{"id":2508,"date":"2008-08-10T15:39:55","date_gmt":"2008-08-10T20:39:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost:8888\/2008\/08\/10\/jesus-and-first-century-christianity-in-jerusalem\/"},"modified":"2008-08-10T15:39:55","modified_gmt":"2008-08-10T20:39:55","slug":"jesus-and-first-century-christianity-in-jerusalem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.splendoroftruth.com\/curtjester\/2008\/08\/jesus-and-first-century-christianity-in-jerusalem\/","title":{"rendered":"Jesus and First-Century Christianity in Jerusalem"},"content":{"rendered":"

I recently read Jesus
\nand First-Century Christianity in Jerusalem<\/a> by Elizabeth
\nMcnamer and Bargil Pixner that
\nwas sent to me for review by Paulist Press. The book starts with an
\noverview of the Essenes and then the Nazoreans and then goes on to give
\na historical overview that includes Jesus’ public years and then
\nconcentrates mainly on the Church in Jerusalem up to the year 135.
\n The overview of Jesus and subsequent resurrection is mainly
\nstraight-forward account as is the subsequent years of the Church in
\nJerusalem.  The book uses as source materials text such a
\n the Protoevangelium of James and historians of the era such
\nas  Jophesus and later Eusebius along with others of that time
\nperiod along of course with the Gospels.  So there is a lot of
\ngood information about the early Church specifically in regards to the
\nChristians in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n

I was glad to see the retelling of Jesus’
\npublic years was surprisingly
\nfree of sneering skepticism and it kept to the facts as told in the
\nGospels, though there were some exceptions.  Such as “Jesus
\nmay have had a life changing experience as he went to the Jordan near
\nJericho as he was baptized by John the Baptist.”  This
\nsentence made me laugh and sounds like the kind of stuff taught by
\nthose who say Jesus was ignorant they were God and many of the authors
\nof some of the references do hold to such a view.  Later on we
\nget a sentence questioning whether if some of the early presiders were
\nwomen and then a confusion on the role of women deaconesses.
\n But this type of stuff was mostly the exception.<\/p>\n

Also included was the standard fare about
\nthe Q document the mythical lost document used by Matthew and Luke.
\n Along with some rather late datings of the Gospels with for
\nexample Luke being dated at 85 A.D with the phase “scholars say.”
\n “Scholars say” is used quite a lot in this book with no
\nmention that this is by no means unanimous.  It really means
\n“scholars who I am inclined to believe say.” In fact whenever I see
\nthis phrase it is a cue for me to dig deeper.  So much of
\nhistorical-criticism denies miracles and prophesies and so they are
\nforced to argue for a much later dating after the year 70 when
\nJerusalem was destroyed.  That the prophesy of this
\ndestruction proves that it had to be after the event.  Though
\nI think this “later Gospel” phase is receding and much better
\nscholarship is being done now that puts them at a much earlier period
\nof time.  Michael Barber in his excellent book book Coming
\nSoon: Unlocking the Book of Revelation and Applying Its Lessons Today<\/a>
\nargues, I believe, persuasively for a dating of the Book of Revelation
\npre-70 A.D. While this book dates the Gospel of John as being done
\nbetween 90 and 110. A.D. Well scholars say!<\/p>\n

The biggest weakness of this book is that
\nit sees Essenes everywhere.  “I see dead Essenes” could have
\nbeen the tagline of the book. While some of the conjecture was quite
\ninteresting and some of it might actually be true.  There was
\njust a bias to always interpret something to mean that it was
\ninfluenced from the Essenes somehow.  Often we get this with
\nJohn the Baptist, but in this case it extended to the family of Mary.
\n Even the date of the Last Supper was suppose to be Essene
\ninfluenced which this books happened on Wednesday or on Tuesday night.
\nThat the man carrying a jug of water that Jesus sent his disciples to
\nfind must have been a Essene priest since only women carried water.
\n  Or Acts 6:7 about a great number of priests converting to
\nthe faith must have been Essene priests since it was doubtful that
\nSaducees would do so.  This totally leaves out the fact that
\nthere were about 2000 ordinary Temple priests in Jerusalem.
\n Everything is seen through Essene colored glasses with no
\ncaveats.  No doubt this is because one of the authors who is
\nan ex Benedictine Monk has worked as an archaeologist in the Essene
\nquarter.  There are certain some interesting correlations
\nbetween the Essenes writings and some of what happened, but because of
\nthe bias it is hard to tell objectively what role they played which in
\nthis book is to a large extent.<\/p>\n

This is a larger sized book with plenty of
\nbeautiful pictures included relating to Jerusalem.  Often
\nthough the pictures seemed to be included just to have pictures and
\ndidn’t really relate to the text on the page they were on. The book
\npiqued my interest into the early Church in Jerusalem, unfortunately it
\nmakes me have to look elsewhere to fulfill it.<\/p>\n