early church

, , , , , , ,

Bible debates, ancient and modern: Why did early church choose only four Gospels?

, , , , , , ,
Bible debates, ancient and modern: Why did early church choose only four Gospels?

QUESTION:

Why did early Christians choose only four Gospels?

RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

During the formative first centuries of Christian history there were some 40 texts in circulation that could be considered “gospels,” according to one scholar, while another counted as many as 70. Marvin Meyer of Chapman University decided a dozen such non-biblical gospels merited inclusion in an 2005 anthology, while others have proposed different listings.

Early Christians dismissed what they judged to be “apocryphal” texts, meaning of doubtful authenticity, and recognized only the familiar quartet of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as authoritative and eventually included in what became the New Testament. The four did not name the authors, but the substance was deemed to come directly or indirectly from Jesus’ original apostles.

An obvious aspect of such judgments was the dating.

Chronology expert Jack Finegan calculated that Jesus’ crucifixion probably occurred in early April of either A.D. 30 or 33. “The Oxford Bible Commentary” typifies experts’ consensus in listing these dates for the final composition of the Four: Matthew between A.D. 75 and 100. Mark “probably not long after” Jerusalem fell in 70. Luke most likely around 80 to 85. John about 90 to 100.

That means there would have been living eyewitnesses to Jesus to provide or confirm oral or written material incorporated into the Four, rather like historians in 2023 gathering memories about the Dwight Eisenhower presidency through the Ronald Reagan years.

But over the past generation, liberal scholarship has emphasized those “apocryphal” contenders, effectively reducing the exclusive stature of the biblical four. Many decided there wasn’t much of importance to distinguish the traditional four from the others. Elaine Pagels of Princeton University popularized the revisionist mood in “The Gnostic Gospels” (1979). By 2003, the big-selling and rather ridiculous novel “The Da Vinci Code” fictionalized the supposedly arbitrary choice of New Testament books as a power grab.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is still a question that scholars debate: Why did early Christianity rise so rapidly?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
This is still a question that scholars debate: Why did early Christianity rise so rapidly?

THE QUESTION:

Why did early Christianity rise so rapidly?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

New religions appear all the time, nowhere more than in the United States, but very few ever achieve prominence and permanence. Christianity is a rare and dramatic case of a faith that triumphed. The tale is told in Rodney Stark's classic "The Rise of Christianity" with this descriptive subtitle in the 1997 paperback edition (still on sale): "How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries."

Sociologist Stark is now retired as co-director of Baylor University's esteemed Institute for Studies of Religion. The book treats its subject as a puzzle to be explained by objective social science scholarship and does not consider whether Christian teachings are true.

Though we lack reliable census data, Stark's best estimate was that only 7,530 Christians existed at the close of the apostolic era in A.D. 100 [which conflicts with Acts 2:41]. He said the total exceeded 1 million by 250 when systemic persecution by the Roman empire was reaching its peak. The Edict of Milan in 313 allowed the faith to exist without harassment, and as of 350 there were 33.9 million Christians. Stark figured that was a 56.5% majority of the population. Inevitably, by 380 this became the empire's official creed.

What happened? Stark's scenario drew upon more than 300 works plus his own original research, and made heavy use of economic market theory. Let's skim some of what he concluded.

Stark thought Christianity's key advantages included the spread of Greek-speaking Jews across the Greco-Roman world who provided a base to build upon, the failures of rival paganism, attractive charitable efforts (especially during ruinous epidemics), innovative respect for women, high birth rates, good organization, close fellowship, demanding and respected moral standards, the inspiring example of martyrs willing to die rather than renounce their faith and positive doctrines that were attractive to new city dwellers coping with chaos and squalor.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is it big news when liberal Lutherans say the early church was wrong on sex? Why not?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Is it big news when liberal Lutherans say the early church was wrong on sex? Why not?

When it comes to lesbians and gays in the ministry, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America speaks with a clear voice. So that doctrinal stance really isn't news anymore.

When it comes to ecclesiastical approval for same-sex marriage liturgies, the ELCA -- at this point -- leaves that decision up to local leaders. So it really isn't news when an ELCA congregation backs same-sex marriage.

When it comes to ordaining a trans candidate for the ministry, some folks in the ELCA have crossed that bridge, as well. So an ELCA church embracing trans rights isn't really news.

So what would members of this liberal mainline denomination need to do to make news, when releasing a manifesto on issues of sex, gender and marriage? That was the question raised by the recent "Denver Statement" that was released by (and I quote the document):

... some of the queer, trans, gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, gender-queer, asexual, straight, single, married image-bearering Christians at House for All Sinners & Saints (Denver, Co).

That was also the question that "Crossroads" host Todd Wilken and I addressed in this week's podcast. So click here to tune that in.

Now, in terms of news appeal, it helps to know that this relatively small, but media-friendly, Denver congregation was founded by the Rev. Nadia Bolz-Weber, a 6-foot-1, tattooed, witty, weight-lifting, frequently profane ELCA pastor who has graced the bestseller lists at The New York Times. She's like a superhero who walked out of liberal Christian graphic novel.

So the Denver Statement made some news because it was released -- at Bolz-Weber's "Sarcastic Lutheran" blog -- in reaction to the Nashville Statement that created a mini-media storm with its rather ordinary restatement of some ancient Christian doctrines on sexuality.

So if the Nashville Statement was news, then it made sense that -- for a few reporters and columnists (including me) -- that the Denver Statement was also news. (Oddly enough, a previous statement on sexuality by the Orthodox Church in America -- strikingly similar to the Nashville Statement -- made zero news.)

But here's another journalism issue: Was the Denver document news merely because it openly rejected what the Nashville Statement had to say?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Why didn't the Bible abolish slavery? So, which form of slavery are we talking about?

, , , , , ,
Why didn't the Bible abolish slavery? So, which form of slavery are we talking about?

THE QUESTION:

If the Bible is a revered guide to morality, why didn’t it abolish slavery? The Guy poses this issue that was raised in many comments posted after our Oct. 17, 2016, Q&A about people who abhor Jewish and Christian Scripture.

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Toleration of slavery, in which some people own and control others as property, is a favorite Internet attack skeptics level against the Bible. Greg Carey of Lancaster Theological Seminary says slavery is “the single most contested issue in the history of biblical interpretation in the United States.” Indeed, the U.S. Civil War demonstrated how ingrained this economic practice was and how difficult to eliminate — think 600,000-plus war dead.

Evangelical historian Mark Noll says Christians’ pre-war debate on this undercut scriptural authority because the two opposite sides employed the Bible for support. Supporters of the South’s plantation economy argued that the Bible never required abolition of slavery, while abolitionists believed biblical principles mandate freedom and respect for each person created by God. Bible believers in that second group were largely responsible for achieving abolition of this unmitigated evil on a global scale.

Slavery existed as far back as human history can be traced, and the dimensions became staggering. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says slaves were once half the population in sectors of Asia, an estimated 18 million east Africans were subjected to the Muslim slave trade from the time of the Quran through 1900, while the west African trade involved 7 to 10 million enslaved people until British and American abolition.

Defenders of the Bible note that thousands of years ago holy writ did not require slavery but accommodated it as an unavoidable reality, and mitigated it with relatively enlightened and humane provisions.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

Did St. Paul write all 13 letters that the Bible credits to him?

, , , , , , ,
Did St. Paul write all 13 letters that the Bible credits to him?

RACHAEL ASKS: What is the debate about the authorship of Paul’s letters to the early church?

THE RELIGION GUY ANSWERS:

The New Testament includes 13 letters (“epistles”) from Christianity’s first decades that name the apostle Paul as the author, or Paul with colleagues Silvanus, Sosthenes, or Timothy. The earliest is 1 Thessalonians, written just a couple decades after Jesus’ crucifixion. In the traditional view, Paul produced the others during the next 15 years or so before his execution.

As early as the 2nd Century, Paul’s 13 letters formed a defined collection that was widely recognized and later incorporated into the New Testament. That’s where matters stood till modern times. Today, scholars say Paul certainly wrote Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. But questions are raised about these six: Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, and the “pastoral epistles” of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus.

The Religion Guy can only provide glimpses of this intricate discussion. Some of the doubts involve writing style, word choice, and such, lately examined via computer. Others concern whether the contents fit the context of Paul’s lifetime.

Would pseudonyms undercut the Bible’s credibility?


Please respect our Commenting Policy