Somewhat unrelated but it's pretty dumb that Revelations was included in the Bible. It was written like 50-100 years after the rest of the new testament and is basically apocalypse fanfiction.
the choosing of the books in the Bible by so-called church fathers was deeply political and based almost exclusively on what values and virtues would create an orthodoxy most likely to preserve the power and primacy of the Roman state.
there's probably a comprehensive book out there, but the first books I read in the general area of the topic were by Elaine Pagels. The Gnostic Gospels, about the significance of the Nag Hammadi Library find (originally published in 1979 but I'm sure there are new editions) and her book on The Gospel of Thomas, originally published in 2003. my perspective was also probably influenced by Hecht's "Doubt: A History", which is far more broad of a topic than Christianity.
those will have a lot of names in them of the early orthodox-defining fathers and the murdered "heretics" whose works and histories were eradicated (but sometimes hidden away). we know a lot more about the early church than we did 100 years ago, but precious little has bubbled up into the living Christendom. I think it's a case of anybody who actually gives a shit about truth is driven away from the church, because it's mission is the same as it was 1000 years ago: institutional self preservation as standard bearer of a civic religion at any cost.
I will say, from personal experience, I found the texts from the Gospel of Thomas to be very eye opening and prescient about what sort of people "Christians" would become.
But when Thomas came back to his companions, they asked him: "What did Jesus say to you?" Thomas said to them: "If I tell you one of the words he said to me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me, and fire will come out of the stones (and) burn you up."
It's definitely related to the fall of Rome. I believe the historical understanding is that early Christianity was expecting the end times to come either within their lifetimes or relatively soon after. They didn't reform it into a more long term religion until the Council of Nicaea
Yeah it was apparent that as the first generation of Christians began dying off they were like what the fuck. 1st century Christianity is fascinating to me, a bunch of free love apocalyptic doomsayers running around the levant.
I believe the historical understanding is that early Christianity was expecting the end times to come either within their lifetimes or relatively soon after
Sounds like what Christians were saying when I went to church as a kid
Somewhat unrelated but it's pretty dumb that Revelations was included in the Bible. It was written like 50-100 years after the rest of the new testament and is basically apocalypse fanfiction.
the choosing of the books in the Bible by so-called church fathers was deeply political and based almost exclusively on what values and virtues would create an orthodoxy most likely to preserve the power and primacy of the Roman state.
politics in my bible?!
is there something I can read about this, sounds interesting
there's probably a comprehensive book out there, but the first books I read in the general area of the topic were by Elaine Pagels. The Gnostic Gospels, about the significance of the Nag Hammadi Library find (originally published in 1979 but I'm sure there are new editions) and her book on The Gospel of Thomas, originally published in 2003. my perspective was also probably influenced by Hecht's "Doubt: A History", which is far more broad of a topic than Christianity.
those will have a lot of names in them of the early orthodox-defining fathers and the murdered "heretics" whose works and histories were eradicated (but sometimes hidden away). we know a lot more about the early church than we did 100 years ago, but precious little has bubbled up into the living Christendom. I think it's a case of anybody who actually gives a shit about truth is driven away from the church, because it's mission is the same as it was 1000 years ago: institutional self preservation as standard bearer of a civic religion at any cost.
I will say, from personal experience, I found the texts from the Gospel of Thomas to be very eye opening and prescient about what sort of people "Christians" would become.
My recollections of an early Christianity course I took in college was that:
You could set a criteria based on historicity that would include most books of the New Testament outside of Revelations.
There's no real criteria that would include every single book of the New Testament minus Revelations but exclude the Gospel of Thomas.
Revelations almost didn't make the cut because a lot of church fathers disliked it.
The Shepherd of Hermas is a book that a lot of church fathers liked but ultimately didn't make the cut.
Yet another book added to my list from this website
I always heard that Revelations was literally like a coded message between Christians during the persecution under Nero.
It's definitely related to the fall of Rome. I believe the historical understanding is that early Christianity was expecting the end times to come either within their lifetimes or relatively soon after. They didn't reform it into a more long term religion until the Council of Nicaea
Yeah it was apparent that as the first generation of Christians began dying off they were like what the fuck. 1st century Christianity is fascinating to me, a bunch of free love apocalyptic doomsayers running around the levant.
Sounds like what Christians were saying when I went to church as a kid