Extrabiblical Evidence about Jesus in the First 2 Centuries

[Mendalla]

Do you think Paul's Christianity was the same or different from the original beginnings of Christianity?

I think if they are different, it is Paul's that matters today. That is the Christianity we have and no amount of effort is ever going to "purify" it back to what Jesus taught because all the major sources are Pauline or later. Paul, as @revsdd says, gets a bad rap from modern Christians, at least on the liberal and progressive ends of the spectrum and that is too bad (I was down on him, too, at one point but my recent UU perspective has actually changed that). Christianity as a faith is Paul's legacy and it is a good legacy in many ways.

 

[Waterfall]

Thankyou for all of these excellent responses!

 

[Seeler]

The writings of the New Testament were already largely established by the time of Nicaea, and those and the writings of the "church fathers" and others were the basis on which Nicaea made its theological decisions. It's become the "in thing" to say that Nicaea was all about imperial politics. That's also much exaggerated. Not that it didn't play a role, but the discussions were highly theological in nature.

As to Paul - I know you addressed that to Medalla but by "the original beginnings of Christianity" do you mean the teachings of Jesus?

Paul gets a bad rap from many people today too. By the standards of his day he was remarkably enlightened. I would say that he took the basis of what he had been taught/had been revealed to him about the teachings of Jesus and adapted them to a Gentile context.

I also wonder if Paul's bad rap might be because of the many books (epistles) once attributed to him that since have come into question. For instance his views on marriage and about women in general seem to be traced back to Timothy, which I understand was written much later than Paul's authentic letters - and the passage in Corinthians that is almost word for word similar to Timothy was likely copied from Timothy and inserted in Paul's letter. In his authentic letters Paul comes across as someone who willingly worked with women in the churches and respected them.

 

[revsdd]

I also wonder if Paul's bad rap might be because of the many books (epistles) once attributed to him that since have come into question. For instance his views on marriage and about women in general seem to be traced back to Timothy, which I understand was written much later than Paul's authentic letters - and the passage in Corinthians that is almost word for word similar to Timothy was likely copied from Timothy and inserted in Paul's letter. In his authentic letters Paul comes across as someone who willingly worked with women in the churches and respected them.

I assume you're talking about 1 Corinthians 14:34ff - "women should stay silent in the churches ..." and you're considering its relation to 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

I personally don't have a problem with pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, but I think we fail to appreciate the context. Paul is discussing orderly worship. The particular issue seems to have been that women were disrupting the orderliness of Christian gatherings in order to ask questions about what was happening or what they were hearing. Paul felt this was inappropriate. The issue is why they were doing it. Some have speculated that women in the 1st century were generally uneducated and were perhaps making use of their freedom and equality to shout out questions during worship. He singles out women because the other largely uneducated group in the 1st century was the poor, but the Corinthian church was a bit of an anomaly in that it seems to have been a wealthier church. Corinth itself was a fairly well to do trading city. The concern seems to have been that anyone would disrupt worship - but in the case of Corinth, "anyone" was likely women. Paul's advice was "if you have questions, hold them and ask your husbands (who would have been more educated) when you get home." It sounds sexist to modern ears, but I don't think Paul meant it to say that women could not be leaders, teachers, etc. His letters are full of references to women who were his co-workers, and also to the equality of the sexes, to the extent that a 1st century mind could grasp that context. Keep in mind that immediately before those words, he's concerned about too many people speaking in tongues at once and nobody interpreting. Those folks are to keep quiet as well if there's no interpreter. Then he seems to suggest that prophets are speaking over each other. That has to be controlled. Kind of "if you're prophesying and somebody else gets a word from God shut up and let that person talk." Paul seems frustrated to me in this passage and kind of lashes out at various people he sees as bringing disorder into worship.

Although some have suggested that 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 is a later interpolation, I'd argue that it's more likely that the author of 1 Timothy lifted Paul's words from 1 Corinthians out of that surrounding context and made them much harsher and more restrictive toward women than Paul ever intended.

 

[Mystic]

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (the Roman spelling of "Christus"), he(Claudius) expelled them from Rome (Suetonius, Claudius 35)."
In Acts of the Apostles (18:2) the writer makes the following parallel commentary

"And he (Paul) found a certain Jew named Aquila, a man of Pontus by race, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome: and he came unto them Acts 18:2).""

Around 49 AD, a Christian house church was first established in Rome, and these believers were gaining converts in Rome's synagogues. These conversions evidently triggered an angry Jewish backlash that Claudius misunderstood as Jewish sedition., and so, ordered the expulsion of Jews. Claius evidently thinks that Chrestus (Christ) is actually present to lead the insurrection. The Romans initially had a very poor understanding of Christian claims and history.

As an aside, at my Catholic university, I used to begin my Women and Religion course with this question: "Who can identify the woman who invented the Roman Catholic church?" The students laughed at my exaggerated rhetoric until I laid out a detailed argument that Priscilla (not Aquila) is the best candidate as the founder of the church of Rome.

Christians paid a heavy price for Roman ignorance of their beliefs and practices. Tacitus implies that Romans characterized Christians as "haters of the human race." This stereotype may partly be due to the misunderstanding of Holy Communion as cannibalism (eating the body and blood of Christ). But I suspect part of the problem was Christian separatism and judgmental preaching. I tell my conservative Christian friends that their strident conscience-based opposition to gay marriage has encouraged a stereotype of conservatives as haters of gays. Extremists encourage this false stereotype. In fact, I'd argue that the success of gay marriage in the USA is largely a backlash against conservative Christian Bible-thumping on this issue.

 

[Seeler]

I assume you're talking about 1 Corinthians 14:34ff - "women should stay silent in the churches ..." and you're considering its relation to 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

I personally don't have a problem with pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, but I think we fail to appreciate the context. Paul is discussing orderly worship. The particular issue seems to have been that women were disrupting the orderliness of Christian gatherings in order to ask questions about what was happening or what they were hearing. Paul felt this was inappropriate. The issue is why they were doing it. Some have speculated that women in the 1st century were generally uneducated and were perhaps making use of their freedom and equality to shout out questions during worship. He singles out women because the other largely uneducated group in the 1st century was the poor, but the Corinthian church was a bit of an anomaly in that it seems to have been a wealthier church. Corinth itself was a fairly well to do trading city. The concern seems to have been that anyone would disrupt worship - but in the case of Corinth, "anyone" was likely women. Paul's advice was "if you have questions, hold them and ask your husbands (who would have been more educated) when you get home." It sounds sexist to modern ears, but I don't think Paul meant it to say that women could not be leaders, teachers, etc. His letters are full of references to women who were his co-workers, and also to the equality of the sexes, to the extent that a 1st century mind could grasp that context. Keep in mind that immediately before those words, he's concerned about too many people speaking in tongues at once and nobody interpreting. Those folks are to keep quiet as well if there's no interpreter. Then he seems to suggest that prophets are speaking over each other. That has to be controlled. Kind of "if you're prophesying and somebody else gets a word from God shut up and let that person talk." Paul seems frustrated to me in this passage and kind of lashes out at various people he sees as bringing disorder into worship.

Although some have suggested that 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 is a later interpolation, I'd argue that it's more likely that the author of 1 Timothy lifted Paul's words from 1 Corinthians out of that surrounding context and made them much harsher and more restrictive toward women than Paul ever intended.

Two ways of looking at it. We both seem to agree that the two passages are related.

 

[revsdd]

Two ways of looking at it. We both seem to agree that the two passages are related.

Definitely related. I think my view is correct only because the very harsh interpretation of the passage doesn't fit the specific context - in which Paul commanded many to be silent - or the broader Pauline context in which women were seen as largely equal rather than as subservient. Even in Paul's advice about marriage, if one understands what he writes it's a statement of equality between husband and wife. I think Paul wrote this and the author of 1 Timothy used it rather than it having been edited in to 1 Corinthians later because the writing in 1 Corinthians does fit the context of the wider passage - the concern for orderly worship - perfectly.

 

[Jaebius]

I assume you're talking about 1 Corinthians 14:34ff - "women should stay silent in the churches ..." and you're considering its relation to 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

I personally don't have a problem with pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, but I think we fail to appreciate the context. Paul is discussing orderly worship. The particular issue seems to have been that women were disrupting the orderliness of Christian gatherings in order to ask questions about what was happening or what they were hearing. Paul felt this was inappropriate. The issue is why they were doing it. Some have speculated that women in the 1st century were generally uneducated and were perhaps making use of their freedom and equality to shout out questions during worship. He singles out women because the other largely uneducated group in the 1st century was the poor, but the Corinthian church was a bit of an anomaly in that it seems to have been a wealthier church. Corinth itself was a fairly well to do trading city. The concern seems to have been that anyone would disrupt worship - but in the case of Corinth, "anyone" was likely women. Paul's advice was "if you have questions, hold them and ask your husbands (who would have been more educated) when you get home." It sounds sexist to modern ears, but I don't think Paul meant it to say that women could not be leaders, teachers, etc. His letters are full of references to women who were his co-workers, and also to the equality of the sexes, to the extent that a 1st century mind could grasp that context. Keep in mind that immediately before those words, he's concerned about too many people speaking in tongues at once and nobody interpreting. Those folks are to keep quiet as well if there's no interpreter. Then he seems to suggest that prophets are speaking over each other. That has to be controlled. Kind of "if you're prophesying and somebody else gets a word from God shut up and let that person talk." Paul seems frustrated to me in this passage and kind of lashes out at various people he sees as bringing disorder into worship.

Although some have suggested that 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 is a later interpolation, I'd argue that it's more likely that the author of 1 Timothy lifted Paul's words from 1 Corinthians out of that surrounding context and made them much harsher and more restrictive toward women than Paul ever intended.

From what I understand, the women were being noisy because they were not as accustomed to being in corporate worship. In the Jewish temple, the men had worshipped while the women were free to stay outside the worship space and chat. When they came into worship in the new Christian economy, they had to learn how to be orderly. If it had been the men who were less accustomed to worship, Paul would have been telling them to keep silent.

 

[Waterfall]

Wasn't Priscilla one of the founders of the church in Corinth? Possibly a pastor?

 

[Mystic]

1 Timothy 2:11-15 is in a Deutero-Pauline epistle. 5 reasons are widely recognized as grounds for considering 1 Cor 14:34-35 a later interpolation.
1. It contradicts Paul's allusion with approval of women prophesying aloud in church in 11:13.
2. There is precedent for a Corinthian interpolation. We know of one other interpolation in Paul's Corinthians letters (2 Cor 6:14-7:1). This interpolation was added around 85 AD when Paul's letters were collected. 2 Cor is actually a fusion of 2 or 3 epistles.
3. Paul would never base an argument for church order on the Law of Moses. He teaches that Christ is the end of the Law (Rom 10:4)."
4. 1 Cor 14:34-35 rests uncomfortably in its present context--a discussion of speaking in tongues and prophecy. When it is excised, the 2 ends fit neatly together--a good sign of an interpolation.
5. The Greek NT manuscripts relocate it in various places, recognizing it as an intrusion in it present context.

Once 1 Cor 14:34-35 recognized as an interpolation, Paul is exposed as the greatest champion of female leadership in the early church. See his celebration of female leaders in Rom 16.

 

[revsdd]

As I've said, I'm unconvinced that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is an interpolation. However, you're welcome to your opinion.

 

[Mystic]

Typo: 1 Cor 11:5 (not 11;13) is Paul's allusion to women praying and prophesying aloud in church.

 

[Jaebius]

Wasn't Priscilla one of the founders of the church in Corinth? Possibly a pastor?

Priscilla, with help from her husband Aquila, taught the Gospel to Apollos. However, she was not a pastor. The Corinthian church, founded by Paul, did meet at least for a time in the home of Priscilla and Aquila.

 

[Mystic]

I need to repost this with typo corrections and the admission that this is not my original thinking; it is a summary of the scholarly consensus. See e..g Hans Conzelmann's magisterial Hermeneia Commentary on 1 Corinthians. I also should elaborate on my comment on Rom 16.

1 Timothy 2:11-15 is in a Deutero-Pauline epistle. 5 reasons are widely recognized as grounds for considering 1 Cor 14:34-35 a later interpolation.
1. It contradicts Paul's allusion with approval of women prophesying aloud in church in 11:5.
2. There is precedent for a Corinthian interpolation. We know of one other interpolation in Paul's Corinthians letters (2 Cor 6:14-7:1). This interpolation was added around 85 AD when Paul's letters were collected. 2 Cor is actually a fusion of 2 or 3 epistles.
3. Paul would never base an argument for church order on the Law of Moses. He teaches that Christ is the end of the Law (Rom 10:4)."
4. 1 Cor 14:34-35 rests uncomfortably in its present context--a discussion of speaking in tongues and prophecy. When it is excised, the 2 ends fit neatly together--a good sign of an interpolation.
5. The Greek NT manuscripts relocate it in various places, recognizing it as an intrusion in it present context.

Once 1 Cor 14:34-35 is recognized as an interpolation, Paul is exposed as the greatest champion of female leadership in the early church. Rom 16 functions as a reference letter for Phoebe who apparently brings this epistle to Rome. Paul celebrates her as a "minister," not a deaconess of her church, and says she was "a ruler (Greek: prostatis) of many, including myself." This Greek word is usually translated as "benefactor" because scholars can't believe Paul would submit to her authority in her church. But he may simply be deferring to her local authority. Only later does "diakonos" come to mean deacon rather than "minister." Paul celebrates Junia as "an apostle," and this status is reaffirmed by the early church fathers. The KJV translates "Junias," a man's name, but Junias is unprecedented as a man's name in f the Greco-Roman world and Junia was common as a woman's name. Paul also celebrates Priscilla, who, as I said, seems to have founded the first house church in Rome, as well as house churches elsewhere.

Her missionary role explains why she is mentioned before her husband in 4 of the 6 NT allusions to this couple. Our earliest description of the composition of the Roman church complains that it is basically a lot of women and their children (so Tatian). Priscilla's (not Aquila's) house church stood as a monument in Rome until the 6th century. Her house church was founded not later than 49 AD, when Claudius expelled her. There is no evidence of Peter's arrival in Rome before the 60s. Apparently, Aquila supplied the funding and Priscilla did the missionary work that succeeded primarily among women in the early years.


t

 

[Seeler]

1 Timothy 2:11-15 is in a Deutero-Pauline epistle. 5 reasons are widely recognized as grounds for considering 1 Cor 14:34-35 a later interpolation.
1. It contradicts Paul's allusion with approval of women prophesying aloud in church in 11:13.
2. There is precedent for a Corinthian interpolation. We know of one other interpolation in Paul's Corinthians letters (2 Cor 6:14-7:1). This interpolation was added around 85 AD when Paul's letters were collected. 2 Cor is actually a fusion of 2 or 3 epistles.
3. Paul would never base an argument for church order on the Law of Moses. He teaches that Christ is the end of the Law (Rom 10:4)."
4. 1 Cor 14:34-35 rests uncomfortably in its present context--a discussion of speaking in tongues and prophecy. When it is excised, the 2 ends fit neatly together--a good sign of an interpolation.
5. The Greek NT manuscripts relocate it in various places, recognizing it as an intrusion in it present context.

Once 1 Cor 14:34-35 recognized as an interpolation, Paul is exposed as the greatest champion of female leadership in the early church. See his celebration of female leaders in Rom 16.

This is pretty much my understanding as well.

 

[Mystic]

Seeler, in celebrating Junia, Paul says she was a Christian prior to him. She is an apostle and to be an apostle (according to Paul) she must have seen the Risen Lord. In my view, Junia was 1 of the 500 who experienced a resurrection appearance (see 1 Cor 15:3-8). The Greek "Junia" is equivalent to the Hebrew "Joanna." As Joanna, Junia was, I think, one of the women who financed Jesus' ministry (Lk 8:1-3) and was present at the cross and empty tomb. If women could be apostles, why not bishops and even popes?

History is written by winners and the early winners were men. Therefore, the contributions of female leaders to the church have been suppressed. In my view, apart from Paul, a case can be made that women played the most important role in making Christianity a world religion.

 

[Mystic]

Ty

Tying up a loose end on Josephus: Notice carefully that chansen omits reference to Josephus's undisputed allusion to Jesus: "James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ (Antiquities 20.9.1). Internet skeptics often dismiss the Testimonium as a Christian interpolation and then ignorantly claim that Josephus shows no knowledge of Jesus. But are skeptics correct that the Testimonium is an interpolation? Hardly. The Greek style has been analyzed I detail and nicely fits Josephus' style. Ancient forgers were not adept at stylistic analysis and imitation. Only a few words have been added by a Christian scribe to make it appear that Josephus was a Christian. Jseephus was born 7 years after Jesus' crucifixion and knew the rudimentary elements of the Gospel story.

 

[BetteTheRed]

I'm not even sure that's true. Josephus certainly knew of James the Just, Jesus' brother. Is it interesting to anyone that James was probably more famous than his brother in his own time?

 

[chansen]

Only a few words have been added by a Christian scribe to make it appear that Josephus was a Christian.

So you're actually going to argue that, yes, Christians tampered with the text, but it still deserves merit because it doesn't *all* read like a Christian marketing ploy?

"Yes, we forged it, but only part of it! The rest is real! Honest!"

Let's also recognize that if Josephus didn't know about James, the Christian forgers certainly did.

 

[BetteTheRed]

From what I've read, chansen, particularly in Reza Aslan's fairly recent work, James was a very good, JUST and pious Jew who was quite famous in Jerusalem, so it makes sense that Josephus would have known of him.

It really appears, despite, perhaps, the inclusion of his little missive in the NT, that James had no intention, no interest, in anything besides a reform of Temple Judaism.