timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
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.