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

[Pitcairn17]

Pitcairn17:

I’ve often read that the Church didn’t get involved in / codify/ “sacramentalize “ marriage until maybe 800 - 1000 — that until then marriage was treated as a civil matter. Is this true based on your studies? How was marriage treated in the early church?

His response to your post is # 76

Historically speaking,

For space, consider only 3 out of MANY available historical marriage examples available. Going back to the beginning centuries… BTW, the Catholic Church has been here for 2000 yrs. That makes it a huge depository of historical evidence.

That said

The Church has always been involved with marriage, since Jesus established the Church and the sacraments.

Note: these examples, use language not used by civil authority but by the Church… Namely, marriage as a sacrament, goes back to Jesus.

Also

Links provided for greater context purposes.

As Paul said, ~55 a.d.​

“To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord , that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife” 1 Cor. 7:10-11.

Shepherd of Hermas ~80 a.d.​

Bk 2, Commandment 4, ch 1
…“What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery”…

Justin Martyr ~150 a.d.​

First apology, Ch 15

Concerning [chastity] He (Jesus) uttered such sentiments as these: Whosoever looks upon a [woman] to [lust] after her, has committed [adultery] with her already in his heart before God. And, If your right eye offend you, cut it out; for it is better for you to enter into the [kingdom of heaven] with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into [everlasting fire]. And, Whosoever shall marry her that is [divorced] from another husband, commits [adultery]…

Those citations speak to the Christian attitude toward infidelity and remarriage and lust. None of them document clergy involvement in performing marriage, which was my question. That marriage may have been retrospectively sacramentalized is a separate issue.

 

[7_Sorrows]

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.

I am uncomfortable reading the thread if the person starting the thread is uncomfortable sharing his
faith.

How do I know you really are a professor of early
Christianity?

Maybe it is just me. Anyhow, I am out of here.

 

[TomH1]

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.

If you claim to be what you are I believe we have the right to verify that. I’m sure if you are a university professor you will have a public online profile on that university’s website.

 

[PickyPicky]

If you claim to be what you are I believe we have the right to verify that. I’m sure if you are a university professor you will have a public online profile on that university’s website

Are we to demand this of everyone who posts? Should those who tell us they are priests or deacons be made to show proof?

There seems an unnecessary element of challenge in some of the posts here which gives me the impression that discussing early Christianity using the historical method is unwelcome to some. So be it. Why not, then, leave the discussion to those who are indeed interested in what the OP has to say?

 

[GKMotley]

I think that some folks who want to weaponize history, in some sectarian context, are suspicious of other folk they assume might do the same, perhaps under false colors. And confuse the unwary.

Me, I read history from all possible angles and viewpoints.

 

[goout]

It is a good point. OP you are claiming credentials and seeking to provide credentialed opinions (which is great!). That’s a little different than exchanging opinions back and forth while referring to outside sources and authorities.

 

[goout]

Doesn’t really matter much to me. I enjoy the discussion.
I was just merely thinking that it is a good point, that the OP based the thread on credentialed authority, even in the title. The title begs the question to know those credentials in more specificity.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Hi Bill !

Are you familiar with this book and it’s authors ?

“Eyewitness to Jesus : Amazing New Manuscript Evidence about the Origins of the Gospels by Matthew.” by D’Ancona and Carsten Peter Thiede

I read it years ago and apparently Thiede claims that five pieces of parchment in a library in England, are probably pieces of the actual Gospel written by St Matthew.

Your opinion ?

Thanks in advance !

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Pitcairn17:

I’ve often read that the Church didn’t get involved in / codify/ “sacramentalize “ marriage until maybe 800 - 1000 — that until then marriage was treated as a civil matter. Is this true based on your studies? How was marriage treated in the early church?

His response to your post is # 76

Historically speaking,

For space, consider only 3 out of MANY available historical marriage examples available. Going back to the beginning centuries… BTW, the Catholic Church has been here for 2000 yrs. That makes it a huge depository of historical evidence.

That said

The Church has always been involved with marriage, since Jesus established the Church and the sacraments.

Note: these examples, use language not used by civil authority but by the Church… Namely, marriage as a sacrament, goes back to Jesus.

Also

Links provided for greater context purposes.

As Paul said, ~55 a.d.​

“To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord , that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife” 1 Cor. 7:10-11.

Shepherd of Hermas ~80 a.d.​

Bk 2, Commandment 4, ch 1
…“What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery”…

Justin Martyr ~150 a.d.​

First apology, Ch 15

Concerning [chastity] He (Jesus) uttered such sentiments as these: Whosoever looks upon a [woman] to [lust] after her, has committed [adultery] with her already in his heart before God. And, If your right eye offend you, cut it out; for it is better for you to enter into the [kingdom of heaven] \

[snip for space]

Those citations speak to the Christian attitude toward infidelity and remarriage and lust. None of them document clergy involvement in performing marriage, which was my question. That marriage may have been retrospectively sacramentalized is a separate issue.

Re: Those quotes, they came from people already in the Church.

Example:

While Paul, an apostle, isn’t shown to have presided over a wedding, he ordained those who would do that. And we can see Paul’s teaching on marriage

Re: the Shepherd of Hermas ? He was a pastor.

Re: Church (local) councils
Example: 309 a.d. , before the first ecumenical council of Nicaea
Elvira ( in Spain) Note: canons 16 & 17 Re: certain specifics before & after performing marriage.

 

[GKMotley]

Biases in all directions. Hence reading must be in all directions.

 

[BartholomewB]

Honestly, I don’t think that’s a respectable position in this context. In fact, I consider that straight-up academically irresponsible. You are specifically presenting yourself to an online forum of Catholics as a supposed ‘expert’ on the history of their own Church, and yet you’re refusing to disclose what your biases on the topic may be (by refusing to disclose whether you are Catholic yourself, or whether you are, for all we know, vehemently opposed to Catholicism, and interested in trying to subtly plant seeds that will steer us away from it, too).

I am uncomfortable reading the thread if the person starting the thread is uncomfortable sharing his faith.

How do I know you really are a professor of early Christianity?

If you claim to be what you are I believe we have the right to verify that. I’m sure if you are a university professor you will have a public online profile on that university’s website.

I find this all very strange. @billsherman says he’s a history professor. On all three of his threads so far, I have asked several questions and received replies. If I had been told he teaches in a college in Illinois or Oregon or Canada, that would have made no difference to the questions I asked, nor to my degree of satisfaction with the answers he gave me. Similarly, if he had said he was a Quaker or a Reformed Baptist or a Unitarian, I would still have asked the same questions. They were questions about Church history. If you suspect he’s a fraud, like the Leonardo DiCaprio character in Catch Me If You Can, you can have some fun asking him difficult questions to try and trip him up! I can’t see anything to be afraid of.

 

[TNMan]

What did early church services look like? Was the Eucharist the focus, was preaching/teaching the focus? We know the Eucharist has always been important, but there are times where it is said St. Paul went on and on.

 

[MNathaniel]

There’s no such thing as a ‘neutral’ view of history (the best one can do is attempt to make clear what the multiple perspectives on it are, and what the evidence is for each perspective), and from a read of his threads, while @billsherman does offer plenty of content in his answers that seems fine (sort of generic, ‘there’s not really a clear consensus on this’ type answers), he also frequently makes certain absolutist claims as if there’s one single, ‘neutral’ view, in short soundbite fashion, without offering any academic citation or resource for it.

I’m not disputing that he is a history professor: I take him at his word. At the same time, I work at a university, in the social sciences, and I know that university professors aren’t immune to bad practice (and that the longer a person is in a profession, the more their humility can be clouded over by arrogance that they really ‘know’ the answers; they get over-confident in their own opinions (since they consider them so well-formed by evidence over time) that they start presenting their opinions as facts without needing to cite evidence anymore, and eventually their biases creep back into the language they use and the way they present things, whether in large or small ways). And I’ve seen how dramatically the private beliefs of an individual professor can skew the way they answer questions (and how the subtlest language choices they make can influence what the audience assumes and takes away from the lesson).

And it’s always a warning sign when they combine the following three features:

1. Refusing to disclose their own POV, even when asked, in the hopes that the audience will assume they’re just telling you the ‘neutral facts’;
2. Giving short and absolute black/white answers to questions, without acknowledging or addressing whether there is a difference of opinion among professionals in the field (e.g. he answers the question: “So what historical evidence is there for the claim the Gospels were originally anonymous?” With the complete nonsense ‘answer’: “The fact that all the manuscripts are anonymous.” PS for an example of a Catholic response to this “anonymous manuscripts” concept, see for example: Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Really Write the Gospels? | Catholic Answers);

 

[MNathaniel]

1. Addressing topics that do actually have implications for (what the OP calls) “faith communities”, while subtly using language (e.g. “religious ideology”, “doctrine factory”) that suggests a certain bias against religiously practicing historians who have presumably come to different conclusions than the OP has. Sure, there’s room for nuance here (it’s absolutely true that a person’s starting beliefs, including religious doctrine, can wrongfully skew their interpretation of data, if they allow it to)… but it’s equally true that an atheist can fall into the same trap, and skew their interpretation of data based on factors such as (e.g.) a categorical disbelief in the metaphysical possibility of miracles. Either way, it is helpful for the reader to know exactly where the author is coming from, so we can ‘correct’ for the potential biases of the author when we examine their conclusions and how they explain they got there. It’s important to know if a researcher comes from one of these so-called “doctrine factories”… of either the denominational or anti-theistic type.

Again, I’m not going to go through point by point to try to assess where the OP seems to be speaking ‘reasonably’ vs ‘not reasonably’ to me. But I stand by my point that it is inherently suspicious for any individual to approach a religious group and claim to be a ‘neutral’ authority qualified to explain their own history to them, then give ‘answers’ without accompanying citations/evidence, and refuse point-blank to disclose even the general category of what his own beliefs or biases may be. At my university (in the social sciences, anyway) that is basically a forbidden practice. You must disclose your potential biases, so your readers can factor your potential human limitations into their understanding of the work you produce.

(To be clear, I am not for a moment arguing that the OP should disclose his name or specific institution. That is absolutely a matter he should keep private and not disclose online. But his beliefs (in general) should not be off-limits to ask about, since he has approached a specifically religious online forum to influence the beliefs that members of this religion have, about their own history. The beliefs of the OP are not a matter of ‘privacy’ in this context; his identity is still anonymous, and disclosing his beliefs will simply help us contextualize what he shares, without having any impact whatsoever on his real life person.)

 

[BartholomewB]

At my university (in the social sciences, anyway) that is basically a forbidden practice. You must disclose your potential biases, so your readers can factor your potential human limitations into their understanding of the work you produce.

This is an anonymous comments thread on the internet. This is not a university. I am not personally acquainted with any academic in this field, at a single college or university, anywhere in the world. If I have questions that arise from my reading, I can only be deeply grateful to any academic who kindly offers to provide his services free of charge, here at CAF. For me, it’s that or nothing.

 

[Zach]

You make some good points but this isn’t a classroom or college thesis where people should acknowledge their biases and background. If anything on a forum like this someone claiming to be a scholar is putting oneself at a disadvantage because people like to test if that person is real or a fraud. While I was typing BartholomewB posted pretty much what I was trying to say.

 

[MNathaniel]

I can only be deeply grateful to any academic who kindly offers to provide his services free of charge, here at CAF. For me, it’s that or nothing.

I 100% agree with this, in theory. I think it’d be great if the OP continues to provide his ‘historian’ services here, free of charge. That’s why I’m not saying: “Get thee off this platform, Mystery Man!” but rather: “Pray, Mystery Man; could you please identify your potential biases so we may have a fuller understanding of the information you are trying to convey?”

Again, all I’m saying is that we should all, always, be suspicious of any mystery ‘teacher’ who shows up and tries to recruit strangers to be his ‘students’, especially on the topic of religiously-relevant facts, without disclosing to us key details about himself that enable us to see his potential biases and avoid falling with him into any mistakes (if in any area he is a blind man walking into a hole, and we, following the blind man, fall in too). At that point, it’s questionable whether he’s providing more harm than service.

This isn’t about arbitrary university requirements; I don’t care about his grammar or formatting. This is about the reason the university requires bias-disclosure.

We are all called to be on guard against wolves in sheep’s clothing; against false teachers. People who come to you claiming to teach you neutral history (that may subtly affect your religious beliefs) are not exempt from the possibility of falling into this camp.

I’ll leave it here for now. I think I’ve said my piece. Into God’s hands I commend this thread and everyone posting in it or reading it.

 

[HarryStotle]

KMC:

So what historical evidence is there for the claim the Gospels were originally anonymous?

The fact that all of the manuscripts are anonymous.

None of the manuscripts were anonymous. In fact, there are no New Testament manuscripts in existence that are without attribution. The fragments of manuscripts might not contain attribution, but that is hardly the same as concluding the full manuscript didn’t have attribution.

Feel free to name a manuscript or provide a direct link to one that lacks an attribution or is anonymous.

 

[goout]

billsherman:

KMC:

So what historical evidence is there for the claim the Gospels were originally anonymous?

The fact that all of the manuscripts are anonymous.

None of the manuscripts were anonymous. In fact, there are no New Testament manuscripts in existence that are without attribution. The fragments of manuscripts might not contain attribution, but that is hardly the same as concluding the full manuscript didn’t have attribution.

Feel free to name a manuscript or provide a direct link to one that lacks an attribution or is anonymous.

It seems to be pretty widely accepted by scholars that the direct personal and individual authorship of some NT books is unknown, but that is not the same thing as “anonymous”.
To say that John came out of the Johanine community without John wielding the pen is not the same thing as a completely unknown source or “anonymity”.
So I’m not exactly sure what is meant by “anonymous”. If he means we don’t know with certainty if The John wrote such and such specifically, he’s correct. There are those mysteries of attribution.

Full disclosure: I’m a layman who’s pastor is a scripture scholar and former seminary instructor.

 

[steve-b]

And it’s always a warning sign when they combine the following three features:

✓ 1. Refusing to disclose their own POV, even when asked, in the hopes that the audience will assume they’re just telling you the ‘neutral facts’;

✓ 2. Giving short and absolute black/white answers to questions, without acknowledging or addressing whether there is a difference of opinion among professionals in the field (e.g. he answers the question: "So what historical evidence is there for the claim the Gospels were originally anonymous?" [snip]

✓ IOW show references properly referenced

✓ 3. Addressing topics that do actually have implications for (what the OP calls) “faith communities”, while subtly using language (e.g. “religious ideology”, “doctrine factory”) that suggests a certain bias against religiously practicing historians who have presumably come to different conclusions than the OP has. Sure, there’s room for nuance here (it’s absolutely true that a person’s starting beliefs, including religious doctrine, can wrongfully skew their interpretation of data, if they allow it to)… but it’s equally true that an atheist can fall into the same trap, and skew their interpretation of data based on factors such as (e.g.) a categorical disbelief in the metaphysical possibility of miracles. Either way, it is helpful for the reader to know exactly where the author is coming from, so we can ‘correct’ for the potential biases of the author when we examine their conclusions and how they explain they got there. It’s important to know if a researcher comes from one of these so-called “doctrine factories”… of either the denominational or anti-theistic type.

as you can see I agree with your analysis