Picturing the competing grand views of Christian origins

[Peter Kirby]

http://peterkirby.com/metanarratives-in ... igins.html





There are both HJ and MJ views that do not comport to either timeline. There are both HJ and MJ views that comport to the second timeline. I did not mean to give anyone the impression that these two things exhausted the thought space because they clearly do not. Surely, though, someone may want to work out such a systematic exposition, and it would be valuable. The only thing of value I sought to present in my little blog post was a comparison of these two schemes. Feel free to improve on this.

PS - I'm getting a bit sick of people who like to paint me as a traditionalist. Is it because I made a useful website summarizing mainstream opinion? Well I guess that's the price you pay for making information more readily available online in a way that has put thousands of people in better touch with critical research. When people then sometimes want to rearrange the ideas as they progress in study -- as I would also -- the author of that site may become a convenient foil?

[stephan happy huller]

Exactly, the know-nothings want to use bits and pieces of evidence divorced from their context to bolster pre-existing conceptions. The truth seeker wants to be led by the evidence.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Peter,

I really like the way you are clarify things. We really know a lot less than many people claim.
I made the following comment on your website: This looks about right, although, I think that much of the Catholic Christianity is really mid-Third Century or even early Fourth century. Before that, I think there was a Proto-Catholic Christianity that grew out of the Heterogeneous Christianities that came before it. With a snip snip here and a snip snip there and a little addition here and a little addition here, the Fourth Century Catholic Church of Emperor Constantine was able to create an earlier Catholic Church that never really existed.

[Peter Kirby]

Thanks. I'm glad that anyone finds it a useful point of reference, even if partly (or only) by way of contrast.

[avi]

The first is quite ancient, going back to the mid-to-late second century struggle to define Catholic Christianity over against the schools (“heresies”) that were generally characterized as Gnostic. It continues to find adherents and can be considered the most popular metanarrative.
...
The other is quite modern and has risen in popularity after the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library and the Dead Sea Scrolls expanded our knowledge about the variety in both Christianity and Judaism at the turn of the era. The second metanarrative largely agrees with the picture painted above of the second, third, and fourth centuries. The contentious and murky first century of Christianity remains the primary object of speculation and disagreement.

It would appear, judging by Peter's response to my inquiry, that I have failed to explain the question.

Let me try again.

Which document from either Nag Hammadi Library, or DSS, has conveyed any sentiment (and what is that sentiment) regarding the origin of Christianity? If these two sources of "new" data have genuinely "expanded our knowledge", then, what in particular, have these sources clarified? I am unaware of a single document from DSS that bears even the most tenuous relationship to Christianity.

I fail to comprehend what Peter seeks to explain, in writing: "contentious and murky first century".... What is contentious? Is it contentious that Herakles ascended to Mount Olympus, upon his death?

I fail to find even the tiniest controversy, regarding Christianity in the first century. There is no evidence, at least, none of which I am aware, for the existence of Christianity in the first century. Is there something contentious about the 17th century Pilgrims landing in Massachusetts to dig up the Mormon gold tablets?

An event or episode that never took place, cannot be "contentious". What is there about Jesus' story that you find "contentious"? Did Horton hatch the egg? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_Hatches_the_Egg
Elephants don't sit in trees to hatch eggs.

The Jesus story is just as stupid, childish, and absurd, as Horton and his egg. There are some genuine controversies in this world. Jesus curing epilepsy by waving his hands about, isn't one of them.

[Peter Kirby]

How can you fail so badly at reading? Why do you need to attack this blog post? What is wrong with you?

[Blood]

http://peterkirby.com/metanarratives-in ... igins.html





There are both HJ and MJ views that do not comport to either timeline. There are both HJ and MJ views that comport to the second timeline. I did not mean to give anyone the impression that these two things exhausted the thought space because they clearly do not. Surely, though, someone may want to work out such a systematic exposition, and it would be valuable. The only thing of value I sought to present in my little blog post was a comparison of these two schemes. Feel free to improve on this.

PS - I'm getting a bit sick of people who like to paint me as a traditionalist. Is it because I made a useful website summarizing mainstream opinion? Well I guess that's the price you pay for making information more readily available online in a way that has put thousands of people in better touch with critical research. When people then sometimes want to rearrange the ideas as they progress in study -- as I would also -- the author of that site may become a convenient foil?

Of course, I believe the second metanarrative is closer to historical reality. I see the NT texts as a culmination, rather than a beginning. Proto-Christian documents prior to 70 may include the Ascension of Isaiah, Wisdom of Solomon, and the Similitudes of Enoch. I see a long gestation period of at least 100 years before these people can become bold enough to convince themselves and others that they are entitled to write their own scriptures on an equal plane as Isaiah, etc., or claim that "the Jews killed Lord Messiah" and actually have people believe them. Such acts required a confidence that had built up over several generations at least. No historical Jesus was required, just credulous people willing to believe anything serious, prophet-like "men of God" told them.

[Peter Kirby]

Of course, I believe the second metanarrative is closer to historical reality. I see the NT texts as a culmination, rather than a beginning. Proto-Christian documents prior to 70 may include the Ascension of Isaiah, Wisdom of Solomon, and the Similitudes of Enoch. I see a long gestation period of at least 100 years before these people can become bold enough to convince themselves and others that they are entitled to write their own scriptures on an equal plane as Isaiah, etc., or claim that "the Jews killed Lord Messiah" and actually have people believe them. Such acts required a confidence that had built up over several generations at least. No historical Jesus was required, just credulous people willing to believe anything serious, prophet-like "men of God" told them.

That sounds reasonable in general to me, Blood.

The second metanarrative is indeed meant to capture both "MJ" viewpoints as well as the "Trajectories Through Early Christianity" trend in scholarship represented by the likes of Helmut Koester, J.M. Robinson, etc.

This thread has made it apparent that there is a need for additional descriptions for those whose ideas don't fit into either.

[Leucius Charinus]

PS - I'm getting a bit sick of people who like to paint me as a traditionalist. Is it because I made a useful website summarizing mainstream opinion? Well I guess that's the price you pay for making information more readily available online in a way that has put thousands of people in better touch with critical research. When people then sometimes want to rearrange the ideas as they progress in study -- as I would also -- the author of that site may become a convenient foil?

Don't mistake constructive criticism for destructive criticism. For the record I see your work on par with that of Roger's. People who venture into this field need to know what the mainstream think and they need to know the myriad texts underpinning the mainstream thinking. You have provided one of the earliest services in this area and I am very grateful for the existence of your [vast] resources, and very mindful of the time and patience and scholarship that you have devoted to this project.

[Peter Kirby]

Well, thanks.

And I'm sorry that I sometimes lose my patience.

I'm currently working on bringing the site down to 325 to include all the (putatively) ante-Nicene texts.