There are Stories of Outrageous Immorality Among Early Christians
We must, of course, issue a standard caution that ancient writing read today is a product of hundreds or thousands of recopies. Every time something was recopied there was the temptation to "improve" what was written before.
According to Ehrman, the writing tells of the first couple of centuries of Christianity when gatherings were secret. People would get together in homes and tell no one of these meetings. In spite of teachings about sins such as too much drinking and promiscuous sex it was reported as common.
An explanation was the context permitted some sin. Holy people received more forgiveness than common sinners. Perhaps it was not unlike preachers/priests today who commit sexual abuse but justify it to victims as religious experiences. No doubt atheists who engage in sexual abuse have their own ways of justifying it.
The irony of these stories about ancient Christianity is that Christians writing about Pagans of the time considered Pagans to have low morals. Today Christians think atheists have lower moral standards than they, Christians, do. There is yet to be any evidence atheists have lower morals than Christians.
If morality could be measured with money we have information about the level of morality. During the year 2019 the Catholic Church paid sexual abuse victims over $281 million dollars.
The stories of sin within ancient Christianity at the least raises questions about the higher moral platform the faith claims as its own.
This story reminds me of the logic that William Henry University is a superior basketball team compared to Duke University. It goes like this. William Henry beat Red Rocks University. Red Rocks University beat Sam Chilton State. Sam Chilton State beat Smallsville University. Smallsville University beat Indiana-Purdue South Bend University. Indiana-Purdue South Bend University beat Arkansas State. Arkansas State beat Arkansas. Arkansas beat Alabama. Alabama beat North Carolina. North Carolina beat Duke.
ReplyDeleteThe only difference is my scenario plays out about once a decade whereas Bart Ehrman's scenario is based on fiction and wishful thinking, something anti-theists delight in regularly.
I prefer the facts of the early martyrs giving their lives for Christ rather than deny him. Since there were only 2 perfect people that ever walked this earth, I'm sure all of your no-name, fiction characters who were sinful.
Tell me about your sins, Jon. Or are you the proverbial person who is without sin that is willing to cast the first stone?
Outrageous is appropriate. The kiss of peace (a tradition still practiced in the Middle East (now a handshake) is an orgy, the body and blood ( bread and wine) in the sacrament is cannibalism. Heard it all before from the Jewish detractors, and the "Judiazers". "Secret gatherings" were from fear being arrested. Some glutinous practices with food and wine in the non-sacramental "pot luck meals" was early on condemned. "Was reported" as is today in opposing parties in the form of gossip. Since the earliest Christians were forced to live in a somewhat communal situation, there just had to be sexual abuse, "as reported " by more detractors.
ReplyDeleteHyperbole with the "permitted sin". and believed by Jon to elevate the higher morality of unbelief, and no evidence after the fact.
Ehrman is simply repeating the gossip that was promoted by the Romans and Jews of the time, and is well known. Very similar to "false news" so popular today by both sides of the political schemers.
It would be beneficial for Jon to read the earliest Christian material contained in the Didache of the early first century, which was the rule and norm of behavior of the earliest Christians.
helper "Ehrman is simply repeating the gossip that was promoted by the Romans and Jews of the time."
DeleteI know the genre. Romans and Jews, villains. Christians, heroes. It's like the western movies, Christians ride off with the girl.
Who is the viliain? The false rumors promoted by those against the early Christians is well documented, by the Jews. A famous Jewish one is Jesus was a bastard son of a Roman guard.
DeleteYour "western movies" theme falls flat. I don't see the early Christians as heroes, just a persecuted sect in the process of leaving Judaism. The genre of persecuting those leaving. I understand why.They didn't want anyone leaving the club. The best thing to do was discredit them, which they did.
Your twist fails.
Bart Ehrman has some sketchy and some downright botched scholarly escapades. In some caes, he manages to get some positive acclimations from even very respecte Catholic theologians:
ReplyDeletehttps://strangenotions.com/bart-ehrmans-botched-source/
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-jesus-became-god-a-critical-review
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/bart-ehrman-botches-a-source
I come late to this discussion. But I will comment nonetheless. First, it is obvious that, in this instance, St Bart is either guilty of sloppy scholarship or, worse, plain old intellectual dishonesty. It is also obvious that Jon failed to take the time to look up other material relative to the pagan stories about early Christians (c 50-200 AD). There's a lot of it out there: just spend a couple of hours on the Net. The cannibalism slur, of course, arises from the pagan, often faulty, understanding of the Christian Eucharist. Moreover, some of the slurs concerning the early Christians came about because the pagans confused Christian practices with those of certain Gnostic sects of the time. That said, here are some names that, in one way or another, had unpleasant or erroneous things to say about the early Christians: Minucius Felix, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Celsus, etc.
DeleteIn addition, you can add to the detractors, the Greek Pagans, who were in fear of loosing followers to Christianity. How convenient to continue and add to the "it is said". The hatred of Christianity continued forward, and is contained in the Talmud,
ReplyDeleteRumor is a strong adversary. especially if one is in the minority as were the earliest Christians, and rumor is easy to spread and believe. Like the innocent Slaves accused of raping white girls, which resulted in several linchings up to and including the 1950's. Some of whom were Ehrman's predisessors.
I forgot to mention the Earliest Christians had to hide in the catacombs for fear of being caught. There are writings down there that attest to the fact. There are no instructions on how to kill a baby, but there are inscriptions of the sacrament of Holy Communion.
Matt "..some botched scholarly escapades" You cite the same article twice--it's about a footnote and an argument as to whether literacy in ancient times was 3% or may 10%. No one knows and this has little to do with the legitimacy of the Bible. Most people could not read it so it was read aloud. This would suggest it was altered at least somewhat or maybe a lot to accommodate this means of communication. As to the critique of "How Jesus Became God", that is a thoughtful review. Certainly if you approach the topic of the resurrection from a religious point of view you see it one way, from a secular view another. If you are unable to believe someone dead several days comes back to life you will interpret the story differently than if you believe it.
ReplyDeleteseems to me that a good case can be made for 10 percent (or even greater). the ancients were active traders. and trade requires literacy. and the Romans, at least, were into bureaucracy, record keeping and all. that, too, requires literacy. besides you had numerous scholars and writers. again and indication of literacy. it is probable, of course, that records were kept by educated slaves and/or scribes. that "fact" does not, however, argue against the 10 percent hypothesis.
DeleteJon: How many centuries from the time of Christ until the printing press was invented? At least a dozen. The Bible was not even in existence during the time of Christ. The Old Testament was in existence but Christ came to redeem mankind and forge a new covenant, i.e. the New Testament.
DeleteThe word of God was spoken back at the time because (1) there were no printing presses, and (2) the vast majority of the public were illiterate. Who could pay a scribe to copy the Old Testament for one's personal use? Not many were that rich. Besides, the excitement was understandably for the New Covenant, the teachings of Jesus and His unwritten 'New Testament'.
The Church created by Christ after His death and Resurrection, was tasked for carrying on the teachings of Jesus, committing His words to print and communicating His words and actions (stories) to all of mankind.
After millennia of the Abrahamic religions, the Ten Commandments, the Torah, the Bible, the Quran and billions of faithful including Jews, Christians, and Muslims, can anyone demonstrate, on the whole, a net positive impact of a belief in God on humankind’s propensity to sin?
ReplyDeleteNo, faith in Christ does not prevent believers from sinning. I don't think anyone has ever said it does. That faith however, does reduce the result of sinning.
DeleteThen there is the old, and sometimes forgotten; "If you think they're bad now, consider how they would be if there was no faith".
Ardy B: Yes.
Deletelittle helper: Faith in Christ does prevent much, but not all from sinning.
Matt; As I said; "If you think the're bad now, consider how they would be if there was no faith.
DeleteAnd "That faith however, does reduce the result of sinning.
We ALL sin. Are you saying; not all sin, just some? Just good Catholics?
little helper July 14, 2020 @ 6:43 AM
DeleteSo Christian faith does not prevent sin but reduces its consequences. As in, what’ll it be friend, heaven or hell? Faith as a harm reduction strategy in more terrestrial matters, not so much. In the midst of billions of the faithful, people create and worship many different gods, revere all kinds of idols from a crucifix to Elvis, vehemently curse their god(s), ignore “holy days”, dishonor their parents, murder, rape, and torture their own kind, break vows of all types, rob and steal the property of others, give false testimony, and covet the possessions of their neighbors. And it ain’t just the goddamn atheists, ant-theists, and nones doing dirty work. To be kind, the suspicion of impotence in the effectiveness of an imaginary supernatural enterprise as with all others breeds doubt in their purpose yet In part fear extends their life well beyond their utility. An excess of two thousand years is a hell of a good run but the pieces that once fit are falling away. Fierce resistance is always admirable but to be effective requires violation of the closely held principles and prohibitions at the very foundation of the effort. That never stopped a good Christian certain of forgiveness. Neat stuff it is.
more run of the mill atheist B.S. but a few words caught my attention: "extends their life well beyond their utility...". should I take that to mean that old folks are worthless, useless eaters as certain social Darwinists once thought. maybe a little explanation is in order here.
DeleteArdy; WOW ! ! ! With all that boiling away in your gut, I hope you feel better once you puked it out.
Delete"Faith as a harm reduction strategy"? Not a strategy. An undeserved favor, (Grace) not a reward, for, but freely given, and thankfully received.
. As far as terrestrial matters, the secular legal system covers that. Kill someone in Texas, and get caught, confess the sin in true sorrow, (repent) and you are forgiven. The state of Texas will still kill you back.
What you or all the others you mention do or don't do is up to them or you, no matter how hard you resist. It's out of my hands.
The parts still fit, thank you.
Jon; It just dawned on me; Since you are such a supporter of the (Has been said) drunken orgies celebrated by the early Christians with their communion, You should shout out over the barn roof to your EUB-Methodist, Baptist followers that real wine was used, not the recently (in historical context), invented and pasteurized alcohol free Welch's grape juice.
ReplyDeletehelper -- "...with their communion."
ReplyDeleteI never said, nor did the ancient sources according to Ehrman, the orgies were part of communion. Christians were just having fun.
I have read , (can't remember the source) that the eucharistic meal (Bread and wine /body and blood) was the source of the uninformed accusation of cannabalism.
Delete"Orgies -just having fun"------Outsiders looking in? "It has been said". The Bible itself indicates they were told to moderate their behavior as an example.
@ my 7;22 re. "told to moderate their behavior as an example"; See 1 cor. 11 18 through 22. then read to the end of the chapter. Separating everyday eating and drinking from the Sacrament, and defining the sacrament as opposed to everyday eating and drinking.
DeleteI knew it was in the Bible, but thought it was in Acts, and couldn't find the reference. Mulled it over while mowing the lawn, and guessed it was in 1 Cor. And there it was, including the words of institution of communion, from Christ, along with instructions to examine ones self first so as to take it in a worthy manner.
Evidently some didn't make the distinction, and came to communion as if it were a smorgesboard, not a sacrament. Thank goodness that was straightened out.
as I recall (a word of caution, my memory is fallible) the early church eucharist took place within the context of an agape meal. human beings being what they are, things may have gotten interesting from time to time. for the most tho' I think that the early Christians were a rather sober bunch.
DeleteUnknown; I agree. The whole thing was new to them, and the separation of a normal everyday meal and the agape meal was not well understood . We must also remember this happened in Corenth not Jerusalem where the first Sacrament was conducted. In Corenth, Paul also repeated the words of institution, as said at the Last Supper, to reveal the continuity of it.
DeleteIt is also interesting to note that in 1 Cor. Paul didn't especially condemn the drinking of wine possibly in excess during the home meal, but showing up under the influence at the communal meal gathering (communion) ,home church),he did. We also note Paul"s observation of their "weakness). With further instruction on the matter, the problem was solved. We must also note, there was no formal catechism of instruction initially. A few years later, the Didache was the first method of instruction and a more formal introduction of tradition, (small t).