Personal Observations Concerning Early Christian Writings

[Adrift]

Regarding the bolded part: It would be nice if you could differentiate clearly between where Papandrea claims ends and where your conclusions from said claims begin.

I'm pretty much just paraphrasing Papandrea, so really they're one and the same. I'll see if I can find the exact spots in the exact videos that he makes the claims, but it'd probably be easier for you to go through and watch them. They're very good.

Furthermore, even if one were to grant that it was the historical social (and authorial) context that allowed for the sort of insulting language we find among the writings of the early Christian Church (including the NT), and that it would be inappropriate for us, because we live in an entirely different culture, isn't that implicitly admitting that using insulting language is something that is appropriate/inappropriate depending on the culture in question, and that you therefore do no more wrong when you use insulting language than when you, for example, burp loudly at a dinner, pick your nose, or point your finger at people? I mean, they can surely be seen as inappropriate, but I find it hard to believe that they would be wrong in the purely ethical sense.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. I suppose the point is that, in the writings of at least the 2nd and 3rd century church in the Gentile world they seemed to use a style that (one would hope) their readers were familiar with and took no offense to. That same style of writing, removed entirely from its period's historical and regional context would probably not go over so well or make much sense.

[Chrawnus]

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. I suppose the point is that, in the writings of at least the 2nd and 3rd century church in the Gentile world they seemed to use a style that (one would hope) their readers were familiar with and took no offense to. That same style of writing, removed entirely from its period's historical and regional context would probably not go over so well or make much sense.

What I'm trying to say is that your argument taken to it's logical conclusion would seem to imply that insulting someone is more akin to burping loudly and picking your nose among people, i.e it would purely be a question about bad manners, rather than it being more akin to punching someone, or stealing from them, which would be more a question about morals.

I.e, according to your argument it seems that the most we could say about insults is that they are seen as being part of what we call "bad manners" in some cultures, but it's hard to see that they would constitute a moral wrong.

[Adrift]

What I'm trying to say is that your argument taken to it's logical conclusion would seem to imply that insulting someone is more akin to burping loudly and picking your nose among people, i.e it would purely be a question about bad manners, rather than it being more akin to punching someone, or stealing from them, which would be more a question about morals.

I.e, according to your argument it seems that the most we could say about insults is that they are seen as being part of what we call "bad manners" in some cultures, but it's hard to see that they would constitute a moral wrong.

I'm sorry, but I'm still not quite getting your point I don't think. I'm sure the intentions of the early Christian writers were not necessarily evil, and would have been understood by those in the 2nd and 3rd century as morally neutral. Their words would still probably get them into some sort of trouble just for stirring stuff up, but the literary devices probably weren't unfamiliar to its readers. If you were to use the same literary devices today in evangelism or apologetics, you probably would get punched. A modern day Jew wouldn't even give you the time of day if you attempted to use the same apologetic techniques Justin used on the probably fictional Trypho. Would using the early Roman methods today be immoral? I don't know, but it wouldn't be nearly as profitable, and probably do more harm than not.

[Stefcui]

This has been a good thread to read through Adrift. I have read all of the same books you have mentioned. Hermas is very interpretive, as it is prophetic, not prose. His prophecy leads to the eventual decline of the church through the love of the church. He places the ideal of "the church" on a pedestal which becomes a form of idolatry. It is not speaking of Hermas personally, but of the church as a whole. Hermas is cryptically personified as being the church. Particularly in view is the Roman church, which was to be soon literally worshipped through it's bishops and popes. This was the great sin which Hermas (the church) was blinded to. That is at least my interpretation. It is also interesting that Hermas was included in the Codex Sinaiticus as part of the earliest canon.

[Adrift]

This has been a good thread to read through Adrift. I have read all of the same books you have mentioned. Hermas is very interpretive, as it is prophetic, not prose. His prophecy leads to the eventual decline of the church through the love of the church. He places the ideal of "the church" on a pedestal which becomes a form of idolatry. It is not speaking of Hermas personally, but of the church as a whole. Hermas is cryptically personified as being the church. Particularly in view is the Roman church, which was to be soon literally worshipped through it's bishops and popes. This was the great sin which Hermas (the church) was blinded to. That is at least my interpretation. It is also interesting that Hermas was included in the Codex Sinaiticus as part of the earliest canon.

Hmm. That's a very interesting perspective Stefcui. I'll have to give it some serious thought. And welcome to Theology Web.