Blog returning to sleep mode…

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, contemporary commentary, mythicism, Salm | 3 Replies
3

In March 2022 I began the latest series of posts, “A New Account of Christian Origins.” Numbering sixteen entries, the series has covered a lot of territory—from my views regarding the emergence of the Catholic religion in the middle of the second century CE, to the non-existence of Paul, of Marcion, and of the earliest Church Fathers (Clement of Rome, Papias, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna). While freely admitting that I may not be correct regarding all of these propositions, I am fairly confident that the most important will stand the test of time. At the very least, the onus is shifting onto the tradition to demonstrate to an increasing number of skeptics that the major figures in … Continue reading →

The infancy narratives–conclusion

Posted on by
Posted in Christian origins, Nazareth, The second century | Leave a reply
Reply

A New Account of Christian Origins / pt. 28 In this post I’d like to wrap up my survey of the Christian literature devoted to the birth of Jesus. As mentioned in a prior post, this literature is surprisingly extensive. In fact, it was once as popular as it is now obscure. The reasons are that the infancy literature gave scope for endearing domestic scenes, to portray the family of Jesus, and to bring a common touch to the otherwise exalted messiah, the awe-inspiring Son of God. In modern times, the only infancy gospel to have been accorded a modicum of scholarly attention is the so-called Protevangelium of James (PrJ).  It was once a very popular work, surviving in many different editions. … Continue reading →

Infancy narratives IV: The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy

Posted on by
Posted in christology, Gnosticism, Gospel of Mark, John the Baptist, The second century | Tagged | Leave a reply
Reply

A New Account of Christian Origins / pt. 27 In the last several posts I have been building the case that the concept of the Incarnation was a seminal turning point—not only in the ‘birth’ of Jesus of Nazareth, but also in the birth of the Christian religion. In my view, the revolutionary conception of the Incarnation first occurred towards the middle of the second century CE. Before that, a diffuse range of non-incarnational Christianities existed. This pre-Catholic stage, before the invention of Jesus of Nazareth, was characterized by belief in a spiritual Jesus (‘Stage II’ christology). These early Christianities focussed on the aspirant, not on God or on a Son of God. These first century CE religious movements were gnostic, encratite, … Continue reading →

Infancy narratives III—The Magi

Posted on by
Posted in The second century | Tagged | Leave a reply
Reply

A New Account of Christian Origins / pt. 26 In the preceding post we considered a work routinely ignored by scholarship and virtually unknown, The Revelation of the Magi (RevMagi). The bulk of this work dates to the early second century CE—about a half century before the writing of the canonical gospels—and reveals the evolving thinking in proto-Catholic circles regarding the Incarnation of Jesus. RevMagi depicts not a birth, but a metamorphosis of the universal Jesus spirit, that “appeared to you to concentrate its light in its rays, [and] that it appeared to you in the form of a small, humble, and unworthy human.”   The initial “we-source” itself is divisible into two parts: (a) an incarnation account in which the principal figures … Continue reading →

Infancy narratives II—The Revelation of the Magi

Posted on by
Posted in The second century | Leave a reply
Reply

A New Account of Christian Origins / pt. 25 In the preceding post we looked at two obscure infancy narratives embedded in Christian apocryphal works: the Ascension of Isaiah (chp. 11:1–10) dating ca. 100 CE, and the ‘New Source’ (73.1–3) dating to the early decades of II CE.  The passage in Asc.Isa is an early Christian interpolation into a Jewish work. Post-canonical Catholic interpolations were also effected (probably dating to late II CE), as we read from references to the passion of Jesus, his Ascension, sitting at the right hand of God, etc. Yet we recognize the earliness of this nativity account through its utter simplicity and its radical variance from the canonical accounts: the birth takes place “in Joseph’s house” (not … Continue reading →

The evolution of the infancy narratives

Posted on by
Posted in The second century | Tagged , , , | Leave a reply
Reply

A New Account of Christian Origins / pt. 24 As noted in prior posts, the evangelist Mark holds an adoptionist point of view. For him, the spirit of God indwells Jesus the Nazarene (“The Savior, the Holy One of God”—Mk 1:24). Mark’s adoptionism conforms with what I have called ‘Stage II’ christology, the conception of the spiritual Jesus dominant in the first century CE. The spiritual Jesus was incompatible with the Catholic conception of God becoming man—the Incarnation. The two christologies are mutually exclusive. If Jesus is a spirit, then it cannot be one particular man, Jesus of Nazareth. The earlier, pre-Catholic conception of a mobile Jesus (the saving spirit of God) entering into worthy people, now here, now there, resulted in … Continue reading →

Nazareth update

Posted on by
Posted in Archeology, contemporary commentary, Nazareth | Leave a reply
Reply

Ken Dark For the last couple of years I have refrained from commenting on Prof. Ken Dark’s 2020 book, The Sisters of Nazareth Convent: A Roman-period, Byzantine, and Crusader site in central Nazareth. Already in 2006 Dark wrote that his goal in examining the Sisters of Nazareth site over several summers was to produce “a book-length report—fully illustrated with detailed scale drawings and photographs—covering all of the data.” I have already extensively rebutted Dark’s claims of a first century dwelling on the site, both in my book NazarethGate (Chapter 6) and also online (academia.edu). The Sisters of Nazareth Convent is located about 100m west of the Church of the Annunciation. No one (not even Dark) contests the presence of a … Continue reading →

Baker Books proposes a new time-shift

Posted on by
Posted in contemporary commentary | Tagged | 1 Reply
1

A reader (thank you, Alan) recently apprized me of a book hot off the press (May 3, 2022): Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament (RDNT), by Dr. Jonathan Bernier. According to the Amazon page, the book proposes that the New Testament was written twenty to thirty years earlier than traditionally thought, that is, towards the middle of the first century CE! I’d like to mention that the publisher, Baker Books, is a conservative Christian imprint on whose welcome page we read: Baker Books has a vision for building up the body of Christ through books that are relevant, intelligent, and engaging. We publish titles for lay Christians on topics such as discipleship, apologetics, spirituality, relationships, marriage, parenting, and the … Continue reading →

Resurrection & Incarnation in the second century

Posted on by
Posted in Marcion, The second century | Tagged | Leave a reply
Reply

A New Account of Christian Origins / pt. 23 Evangelical Christians view the bodily resurrection of Jesus as “the most important event in the history of the world.” For them, Jesus’ resurrection from the grave is proof positive that He was the Son of God, that He was God in the flesh, and that He was the Lynchpin of history. Of course, the bodily resurrection means that Jesus overcame death (point #2 in the above link). That’s a very powerful message, for the fear of death is a basic instinct in both man and animal. The Christian promise is that since Jesus overcame death, we can too, for “we have died with Him and will also live with Him” (point #3 above … Continue reading →

The Protevangelium of James

Posted on by
Posted in John the Baptist, The second century | Tagged | 1 Reply
1

A New Account of Christian Origins / pt. 22 It may surprise you that the Protevangelium of James is a work uniquely positioned in Christian history for its capacity to shed light on the origin of the canonical gospels. However, that capacity is hardly admitted by the tradition, which classifies PrJames with the New Testament Apocrypha (lit: ‘hidden’)—biblical or related writings not accepted as scripture, i.e., not considered genuine or ‘true.’ Terms such as orthodox, apocryphal, canonical, accepted are self-serving and ultimately depend upon a circular argument: if the Church approves a work (that is, if the work agrees with its theological positions), then the work is ‘admitted.’ But if the work conflicts with the Church’s position then it is ‘not genuine’, … Continue reading →