Can it be Said that there was a Typical Early Christian in Terms of Religious Belief?

[ABuddhist]

Neil,

I hope that my approach to your points, similar to my approach to John T, will not arouse such wrath from you.

Some points to ponder:

What sort of Christianity was it that found room in the one city of Rome for Valentinus, Marcion and people like Justin? (What sort of Christianity was it that allowed Marcion to think he had a good chance of persuading others in Rome to his view?)

A diverse city with no central authority defining what true Christianity was and much struggle to adjust to newly introduced ideas. The same was found in Japanese Nara and Kyoto during the 8th and 9th centuries CE and later, with rival Buddhist sects being founded and fighting (sometimes violently) against each other for legitimacy, patronage, and support.

If the Gospel of Mark was the earliest of our canonical gospels, what sort of narrative about Jesus was there if the author of Mark had to drop in an explanation in his closing verses about why no one had heard the story of the empty tomb before?

A narrative with no empty tomb, as I understand that even nonmythicist scholars are coming to accept as true (although I welcome correction if I am wrong).

Why do we hear nothing about Paul or a James-led Jerusalem church until the mid-second century?

Playing as what others call a devil's advocate, I say that we have earlier documents - Paul's letters.

What was the origin of the belief expressed by earliest "Fathers" (Aristides, Justin) that Christianity spread throughout the world by the activities of twelve apostles?

I see nothing wrong with thinking that such a thing could have happened. A similar thing happened with ISKCON after Prabhupada's death, when the world was divided between 11 gurus with authority to preach to 11 zones in the world.

But I also understand how such a thing could be seen as a myth, given the neatness of the alleged event and the symbolism of the number 12.

Why is the earliest Christian artwork (sarcophagi) conveying an atmosphere so unlike the gospel we read about in the gospels and Paul's letters (e.g. no focus on a crucified christ at all)?

Presumably, they focussed upon a different aspect of Jesus - Jesus as bringer of good qualities to his believers.

[ABuddhist]

Why do we hear nothing about Paul or a James-led Jerusalem church until the mid-second century? What was the origin of the belief expressed by earliest "Fathers" (Aristides, Justin) that Christianity spread throughout the world by the activities of twelve apostles?

You mean like the over 40 churches that were established by 100 C.E.; Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Cyprus, Crete, Alexandria and Rome to name a few?

[...]

And when you do have evidence why do we just dismiss it as interpolation or fraud?

Ain't ignorance bliss!

1. You have not listed even 40 of these churches, nor provided any evidence that they existed before 100 CE. The church in Crete is supported by the 2nd century pastoral letters, but as forgeries attributed to Paul, they should be treated with extreme caution. Acts should also be treated with caution because of the Acts Seminar's conclusions.

2. Certain evidence can be dismissed as interpolation or fraud for various reasons. The best way to understand such claims is to read the arguments rather than dismissing them as motivated by certain biases.

3. Ignorance can be cured by learning what other opinions are - which is easiest done by reading what the people with the opinions say.

[neilgodfrey]

As we all know, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
And when you do have evidence why do we just dismiss it as interpolation or fraud?

For the record let me leave a comment in response to this distortion of what I wrote:

If we lack evidence for X then it follows that we cannot safely build a hypothesis on X. As I have tried to point out endless times to others who make the same criticism as John T, absence of evidence does not mean that we can safely conclude X does not exist, but it does mean we cannot know it existed, either! And therefore we cannot build a hypothesis on the asssumption that X existed.


As for the second point, if I have ever "just dismissed" contrary evidence "as interpolation" please point to the evidence of where I have committed that criminal act. Not that your inability to cite evidence will be proof that I have never done so, but it will be reasonable grounds for saying that your accusation is unjustified.

[mlinssen]

So, do any people here think that there was no such thing as a typical early Christian, at least in terms of religious belief?

No. Probably not until the 6th century and even then there would have been (1) Byzantine v (2) other eastern [Orthodox] versions +/- (3) western versions (+/'- Catholic versions) +/- (4) Coptic/Egyptian versions

... After all, the earliest Christian documents (aside from the historically unreliable gospels and Acts), are filled with theological disputes of various sorts ...

Apart from the likes of Irenaeus' so-called Against Heresies* and Tertullian's works (and aspects of Justin Martyr's works), there is very little if any evidence of disputes among what M David Litwa calls [the] Found Christianities: anything from the Simonians through the various Valentinians and the Ophite Christians to the Naassenes, etc. (see viewtopic.php?p=136143#p136143). They were all seekers of gnosis and defined it their own way without disparaging or even reference to others.

• Adversus Haereses is Latin
  aka λεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως
  ..........Elenchos kai anatropē tēs pseudōnymou gnōseōs
  ..........On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis

4. Whether Jesus had come in the Flesh

He is said to have come in the flesh but often in a nebulous, spiritual way.

I'd say the issue is whether he was ever fully in the flesh in ny account other than G.Matthew and G.Luke

What Mac said

On the flesh: that's a translation error, and a deliberate one at that, from Coptic Thomas to Greek Thomas:

ⲁ ⲉⲓ ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛⲁ ⲩ ϩⲛ ̅ ⲥⲁⲣⲝ
did I reveal outward to they in Flesh

λέγει ις ἔ[σ]την ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ ἐν σαρκ{ε}ὶ ὤφθην αὐτοῖς καὶ εὗρον πάν τας μεθύοντας καὶ οὐδένα εὗρον δειψῶ(ν) τα ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ πο 7 νεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐπὶ 7 τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ανων ὅτι τυφλοί εἰσιν τῇ καρ δίᾳ αὐτῶ[ν] καὶ [οὐ] βλέπ

Says IS I-stood in the-middle of-the world and in flesh I-was-seen to/by-them and I-found all- them drunken and no-one I-found thirsti- ng in them and suf- 7 fers the soul of-me over 7 the sons of-the humans because blind they-are in-the hea- rt of-the[m] and [not] see

There's no mistake there; even where the adverbial phrase "in (the) flesh" in the Coptic could be interpreted as ambiguous, despite its location, in Greek it has been relocated - unambiguously - to pertain to IS

Which Greek copy did Marcion have? Or was his based on the Coptic? I haven't done research into that, that's for Q3-4 this year

[mlinssen]

If the Gospel of Mark was the earliest of our canonical gospels, what sort of narrative about Jesus was there if the author of Mark had to drop in an explanation in his closing verses about why no one had heard the story of the empty tomb before?

[neilgodfrey]

Neil,

I hope that my approach to your points, similar to my approach to John T, will not arouse such wrath from you.

Some points to ponder:

What sort of Christianity was it that found room in the one city of Rome for Valentinus, Marcion and people like Justin? (What sort of Christianity was it that allowed Marcion to think he had a good chance of persuading others in Rome to his view?)

A diverse city with no central authority defining what true Christianity was and much struggle to adjust to newly introduced ideas. The same was found in Japanese Nara and Kyoto during the 8th and 9th centuries CE and later, with rival Buddhist sects being founded and fighting (sometimes violently) against each other for legitimacy, patronage, and support.

A diverse city, yes, but what I am addressing is the notion that the Christians there formed some sort of cultural unity or collective body of sorts where the different "schools" of Christianity formed some sort of collective identity: this concept would appear to have some basis if we 1) accept the report that Marcion had hoped to persuade Christians there of his particular thinking; and 2) accept the report that Marcion was "rejected by the Christians there (rejected by all of them?)

Why do we hear nothing about Paul or a James-led Jerusalem church until the mid-second century?

Playing as what others call a devil's advocate, I say that we have earlier documents - Paul's letters.

You may play devil's advocate, but the way I worded my question was meant to convey the idea that we hear/see nothing of those letters in the record until the mid-second century. That is the question -- why the historical record does not alert us to the existence of those letters until so late.

What was the origin of the belief expressed by earliest "Fathers" (Aristides, Justin) that Christianity spread throughout the world by the activities of twelve apostles?

I see nothing wrong with thinking that such a thing could have happened. A similar thing happened with ISKCON after Prabhupada's death, when the world was divided between 11 gurus with authority to preach to 11 zones in thew world.

But I also understand how such a thing could be seen as a myth, given the neatness of the alleged event and the symbolism of the number 12.

But does not the "myth of the 12 spreading the word to establish Christianity in the Roman world" contradict the narrative of Paul? And why was the myth created in the first place in that form? Why do we lack even a partial historical narrative of the origins of Christian ideas?

Why is the earliest Christian artwork (sarcophagi) conveying an atmosphere so unlike the gospel we read about in the gospels and Paul's letters (e.g. no focus on a crucified christ at all)?

Presumably, they focussed upon a different aspect of Jesus - Jesus as bringer of good qualities to his believers.

Yes, but why, given that the "highest good" about Jesus in our earliest written sources was his giving up his life?

[John T]

As we all know, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
And when you do have evidence why do we just dismiss it as interpolation or fraud?

For the record let me leave a comment in response to this distortion of what I wrote:

If we lack evidence for X then it follows that we cannot safely build a hypothesis on X. As I have tried to point out endless times to others who make the same criticism as John T, absence of evidence does not mean that we can safely conclude X does not exist, but it does mean we cannot know it existed, either! And therefore we cannot build a hypothesis on the asssumption that X existed.


As for the second point, if I have ever "just dismissed" contrary evidence "as interpolation" please point to the evidence of where I have committed that criminal act. Not that your inability to cite evidence will be proof that I have never done so, but it will be reasonable grounds for saying that your accusation is unjustified.

You are correct. I was using sarcasm on how some here on this thread think they are using logic, i.e. critical thinking but they are not. My apologizes if you felt I was pointing my finger at you.

The answer is: Pentecost explains why so many different christian churches popped up almost overnight. Those who had traveled to Jerusalem and witness the miracle of Pentecost returned home with this amazing story about Jesus. "And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamina, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs-in our own languages we hear them speaking about God's deeds of power. Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem." Acts 2:8-11

Why it sounds like Christianity popped up overnight like mushrooms in my backyard.

How am I wrong on that?

[neilgodfrey]

@ABuddhist

What I suggesting with those points is that among our earliest forms of Christianity we have

1. a Jesus whose benevolence is that of a caring shepherd while the death and resurrection aspects are diverted to other figures like Jonah.

2. a division among very Jewish ideas alongside quite Greco-Roman philosophical ones

Even our canonical gospels are evidence of a world of ideas where the goal was to create a Jesus narrative that was an adequate channel for a particular theological idea.

[neilgodfrey]

You are correct. I was using sarcasm on how some here on this thread think they are using logic, i.e. critical thinking but they are not. My apologizes if you felt I was pointing my finger at you.

Well Jeezus, you quote my comment and then write your criticisms beneath it -- how silly of me to assume you were addressing your remarks at my words!

The answer is: Pentecost explains why so many different christian churches popped up almost overnight. Those who had traveled to Jerusalem and witness the miracle of Pentecost returned home with this amazing story about Jesus. "And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamina, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs-in our own languages we hear them speaking about God's deeds of power. Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem." Acts 2:8-11

Why it sounds like Christianity popped up overnight like mushrooms in my backyard.

How am I wrong on that?

Well how indeed. And of course the resurrection proves Jesus is alive today and will soon come to judge sinners like me, and how even creation itself proves there was a creator who made the world in 6 days only 6000 years ago.

You have me cornered John T. I can't argue against such "critical thinking" and sound "logic".

[lclapshaw]

You are correct. I was using sarcasm on how some here on this thread think they are using logic, i.e. critical thinking but they are not. My apologizes if you felt I was pointing my finger at you.

Well Jeezus, you quote my comment and then write your criticisms beneath it -- how silly of me to assume you were addressing your remarks at my words!

The answer is: Pentecost explains why so many different christian churches popped up almost overnight. Those who had traveled to Jerusalem and witness the miracle of Pentecost returned home with this amazing story about Jesus. "And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamina, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs-in our own languages we hear them speaking about God's deeds of power. Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem." Acts 2:8-11

Why it sounds like Christianity popped up overnight like mushrooms in my backyard.

How am I wrong on that?

Well how indeed. And of course the resurrection proves Jesus is alive today and will soon come to judge sinners like me, and how even creation itself proves there was a creator who made the world in 6 days only 6000 years ago.

You have me cornered John T. I can't argue against such "critical thinking" and sound "logic".

Those mushrooms in his back yard must be pretty good!