The Invention and Evolution of Early Christianity

The following consists of a very concise overview of some key parts of the history of the formation of the New Testament and rise of Christian Theology. It is taken mainly from a series of books and lectures by Professor Bart Ehrman, one of the preeminent authorities in New Testament scholarship.

Jesus and his twelve apostles were illiterate, Aramaic speaking Jews, like most of the lower classes. They did not write the New Testament. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written long after the fact, and by Greek speaking, literate persons. They are not written by the people the books are attributed to, but later disciples of theirs. Decades of changes took place in oral tradition before the stories were written down.

Mark was written about around 60 AD, Matthew and Luke written closely another two decades later, and John written around 90-100 AD. Paul was the first author to begin writing and he followed one of the four main Christian traditions, referred to as Proto-Orthodox, because it is the tradition that later became known as Orthodox. However, he only has seven undisputed letters, the rest of which are forgeries, often even in contradiction to what Paul writes. The Acts of the Apostles was written by the author of Luke, and gives a revised history of Paul that conflicts with the accounts he gives in his own letters. It has the objective of rewriting history to give a smoother transition from the period of Jesus to that of the Apostles working together with one harmonious message, and to minimize the dissentions and difficulties between the established apostles who had known Jesus personally and the new apostle Paul, who had not. This was because Paul was far from universally accepted as a genuine witness for Christ.

The remainder of the New Testament epistles attributed to the other apostles are all later forgeries. The Revelation of John is not a forgery because the book never claims to be written by any particular John.

Then there are many other gospels, letters and Apocalypses, as well as Acts written by other people. The Acts of Peter, or John or further acts of Paul and his female disciple Thecla. These books were viewed in many communities as sacred scripture for hundreds of years in some cases, and were very much a part of religious belief and worship.

There were four main catagories of Christians, but they subdivided into different sects with some different particular beliefs, traditions, stories and books of sacred scripture. There were the Ebionites, the Marcionites, the Gnostics and the Proto-Orthodox. The Ebionites were strongly rooted in the Jewish Tradition, while the Marcionites were staunchly anti Jewish. The Gnostics had a range of different beliefs. Christian beliefs varied on every point of doctrine, even touching the number of Gods. Was there one god, or three gods, or 365 gods? Was Jesus a man, a prophet, a demigod or God himself?

The books of the New Testament do not solve this problem, because they are as varied. Matthew is more Ebionite, while Luke is more Marcionite and John more influenced by Gnostic thought. They are not chapters in one book by one author, and should not be treated as such. Each author is writing a complete work that represents his own understanding, and they are each different. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a basis for their own records, and they freely changed words that Jesus said, reordered the series of events in order to make certain points. For instance, was Jesus silent when he went to the cross, indicating that he was wholly divine or did he suffer in anguish? Each account creates a very different picture, reflecting differing theologies of the times. When people read them as harmonious, they are in fact creating in their minds a fifth gospel that is unlike any of the others.

The history of how and why the 27 books that currently form the New Testament were selected is intriguing as well, and does anything but solve the problem of authenticity. Each of the books have their own authenticity for their particular doctrines and adherents. The manner in which the 27 "authoritative" books were selected does not indicated anything but a very human process. Then we come into the problem of poor translation, transliteration, and record keeping over the centuries that introduced thousands of errors, ommission, insertions and changes, some of which are insignificant, but many of which are profoundly significant for understanding the original meaning.

What is currently regarded as "Orthodox", literally "correct doctrine", was heavily influenced by Greek and Roman pagan cultures. Concepts such as the Virgin Birth and Christ being both God and man are well attested in Pagan traditions but are very foreign to Judaism.

What we have is evidence that Jesus lived, had followers and taught with many sayings and parables. The best we can do to track down what he actually said involves making educated guesses. Scholars give more weight to a saying if it has multiple attestation (appears in more than one source), if it was recorded earlier (in Mark as opposed to John) and if the language and style is consistent with a first century Aramaic speaking Jew living in Palestine, rather than consistent with a Greek speaking scholar in Athens, Rome, or somewhere else in the Mediterranean.

There is no indication that Jesus ever thought of himself as being the Messiah, or literal son of God, that he would die for the sins of the world or that he was the incarnation of God. The words Messiah and Son of God are typical references to very human kings or leaders, and their use in the early gospels do not indicate the meanings that were later attributed to them. These terms should be interpreted the way their authors understood them, such as the way they were used in the Hebrew bible to refer to men such as King David, also referred to as Son of God.

You can also trace an evolution or progression of ideas in the four gospels. As each subsequent book is written, the miracles become more elaborate and fanciful, and the importance of Jesus becomes greater, until in John he is said to have existed with God in the beginning and in fact was God. Also each successive book is more anti-Jewish than the last, reflecting the growing division between the two religions.

For more information about the evolution of Christianity, I suggest reading the books by New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" and "Jesus, Interrupted". Also Elaine Pagels' "The Origin of Satan" is a very good read that adaquately addresses the invention of that character.

Interestingly, this information is not priviliged, but has been taught in most every mainstream seminary for over a century. It is just not the kind of message that is appropriate to be taught from the pulpit. Once pasters and priests get to their respective congregations, they seem to quietly and conveniently forget this information.