My Lecturer booby-trapped me - Patterns of Authority in Early Christian Communities

by fulltimestudent 22 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • fulltimestudent
    fulltimestudent

    I have a 2500 word essay due next Tuesday, so I shall be unvoiced until then. And, I already have been turned upside down.

    Even though there are set topics for the main essay, it is possible to negotiate for an essay on a subject of personal interest. I'd been thinking about the development of leadership in the early Christian congregation, so I asked my lecturer, if I could write on that.

    He asked me for a brief outline of what I was thinking, so I reviewed my early thoughts - that Jesus primarily had left no clear instructions (because he was expecting divine intervention and the restoration of the Kingdom), but he had trained his disciples in missionary work - which I interpreted to mean that Jesus expected his own ministry to continue, to provide the Judean people with continued guidance, modelled on what he (Jesus) had done.

    But as Christianity developed (and the expectations of Jesus remained unfulfilled) a different model developed and I wanted to explore the model we see developing in the NT (think Pauline) and where that model came from and then transformed into the monarchial model with Bishops.

    "Hmmm," was his reply - "that's OK, but I've got to be able to mark this, so it has to be based on existing scholarship, so I'll provide some readings for you to consider."

    Which he did, and I've been reading (I'll post that separately for those who may be interested) and found what I'm calling 'his boobytrap.' Consensus scholarship essentially sees Jesus as a wandering, charismatic, (And, I've no problem with that. The Buddha ( Siddhārtha Gautama) is described in a similar way as a 'shramanic' - look it up!) and that his training for his disciples was based on that.

    And the earliest form of Christianity is firmly based on that model. So what happened? I've got to say that the evidence is right there in the NT, as if we read carefully, we see the developing tensions between resident based Christians and the itinerants, who continued in the Jesus tradition. I've found that the rules for overseers (Timothy and Titus) were based on existing Roman traditions called 'household codes.'

    So when I was asking him for permission, he (of course) knew all the argument in existing scholarship, and set a IED for my mind. I am impressed.

  • fulltimestudent
    fulltimestudent

    Set readings for my essay (only read if it interests you).

    Patterns of Authority In Early Christian Communities.

    Compare and contrast the various patterns of authority in (a) the Pauline churches of the "congregational letters", (b) the "Pastoral Letters" (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus), (c) the Didache and (d) the seven genuine letters of Ignatius.

    Feel free to suggest modifications. In the meantime here are places to start your reading:

    Paul's "congregational letters":
    J.D.G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, London, 1975, sections 47-49.
    - "The Responsible Congregation (1 Corinthians 14:26-40)", (in Charisma und Agape (1 Ko. 10-14), ed. L. De Lorenzi (Rome, 1983), 201-236, now reprinted in The Christ and the Spirit, vol. 2, Pneumatology (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1998), 260-290: attached as a PDF)
    B. Holmberg, Paul and Power: the structure of authority in the primitive church as reflected in the Pauline Epistles, Philadelphia, 1980
    W.A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians, New Haven, 1983 (2nd edition 2003), chs. 3-5.
    R.J. Banks, Paul's Idea of Community, Sydney, 1979 (revised edition, 1994),
    M. MacDonald, The Pauline Churches: a socio-historical study of institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline writings, Cambridge, 1988

    The "Pastoral Letters"

    M. MacDonald, above.

    Commentaries on the three letters

    M. Harding, "The Pastoral Epistles", in M. Harding & A. Nobbs, eds., All Things to All Cultures: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans, Grand Rapids, 2013.

    J.D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, 3rd ed., 2006, sections 29-30.

    D. Horrell, "Leadership Patterns and the Development of Ideology in Early Christianity", Sociology of Religion 58.4, 1997, 323-341.

    The Didache:

    See the bibliography in the main Unit Booklet, p. 59, esp.
    J.A. Draper, “The Apostolic Fathers: the Didache”, Exp.T. 117.5, 2006, 177-181.
    J.A. Draper, “Torah and Troublesome Apostles in the Didache Community”, Nov.T. 33.4, 1991, 347ff.,
    A. Milavec, “Distinguishing True and False Prophets: The Protective Wisdom of the Didache,” J.E.C.S. 2, 1994, 117-136,
    J.A. Draper, “Weber, Theissen, and ‘Wandering Charismatics’ in the Didache”, J.E.C.S. 6.4, 1998, 541-576

    Ignatius of Antioch:

    See the bibliography in the main Unit Booklet, p. 55, esp.
    P. Foster, “The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (Part 1)”, Exp.T. 117.12, 2006, 487-495, and “The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (Part 2)”, Exp.T. 118.1, 2006, 2-11.
    H.O. Maier, “The Charismatic Authority of Ignatius of Antioch: a sociological analysis”, S.R. 18.2, 1989, 185-199
    A. Pettersen, “The Laity – Bishop’s Pawn?”, S.J.Th. 44, 1991, 39-56,
    H.O. Maier, The Social Setting of the Ministry as reflected in the writings of Hermas, Clement, and Ignatius, Ontario, Toronto, 1991,
    A. Brent, “The Ignatian Epistles and the Threefold Ecclesiatical Order”, Journal of Religious History 17.1, 1992, 18-32

    I'm only half way through the readings (SO I've got to get down to some hard reading), and some of the books are out on loan at MU Library, so I've got to run around other libraries. So I'd better not even visit here for a week.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Marking. This is a very interesting topic.

    I agree 100% that Jesus had no concept of a developing church happening after his death. We see the disciples living in a commune at first sharing all things in common awaiting his parousia.

    I would be very interested to learn more.

  • fulltimestudent
    fulltimestudent

    Cofty- I would be very interested to learn more.

    Some heavy reading there mate, but you may be surprised. Now, Im also wondering, why didn't Freddy see the above? If I'm not too embarrassed by my final essay, I may post it FYI.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Please do.

  • humbled
    humbled

    In other words, your lecturer rejects the line of pursuit that accepts that the only investigation of the early Jesus-followers is to channel the Orthodox Christian Canon of scripture as though it were the "gospel truth".

    Good for him.

    Interested in how this goes.

    The fragments found of the Gospel of Mary have always struck me as the road less traveled when any discussion comes up of Jesus the carpenter/teacher. It suggests a man more as that shaman-wanderer than a progenitor of Paul's religion.

    Please keep us posted, fulltimestudent!

  • Terry
    Terry

    We are conditioned into our modern opinion of Christianity as a singularity, a thing, a solid well-defined distinction.

    That is because of our conditioning to look backward through time as through a series of transparencies forming a gestalt.

    What was Christianity?

    It was a pointillist painting:

    Little blobs of ideas, legends, stories, opinions, activities--all at odds--are like those little daubs of color.

    Step back and away (through millennia) and BOOM! the "subject" mysteriously appears--but--it is a trick of the mind.

    If we stop saying "CHRISTianity" and subsitute MESSIAHianty or ANOINTEDianty we get a grasp of it.

    Messianic Jews had their own idea of Jesus. Gentiles accustomed to demi-gods had another idea of Jesus.

    Arguments, debate, fulminations, fistfights--led to brawls, bloodshed and bullying: all forming the blobs and daubs into CHRISTIANITY.

    __________________

    What were these people called? What was their idea of who or what the "Christ" required of them in their lives?

    AKOLOUTHONTES is the term used in the NT. SEVENTY-NINE references to akolouthontes appears= "followers."

    Anything else? Yes.

    MATHETAI is used NINETEEN times. Mathetai=learners (i.e. disciples.)

    __________________

    What were these persons following as akolouthontes (followers)? What were they learning as mathetai (learners.)?

    Did they walk up to each other and say, "Are you in the TRUTH?"

    No.

    They would ask if somebody was akolouthonte of He Hodos (Follower of THE PATH.)

    Okay--what WAS this Path?

    What did the teacher (Didaskale) teach?

    Answer: OPINIONS!

    Depending on where you lived and who you spoke to--you followed other people's opinions, and those opinions were CHRISTIANTIY (in Antioch) but merely OPINIONS HELD, FOLLOWED and TAUGHT elsewhere.

    Each neighborhood where persons gathered to discuss, debate, praise and learn about Jesus was like a denomination today.

    There are about 40 Thousand denominations calling themselves "Christian." Each of these thinks THEY are correct and everybody else is not.

    (That much hasn't changed in our own contemporary Christian community.)

    There were groups who came to chat and argue who had to be served drinks and snacks.

    Who served this function? DIAKONOS (deacons) served.

    Sometimes neighborhood groups wanted to get together with other neighborhood groups. Who arranged that liaison between neighbors?

    These were called PRESBYTEROI or "Elders."

    _____________________________________

    As in every movement, it takes somebody with a genuine drive and genius for promotion who can make things happen.

    (Saul)PAUL of Tarsus was that guy. He had never (previously) met Jesus or spoken to his chosen (apostles) followers--but--

    ***************HE CLAIMED to have encountered a supernatural vision of Jesus.*************

    This is like a modern day UFO sighting where a man gets kidnapped an probed by aliens!

    It was a helluva exciting story! A great one to tell . . . and believe because it was exciting and definitive.

    If you believed that story and Paul's letters (epistles) you began to have some kind of ORGANIZED teaching (or right belief: orthodoxy.)

    _____________________________

    Jesus' apostles (chosen ones) were not teaching the same thing Paul was teaching. But, Paul was INCLUDING Gentiles and corrupting the ironclad

    grip of Jewishness (Law of Moses) by making it non-binding!

    If you don't think that was horrifying to Messianic Christians . . . think again!

    Were it not for the fact the Romans destroyed the center of worship (Jerusalem) in 70 c.e.---Paul's version of Christianity probably would never

    have gained traction.

    With Jerusalem destroyed, the Jews fled to avoid round-up and crucifixion leaving the door wide open for PAUL.

    _________________

    The tensions between Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity is evident in the TRINITY doctrine which only

    took a firm hold after it was incorporated into the official imprimatur of Constantine (with no Jews around to decry it in force.)

    Our so-called BIBLE was an apologetic mish-mash assembled to thwart yet another branch of burgeoning Christianity: MARCION's Gnostic Christianity.

    ______

    And off we go . . .

    Early Christianity was ONE BIG ARGUMENT of orthodoxy vs. apostacy, i.e. my OPINION vs your OPINION.

    The official nature of the institution of Catholic (i.e. Universal) Church made THAT version more pervasive.

    To study the early Church Fathers is to study a litany of debates, accusations, wild battles and pious pronouncement.

    _____________________

    Until the masterworks of Augustine and Aquinas literally became the official doctrines of Catholicism, the AUTHORITY of the Pope and Cardinals and Priests were all that was necessary to be a "true" Christian.

    ______________________

    THE MAGISTERIUM of the Church did not require "learning a script" of right Christian belief for 99% of Christians on earth for 1500 years.

    Going to Mass, confession, taking the bread and wine, being forgiven by the Priest . . . THAT was Christianity.

    Then, Martin Luther came along and the corruption of the political and religious Catholic institution lost its status.

    DENOMINATIONALISM was brought back!

    Protestantism is opinion-ism.

    Any hack with a Bible and folded hands can cook up a crazy religion (Mormons, JW's, you-name-it) and that

    is what brings us to 2014.

  • Terry
    Terry

    oops

  • humbled
    humbled

    LoL , Terry!

    It was long enough already--you didn't have to post it 2X

    Maeve

    PS-Good points anyhow.

  • Terry
    Terry

    Thanks for catching that.

    It hung up while loading and I hit the button a second time--not realizing I had posted twice!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit