The Winds Of Fate by SM Stirling (that is one amazing cover, reproduced very indistinctly here);
Jesus Of Nazareth: an independent historian's account of his life and teaching by Maurice Casey.
I met Maurice once briefly through his student, James Crossley. Checking through this newly arrived book, I realize that I had misunderstood one detail of what Maurice had said in that single conversation but that is hardly surprising. Learning continues.
In Poul Anderson's works, two sets of time travellers skirt around the origins of Christianity but Anderson avoids answers which we must seek where we can find them elsewhere.
All this is relevant.
25 comments:
The Americans are all agnostics or atheists -- mind you, they're over a century past the death of Jesus, so there wouldn't be any first-hand testimony.
I defiintely described Arthur/Artorius as -leanly- muscular -- which most Rangers are. They depicted him as a musclebound weightlifter. Sigh.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
A better historical study of the Messiah is Fr. John P. Meier's A MARGINAL JEW series, of which I read the first three of the five completed volumes. And Pope Benedict XVI's three JESUS OF NAZARETH books. An older but good work is Henri Daniel-Rops' JESUS AND HIS TIMES.
Mr. Stirling: Of course, because Artorius and his grad students got shanghaied to the Roman Empire over 130 years after Christ's resurrection. But these early Christians were already producing a very varied extra-NR literature in the first/second centuries AD: The Didace, St. Clement of Rome's "Letter to the Corinthians," The Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, "The Shepherd of Hermas," the philosophical works of St. Justin Martyr, the "Apology" of Athenagoras of Athens (at the same time as Artorius!), etc.
But I'm sure you already knew that.
I noticed that hulkingly muscular Artorius! But at least the cover for THE WINDS OF FATE (showing the Roman siege of Ctesiphon) is better than what Anderson had to put up for too many of his books.
And that depiction of a mounted Marcus Aurelius in the left background strongly reminded me of the equestrian statue of the Emperor which I saw on the Capitoline Hill in Rome.
Ad astra! Sean
Correction: I meant to write "...very varied extra-NT literature..."
Drat! Sean
Sean,
You know which historical study is better?
Paul.
Before orthodoxy was imposed (in the 4th century, essentially), there were wildly variant varieties of Christianity.
There still are! Diversity could only be suppressed for a while even if the while was centuries.
Maurice Casey shows how students of the Bible projected their own meanings into it and, to avoid this, it is necessary to know Aramaic as well as Greek. (That is just one criterion.)
A "Jesus Seminar" of scholars tried to counteract fundamentalism by publishing verifiable statements about Jesus. However, some of their statements were unwarranted. Therefore, fundamentalists and other conservatives thought that they could vindicate their own positions simply by refuting Seminar errors! The whole subject is a minefield of circular thinking and self-verification.
Maurice also comes down on those who deny the existence of Jesus. They can be as biased as fundamentalists. Books like his are at least a major milestones on the road to scholarly objectivity and truth.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Yes, better, because men like Casey have no monopoly on scholarship and objectivity. When I looked him up, I could see he was just as biased as those "fundamentalists" he criticized. The books by Fr. Meier and Pope Benedict were just as learned as Casey's--they simply disagree with his preferred conclusions. It's one sided to cite only the works of anti-Christian writers.
How can you even mention the "Jesus Seminar"? Serious and real Biblical scholars, such as Fr. Raymond Brown, have a very poor opinion of its methodology and conclusions, as discussed by him in AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Mr. Stirling: But orthodoxy existed from the very beginning of Christianity because of the existence of the Catholic Church. The rise of heresies and doctrinal controversies forced the rapid development of a Catholic rule of faith, starting as early as the debates over the kosher laws and circumcision in the NT itself. And we see that continuing with the fourth pope's Clement I's "Letter to the Corinthians," who intervened in Corinthian disputes even when some of the Apostles still lived. I would also cite St. Ignatius of Antioch's extremely deferential "Letter to the Romans" as another hint of that developing rule of faith. Justin Martyr (c. AD 165) testified to the Catholic belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. AD 180) testified to the unique status and authority of the bishops of Rome.
Yes, the Arian controversy of the fourth century was important in how orthodox Christianity defined its faith, but it did not begin with Arius' errors.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course Casey has no monopoly on scholarship and objectivity! No one has! He does not claim to have. I do not think that he has. I am learning from his text as I have learned from several others and will go on learning for several more years, I hope. Casey assesses previous scholarship, saying that some of it moves towards objectivity while also pointing out and explaining
some very deeply ingrained flaws. He is not biased. I think that your approach is very biased. He does not have "preferred conclusions." He has some conclusions that he has worked towards and they simply disagree with your beliefs. Some of this is obvious and should not have to be stated. We "simply disagree." Of course! I have read Gospel commentaries by Christians. How are other studies "better" than Casey's? His mere disagreeing with your beliefs makes him "biased"?
He began as an Anglican and his beliefs changed because of his studies. He is just as critical of those who are biased "anti-Christians" as he is of biased fundamentalists or traditionalists. He is not an "anti-Christian" writer. He is independent. It is extremely biased and one-sided to label anyone who does not accept Christianity as "anti-Christian."
Of course we should mention the Jesus Seminar and anyone else even if only to disagree with them. I mentioned the Jesus Seminar only to quote Casey's criticism of it! Instead of doing that, I should not even mention the Seminar? The point was that some theologians think that mere criticism of the Seminar is alone sufficient to justify their beliefs. It is not.
Paul.
Sean: well, the Catholic tradition was one among many. It didn't have the backing of government as it did after Constantine's coversion.
Sean,
If I read a book by an author who assumes the truth of Christianity, then I heed the author's scholarship although this alone does not make me accept his assumption. (Obviously.) If you automatically dismiss as "biased" any Biblical scholar who does not accept Christianity, then you are indeed completely biased. You turn the whole subject into a battlefield with anyone who is not Christian labelled as "anti-Christian" and dismissed/demonized.
Casey welcomed scholarly contributions from anyone, Christian or non-Christian.
I think that this whole discussion needs to start again from the beginning. Just consider each scholar at face value.
Paul.
Sean,
Please read Maurice's book. It is not what you clearly think. It is an eye- opener, a thorough textual analysis. He does not set out to prove or disprove anything. He tries very hard to find out what was really said and done in Jesus' ministry. (And what was not said or done.) He shows that a misreading of a single letter in an Aramaic word can lead to a mistranslation of that word into Greek and can thus affect a Gospel text. He and James Crossley date the first Gospel (Mark, not Matthew) in 40 AD. (I know you disagree about Mark and Q but this is a disagreement, not a reason to dismiss someone else's views out of hand.) They place Jesus in his context: a first century Palestinian Jewish preacher-healer steeped in the scriptures and Hebrew prophecy. The church very quickly became Gentile with a split from Judaism which obscured that original context. There is much more than this. I am only beginning to understand things that I wish I had known decades ago.
Paul.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Yes, but one of the many unique things about the Catholic Church has been how stubbornly it resists domination by the State, any State. That has been one of the most important functions of the Papacy over the centuries.
Paul: Disagree, of course Casey is biased, as was plain when I looked him up: an atheist, a man who denies the divinity of Christ, His resurrection, or that he performed miracles. That does not strike me as being "independent," in a time like ours where it's fashionable to be "skeptical." Scholars too can be biased.
The chief value of works like those of Casey is how it forces orthodox Christians to master the dominant "historical criticism" methodology to correct the works of anti-theist writers. Which is exactly what Fr. Raymond Brown has done in works like THE DEATH OF THE MESSIAH; and Fr. John Meier in works like his A MARGINAL JEW series (five completed volumes). Another scholar, Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer has written many works in and out of Aramaic studies, such as THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND CHRISTIAN ORIGINS. I have read all of these and many others it would be tedious to list.
Of course you can mention the "Jesus Seminar," but doing so will always remind me of how devastating was Fr. Brown's criticisms of it.
"Battles" are going to be inevitable in matters like this where untold millions of people have passionate views and beliefs about it.
I abandoned any belief in the Q/Two Source theory after reading David L. Dungan's HISTORY OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM. His arguments for why the evidence we have supports an early dating for Matthew/Mark were convincing. A theme taken up by William Farmer in works like THE GOSPEL OF JESUIS, where he supports the neo-Griesbachian hypothesis.
All that also made me extremely skeptical of claims Luke/Acts were written after AD 70. Acts end with St. Paul's first Roman captivity around AD 61. If Luke wrote after AD 70, why didn't he mention the Great Fire of Rome, Nero's persecution of the Christians (AD 64), the Jewish Revolt (AD 66), the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70), etc.? It would have been so natural for a historian to discuss such things if Acts was written after AD 70.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Disagree. (This become tedious.)
Casey is biased because he is an atheist? But would not be biased if he were a theist? Then everyone is "biased" because they have a world-view. He started as an Anglican, studied the Bible and changed his views. If he were a man of bias, then he would have remained an Anglican.
He is not independent because this is a time when it is fashionable to be skeptical? So he would be independent if he were a Christian at a time when it was fashionable to believe? You have to study what a man says and his reasons and evidence for saying it, not dismiss him from the outset because he does not believe what you do. But this is obvious. I should not have to say it. You still see belief as the norm so that anyone who questions or does not accept belief is biased, fashionable, whatever discreditable adjective you can think of. It is believers who should give reasons for their beliefs. They should not just challenge the believers to disprove the belief. But I have said this before.
And Casey criticizes the Jesus Seminar. But the inadequacies of the Seminar are in no way enough to prove Christianity! We should not have to be saying this.
These "battles" are not inevitable. You clearly have passionate views which make you dismiss a thorough-going scholar like Casey as biased merely because, after examining all the evidence, he does not share your beliefs.
I know you have reasons for abandoning Q. That was not the immediate point. But, since you make a point of it, let me say that Casey's arguments for what he calls a "chaotic" Q (not just a single document) are convincing.
Casey discusses the dates of the Gospels, including Luke, in detail. I am only just coming to grips with this material. But scholarly debate about, e.g., the date of Luke is what we should be doing. It is a far cry from all this denunciation of atheists as biased etc.
I want to get back to posting on the blog, not "Disagreeing" all the time about everything in the combox.
Paul.
Sean: It was fine with dominating the State, though!
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I have to disagree because the Church has never claimed, as a matter of divine revelation, the right to any kind of theocratic rule of secular states. Unlike that heretical caricature of the Church in the alpha timeline of "Amazement of the World" in Part Six of THE SHIELD OF TIME. Even Pope Boniface VIII, during his quarrel with Philip IV of France over UNAM SANCTAM, denied that. As Fr. John Hardon wrote on page 247 of THE CATHOLIC CATECHISM (Doubleday: 1975): "But how are we to understand the preceding statements [from UNAM SANCTAM] on the subordination of State to Church, that the temporal sword "by the bidding and consent of the priesthood"? Those who say Boniface VIII meant that the the whole sphere of temporal jurisdiction is directly subject to the Church do the Pope an injustice against which he protested after the bull was published. Followers of Philio the Fair inserted into the document the spurious phrase, "We wish you (the King) to know that you hold your kingdom from us," adding that anyone who denied the proposition was a heretic. In a solemn consistory, Boniface denounced the forgery. "For forty years we have studied law, and we know that there are two powers appointed by God. Who should, then, or can, believe that we entertain, or have entertained, such stupid absurdity? We declare that in no way do we wish to usurp the jurisdiction of the King...And yet, neither the King, nor anyone else of the faithful can deny that he is subject to us where a question of sin involved."
The Church claims the right to judge the morality of acts of the State, not to rule it. That is why the Church's unyielding condemnation of all direct and deliberate abortions, to name just one hot button issue, has provoked such furious protest from many leaders in and out of positions of power. One reason I have such contempt for the Democrats is because of how, since 1973, they have fallen prostrate in worshipful adoration of Moloch!
Too many other Christian bodies, cut off from the source of unity and life which is the Church, have weakly consented to abortion and other evils "legalized" by States and rejected by the Church.
I could go on and on, but this is enough.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I've been looking at the cover illustration for THE WINDS OF FATE. It would have been more accurate showing the Romans manning that cannon without armor and stripped to the waist; because the care and tending of artillery is hot work. Esp. in a part of the world as hot as Mesopotamia!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yeah, on the cover, but they had to emphasize "these are Romans".
Note that in medieval times Catholicism was the State religion in all of Western Europe -- that is, no other religions were allowed on pain of State action, and that the State allowed the Church to prosecute and execute heretics through the Inquisition, and backed it up with its physical power.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
But the other Romans shown on the cover wearing their armor would have made that point.
It was a bit more complicated, what you said about relations between State and Church in Medieval times. E.g., people didn't think in such formal terms as "state" or "established" churches. It was more a something taken for granted. And there were still plenty of disputes between Church and State, usually because of the former resisting encroachments by the latter.
Encroachments which still goes on to this day--as when that bad man Barack Obama tried to force Catholic nuns to pay for abortions in their health insurance. A gross violation of the First Amendment!
Correct, what you said about State and Church unfortunately cooperated about how to treat heretics.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: and the Church preached crusades against heretics. Against the Albigensians in southern France, for example -- they were physically wiped out.
At a siege during that crusade, the military commander asked his 'advisor' bishop how he was going to tell the heretics from the Catholics after the city fell -- they'd pretend to be Catholics, after all, which was permitted by their religion.
The bishop said: "Kill them all. God will know His own."
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Correct, and it was worsened by the violence of Simon de Montfort. And it was complicated by things like the King of Aragon intervening, due to having vassals in that region, which brought in Philip II of France.
Ad astra! Sean
sean: well, if you believe correct belief is essential to salvation in the afterlife, heresy is a really nasty problem.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I do orthodox and true belief to be necessary for salvation. But the best way to handle those who fall into heresy is to excommunicate those who refuse to repent. Let them go their own way, however erroneous.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Yeah, but medieval people were afraid heresey was catching...
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Fears about "wrongthink" is a common human weakness--and was not limited to Medieval times.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment