Early Christian Writings
earlychristianwritings.com
earlychristianwritings.com
In the case of Q, you could argue that the Gospel of Thomas validates that there were texts of that kind (sayings gospels) floating around, but Thomas doesn't match the content of Q.
Outside biblical scholarship, another area where people have tried to reconstruct what is going on in ancient texts is the Chinese classics, especially the really cryptic ones like the Yijing. But whenever some actual ancient manuscript gets dug out of an old grave or a bog, it seems like it just brings up more questions and complications, instead of validating anyone's theories.
Compare to the philology methods that people use to reconstruct ancient languages. These have been validated pretty well. For example in the 19th century linguists were able to deduce that the Proto-Indo-European language must have had guttural consonants not found in any extant language, and then later when the Hittite language was decoded, the guttural consonants were right there. The theory was validated on held-out data. Has this ever happened for critical methods for discerning authorship and sources and missing texts?
I jest, but on a serious note, a leading theological text would probably have the same ambiguity as to its meaning even if everyone had access to the original text. Knowing what everyone thinks something means isn't better than knowing what it means... but scientifically, they're indistinguishable!
Also, diff algorithms are derived from these methods...
The idea that there is "one authoritative version and it was the version that was copied into this one authoritative derivative and we found the derivative so now we have to find that exact original or else its all bumpkin" simply isn't the way 2000 year old books or texts were written, copied or used. You will never find it because that's not what happened.
But we can lay out the texts side by side, arrange the narratives and see how they differ chronologiaclly from book to book, notice where particular linguistic quirks take place, notice where words are copied word for word in a particular order, where embellishments or insertions or changes are made, then just like taking several witness accounts, we build up a probablistic version of events that happened.
So there isn't "one Q", just as there isn't one authoritative version of mark, luke, john, mathew, etc. But there's patterns in the texts which strongly suggest that there was some kind of shared knowledge and a common source in the authors of the later gospels. We hypothesised that this common source seemed to be shared amongst the other gospels was a "sayings gospel", because the common ground that seemed to be repeated in the other books were primarily sayings and the other bits seemed to come from mark, which at the time met the problem that people didn't accept that such a book or source would actually exist because we'd never seen one before.
Then, after this hypothesis was formed and that objection raised, with the discovery of the nag hammadi library and the gospel of thomas, we found an actual historical sayings gospel. A confirmation that this type of literature did exist and was written in early christian communities. It was not Q, but it confirmed the hypothesised genre and existance of early christian literature.
If you're waiting for the discovery of two literal peices of text, whereby the carbon copy of the first is deduced from the discovery of multiple other historical books to the letter that followed, well then you're setting up an impossible standard. Even literal transcription probably wouldn't meet that standard.
I find reconstruction fascinating, but it will never be completely accurate, because it just can't be. Every language has quirks, and I believe PIE probably had one or two complex features that never survived into the age of writing. Most of its vocabulary is lost, although I hold out more hopes for phonology.
This impression has strengthened quite a bit in recent years as it’s become clear that political movements and politicians that are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus are perfectly okay if they align on other more immediate secular political issues.
There’s always been a claim that the US is an outlier compared to other developed nations in terms of religiosity. I don’t really believe this anymore. I think we have a lot of politics with heavy religious veneer, but if you look only at sincere belief in the tenets of a faith I don’t think the US is much more religious than the UK for example.
I grew up in the Bible Belt around Baptists and Evangelicals and even a few Pentecostals. I assure you it isn't an illusion.
While there may be some outliers and grifters, particularly where religion intersects with politics (I doubt Trump believes in God half as much as Evangelicals believe in him) the vast majority of these people absolutely do believe what they say, and that they're right with God.
When I lived in the bible belt, I had a hilarious idea for a "student film" project on the life and times of Jesus. Stuff like using little-kids' floaties on his ankles to walk on water, accidentally raising an undead zombie, etc. My good friend told me he couldn't morally participate in the project.
We were 18 and he should have been able to laugh at a funny project but he saw it as insulting an important deity. What a sad and limited life organized religion constructed around him.
I also remember when my father started dating and he complained to me that he always made it clear that he was an atheist but then a few dates in the women would start talking about their faith and getting all Christy. I was incredulous and explained that it had always been that way since we moved there. He just wasn't divorced yet, so he didn't notice.
These people's lives are all about their faith. It's a fucking brain rot. It's a sickness and it greatly contributes to the misery of others.
I can’t speak for your friend, but as a former atheist who brcame a Christian (albeit a very mediocre one) I feel like I can see both sides of this so perhaps I can offer a perspective that might help you understand each other better.
When I was an atheist, I assumed that anyone who didn’t care for the kinds of jokes you mentioned was worried that God would zap them with a lightning bolt.
Now I see it a little differently: if you see something as being of great importance, then it simply feels off / wrong / weird / missing the point to treat it as if it’s of little or no importance. In a word, it feels cringe. If such a project holds no allure for you, then you’re not missing much by sitting it out.
Not to harsh on your sense of humor, but I hope it might help to understand your friend better.
It shouldn't come as great revelation, to an atheist, that to those infected with a mind virus it "feels cringe" when anything attacks the virus. That's its whole mechanism of action, its fangs. Besides, there's things like faith healing, and gospel churches, and the phrase "religious ecstacy", and all these other signs of the religious getting off on religion, so it should be obvious that they're defending something that feels precious, and are not merely terrorized.
However, if the atheist instead made a shallow assumption that religiosity is simple fear of a smiting bogeyman god, then it would come as a revelation that the religious are in fact having euphoric feelings, and this might be mistaken by the now ex-atheist for divine revelation of the way and the truth and the light, as the fangs sink in.
Did you also suggest wearing blackface, telling women to get back in the kitchen, and burning the Quran?
Edit: letter
Slave. That's what you describe.
I'm not attacking you when I say this: drugs can get you there, too.
If you couldn't find flaws, you are clearly biased. Even religious institutions have found flaws. The contradictions are so well published that you have to ignore them to not know about them,
I don't think you have any true knowledge of the history of your faith (said the atheist).
He may have been an outlier. I know that I've heard god-jokes from the pulpits of evangelical (using that in the sense it was used 30 years ago). The one I remember best is about the difference between a dog and a cat (based on evidence of how their master treats them, the dog thinks its owner is god, the cat thinks he is god--that's a synopsis, it was much funnier in the full version).
I recognize the pet-God joke. I shared a meme pic with my partner that had that. Regarding cats and dogs, it's completely accurate. Our cats are in charge more than we are (or so they think).
The religiosity might be an illusion, but in many cases the religion is drifting away from Christianity. It has certainly very different from traditional Christianity in the rest of the world. Many fundamentalists themselves will say that the major churches are not really Christians, which implies they are not the same religion as the major churches. Other American groups have broken with Christian theology in major ways, such as rejecting the trinity of the incarnation. Some have their own scriptures. Many have beliefs that are not taken from either Christian scriptures or tradition.
> I doubt Trump believes in God half as much as Evangelicals believe in him
Again, if he does, his beliefs are significantly different from traditional Christianity. He seems to know very little about what Christians believe - he once tweeted "Happy Good Friday"!
Then again the Bible has a lot to say about the rich, none of it good.
I don't think using the name and trappings of a religion as a cultural label and dog whistle is the same as sincere belief.
You can call them hypocrites, and maybe that's fair (most Christians are) but they are sincere.
The messages of the gospel aren’t obvious, or obviously good. Without an actual man-god preaching them, I don’t see why we should love our enemies as we love ourselves.
It was an agency of the Spanish monarchy that aimed to strengthen the state, motivated by a history of being occupied by an empire, and fearing the the descendents of the former conquerors would be disloyal to the new state.
Political movements tend to be ecumenical - across religious boundaries. The Civil Rights movement was a political movement, as was the labor movement, etc.
The vast majority of modern Christians doesn't, the influences of Greek culture are readily apparent in the conceptual language of the New Testament, John most obviously when he turns Christ into the Logos. Culturally many pre-Christian practices have been incorporated into for example, Latin American Catholicism. You can literally see it in the architecture of churches.
American Evangelical Christianity is a bit of a different beast and best viewed as a nationalist program that brings particular American tendencies to bear on the religion rather than the other way around.
To be entirely fair about it, the linkage may easily go back to the very time of Jesus in some important ways, seeing as many of Jesus's teachings were shared with the Essenes', and the Essenes in turn were quite knowledgeable about Greek/Hellenistic philosophy.
That's really just an American thing. Americans have this concept of "manifest destiny" in their culture is the final one and it is their duty to spread it to the rest of the world. The American settlers have colonized the entire continent, but the spirit of Manifest Destiny still persists, just embodied in different forms.
For example, among evangelicals there is this paranoia of anything that might be considered pagan. Some will go even so far as to consider Christmas pagan. Meanwhile in the rest of the world it's perfectly accepted that Christianity has taken some local practices and re-dedicated them to Christ. This is not a concession to pagans to make Christianity more palatable for them (pagans are not stupid, they know it's a different religion). I can recommend the YouTube Channel "Jonathan Pageau", he used to talk a lot about this sort of stuff in his older videos.
> For example, among evangelicals there is this paranoia of anything that might be considered pagan.
Many Christians also see much of value in aspects of paganism. its pretty mainstream - for example CS Lewis argues that God can reveal himself to pagans too (there is quite a bit about this in The Pilgrims Regress).
Around a hundred, hundred and fifty years ago when our understanding of the universe had finally reached the point where it became obvious that (a) all of our creation stories were just stories and (b) we actually kind of knew the actual story now, everyone had a big crisis over how to deal with that.
The two options on the table where fundamentalism -- doubling down on Biblical literalism and faith -- and modernism, taking the Bible as more a spiritual message, adapting our understanding of it for the modern world.
Some churches went one way, others the other, but over the following century the fundamentalist churches have proven to be better at attracting, retaining and motivating their members.
There are still modernist churches, but the loudest Christians in America are almost all of the fundamentalist bent.
It doesn't help that they attract power hungry sociopaths who seek to influence them for profit.
Of course, the only way I can think of to address this would be for the state to violate the first amendment & promote the concept that anyone who believes in Hell condemns themselves to Hell. (Matthew 7:1-2)
I think the division your are referring to may be true of American evangelical churches, but its not true of Christianity globally. "Modernist" is not a good term for a view that has been around (and generally accepted) for most of two millennia.
With some mix of apostolic succession providing authority and the Holy Spirit guiding the big picture.
I am the knowledge of my inquiry,
and the finding of those who seek after me,
and the command of those who ask of me,
and the power of the powers in my knowledge
of the angels, who have been sent at my word,
and of gods in their seasons by my counsel,
and of spirits of every man who exists with me,
and of women who dwell within me.
I am the one who is honored, and who is praised,
and who is despised scornfully.
I am peace,
and war has come because of me.
And I am an alien and a citizen.Here's a more recent rendition https://diotima-doctafemina.org/translations/coptic/the-thun...
The poem reads like the private confessions of that character, which made it feel modern to me, but wow it’s actually many centuries old.
I am not a scholar of such things, but a quick glance at the documents I am familiar with suggests that the date ranges represent uncertainty within the compiler’s point of view. That’s reasonable, but when it’s linked out of context it’s not immediately obvious that it doesn’t reflect the range of debate in the broader secular scholarship, let alone secular and conservative religious scholarship taken together. So caveat lector.
That said, the breadth of documents linked here is really impressive.
1) Oldest full manuscript to be carbon dated (or similarly rigorous scientific dating) 2) Oldest fragments to be carbon dated 3) Oldest citations 4) Estimated date from internal factors within the text
The initial methods would serve as an objective upper bound for age, and the later would give a more accurate subjective view.
Another fascinating topic in biblical study is the criterion of embarrassment, where the early Christian writings left in bizarre and unflattering events that members of a cult would generally leave out. The most obvious example is the crucifixion itself (considered by Jews to be extremely shameful and cursed), the repeated unflattering presentation of the disciples (portrayed as regularly confused, lacking in faith, petty about status, falling asleep at critical moments, even rejecting Jesus at the end), even Jesus' own despair when he was publicly humiliated and executed, crying out asking God why he was forsaken. This is in contrast to Islam, which has Jesus rescued and replaced at the moment of execution.
But it also seems strange that Matthew, a presumably literate tax collector, wrote nothing at all before Paul despite being a disciple during the time Jesus was around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epis...
The arguments made in favour of Paul’s authenticity largely come from internal textual cues - but is that really more persuasive?
I don’t mean to suggest too strongly one side of the Gospel authorship debate over the other, only that these issues mix objective facts with subjective interpretation in a way that makes it very difficult to outsource to scholarly consensus.
The subject of authorship comes up frequently so he has addressed it a few times, but here is a short (under 7 minute) video. It isn't just an assertion, he gives reasons why he makes these claims:
And there’re allusions to apostolic naming in things like Justin Martyr’s first apology, Ch67 (155CE, dating largely from it being co-addressed to Marcus Aurelius):
“ the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permit”
Previously he wrote down ten commandments on stone tablets, and with his power he could easily write the most perfect book in a language everyone could understand that would leave no doubts as to what is required to be saved then ensure it survived forever. There would be no need for later writers on soteriology.
Your point about verisimilitude extends to Onomastics as well. Research shows that the New Testament Gospels accurately reflect the specific frequency of Jewish names in 1st-century Palestine. In contrast, Gnostic texts often use names that don't fit the era or geography, frequently showing 3rd-century Egyptian linguistic influences instead. It suggests the canonical authors had "boots on the ground" knowledge that the later Gnostic writers lacked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_t...
After 2k years of divergence, what is there in common with that figure. Can't read or speak his language, experience his culture or the geopolitics of his world. Everything is seen through 2k years of subjective lenses that people with various goals give to you.
At what point, do you call it a day or focus on the Gospels exclusively? Because that's arguably as close as you can get to him. Everything else seems secondary accounts of secondary accounts and people claiming to have authority to speak on behalf of someone who can't refuse that anymore.
I started with various books of the Nag Hammadi collection, reading the excellent Meyer translations, and started noticing some metaphors that felt like "hidden signposts" in the text (and had some relevance to some ideas in Buddhism). Gospel of Thomas and especially Gospel of Philip felt like they map quite well to non-dual ideas in Buddhism.
I decided after some explorations of gnostic text to jump back into the gospels, wondering if I noticed the same kinds of hidden signposts there. I started this exploration during a trip to London with my wife, where I went and hunted down a copy of Bruce Rogers's amazing Oxford Lectern Bible at the Church of England reading room. What a beautiful bible -- it's so forward thinking that it feels like it was typeset last year, but while it is a beautiful piece, the King James translation of the bible is pretty incomprehensible. This little journey led me to the Sarah Ruden translations of the gospels, and as soon as I read them I felt the same kind of resonance.
This all eventually led me to Cynthia Bourgeault's amazing "The Heart of Centering Prayer," which explores the non-dual kind of ideas in esoteric Christianity and lays out the practice of centering prayer as a basis of Christian spirituality. And I would remiss if I didn't mention Jacob Needleman: Esoteric Christianity was good, but his "Money and the Meaning of Life," really helped me put my own relationship with money in perspective.
This is all a long winded way of saying: Christianity has a rich set of amazing spiritual resources, but they need to be consumed in a sort of non-literal way, where you're meeting the authors in the same mind as they were when they wrote the text. I'd also note that this kind of reading is not scholarly, the point isn't to find the right answer but to impute a larger meeting by meeting the author with your own struggles.
We live in a time that is committed to a materialist reductionist mindset, but I believe that humans are naturally mystical beings, and that we leave a lot of real meaning on the table when we reduce the world down into solely material order.
Rob Burbea explored these ideas (largely inspired by James Hillman's concept of "soulmaking") in his soulmaking dharma (https://hermesamara.org/), the idea being an extension of emptiness: if all is fabrication, why wouldn't we make meaning that is beautiful?
I'm sure I'm coming off quite a bit rambly, but it's very exciting to see such a resource on the HN front page. If you read my comment and feel any similar excitement, please check my profile and feel free to email me!
The point of religion and beliefs is that it can't be proven. If gods existence could be proven we wouldn't believe anymore. We don't believe in gravity for example.
Early Christian writings are real.
> All religion is politics and all politics require force to power.
Politics in religion - this is how we know those adherents have lost their way.
The very language of religion is rooted in political and economic struggle. Concepts such as "guilt," "sin," and "redemption" originally emerged from ancient debates regarding debt, law, and social obligation. During the "Axial Age," major world religions like Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam developed specifically to address the social dislocations caused by the rise of markets, coinage, and professional armies. For example, the biblical "Law of Jubilee"—which mandated the cancellation of debts and freedom for bondservants—was a direct political intervention into the economic sphere. Similarly, the Christian concept of "redemption" was originally a financial term referring to buying back something (or someone) held as security for a loan.
Folks who have transformed their faith into a political entity tended to utilize methods and beliefs that fall outside of the scope of the faith's founding principles (ex: Republican Jesus).
"Supply side Jesus" obviously has nothing to do with Jesus' actual teachings but the faith's founding principles are inextricable from politics because those principles are inextricable from the followers' relationship with the world and its power structures.
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity
Understanding this will help you to understand why you view the world and morality the way you do and in turn how you answer hard questions like technology's place in culture, life, workplace, etc.
I'll save you some time, the answer to you question is unequivocally: no. There are no other such archives for other religions or cultures. Just this one website.
See how silly that sounds?
I've heard about the Taoist canon recently, which is seemingly vast, and despite Chinese being a major language, and a substantial number of people knowing both Chinese and English... Only a fraction of the Taoist canon is available in English.
There's the sacred texts archive.
There is a basic problem with some eastern texts, i.e. that many have not been translated into English. I was watching a video on Taoism recently, and a huge number of their scriptures are unavailable in English.
I guess maybe it does feel a bit like gross proselytizing. Hm.
Most people underestimate the diversity of beliefs in early Christianity. A lot of that was violently suppressed by Constantine, to the point that some of it was only dug up in the last century.
One of the current top 100 posts relates to western religion. It’s easy to avoid if uninterested. I enjoy that every now and then we have an ancient history, archeology, theology, literature, futurism or etc. post make the front page.
He is the Demiurge of this world, the God of Moses described in his creation
narrative. Of the Seven archontic demons, the first is lion-shaped; the second
is a bull; the third is amphibious and hisses horribly; the fourth is in the
form of an eagle ; the fifth has the appearance of a bear, the sixth, that of
a dog ; and the seventh, that of an ass named Thaphabaoth or Onoel.
I am asking this in a purely curious way, btw!
Maybe that's totally different for evangelicals or some other mainline denomination. I wouldn't know.
What I was not taught was the archontic ass-demon Thaphabaoth.
'Christians' in the US don't consider Catholics 'Christians' (using quotes to show it's a group identifier based not solely on following Christs teachings). They (Christians) are also the newer splinter group. So Catholics have taken to identifying themselves as Catholics to 'stay in their lane' or to self identify to the 'Christians' that they aren't part of the accepted/in group. Catholics were lower status historically, look at the talk around Kennedy. Also Christians might not want to be friendly with Catholics but they would with Christians, so you out yourself as Catholic from the start to avoid that bullshit (so back to 'stay in your lane').
The two have very different approaches to religion, with Catholics following the 'love they neighbor' 'care for the poor' live Jesus' teachings and Christians building mega churches and following prosperity gospel. Or most upsetting to my grandma, the Christian holy roller stuff. Or more upsetting to the Christians Mother Mary in the Catholic church.
When I was a kid there was also a huge racial element. WASPs versus Catholic congregations made up of Italians, Irish, Filipinos, Latin Americans, Middle Easterners and Germans.
But from my experience it's largely the 'stay in your lane' thing. I've had people be friendly with me because since I was christian they assumed I was Christian christian, and when they found out I was Catholic they stopped talking to me (past tense as I'm not really religious).
This whole subthread is pretty weird. There's no deeper meaning to my describing myself as "Catholic". It's how any Catholic would describe themselves.
TBH it’s hard for many people who were raised in a specific Christian faith to concisely explain many of the differences themselves … I would struggle when asked “what’s the difference between Catholicism and Christianity“ or “Catholics and Baptists” back then.
Neither is it unusual for someone to describe themselves as a particular Protestant denomination: Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, et al. Again, Wikipedia is a good starting place.
People who simply describe themselves as "Christian" are what, in my experience at least, is relatively new. Going back, say, fifty years, it was somewhat unusual in many parts of the US to find people who described themselves that way.
In my experience, most of these people belong to one or another of what might be called non-denominational Christian churches. My preferred term for many of them is "contemporary American fundamentalist Christian," but that is not a widely used term, at least not that I know of.
Your question is strange enough that I'm honestly not sure whether or not you're trolling. If you are, as it seems you might be, a member of a contemporary American non-denominational Christian church, it is very weird, whether you know it or not, to suggest that a church that has existed for roughly two thousand years and has many more than a billion members wordwide is "splintering off" and "making [its] own religion."
To understand this behaviour, it should be known that Catholics have introduced man made rules that they have additionally decided are not up for discussion (infallible) even if the Bible appears to say otherwise. Catholics teach that there is no salvation outside the church. By definition, this makes sense - the church is by definition a body of people who belong to Christ. However what the catholics actually mean is "the Roman Catholic church". Whether your average Catholic realises this or not it's debatable, but the common clarification "I'm a Catholic" is because they have absorbed a corrupt teaching that only catholics can be saved. Read this and the linked article at the bottom https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-there-re...
It would sound weird if I described myself as "Christian" here. I think I'd get asked "uh, what kind?"
I'm going to suggest that if you would find it surprising to have your question answered with "Yes, Greek Orthodox," or "Yes, Southern Baptist," or "Yes, United Methodist," or some similar variation, your personal experience may not be as broad or definitive as you seem to think it is.
As far as I know (admittedly not far), Christians in the UK are about one-third Church of England, one-third non-denominational, one-fifth Catholic, and the rest other. I think most of the growth in non-denominational Christian churches in the UK has taken place in my lifetime.
There is a particular part of the UK where, in fairly recent decades, I think self-identifying as "Protestant," as quite specifically opposed to "Catholic," was not at all odd, to use your word. Not sure of the extent to which that's still the case.
For example, a Catholic would hesitate to receive a "Christian eucharist" as the Catholic and protestant understanding of the Eucharist is so profoundly different
A final point, given the subject of the thread, is that since the Catholic Church regards itself as founded by Christ, it is older than the Bible, and that the Bible was primarily written by the Church, for the Church, to complement Tradition. They would consider splintering off Tradition and leaving Catholicism as moving away from Christ (as Christ is head of the Catholic Church)
A lot of people assume "Christian" implies American evangelical values and beliefs (especially online), and many people want to make it clear they do not share those - e.g. biblical literalism.
Its common for people of many denominations to specify their denomination. People often say they are Anglican or Orthodox or whatever.