Jesus Before Constantine. Doug E. Taylor

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ established system. This type of analysis is exactly what I intend to bring to the discussion of whether or not there were multiple Christianities prior to Constantine and the fourth-century councils.

      Why Does This Matter?

      The purpose of this text is to examine materials from AD 30–250, predominately from Christian sources but also including select non-Christian material in an effort to determine whether it was through the use of positive apologetics that the church grew. In recent history there have been claims that there were actually many different groups that taught very different things that were considered to be Christian. One such different teaching was that Jesus was just a man, but not God in any sense. Another held that Jesus was fully God but lacked any actual physical body. Yet a third suggested, depending on which source document is read, that there existed anywhere from two to nine deities. The question that deserves answering is whether or not these different groups would have been considered Christian by the earliest church.

From the very beginning of his text How Jesus Became God, Bart Ehrman states that the early church believed Jesus to be God, but since the late eighteenth century, historians have figured out that this is simply not correct.1 The difficulty with such a statement is that the claim has been made, but Ehrman did not identify where or how the church was wrong for so long.

Much work has already been done by Gary Habermas in establishing the minimal facts for both the resurrection and the deity of Christ. In a review of Debating Christian Theism, of Habermas’s minimal facts Angus Menuge states, “Habermas’s ‘minimal facts’ approach is not without its critics (some say it concedes too much to tendentious principles of biblical criticism), but it does explain why, over time, one skeptical alternative after another to the historical fact of the resurrection has been abandoned, leaving critics with shrinking cover to hide from Christ’s claim on their life.”2

Habermas cites what he believes to be the most important minimal facts related to the resurrection as being Jesus’ death by crucifixion; that the disciples had experiences they believed to be appearances of the risen Jesus; that the disciples were transformed based on those experiences; there was very early preaching of the reported resurrection event in Jerusalem—the same location as the crucifixion of Jesus; the conversion of Paul; and the conversion of James, the half-brother of Jesus.3 The significance of this listing is that if all of Christianity hinges upon the resurrection then by way of the resurrection the deity and death aspects of the apologetic method are affirmed. Given Menuge’s comments about the strength of Habermas’s argumentation it would appear reasonable to expect to find these same strong arguments in the post-apostolic writings of the church.

      Authors have on a large scale seemingly conflated Christianity such that what Christianity does or is supposed to do is understood to be what it is. Stated differently, one may think Christianity is supposed to be charitable, therefore being charitable makes it Christian—at least in the minds of some. Not unlike any other time in history personal biases have influenced how Christianity is understood today. This work is not intended to identify what Christianity does, rather what it was that constituted the most basic necessary belief in order to be considered Christian in the earliest church.

      By returning to the period of the early church it will be possible to identify exactly what it was that the earliest followers of Jesus believed made them uniquely Christian, and that there were understood lines of demarcation between those who were Christian and those who merely claimed the title but followed a different gospel. More specifically, this text demonstrates the early church grew through the use of a positive apologetic. Because defensive apologetics only focuses on why a particular position is incorrect, it does not “fill the void” once its task is done. Defensive apologetics may reveal error in thought or belief, and it may lead one to theism, but defensive apologetics does not get someone from theism to the God of Christianity. It is the role of positive apologetics to establish the credibility of Christianity, in significant part by affirming the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Here we find apologetics leading from simple theism to the God of Christianity.

      Three key arguments will be addressed. First, a distinction needs to be made between the root cause for the spread of Christianity and causal factors associated with this spread. Second, by looking to positive apologetics one finds justification for belief in and commendation of Christianity. Finally, when examining gnostic and what some consider to be heretical texts it will be demonstrated that each system of belief incorporated a significant change to one or more aspects of the deity, death, and resurrection reports as they related to Jesus.

      What Are the Limits of This Work?

I will evaluate the growth of the church from a terminus a quo of AD 30 and terminus ad quem of AD 250. The terminus a quo allows for an early Letter to the Galatians (AD 49). In looking to the first two chapters of Galatians we find that Paul had converted to Christianity, then over seventeen years had made two trips to Jerusalem, both of which had occurred prior to the penning of the letter. Subtracting seventeen years would place Paul’s conversion at AD 32,4 necessitating a crucifixion dating of AD 30. The terminus ad quem has been selected to ensure a long enough period following the apostles yet early enough to avoid the influence of Constantine on the growth and polity of the church.

      With the desire to build the strongest case possible for my argument, I will only include those seven texts of the Pauline corpus that are accepted by critical scholars (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) as authentic as well as those speeches and sermon summaries accepted from Acts. This is not to suggest a lack of value for the balance of the material now known as the New Testament; rather the intent is to build an inductive argument for the thesis using only those sources generally accepted by all scholars, inclusive of those who would question or challenge our beliefs. Additionally, because the Jewish Scriptures were in use at the same time as the accepted Pauline corpus those will be admitted where appropriate.

No anonymous or pseudo works will be included in this research with respect to Christian writings. By establishing this threshold it will prevent the use of sources known to be Christian yet with uncertainty in relation to the author.5 It is recognized that such inclusion by known authors is not a viable threshold with respect to gnostic texts and as such a select number of works included in The Nag Hammadi were included and examined as appropriate.

      Because of the volume of work already completed by Gary Habermas, the minimal facts for the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus will be accepted as a very early teaching within the church without attempting to demonstrate the validity of the belief or teaching of the specific elements. Additionally, there will be no attempt to prove the historicity of Jesus as an individual.

      Epistemology (Determining Belief vs. Opinion)

      Methodology

The primary approach used was an evidential methodology. If evidence is objective in nature, then it should be available to all present and open to investigation by all others. Believing the early church taught the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus, a case will be made from the accepted Pauline corpus establishing a baseline for early teaching. The baseline will become known as the standard, policy, or administrative control (SPAC). If Momigliano’s rule that the historian searches for the original versus the derivative sources is to be applied here, then by identifying the original SPAC will enable the bifurcation of original versus derivative with respect to early Christian beliefs regarding what it was that made them what they were.6

Some may object that history is a “lesser” science and as such not reliable as a witness. Yet we rarely if ever see such a challenge to the use of history in any other field except metaphysics and the existence of God. Hegel stated the role of original history to be the penning of eyewitness testimony by those eyewitnesses, whereas critical reflective history emphasizes research focused on determining the truthfulness and credibility of particular historical sources.7 Thus a distinction is made between the event itself as being history and the record of that СКАЧАТЬ