A must read for all Classicists here

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Read this paragrpah and tell me you don't laugh out loud.
Babylon in the first and second centuries may even have been a collection of different movements. Some Jewish Christians couldn't let go of the law of Moses and eventually gave up Christ instead. The Orthodox Christians adopted Greek philosophy. The Gnostics wallowed in the mysteries and in unspeakable practices on the one hand or in neurotic asceticism on the other. Second-century compilers like Tatian and Marcion rewrote the scriptures, the latter boldly chopping out anything, he didn't like. And all of them together forced the virtuous woman, the true church of Jesus Christ, into the wilderness.

Ok, I agree he tries to cover about 5,000 things in a single paragraph . Big problem if this is an academic paper, not so much for the audience it was intended for. I believe it orginally appeared in BYU magazine. Again, it's a religious piece trying to explain why the Great and Abominable church label can't be placed on any one entity. I won't claim to be better read than you on this, but I don't see where his conclusions are that crazy.

Point by point:

"Babylon in the first and second centuries may even have been a collection of different movements."

duh, we know this.

"Some Jewish Christians couldn't let go of the law of Moses and eventually gave up Christ instead."

Absolutely true. As you know, one of the major controversies was the nature of Jesus Christ. Was he human, divine, or both? Bart Ehrman seems to believe that many if not most Jewish Christians were in the human only camp, and Paul spent a lot of time combatting that idea.

"The Orthodox Christians adopted Greek philosophy."

Didn't they? What is the doctrine of the trinity as explained in the creeds? It's not biblical. It must have come from somewhere.


"The Gnostics wallowed in the mysteries and in unspeakable practices on the one hand or in neurotic asceticism on the other."

Seems about right to me, although Robinson's language is a little judgmental.


"Second-century compilers like Tatian and Marcion rewrote the scriptures, the latter boldly chopping out anything, he didn't like."

Marcion was the first to compile a canon and he barely even included a gospel in it -- a watered down version of Luke. He totally threw out the OT because he hated Judaism and had nothing else in his canon other than some of Paul's letters. But I'm sure you knew that already. I'm not seeing how Robinson is all that far off on that though.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Ok, I agree he tries to cover about 5,000 things in a single paragraph . Big problem if this is an academic paper, not so much for the audience it was intended for. I believe it orginally appeared in BYU magazine. Again, it's a religious piece trying to explain why the Great and Abominable church label can't be placed on any one entity. I won't claim to be better read than you on this, but I don't see where his conclusions are that crazy.

Point by point:

"Babylon in the first and second centuries may even have been a collection of different movements."

duh, we know this.

"Some Jewish Christians couldn't let go of the law of Moses and eventually gave up Christ instead."

Absolutely true. As you know, one of the major controversies was the nature of Jesus Christ. Was he human, divine, or both? Bart Ehrman seems to believe that many if not most Jewish Christians were in the human only camp, and Paul spent a lot of time combatting that idea.

"The Orthodox Christians adopted Greek philosophy."

Didn't they? What is the doctrine of the trinity as explained in the creeds? It's not biblical. It must have come from somewhere.


"The Gnostics wallowed in the mysteries and in unspeakable practices on the one hand or in neurotic asceticism on the other."

Seems about right to me, although Robinson's language is a little judgmental.


"Second-century compilers like Tatian and Marcion rewrote the scriptures, the latter boldly chopping out anything, he didn't like."

Marcion was the first to compile a canon and he barely even included a gospel in it -- a watered down version of Luke. He totally threw out the OT because he hated Judaism and had nothing else in his canon other than some of Paul's letters. But I'm sure you knew that already. I'm not seeing how Robinson is all that far off on that though.

Are we going to declare a winner on this one? All SU had was his anti-religion argument in general, and when he gave up Arch didn't have any substance to hold his own.

[All-American]

I didn't think it was that bad of an article. Heck, SeattleUte agrees with it.

It wasn't an academic heavyweight, but I don't think it was supposed to be. Robinson does try to speak to the rank and file membership from time to time-- in the preface to Believing Christ, he notes that he hates articles without footnotes, but that he was going to break his own rule for the sake of the audience. It appears he does the same here.