian school) will purge its faculty of people who aren’t doctrinally pure. Avoid schools like this. They aren’t really schools, but doctrine factories.

Are there any good online programs that teach Early Christian history?

Not at the graduate level. There probably are some at the undergrad level, but I would still avoid those. I have taught online, and I can fairly say that students don’t get as much out of it. There is a lot of learning that occurs between students in a classroom, that online classes haven’t figured out how to replicate. But I’m also old. So keep that in mind.

 

[billsherman]

How different is the historical Jesus vs. the Jesus mentioned in the gospel.

We have filled libraries trying to answer that question!

In fact, we have spent most of the last 2,000 years trying to examine the Jesus of faith, haven’t we? It’s not like Catholics and Methodists agree on it.

Pick up one of the books on the historical Jesus by James Dunn, John Meier, or Raymond Brown to get a feel for what they are writing about. But there is no simple answer to your question!

 

[billsherman]

Thanks. I just skimmed for dates - my bad.

You can always count on BartholomewB to pick you up!

 

[billsherman]

How common was the belief that Jesus was truly present, bodily and blood, in the Eucharist?

Among early Christians? Pretty common, but not universal.

The debates over exactly what the Eucharist is, how (and if) it changes at consecration, and what it means have been raging in one form or another since the first century. At no time has there been a universally agreed upon understanding.

 

[billsherman]

With which institution are you affiliated?

I’m a professor in the history department at an American university. That’s about as far as I am willing to go, because I’d prefer to remain somewhat anonymous online.

 

[steve-b]

BartholomewB:

There even seems to be conflicting information about the dates of Quirinius’ tenure of office in Syria.

There is, but generally this is only because some want to see Luke’s account as correct. The best historical evidence (and only evidence actually) is clear that Quirinius was governor of Syria after Herod was dead, and that the census did not count people in Galilee. Luke was just incorrect.

Your thoughts on

Bible not infallible The Bible Is Not Infallible | Catholic Answers

AND

Is scripture inerrant Is Scripture Inerrant? | Catholic Answers

AND

An internal reference from that article on inerrancy

Providentissimus Deus On the Study of Holy Scripture
Pope Leo XIII - 1893 Providentissimus Deus - Papal Encyclicals

 

[billsherman]

What do you think about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin?

See my answer to undead_rat’s question as well.

I know that there is a misconception regarding the shroud that carbon dating and similar methods have shown it to be newer than it would have to be for it to have been contemporary to the crucifixion.

Unfortunately I have no competency to form an opinion on the Shroud, except to say that its historical provenance is lacking.

But as a historian, and I assume as one who takes an interest in archaeology of the period, have you any opinions about the shroud?

My interest in archaeology is only really basic, and deeply amateurish. As above, the Shroud, and all relics, are just too far outside my zone of competency to make a meaningful comment on.

One does not have to be a Catholic to think it is a remarkable artifact, but what do you think its relevance is to history and should it be studied further?

There is no doubt it is historically important. Regardless of whether it is real, or a medieval forgery, it is still an important artifact. I would love to see more study of it. I’m not sure there is anything I wouldn’t want studied more, though!