Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by neilgodfrey »

Gd1234 wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:19 pm
The knowledge would have to be of a very high level of second temple Judaism and its surrounding culture.
Is there any particular example you can give that would not be known to anyone writing a story (as opposed to researched history or biography) set in that time and place?
Gd1234 wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:19 pm
The current theory is that the words of Jesus in the gospels are not likely originally written in Greek but Hebrew. This would correlate with jesus being Jewish.
The question I have is how anyone can be sure that the authors of the gospels (or at least the first one) was a researcher dedicated to getting his facts right. If we find what seems to be more plausible Hebrew wording behind the gospels then all that does is remove the question one step back -- but it's the same question: if the story was originally told in Hebrew, how can we know if the story was motivated by a desire to pass on historical truth?
Gd1234 wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:19 pm
did you examine the link i shared from an unbiased truth seeking perspective before responding?
The one about Hebrew translations of the Greek words of Jesus? Yes. I found it most interesting because it ties dovetails with what I am reading about a more detailed thesis that the gospels were originally written in Hebrew. That thesis, contrary to yours, sees in the Hebrew retroversion of the Greek many indicators that the original story was entirely creative theological midrash and not at all indebted to oral tradition or historical research.

Gd1234 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:44 pm
I'm not catholic. I'm a new studier of church fathers. My reason is that i wish to understand the literature from a perspective of its original time period rather that modern or church doctrines. . . .

As we get farther, it becomes more strained. However quotes from earlier sources that no longer exist are important considerations.

It may not be perfect but it's the best we have. We're fortunate to have so many testimonies within 100 years of Jesus life.
For the claims of a source to be "trusted" as historical evidence one needs independent confirmation of some sort. Generally sources from a 100 years after an event or life of a person can only tell us what someone 100 years after that time wrote about or believed and not what actually happened 100 years earlier.

There are exceptions. If someone 100 years later informs readers how he came by the information he is to write about, and if he explains who his sources are and how they go back to first-hand accounts, etc, then we have a much better starting point. That's how we know as much as we do about Alexander the Great, for example.

What is also needed is independent confirmation of some sort. Herodotus, for example, claimed to have been an eyewitness of some things but some modern scholars have checked the sources and believe Herodotus was fabricating his claims.

We can't get independent confirmation for every detail but the more we can get the greater our confidence in other material penned by the author.

Any source that comes to us anonymously and as long as its place and time of origin remain matters of speculation, then by definition is must be a suspect document for historical reconstruction -- especially if the same source does not inform readers how the author came by his information.

That alone does not mean the source is not historical but it does mean we cannot assume that it is.

Gd1234 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:44 pm 5. It was accepted as truth (in general) by both the Jewish and gentile congregations. Where there would either be eye witnesses or decedents of eye witnesses. . . .

The evidence is two fold. Church fathers such as Justin Martyr and the gospel of the Hebrews which is very similar.
Justin is a very late audience and he seems to have treated other gospels on an equal par with our canonical ones. As for the Gospel of Hebrews, we return to the same question: why assume the original authors believed they were passing on history?
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by gryan »

Irish1975 wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 8:51 pm ...the gospels are creative works produced by educated elites interested in Judean teachings, practices, and paradoxographical subjects.... study thus bridges the artificial divide between research on the Synoptic gospels and Classics.
Who knew that "paradoxography" was a thing? Not me!

A term coined perhaps by twelfth century Byzantine scholar, John Tzetzes, and revived by A. Westermann in 1839--"Paradoxography is a genre of Classical literature which deals with the occurrence of abnormal or inexplicable phenomena of the natural or human worlds."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxography
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by neilgodfrey »

Having skimmed much of the book so far I can say it is a welcome breath of fresh air in a room too long stale with the stench of assumption that the Gospel and Acts narratives are gateways to historical events.

Walsh demonstrates what others have also shown in the past -- though I think Walsh's addition is her placing of the authors more solidly in the literary world and engaging with that literary world primarily, thus leaving models of authors writing on behalf of communities that are imagined on the basis of the biblical narratives themselves to one side as inadequate explanations. But hopefully promotions by the likes of Mark Goodacre will nudge others to wake up and have a serious look at the Greco-Roman literary context of the gospels:

Anonymity is a widespread literary trope; eyewitness claims likewise; topographical and historical backdrop details are other literary techniques employed to establish credibility of otherwise unverifiable tales, even outright fiction; and budding authors were taught how to write in response to the literary works that had preceded them -- including the production of "subversive biographies" (like those of Aesop and Socrates) in which an outsider trumps ruling powers despite his apparent demise.

Yet the question still stands: To what degree are these bioi the creative activity of an author and to what degree are these authors obtaining their information about these figures from elsewhere?

Yet the question still stands: To what degree are these bioi the creative activity of an author and to what degree are these authors obtaining their information about these figures from elsewhere? Unfortunately, beyond what we can assess in terms of literary borrowings from other pieces of literature, we have no way of knowing with absolute certainty. However, what we do know is that these biographies, whether full and cohesive narratives or more representative of the “open text” tradition, are the products of creative literary activity. This also holds for other forms of literature that purport to represent a particular figure or figures, their lives, or their thought in some manner – for instance, pseudepigrapha, chreiai, and so on. It is conceivable that this literature may hold some thread of “oral tradition”; however, as Pelliccia cautions about Aesop, how would we know that we are looking at it? Given what we know about the training involved in producing a piece of writing in antiquity, it stands to reason that our first line of inquiry when approaching an ancient text should be to consider the ways in which it is engaging various literary conventions, precedents, and ongoing conversations – subversive biography among them.

p. 194 of Origins of Early Christian Literature by Walsh

User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2860
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by maryhelena »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:20 am Having skimmed much of the book so far I can say it is a welcome breath of fresh air in a room too long stale with the stench of assumption that the Gospel and Acts narratives are gateways to historical events.


p. 194 of Origins of Early Christian Literature by Walsh[/box]
Wow....just Wow.... :eek:
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2269
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by StephenGoranson »

If I understand correctly, based mostly on her interview with Mark Goodacre, she came to the subject from her study of classical—Greek and Latin language—authors. And, iiuc, Robyn Walsh is not denying history, is not an escapist, but, maybe, for some, is complicating history by reinforcing the idea that authors are, after all, authors. As Abraham said, and as set to music by Aaron Copeland in the beautiful “Lincoln Portrait,” “Fellow citizens [ignore that part if you wish], we cannot escape history.”
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2860
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by maryhelena »

StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:01 am If I understand correctly, based mostly on her interview with Mark Goodacre, she came to the subject from her study of classical—Greek and Latin language—authors. And, iiuc, Robyn Walsh is not denying history, is not an escapist, but, maybe, for some, is complicating history by reinforcing the idea that authors are, after all, authors. As Abraham said, and as set to music by Aaron Copeland in the beautiful “Lincoln Portrait,” “Fellow citizens [ignore that part if you wish], we cannot escape history.”
:thumbup:
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by Irish1975 »

I hope readers who are interested in the topic of the literary nature of the NT material will take a look at my thread on Bruno Bauer (as mediated to us by Albert Schweitzer). He was the first major critic to engage with the idea of the Gospels as literary art. Much of the purpose of his writing appears to be directed against the historicizing dogmatists of his own time, who are not so different from the dogmatists (theological and historicist) of today, against whom Walsh is writing.

There is a parallel in philosophy to this movement away from historical towards literary criticism. With the philosophy of Kant, 19th century thinkers suddenly recognized an aspect of subjectivity in the forms of all human thinking, impossible to deny or eliminate from a serious reflection on the nature of reality. So it is with our most profound Western scriptures. The subjectivity, the authorship, the man-behind-the-curtain quality of the Gospels, through which we feel ourselves as readers to be manipulated by the scribal pen, and thus removed from a world of reality rather than brought into contact with it, is likewise undeniable.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:01 am If I understand correctly, based mostly on her interview with Mark Goodacre, she came to the subject from her study of classical—Greek and Latin language—authors. And, iiuc, Robyn Walsh is not denying history, is not an escapist, but, maybe, for some, is complicating history by reinforcing the idea that authors are, after all, authors. As Abraham said, and as set to music by Aaron Copeland in the beautiful “Lincoln Portrait,” “Fellow citizens [ignore that part if you wish], we cannot escape history.”
Coming from a classicist background is arguably an essential qualification for anyone who wants to study Christian origins. Ancient historians (classicists), for most part it seems, understand far better than most "biblical historians" how ancient texts work and how they need to be used in the study of ancient history.

Biblical historians are writing within a Christian tradition and as a rule are seeking to understand their own cultural origins through a study of their foundational myths. They are approaching Christianity's history with the assumption that behind their myths lurk nuggets of historical information. They are, in effect, writing new versions of the Christian myth.

Classicists understand better than many biblical historians how ancient narratives work and know better than to assume that even ancient histories and ancient biographies are based on genuine historical information somewhere in them.

As Philip R. Davies pointed out thirty years ago, biblical historians have too often assumed that narratives of origins are a form of history telling or attempts to tell, even with mythologized exaggerations, some level of genuine history. The assumption is that unknown authors had information about the past, true items mixed with false, and were devoutly interested in passing on that "truth" or "history" for wider audiences.

The historian cannot begin with such assumptions about the sources.

There is no basis to believe, on the basis of the Gospels and Acts per se, that we have any reason to believe that Christianity derived from a man named Jesus wandering through Palestine with disciples, healing and teaching in parables, running afoul of the religious and political authorities, being crucified, with some coming to believe he was resurrected and then going out and proclaiming that message to Jews and gentiles. That is the myth. But that is not history.

To establish a history of origins one needs to first recognize the nature of the sources and to know which ones are mythical narratives and which ones are not.

A fundamental task is to seek to explain both the nature and the origins of the sources, which in this case means to seek to explain the origins of the gospel narratives. That means shunning a priori and unsupportable assumptions of "oral traditions" leading to some version of a "true story" and beginning with an examination of the literary makeup and context of the gospels-acts.

One hopes that Walsh can add her voice to others that have gone before, back to Bruno Bauer as Irish points out.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2860
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by maryhelena »

Irish1975 wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:20 am I hope readers who are interested in the topic of the literary nature of the NT material will take a look at my thread on Bruno Bauer (as mediated to us by Albert Schweitzer). He was the first major critic to engage with the idea of the Gospels as literary art. Much of the purpose of his writing appears to be directed against the historicizing dogmatists of his own time, who are not so different from the dogmatists (theological and historicist) of today, against whom Walsh is writing.

There is a parallel in philosophy to this movement away from historical towards literary criticism. With the philosophy of Kant, 19th century thinkers suddenly recognized an aspect of subjectivity in the forms of all human thinking, impossible to deny or eliminate from a serious reflection on the nature of reality. So it is with our most profound Western scriptures. The subjectivity, the authorship, the man-behind-the-curtain quality of the Gospels, through which we feel ourselves as readers to be manipulated by the scribal pen, and thus removed from a world of reality rather than brought into contact with it, is likewise undeniable.
All true of course in regard to reading the characters in the NT Jesus and Paul story as historical figures. Yes, the Jesus historicists of today, like in the past, have made a serious mistake. Yes, the NT is a literary work and as such can be admired for it's literary art. But, surely, one can't elevate the literary art above the story the literary work is telling. Meaning, whether in a literary work, a painting or a symphony, is what draws in it's observers. Yes, subjectivity is at play here. Then, logically, subjectivity also had a role to play in what the NT writers wrote. Was that subjectivity devoid from their social/political context and was it all in the mind? To spiritualize everything and anything - and everything and anything becomes meaningless. Unless, of course, one enjoys magic carpet rides....To take this path, a path that would seek to minimize, or deny, that the NT writers found meaning or relevance within their historical context - and infused their NT story with that meaning - a meaning for them - is to make as serious an error of judgement as the Jesus historicists.

As Stephen Goranson (from a very different perspective from the one I hold) quoted ''....we cannot escape history''.
Why can't we escape history and be content to live in some spiritual mindfulness bubble of ease - because it's our bread and butter. Yes, we want the icing on the cake - the spiritual stuff, the philosophical stuff - but to have a shot at that we need our two feet planted firmly on terra firma before we strive to reach for the stars.

Indeed intellectual evolution has got us to where we are today - but it can be as much an enslaver as an enabler.

Today we are living through a period of having our past history dissected and judged. Par for the course - so lets not deem to think that the NT writers were not doing the very same thing in retelling their past history through the medium of a literary work.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2269
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by StephenGoranson »

There have long been various approaches to reading and analyzing gospels.

Walsh may be very insightful (and I'm guessing she didn't use the word "stench"--why demonize?) but not the first to focus on differing authorship choices and styles or different gospels. That's not news.

For example of one of many earlier:
The First Biography of Jesus: Genre and Meaning in Mark’s Gospel, Helen Bond (2020)

Abstract
Reading the gospels as ancient biographies makes a profound difference in the way we interpret them. Biography immortalizes the memory of the subject, creating a literary monument to the person’s life and teaching. Yet it is also a bid to legitimize a specific view of that figure and to position the author and the audience as appropriate “gatekeepers” of that memory. Furthermore, biography is well suited to the articulation of shared values and commitments, the formation of group identity, and the binding together of a past story, present concerns, and future hopes.

Helen Bond argues that Mark’s author uses the genre of biography—while both utilizing and subverting its literary conventions—to extend the proclamation from an earlier narrow focus on the death and resurrection of Jesus to include his way of life. The First Biography of Jesus shows how this was a bold step in outlining a radical form of Christian discipleship, one patterned on the life and death of Jesus.
Post Reply