Secular History and Early Church History

[Seasanctuary]

Ingenuous question for you guys:

Is there a well-known first point of contact between the sacred version of Church History and secular History?

Obviously they intersect eventually and obviously they don't intersect from the start. I've heard David being King of Israel as a first point of contact between Old Testament lore and secular History. Looking for something similar here.

Multiple answers are perfectly fine as I can envision earlier points being a little more debatable than later points. I just want to know what the common thoughts are on the topic from historians who don't necessarily buy into the whole shebang. And while I may be interested enough to look into a book on the topic later on, I consider "just go read this reference book" a lazy first answer.

Thanks!

[mig_killer2]

The only major points of contention between christians and secular historians about christianity I myself am aware of are the historicity of the miracles discussed in the canonical books. Unless you can show me other points of contention.

[LGM]

Ingenuous question for you guys:

Is there a well-known first point of contact between the sacred version of Church History and secular History?

I have no idea what these two things are...they sound very interesting...maybe you could explain them.

Obviously they intersect eventually and obviously they don't intersect from the start.

This may be 'obvious' to you, but it's not to me.

I've heard David being King of Israel as a first point of contact between Old Testament lore and secular History. Looking for something similar here.

I've heard there were 'Egyptians' and they had leaders called Pharaohs.

I also heard there was guy named Abraham.

Does this count towards my score?

I wonder, at what point in history did you start having testicles instead of breasts?

[LGM]

The only major points of contention between christians and secular historians about christianity I myself am aware of are the historicity of the miracles discussed in the canonical books. Unless you can show me other points of contention.

Oh please...are you for real?

[mig_killer2]

Oh please...are you for real?

oh? well could you cite some sources contradicting that statement?

[LGM]

oh? well could you cite some sources contradicting that statement?

I've got a better idea...why don't you 'cite some sources' that provide some convincing archeological evidence that anything in the books of Genesis or Exodus is the least bit 'historical'?

In fact, why don't you cite one source before 70AD who ever mentions Jesus of Nazareth and details the countless miracles he performed in front of thousands of people?

Or are you too busy killing virtual 'migs' in your bedroom?

[mig_killer2]

I've got a better idea...why don't you 'cite some sources' that provide some convincing archeological evidence that anything in the books of Genesis or Exodus is the least bit 'historical'?

In fact, why don't you cite one source before 70AD who ever mentions Jesus of Nazareth and details the countless miracles he performed in front of thousands of people?

Or are you too busy killing virtual 'migs' in your bedroom?

*epic facepalm*


Okay. first off, the topic is EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. you obviously were too lazy to read that part.

second. Why does it have to be before 70 A.D?

Third. Pauline epistles were, to my knowledge, written from AD 50 to AD 60.

Fourth, the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, which is a confession of faith, dates to only a few years, as little as 2 to 5 years after the life of Jesus, and describes his death, his resurrection, and his appearences to Paul, to James, and to the Twelve.

fifth, *epic facepalm once more*

[LGM]

*epic facepalm*


Okay. first off, the topic is EARLY CHURCH HISTORY. you obviously were too lazy to read that part.

And what exactly is 'church history' little one?

The OP referred to King David. What 'church' was he a member of? Eh? Speak up! Get your epic palm outta of your face...mig boy.

second. Why does it have to be before 70 A.D?

Because that's when he allegedly did these things.

Third. Pauline epistles were, to my knowledge, written from AD 50 to AD 60.

Yeah...feel free to quote any Pauline epistle that mentions Jesus of Nazareth.

Oops.

Fourth, the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, which is a confession of faith, dates to only a few years, as little as 2 to 5 years after the life of Jesus, and describes his death, his resurrection, and his appearences to Paul, to James, and to the Twelve.

Really?

Then it must mention his trial by Pilate, his appearance before Herod, the people choosing Barabas over him, his scurging, his words on the cross, and his burial in the tomb.

Feel free to quote that...mig boy.

Hey...I wonder what '12' he appeared before? I guess Judas was still hangin' with the homeboys? Eh?

fifth, *epic facepalm once more*

Maybe if you just stuck your fist down your throat, you'd make more sense.

[mig_killer2]

And what exactly is 'church history' little one?

The OP referred to King David. What 'church' was he a member of? Eh? Speak up! Get your epic palm outta of your face...mig boy.

shifting the goal post on the part of the TC then. he starts off by asking about early church history and then changes it to the entire bible, old and new testament.

Because that's when he allegedly did these things.

you do know that contemporary sources are not needed?

Yeah...feel free to quote any Pauline epistle that mentions Jesus of Nazareth.

oops

why dont you crack open that bible to 1 Corinthians 15 eh?

Really?

Then it must mention his trial by Pilate, his appearance before Herod, the people choosing Barabas over him, his scurging, his words on the cross, and his burial in the tomb.

Feel free to quote that...mig boy.

Hey...I wonder what '12' he appeared before? I guess Judas was still hangin' with the homeboys? Eh?

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance" minute details are not necessarily of first importance dude.

Maybe if you just stuck your fist down your throat, you'd make more sense.

You do know what a facepalm is right? its an expression meant to express extreme disgust usually at a comment in a web forum filled with ignorance.

[rogue06]

Ingenuous question for you guys:

Is there a well-known first point of contact between the sacred version of Church History and secular History?

Obviously they intersect eventually and obviously they don't intersect from the start. I've heard David being King of Israel as a first point of contact between Old Testament lore and secular History. Looking for something similar here.

Multiple answers are perfectly fine as I can envision earlier points being a little more debatable than later points. I just want to know what the common thoughts are on the topic from historians who don't necessarily buy into the whole shebang. And while I may be interested enough to look into a book on the topic later on, I consider "just go read this reference book" a lazy first answer.

Thanks!

The Jewish historian Josephus published Antiquities of the Jews around 93AD, which contains one of the earliest mentions of Christianity. While the reference known as the “Testimonium Flavianum” appears to be a later addition in whole or at least part, and is discounted as such by the majority of modern scholars, there is an authentic reference to “James the Just,” traditionally identified as James the brother of Jesus who headed the Jerusalem Church. Still, this section appears to have been altered with the addition of the descriptive phrase “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,” something that Josephus is very unlikely to have written.

Other early references include a letter fom Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan (ca. 110AD) as well as a controversial (authenticity-wise) reference from Tactius from slightly later.

Not sure if this addresses your question, but I hope it helps.

[Seasanctuary]

The only major points of contention between christians and secular historians about christianity I myself am aware of are the historicity of the miracles discussed in the canonical books.

Maybe I should have worded it something like "confirmed by historical records not produced by the Church itself."

The reason I'm asking is that I see topics occasionally like the poll currently up which asks skeptics how they think Jesus' body disappeared from the tomb. This gets me thinking such questions as: What tomb?

It isn't established that Jesus was put in a tomb at all except in the religious texts of his own sect. Then I hear things like, "There were eyewitnesses." So I think: What eyewitnesses?

Are the identity of these people established outside of Church texts and traditions?

Now it is perfectly legit to argue that such-and-so probably happened for such-and-so reasons even though the evidence is all Church-contained. But that's not what I'm asking right now. It seems to me the FIRST step when talking about New Testament history with skeptics is to identify early points where secular history provides independent witness to the Church's history.

At what earliest point do I NOT have to take the Church's word for it?

[lilpixieofterror]

Hello there seasanctuary, here is what my textbook says on the creed found in 1 Corinthians 15:

The oldest surviving account of Jesus' postresurrection appearances occurs in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, which contains a tradition "handed on" to Paul from earlier Christians. None of the gospels' resurrection narratives, written fifteen to forty years after the date of Paul's letter, refers to Jesus' manifestations to his kinsman james or to the "over 500 brothers" who simultaneously beheld him.
The New Testament: A student's Introduction, P 345

I do admit, he doesn't say the date, but he does allude to it being one of the earliest known traditions of Christianity, and here is what he says about the poem found in Philippians that it is pre Paul, so it would have to be very early in the church. Hope this helps.

[Seasanctuary]

Definitely a step in the right direction, Rogue.

So is this letter to Trajan the first non-controversial, external reference?

[mig_killer2]

Maybe I should have worded it something like "confirmed by historical records not produced by the Church itself."

The reason I'm asking is that I see topics occasionally like the poll currently up which asks skeptics how they think Jesus' body disappeared from the tomb. This gets me thinking such questions as: What tomb?

It isn't established that Jesus was put in a tomb at all except in the religious texts of his own sect. Then I hear things like, "There were eyewitnesses." So I think: What eyewitnesses?

Are the identity of these people established outside of Church texts and traditions?

Now it is perfectly legit to argue that such-and-so probably happened for such-and-so reasons even though the evidence is all Church-contained. But that's not what I'm asking right now. It seems to me the FIRST step when talking about New Testament history with skeptics is to identify early points where secular history provides independent witness to the Church's history.

At what earliest point do I NOT have to take the Church's word for it?

seasanctuary, there is a fundemental flaw in this argument, and it assumes that any historical event documented in the Canon is by default not evidence. the problem is that it is up to the skeptic to prove that being canonized makes a document unreliable.

[mig_killer2]

The Jewish historian Josephus published Antiquities of the Jews around 93AD, which contains one of the earliest mentions of Christianity. While the reference known as the “Testimonium Flavianum” appears to be a later addition in whole or at least part, and is discounted as such by the majority of modern scholars, there is an authentic reference to “James the Just,” traditionally identified as James the brother of Jesus who headed the Jerusalem Church. Still, this section appears to have been altered with the addition of the descriptive phrase “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,” something that Josephus is very unlikely to have written.

Other early references include a letter fom Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan (ca. 110AD) as well as a controversial (authenticity-wise) reference from Tactius from slightly later.

Not sure if this addresses your question, but I hope it helps.

Uhh, Tacitus's passage is most likely reliable for 2 reasons

1: It is HARSHLY critical of christians
2: It is written in the same literary style as the rest of the annals (to my knowledge)

how many scholars dispute the validity of Tacitus' mention again?