Understanding early Christianity beyond the Church Fathers

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jagd
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 4:59 pm

Understanding early Christianity beyond the Church Fathers

Post by Jagd »

Forgive me if this is a belabored point: basically, I wonder if reading about theological discussion by the intellectual elites of a group isn't the best way to understand that group's more common beliefs, practices, and stories.

When I was in India I read a lot about "Hinduism" beforehand and I was surprised that none of the Hindus I spoke to knew much of anything about atman, moksha, prakriti, dharma, etc. Instead, they normally knew some stories about the gods, sometimes without caring too much about any of the teachings behind it, and a lot of the time any teaching behind it wasn't essential to the story. Even the extremely devout Hindus were this way.

It looks like the real material of early Christianity are the "folk" aspects of it as a "religion" - basically, what the common people thought and did. I felt like I understood early Christianity much more after reading the descriptions of it in the Pliny letter or the portrayal of them in Lucian's (brilliant) Peregrinus Proteus. There even appears to be remnants of the origins of Christianity in the Book of Acts buried under the propaganda, specifically with the Pentecost event (plus the constant healing, exorcising, and miracles going on in the various stories). In Acts, "Christianity" doesn't appear to be much of a bonafide religion as we would define it, but is instead refer to it as an ὁδός (hodós), a path/way, seeming to mean more of a lifestyle or way of life, like that of the ancient Cynics. For what it's worth, Wiktionary includes the definition of "way, means, or manner to some end, method", which, honestly, sounds more like basic Buddhism than the mold of an Abrahamic religion.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2294
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Understanding early Christianity beyond the Church Fathers

Post by GakuseiDon »

I'd say that, throughout history, 90% of Christians had no idea and no interest in Christianity other than those parts that were socially useful. (I'd say that this is the same with ancient Romans and Greeks as well.) If the church leaders claimed that Jesus was of a different substance to the Father, then the rank-and-file would be okay with that. If the church leaders claimed that Jesus was of the same substance as the Father, then the rank-and-file would say "okay". If the leaders said "Jesus was historical", then "okay". If they said "Jesus was a celestial being", then "okay". It didn't matter to the day-to-day life of most Christians.

It was only at the top end, among the educated elites, that those things mattered. And it mattered because it meant political power. You can't have orthodoxy without power, because without power you can't enforce orthodoxy. But for the run-of-the-mill person who didn't want to take up positions of authority: once they learned to mouth the necessary lines, they went on with their day. What did it matter to them what Jesus was?

I'm guessing it is the same with Buddhism and Hinduism, though I don't know enough about them to be sure. I lived in Japan for a number of years and I know they have a different approach to religion, in that it is much more inter-folded with their day-to-day lives. It is said that a Japanese person is "born Shinto, married Christian, buried Buddhist, and don't believe in any of them."
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Understanding early Christianity beyond the Church Fathers

Post by lsayre »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:31 pm I'd say that, throughout history, 90% of Christians had no idea and no interest in Christianity other than those parts that were socially useful. (I'd say that this is the same with ancient Romans and Greeks as well.) If the church leaders claimed that Jesus was of a different substance to the Father, then the rank-and-file would be okay with that. If the church leaders claimed that Jesus was of the same substance as the Father, then the rank-and-file would say "okay". If the leaders said "Jesus was historical", then "okay". If they said "Jesus was a celestial being", then "okay". It didn't matter to the day-to-day life of most Christians.

It was only at the top end, among the educated elites, that those things mattered. And it mattered because it meant political power. You can't have orthodoxy without power, because without power you can't enforce orthodoxy. But for the run-of-the-mill person who didn't want to take up positions of authority: once they learned to mouth the necessary lines, they went on with their day. What did it matter to them what Jesus was?
The above certainly rings true from my perspective. But I would change 90% closer to about 97%.
rgprice
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Understanding early Christianity beyond the Church Fathers

Post by rgprice »

@Jagd
What you say has some truth, however, Christianity as we know is the product of an intellectual development that took place among elites and is reflected in writings.

While there may have, and almost certainly were, people who called themselves Christians in the late first and early second century who had no idea about the debates and doctrines of Justine Martyr or Irenaeus or Tertullian, etc., and who had never read any Gospel or Pauline letter, those people didn't end up dictating the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

We can trace the tenants of the Apostle's Creed back through specific writings and interpretations of those writings. No doubt there were thousands of Christians who never understood these things, but that has little to do with the modern historical picture of Jesus that we have today. The "historical Jesus" is clearly derived from a collection of writings, and that collection of writings was assembled, analyzed, interpreted and accepted, by specific intellectuals. That process is what resulted in essentially all surviving forms of Christianity.

So while what you say is true, Christianity in particular, was a religion that took its form through a process of writing and interpretation of writings. And I think that is actually one of the distinctive features of Christianity and Judaism. Few people these days really grasp just how unusual it is for religion to be so heavily based on writings. Most religions of the world had no writings or writings played no central role, but for Christianity as we know it, it is really all about writings.
Post Reply