Issues in early church history

Waiting for scholars to unravel the early history of the church is like waiting for the Second Coming: always just around the corner, never arriving.

Historical certainty on the life of Jesus is an impossible goal. That conclusion was drawn by Schweitzer a century ago in his monumental The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Half a century ago Bultmann detailed first century processes of layered editing of Christian gospels. Likewise today top scholars struggle with the question: what can we really know about Jesus and the earliest Christian and proto-Christian communities?

Paula Fredriksen, in From Jesus to Christ, concludes we can know for sure only two things about Jesus. One, Jesus followed John the Baptist, Two, Jesus died by crucifixion by Romans in the manner of Jewish insurrectionists. This honest appraisal raises important questions. Why and by whom were the early literary events of Jesus' life, as recorded in the gospels, appended to this barebones outline of discipleship and crucifixion? What was the role of Jewish anti-Roman insurrectionism among Jesus, his followers, and the various early communities that proceeded from these.

This site does not aim for any certainty on Jesus or the early church. Rather it proposes a more modest goal: to seek a coherent view of Jesus and the earliest Christian and pre-Christian communities which is based on these premises:

1. Instead of presenting historically accurate accounts of Jesus and his associates, the New Testament writings almost always reflect later community deevlopments, intra-community struggles, and authoritarian editorializing.
2. Historical plausibility, rather than historical certainty, is generally the only attainable goal of early church historians.
3. John the Baptist, Jesus, and their immediate associates were anti-Roman Jewish insurrectionists seeking to restore the Jewish Temple-State.
4. The authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John invented teachings and devised accounts which reframed Jesus from insurrectionist to pacifist.
5. The earliest understanding of Jesus' original teachings is provided by two sources, Q and Gospel of Thomas.

These premises are well-grounded in the published works of scholars who provide evidence for the very early composition of original Gospel of Thomas and Q, the Cynic sarcasm of both, and anti-Roman Jewish insurrectionist elements in the traditional gospels. Davies concludes that Mark used Thomas as a sayings source. Mack notes the affinity between Q Sayings and earlier Cynic humor. Brandon and Eisenman provide immense details on the anti-Roman Jewish insurrectionist elements in the gospels.

It is of course possible to devise other sets of premises from which to explore Jesus and the earliest church communities. I do not quarrel at all with any such approach which produces a historically plausible reconstruction. I think the proof of any hypothetical approach - if such proof can exist at all - will be found in a critical examination of how well the hypothesis explains extant written accounts. Most important, any historical reconstruction must be historically plausible. Thinking persons do not place confidence in explanations purporting to be "outside of history," "above history," or any other term that justifies replacing honest appraisal with denial or fantasy.

I would also note that several top scholars view early church history through a lens of plausibility rather than certainty. In concluding that Jesus was primarily a healer - or a reformer - or a rabbi - or a teacher of ethics -or a preacher of eschatology, various scholars embark on a course of historical reconstruction that cannot be proven absolutely. They seem to understand that it is futile to adopt a rigorous standard of historical certainty which rules out hypothetical exploration of a historically plausible set of premises.

I point this out because some modern scholars object when a historically plausible reconstruction is proposed. Typically they argue that the reconstruction is not absolutely certain. I concede that point. And I submit that in most cases the argument is irrelevant. Their objection applies to any historical reconstruction of the early church, and indeed to many reconstructions of modern history. Neverthyeless, a firm commitment to progress is still useful.

In evaluating the hypothesis that the earliest Jesus community identified itself as insurrectionist, I rely primarily on recent work of scholars whom I consider most informed and accessible: Paula Fredricksen, John Dominic Crossan, Elaine Pagels, Burton Mack, Robert Eisenman, Michael L. White, Bart Ehrmann, and Marcus Borg. These top scholars provide both depth and breadth in their published material which relates to the development of the early church. Their conclusions, while not always in strict agreement, share a remarkable consensus on most key points. Their observations and conclusions can be safely employed to evaluate the hypothesis of this site.

It should be noted that I doubt any of the scholars listed above would completely support what I propose here. However I would argue that an insurrectionist hypothesis for the early church is generally compatible with their conclusions. Of course there will be important disagreements on some points.

So I propose to create an online resource for exploring the hypothesis that John the Baptist, Jesus, and their earliest followers were anti-Roman Jewish insurrectionists seeking to restore the Jewish Temple-State. In doing so I lean heavily on the earlier work of Brandon and Eisenman.

Evidence for this hypothesis will be arranged according to the most important early sources: Paul, Gospel of Thomas, Q, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I think the value (or its absence!) of this approach will become clear as evidence is analyzed at the most general level. That evidence has already been collected and summarized by top New Testament scholars. Here and there I have added my own contributions.

Later developments, which might properly be called early church history, are reflected in the gospels and in the pseudo-Pauline letters, especially Hebrews, Titus, and the two letters to Timothy. These indicate clearly the later developments which distanced early church communities from the ideals of insurrectionism and personal healing, and which moved some communities toward accomodation with Rome mediated by community authorities.

While I have read a great deal of scholarly studies which relate to what I hope to show here, I am not trained as a New Testament scholar. Some New Testament scholars may object to a serious amateur proposing a historical plausible reconstruction of the early church. In response I would note only that the work of scholars, when intended only for other scholars, is useful only for perpetuating academic position and book sales. I have no objections to educated persons making a living in those fashions. Yet I simply do not accept the premise that an understanding of how the early church developed must be the exclusive province of scholars.

Still I confess my own shortcomings in education and experience. I freely acknowledge that any errors, failures to consider important issues, or failures to attribute an idea to an earlier source, are mine alone. Please email me about an obvious error or failure to attribute, and I will correct it.

Regards,
Paul Lanier
Albuquerque

There is something touching in the anxiety which everyone shows to rediscover himself, together with his own point of view and his own circle of interest, in this Jesus Christ, or at least to get a share in him - Adolf Harnack, What is Christianity? p.6 (1899).