Brandon's response so far:
Didache (which is very cool in many ways) resource: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
Though fascinating and applicable, it "has continued to be one of the most disputed of early Christian texts." My fantasy find not only involves a suprising and more obviously authoritative text, but one that fails to recommend "you bondmen shall be subject to your masters as to a type of God, in modesty and fear."
An "anonymous" voice here suggested that the Bible had been outlawed everywere to allow for complete Papal control, and also pointed out the difference between slavery in the First Century and more recent history in the Southern United States.
While these points are important, an anonymous voice is difficult to engage in this context.
If "Anonymous" would like to be a full part of this, he or she may feel free to appear under a recognizable name.
Question(s) that come up:
"It stresses compassion and personal ethics over our modern "outward" ethics, and shows the "abominations" of the First Century Christians were things like "turning away the needy, weighing down with toil the oppressed, [being] advocates of the rich." "
What happened? Goof Troop Ag
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Rufel has offered:
Except that the Bible as Bible has all of those "problems with Judeo-Christianity" in it -- let's not even talk about the OT God who would test the "righteous" believers by ordering them to sacrifice their son and then staying their hand just before the knife drops upon the poor innocents' neck.
And as for Christianity, well, what flavour? For the the early church of Augustine's time certainly didn't survive the Great Schism that split the Christian world between East and West (Orthodox and Catholicism, respectively) in the 11th century (1054, as I recall).
And as for Dark Ages... that term is a huge misnomer, for the Medieval World was a diverse place in which some places where certainly "dark" but other places where shining beacons of culture, like Byzantium. (Believe me, after living with two medievalists, one of whom has a doctorate in Medieval Studies, I've become convinced of this.)
And as for the Bible being outlawed, the majority of Biblical teaching was oral -- literacy rates among ordinary folk certainly didn't include being able to read ecclesiastical Latin, which was the universal language of the Western Christian Church at that time. In my own doctoral research in medieval drama, I've found out that for the ordinary folk mystery cycles, that dramatized the Bible from Creation to Judgement Day, was a more effective means of spreading the faith than *reading* it, because, except for a dedicated few, who had time to learn to read and then to read the Bible?
And, no, my research has shown that it wasn't the clergy who wrote the plays -- it was the laity. That's why the plays were so popular -- they were the film festivals of their day.
This sacred/secular dichotomy isn't a medieval thing... in fact, the medieval world saw the sacred and secular as mixed... Manicheanism (this dual-split) was a heretical notion, unfortunately passed down from the residue of Augustine's own dabbling with Manicheanism before he became a Christian, and it was passed down, whole-hog, into fundamentalist strains of Christianity.
So, Eric, I agree with you on Augustine -- although I still think he, like Nietzsche, was a guy whose followers became more extreme than he ever was. The other points I kind of go, "Ummm..."
Except that the Bible as Bible has all of those "problems with Judeo-Christianity" in it -- let's not even talk about the OT God who would test the "righteous" believers by ordering them to sacrifice their son and then staying their hand just before the knife drops upon the poor innocents' neck.
And as for Christianity, well, what flavour? For the the early church of Augustine's time certainly didn't survive the Great Schism that split the Christian world between East and West (Orthodox and Catholicism, respectively) in the 11th century (1054, as I recall).
And as for Dark Ages... that term is a huge misnomer, for the Medieval World was a diverse place in which some places where certainly "dark" but other places where shining beacons of culture, like Byzantium. (Believe me, after living with two medievalists, one of whom has a doctorate in Medieval Studies, I've become convinced of this.)
And as for the Bible being outlawed, the majority of Biblical teaching was oral -- literacy rates among ordinary folk certainly didn't include being able to read ecclesiastical Latin, which was the universal language of the Western Christian Church at that time. In my own doctoral research in medieval drama, I've found out that for the ordinary folk mystery cycles, that dramatized the Bible from Creation to Judgement Day, was a more effective means of spreading the faith than *reading* it, because, except for a dedicated few, who had time to learn to read and then to read the Bible?
And, no, my research has shown that it wasn't the clergy who wrote the plays -- it was the laity. That's why the plays were so popular -- they were the film festivals of their day.
This sacred/secular dichotomy isn't a medieval thing... in fact, the medieval world saw the sacred and secular as mixed... Manicheanism (this dual-split) was a heretical notion, unfortunately passed down from the residue of Augustine's own dabbling with Manicheanism before he became a Christian, and it was passed down, whole-hog, into fundamentalist strains of Christianity.
So, Eric, I agree with you on Augustine -- although I still think he, like Nietzsche, was a guy whose followers became more extreme than he ever was. The other points I kind of go, "Ummm..."
Sometimes tangential comments on other blogs can get a bit out of hand.
I've brought just such an attached thread here because I dig it.
This is the thread begun by my response to Lisa's questions which I hope may develop here more deeply than is characteristic of most blogs. if things get lost in the daily shuffle, please search for terms you rememeber.
Eric's collected responses/suggestions/positions (admittedly taken out of the conversational order):
In the last post [Brandon] said he would like to find a discovery that shows Jesus didn't really espouse most of the modern theological views projected on Him. Well, I have to admit, that is an even better answer than the Ark of the Covenant, and while there may or may not be something out there that would fit the bill, there is something that would start.
It's called the Didache. I probably told you about it too. It's an awesome manuscript found a little over a hundred years ago and now universally accepted as a genuine document written no later than AD 70. While it perpetuates many of our ideas, it also opens the door to a MUCH broader interpretation, and it also shows us that the main focus of the early church was altruism - helping the poor, etc. One could not walk "in the light" unless he or she put others first.
It is also astoundingly inclusive in its wording. Instead of using all the male-centric vocabulary of the traditional books of the Bible, it uses non-gender-specific words nearly all the time. It's just an awesome book, and you can get a paperback copy for almost nothing.
The Didache was hotly debated for a long time, but its *veracity* is pretty much universally accepted. Many other first and early second century documents have been found that quote part of it. Nearly everyone agrees that the absolute latest it was written would have been the very beginning of the second century, but most scholars accept that it is an authentic first century Christian manuscript.
Its *content* is an entirely different matter. It seems that almost everyone has a different view about it. That's understandable, though. I personally like Aaron Milavech's writing about it.
Of course, your fantasy would be the most amazing discovery. I think it would change the world more than any other, because whether or not we like it, Western Christianity has probably shaped the world more than any other thing, including science. Our ethics, which stem from the Judeo-Christian culture (whether genuine or not), color everything. Imagine what it would be like for the new "religious right" who have turned God into a commodity, if they found irrefutable evidence of Jesus' outright compassion. That is one thing I loved about the Didache. It stresses compassion and personal ethics over our modern "outward" ethics, and shows the "abominations" of the First Century Christians were things like "turning away the needy, weighing down with toil the oppressed, [being] advocates of the rich." That puts a major dent in the whole "Moral Majority" right-wing theology so pervasive today.
We owe our modern (and largely false) religious doctrines on three things:
1) Constantine - made Christianity the state religion, but mixed in pagan ideologies thoroughly.
2) Augustine - decided sex, pleasure, and prosperity were evil, and single-handedly shifted Christianity from a religion of peacemaking, generosity, and social altruism into a religion of self-condemnation and judgment.
3) The Dark Ages - we lost so, so, so much in the Dark Ages. Basically, Bibles were completely outlawed, and this is when Christianity turned from a personal belief into a clergy/laity paradigm where the church has absolute power and spiritual authority over "the common man." Before this, all were considered brothers and equals in the church. After, we got the sacred/secular dichotomy we have today.
That's a very condensed version, of course...
Actually, a couple hundred years before Manicheanism, Gnosticism started the sacred/secular paradigm in the church as early as AD 60. By the time Constantine came around, Gnosticism had already infiltrated much of the church, and was a major point in the Nicene and Arian Controversies.
As for Abraham with Isaac, it was a prophetic enactment of what God would do later with Jesus. And Jewish tradition and the book of Hebrews say that Abraham wasn't afraid to do it because he had faith that even if God did make him go through with it, He would raise Isaac from the dead according to His promise. There is a lot of violence in the Old Testament, but it can certainly be argued that most of it is culturally relevant: God speaking to the people on their terms rather than His.
It's not [a question] of true theology, but is really about history when it all boils down to it.
By the way, I know vocal intonation can't really come across in this. I hope it doesn't come across as a lecture. Just trying to explain some history.
I've brought just such an attached thread here because I dig it.
This is the thread begun by my response to Lisa's questions which I hope may develop here more deeply than is characteristic of most blogs. if things get lost in the daily shuffle, please search for terms you rememeber.
Eric's collected responses/suggestions/positions (admittedly taken out of the conversational order):
In the last post [Brandon] said he would like to find a discovery that shows Jesus didn't really espouse most of the modern theological views projected on Him. Well, I have to admit, that is an even better answer than the Ark of the Covenant, and while there may or may not be something out there that would fit the bill, there is something that would start.
It's called the Didache. I probably told you about it too. It's an awesome manuscript found a little over a hundred years ago and now universally accepted as a genuine document written no later than AD 70. While it perpetuates many of our ideas, it also opens the door to a MUCH broader interpretation, and it also shows us that the main focus of the early church was altruism - helping the poor, etc. One could not walk "in the light" unless he or she put others first.
It is also astoundingly inclusive in its wording. Instead of using all the male-centric vocabulary of the traditional books of the Bible, it uses non-gender-specific words nearly all the time. It's just an awesome book, and you can get a paperback copy for almost nothing.
The Didache was hotly debated for a long time, but its *veracity* is pretty much universally accepted. Many other first and early second century documents have been found that quote part of it. Nearly everyone agrees that the absolute latest it was written would have been the very beginning of the second century, but most scholars accept that it is an authentic first century Christian manuscript.
Its *content* is an entirely different matter. It seems that almost everyone has a different view about it. That's understandable, though. I personally like Aaron Milavech's writing about it.
Of course, your fantasy would be the most amazing discovery. I think it would change the world more than any other, because whether or not we like it, Western Christianity has probably shaped the world more than any other thing, including science. Our ethics, which stem from the Judeo-Christian culture (whether genuine or not), color everything. Imagine what it would be like for the new "religious right" who have turned God into a commodity, if they found irrefutable evidence of Jesus' outright compassion. That is one thing I loved about the Didache. It stresses compassion and personal ethics over our modern "outward" ethics, and shows the "abominations" of the First Century Christians were things like "turning away the needy, weighing down with toil the oppressed, [being] advocates of the rich." That puts a major dent in the whole "Moral Majority" right-wing theology so pervasive today.
We owe our modern (and largely false) religious doctrines on three things:
1) Constantine - made Christianity the state religion, but mixed in pagan ideologies thoroughly.
2) Augustine - decided sex, pleasure, and prosperity were evil, and single-handedly shifted Christianity from a religion of peacemaking, generosity, and social altruism into a religion of self-condemnation and judgment.
3) The Dark Ages - we lost so, so, so much in the Dark Ages. Basically, Bibles were completely outlawed, and this is when Christianity turned from a personal belief into a clergy/laity paradigm where the church has absolute power and spiritual authority over "the common man." Before this, all were considered brothers and equals in the church. After, we got the sacred/secular dichotomy we have today.
That's a very condensed version, of course...
Actually, a couple hundred years before Manicheanism, Gnosticism started the sacred/secular paradigm in the church as early as AD 60. By the time Constantine came around, Gnosticism had already infiltrated much of the church, and was a major point in the Nicene and Arian Controversies.
As for Abraham with Isaac, it was a prophetic enactment of what God would do later with Jesus. And Jewish tradition and the book of Hebrews say that Abraham wasn't afraid to do it because he had faith that even if God did make him go through with it, He would raise Isaac from the dead according to His promise. There is a lot of violence in the Old Testament, but it can certainly be argued that most of it is culturally relevant: God speaking to the people on their terms rather than His.
It's not [a question] of true theology, but is really about history when it all boils down to it.
By the way, I know vocal intonation can't really come across in this. I hope it doesn't come across as a lecture. Just trying to explain some history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)