5 ms·

For anyone interested in the very early origins of Christianity (first century AD) I recommend reading some of the work of Margaret Barker. In particular, An I

For anyone interested in the very early origins of Christianity (first century AD) I recommend reading some of the work of Margaret Barker. In particular, An Introduction to Temple Theology is very good for someone who doesn't know much about the subject, and it's not very long, either. Barker is an old testament scholar and has done a lot of work trying to understand the way that Judaism was practiced in the time of Christ, and why Christianity was as successful in that environment as it was. Most of us in the modern West only understand the religion ancient Israel through the texts that have survived in the Bible, but there are a number of other surviving works, fragments, and archaeological evidence that provide clues about religious practice in that time. (For example, one prominent text that Barker frequently draws on is the Book of Enoch, which was considered canonical by many Jewish communities in the time of Christ --- and actually still is by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church --- and was cited in the Letter of Jude.) Of course, a lot of this research is necessarily somewhat conjectural, but it was fascinating to read about why exactly there was so much messianic fervor in the Levant in the time of Christ.

flukus 10y ago
The great course plus also have a good series on early christianity: https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/lost-christianities?tn=History_0_71 https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/lost-christianities?tn=H...
notacoward 10y ago
Also, anything by Elaine Pagels - Gnostic Gospels, Origin of Satan, etc. Really opened my eyes to what Christianity could have been if not for the toxic influence of Paul.
- camperman 10y ago
  About the best you can hope for when reading Elaine Pagels is getting her opinion on what Gnostic authors may have thought of Paul's letters. She makes the same mistake as the author of this article makes: that Christianity just started because a small bunch of men decided to worship Jesus as divine, instead of being confronted with him alive and well somehow after had been executed.
  - notacoward 10y ago
    She does no such thing. Whether Christ was actually divine, or even existed, has nothing to do with the evolution of the church and its doctrines a hundred or more years later. If you think the Bible as we know it isn't the product of human politics more than anything else, you need to educate yourself.
    - camperman 10y ago
      "Whether Christ was actually divine, or even existed, has nothing to do with the evolution of the church and its doctrines a hundred or more years later." I see that modern gnostics are just as stupid and ignorant as the original ones. On your side are a few fragments written far too late to be eyewitness testimony, let alone containing anything of worth. On mine are thousands of copies that appear fully formed, the earliest ones with negligible distance from the events they describe, with boatloads of references to history and geography that we can check out. These accounts move through history unchanged. Within a generation or two church authors are vigorously defending their authenticity and core teachings against sceptics and gnostics. > If you think the Bible as we know it isn't the product of human politics more than anything else, you need to educate yourself. Yeah right. Here's this marginal peasant from a scummy town in an unknown corner of the Roman empire with an extremely questionable birth narrative. He says and does outrageous things that are hard to understand, mixes with the lowest of society and is eventually executed in the most shameful way possible for blasphemy. And this rural redneck claims to be God in human form? That's real convincing I must say.
      - notacoward 10y ago
        You got that exactly backwards. Biblical historians generally agree that most of what we know as the New Testament were written 50-100CE. Many of the gnostic gospels were pretty clearly written earlier, by people closer to Jesus. Why were they excluded, while all of Paul's crap thrown in? Politics. His was a vision of Christianity suitable to those in power in 367CE. Again, instead of violating the rules by calling people stupid, please learn the actual facts.

flukus 10y ago

The great course plus also have a good series on early christianity: https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/lost-christianities?tn=History_0_71 https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/lost-christianities?tn=H...

notacoward 10y ago

Also, anything by Elaine Pagels - Gnostic Gospels, Origin of Satan, etc. Really opened my eyes to what Christianity could have been if not for the toxic influence of Paul.

camperman 10y ago
About the best you can hope for when reading Elaine Pagels is getting her opinion on what Gnostic authors may have thought of Paul's letters. She makes the same mistake as the author of this article makes: that Christianity just started because a small bunch of men decided to worship Jesus as divine, instead of being confronted with him alive and well somehow after had been executed.
- notacoward 10y ago
  She does no such thing. Whether Christ was actually divine, or even existed, has nothing to do with the evolution of the church and its doctrines a hundred or more years later. If you think the Bible as we know it isn't the product of human politics more than anything else, you need to educate yourself.
  - camperman 10y ago
    "Whether Christ was actually divine, or even existed, has nothing to do with the evolution of the church and its doctrines a hundred or more years later." I see that modern gnostics are just as stupid and ignorant as the original ones. On your side are a few fragments written far too late to be eyewitness testimony, let alone containing anything of worth. On mine are thousands of copies that appear fully formed, the earliest ones with negligible distance from the events they describe, with boatloads of references to history and geography that we can check out. These accounts move through history unchanged. Within a generation or two church authors are vigorously defending their authenticity and core teachings against sceptics and gnostics. > If you think the Bible as we know it isn't the product of human politics more than anything else, you need to educate yourself. Yeah right. Here's this marginal peasant from a scummy town in an unknown corner of the Roman empire with an extremely questionable birth narrative. He says and does outrageous things that are hard to understand, mixes with the lowest of society and is eventually executed in the most shameful way possible for blasphemy. And this rural redneck claims to be God in human form? That's real convincing I must say.
    - notacoward 10y ago
      You got that exactly backwards. Biblical historians generally agree that most of what we know as the New Testament were written 50-100CE. Many of the gnostic gospels were pretty clearly written earlier, by people closer to Jesus. Why were they excluded, while all of Paul's crap thrown in? Politics. His was a vision of Christianity suitable to those in power in 367CE. Again, instead of violating the rules by calling people stupid, please learn the actual facts.