Ask a Theologian IV

timtofly · Nov 15, 2013

Plotinus said:
There was certainly infighting in early Christianity, though I don't know of any evidence of bribery. But then there always is, in any movement, especially after the first or second generations have passed on and people have different ideas about what direction to take things. Just look at the Franciscan order, for example, or the Soviet revolution.

However, I'm struck by an interesting thing about this new wave of conspiracy theories. In the past, anti-Christian polemics typically focused on the differences between the different strands of early Christianity. This idea had its roots in early nineteenth-century German scholarship on the New Testament, such as that of Baur, which argued that there was a major split in the early church between those who wanted Christianity to be a branch of Judaism (the followers of James) and those who wanted it to go beyond Judaism (the followers of Paul). The theory was that this great division has been whitewashed in the New Testament as we have it, especially in Acts, which presents Paul and James as good friends; but the cracks are still there if you look hard enough. And so the traditional belief of Christians that the apostles faithfully preserved the message of Jesus and wrote it reliably in the New Testament is false; the New Testament is actually a hodgepodge of competing voices, a shouting tumult under which the real voice of Jesus is barely discernible.

But now the new conspiracy theorists are saying the exact opposite. Now we're being told that the New Testament speaks with a single voice, that of Paul. Paul, it turns out, invented the whole thing, and not only wrote the letters attributed to him but somehow inspired all of the other New Testament writings as well, even the ones that disagree with him.

The new conspiracy theory seems to me much less plausible than the old one. The old one was based on real scholarship and the real fact that there was, actually, quite a lot of disagreement between the early Christians, which we can see recorded in the New Testament - although probably not as much disagreement as the old conspiracy theorists thought. The new conspiracy theory is actually more like traditional Christianity, in that it thinks the whole New Testament is in basic agreement and speaks with a single voice. It feels very odd to read anti-Christian polemics that are insisting on these traditional Christian beliefs that modern scholars reject.

I read the Jesus wars, and IIR some of the votes were "purchased".

If the manuscripts are still around from the first 100 to 200 years, it would be hard to re-invent any conspiracies unless new evidence came to light. Spinning things that don't exist can still happen. I am no theologian by any stretch of the definition, but it is an interest of mine. Perhaps it is making things too simple to compare the division between James and Paul as being similar to the US's current political structure. Both sides want the "best" for the populace but their attempts are at odds with each other. It would seem to me that Paul had the education and political status advantage over James, but I am missing the point how their portrayal of the Gospel is at odds with each other in light of their backgrounds.

Could it not be said that the Roman version of how history unfolded was a conspiracy theory to portray Peter as the founder? According to some Jesus appointed James as the first leader. Some would say Peter was the first leader. And then others would say Paul was the leader. Could it not be said that each followed their heart and thoughts and did what they could. That they were leaders or influential was only a by product, not who they set out to be.

Plotinus · Nov 16, 2013

timtofly said:
I read the Jesus wars, and IIR some of the votes were "purchased".

I don't know what you're referring to there, so I can't comment on it.

timtofly said:
If the manuscripts are still around from the first 100 to 200 years, it would be hard to re-invent any conspiracies unless new evidence came to light. Spinning things that don't exist can still happen.

There are a few little fragments of New Testament texts that arguably date from the first century, but really for pretty much all texts of this period (Christian and non-Christian) we're dependent on manuscript copies from hundreds of years later. Fortunately in the case of the New Testament there are many copies in many different traditions, not to mention all the quotations in patristic texts, so we can be very confident of the text.

timtofly said:
I am no theologian by any stretch of the definition, but it is an interest of mine. Perhaps it is making things too simple to compare the division between James and Paul as being similar to the US's current political structure. Both sides want the "best" for the populace but their attempts are at odds with each other. It would seem to me that Paul had the education and political status advantage over James, but I am missing the point how their portrayal of the Gospel is at odds with each other in light of their backgrounds.

Could it not be said that the Roman version of how history unfolded was a conspiracy theory to portray Peter as the founder? According to some Jesus appointed James as the first leader. Some would say Peter was the first leader. And then others would say Paul was the leader. Could it not be said that each followed their heart and thoughts and did what they could. That they were leaders or influential was only a by product, not who they set out to be.

I agree with you. People often get a bit carried away with early Christianity and make it out to be a thing of great moment. These people weren't titanic world-striding leaders; they were the most prominent figures in what was then a very minor movement. If Paul and James disagreed about something, that wasn't like Obama disagreeing with Bush; it wasn't even like the archbishop of Canterbury disagreeing with the Pope; it was like Alex Sanders disagreeing with Gerald Gardner. A big deal to those within that little movement, but still; they were just small-time people who were prominent in a small-time movement because of their own charisma and ability.

That said, I do think we should bear in mind that Paul, at least, set out to be a leader, at least in some sense. His own conception of himself as an "apostle" anointed directly by the risen Christ, and therefore equal to (and independent of) the apostles in Jerusalem, is one of the most important themes of his letters. No doubt it also helped that, despite the relative unimportance of the Christian movement at that time and of Paul himself, he happened to be a religious genius whose letters are so brimming with creative ideas that they're still the subject of a mountain of books today.

Gary Childress · Nov 16, 2013

Two questions for Plotinus:

1. What was the official crime which Jesus was crucified for?
2. What do you think was the real reason Jesus was crucified? (if different)

I've often wondered about this but never thought to ask here. It seems sort of sinister that people like Jesus or Martin Luther King were murdered when really all they did was try to promote love and kindness toward others. I sort of wonder what that says of humanity in general, that there are so many martyrs out there?

_random_ · Nov 16, 2013

Isn't a new thread a bit overdue now?

Plotinus · Nov 17, 2013

You're right. I've been putting it off because the index is so hopelessly out of date and it feels wrong to start a new thread without updating it. But I will anyway.

New thread is here. This thread is now closed.

(I'll answer Gary Childress' questions in the new thread.)

Ask a Theologian IV

timtofly

One Day

Plotinus

Philosopher

Gary Childress

Student for and of life

_random_

Jewel Runner

Plotinus

Philosopher

Similar threads