Loading...Here now is the second post by Paula Fredriksen, William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of Scripture, emerita, at Boston University, on her new book Ancient Christianities: The First Five Hundred Years. As you’ll see, it is smart, interesting, and accessible. You can find it most anywhere you buy books.
******************************
It’s an awkward fact, for those of us who have advanced degrees in the study of ancient religion, that antiquity had no word for, and arguably no concept of, “religion.” Religio in Latin meant something like “obligation” or “reverence.” Our modern definition of religion rests on a foundation set in the Enlightenment. Religion, now, indexes conviction, the intellectual assent and psychological and emotional commitment to a proposition: one believes “sincerely” or “strongly.” Distinguished from the secular world, religion is embodied in doctrine-defined institutions, which one can move into or out of. For all these reasons, modern religion rests preeminently in the domain of the individual.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I find your second paragraph very interesting, Dr. Fredriksen. It gives me a lot to think about.
I finished “When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation” by Paula in February and look forward to reading her new book going beyond the first century. I also recently finished, “ After Jesus, Before Christianity” Westar institute. In both of theses books the impression I get is that in the first decades after the death of Jesus, is was a mixture of house churches, clubs, social dinners, getting together to discuss the crucified “anointed one” and what that meant for their groups, families, etc.
From these books I didn’t see any evidence for a defined “authoritative Priesthood” to lead, minister, baptize, offer communion, etc. within these early Christian groups. Do you think Jesus gave to his 12 a “Priesthood authority” to do the ordinances, baptism and communion, and this authority was given to the other individuals of these house churches or groups?
What a great way to look at earliest ekklesiai, as “eating clubs”! Arrangements were ad hoc: this is a rapidly mutating movement that improvises in its unexpected circumstances. So, therefore, no structured institutions like a priesthood (people weren’t sacrificing to Jesus in any case) — for a long time, wandering prophets had as much authority as (if not more authority than) local “overseers” (“bishops”). Also, finally, if Jesus himself were teaching that the Kingdom’s coming was imminent, he would hardly have been setting up institutional hierarchies. What the gospels do portray him as doing is conferring charismatic powers to his disciples (especially re casting out demons).
Thank you Dr. Fredriksen and Dr. Ehrman for the information, very much appreciated
This is a really interesting series. I’ve picked up your book, Dr. Fredriksen. The Kindle version is less than $10.
I had thought η διαθηκη used in the LXX was the ancient greek word equivalent to religion 🤷♂️
Well, it usually translates the Hebrew word “brit” (“covenant”), but can also mean something like “last will and testament.” It does not mean “religion.”
Thank you for this fascinating article. I am interested in the development of the concept of religio, and was wondering if you could comment on how Lucretius understood it, as in this passage from De Rerum Natura 1.62ff:
Humana ante oculos foede cum vita iaceret in terris oppressa gravi sub *religione*, quae caput a caeli regionibus ostendebat horribili super aspectu mortalibus instans, primum Graius homo mortalis tollere contra est oculos ausus primusque obsistere contra;
quem neque fama deum nec fulmina nec minitanti murmure compressit caelum, sed eo magis acrem inritat animi virtutem, effringere ut arta naturae primus portarum claustra cupiret. ergo vivida vis animi pervicit et extra processit longe flammantia moenia mundi atque omne immensum peragravit mente animoque, unde refert nobis victor quid possit ori, quid nequeat, finita potestas denique cuique qua nam sit ratione atque alte terminus haerens. quare *religio* pedibus subiecta vicissim opteritur, nos exaequat victoria caelo.
Religio is oppressive and frightening (he might mean cultic rites here); the philosopher (“the Greek”: he might mean Epicurus) surveys the universe and thus triumphs over fearfulness. At least i THINK that’s what this means.
THIS IS ENORMOUS: ” no concept of, “religion.” Religio in Latin meant something like “obligation” or “reverence.” Our modern definition of religion rests on a foundation set in the Enlightenment. Religion, now, indexes conviction, the intellectual assent and psychological and emotional commitment to a proposition: one believes “sincerely” or “strongly.” Distinguished from the secular world, religion is embodied in doctrine-defined institutions, which one can move into or out of. ”
USA news no longer relates “Evangelicals” to Protestants or USA church, as President Clinton 1st IDed this group in 1995 Washington Correspondents Dinner.
Since I returned 2021, I refuse to attend any CA church. “All these functions & activities convened to honor the god.”
“Perhaps they saw no conflict in being both Roman & Christian.” SOUNDS very American-
Matthew 6:24-26 Amplified Bible (AMP)
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [money, possessions, fame, status, or whatever is valued more than the Lord].