Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I am uncertain about this matter, but evidence could suggest not. After all, the earliest Christian documents (aside from the historically unreliable gospels and Acts), are filled with theological disputes of various sorts, and even the gospels present divergent understandings of key Christian doctrines - most notoriously, GJohn's portrayal of Jesus as a glorious saviour figure rather than as a purchaser of salvation through his suffering and death.

Other theological disputes within earliest Christian texts, as far as I can easily remember, include:

1. The role of the Jews' laws in salvation;

2. whether Christians could eat meat sacrificed to other gods;

3. Whether the resurrection had come and whether it would be spiritual; and, most usefully for mythicists

4. Whether Jesus had come in the Flesh.

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

Everything I have seen indicates that XC's were all over the map with what they thought. Even after Constantine banged everyone's heads together to get their story straight in the 4th century things were still a mess.

fify Lane
Even after Constantine is said to have tried to banged (sic) everyone's heads together

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 1:41 pm 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

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 1:41 pm ... 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

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 1:41 pm 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 any account other than G.Matthew and G.Luke

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:25 pm He is said to have come in the flesh but often in a nebulous, spiritual way.

How do you explain 2 John 7, which seems to suggest that people were claiming that Jesus had not come in the flesh - or Ignatius's letters, forcefully arguing that he had come in the flesh?

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 1:41 pm I am uncertain about this matter, but evidence could suggest not.

Yes, I'd agree. You can't have heresy without orthodoxy, and you can't have orthodoxy without power. Small groups of Christians no doubt enforced beliefs within the group, but it seems that there were a lot of Christian groups doing their own thing for the first 100 years or so. All we can do is try to identify groups and their beliefs, up until groups started becoming powerful enough to begin imposing standardisation on other groups. Before then, there were uncomfortable coalitions.

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:04 pm fify Lane
Even after Constantine is said to have tried to banged (sic) everyone's heads together

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 1:41 pmI am uncertain about this matter, but evidence could suggest not.

It depends upon what you adduce as evidence and how this evidence is to be interpreted. The "EARLY" Christian literary evidence has three classes AFAIK:

1) Canonical NT writings (authors UNKNOWN) - NTC
2) Apocryphal NT writings (authors UNKNOWN) - NTA
3) Ecclesiastical History (author = Eusebius) - EH

To this literary evidence to complete the picture must be added:

4) Non-Christian literary evidence (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and so forth)
5) Archaeological and physical manuscript evidence.

The historicity of the diversity of "Early" Christian sects relies on the "Early" Christian heresiologists (a sub-strand of EH above). These include Irenaeus, Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus and others. The earliest manuscripts for all these heresiological sources are extremely late and IMO should be interpreted as highly suspicious.

I agree with an earlier comment that "You can't have heresy without orthodoxy, and you can't have orthodoxy without power." Which of course brings us to Constantine. We know with great certainty that heresy and heretics exploded out of the doors of the Nicene Council and that the controversy over the heretics was not resolved until at least the time of Theodosius (if not many centuries later) by draconian and authoritarian laws.

So the question becomes what sort of diversity in "Early" Christians existed prior to the canonical NT writings (1) becoming a political instrument of the Roman Empire c.325 CE. The obvious answer rests somehow with the NT Apocryphal writings (2) that clearly demonstrate a massive divergence from (1). However when we ask when were the apocryphal writings circulated the terminus ad quem (latest possible date) is controlled by the heresiologists (3=EH). Some will adduce physical manuscripts (5) of the NTA to be earlier than 325 CE as well.

This is the outline of the field of evidence. The biggest question remains how is this evidence to be interpreted. IMO I am happy to allow the NT canonical writings (1) to have been in a very limited circulation prior to 325 CE but I am highly skeptical of the heresiologists and thus skeptical about the authorship and circulation of the NT Apocryphal writings prior to 325 CE.

No doubt we find the Sethians and Valentinians in the Nag Hammadi library. Were the Sethians and Valentinians diverse forms of "Early Christians" of the 2nd century as suggested by the accounts of the heresiologists? Or were the Sethians and Valentinians diverse forms of literary reaction of the Nicene epoch when the NT and LXX became a political instrument of an extremely strong Nicene orthodoxy? I suggest the latter.

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?)

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?

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?

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)?

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Apr 23, 2022 1:43 am
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 why doesn't Aristides and Justin talk about the Essenes in the 1st century? Or, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, or Buddhism for that matter?
And why is there no surviving pictures of my graduation ceremony from kindergarten?
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?

Ain't ignorance bliss!