The first "church history" would surely be Luke's THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. As in all inspirations to write history, authors wrote with a specific purporse and audience in mind. There is no such thing as "disinterested history" or "divinely revealed history."
Jesus did not direct his disciples to write his history. Within Rabbinic circles, it was forbidden for masters to write down their teachings. The same rule applied to disciples. Only when the churches were flooded with Roman participants was there an impulse to compose the history of great men and of great movements. This helps explain why the Gospels were written in Greek rather than Aramaic. This helps explain why, once one Gospel was written [Mark's], the impulse was to improve, to expand, and to correct the first attempt. Matthew and Luke wrote with specific sources and with specific needs within specific communities. This helps explain why the Gospels of Matthew and Luke edit Mark so as to match their own specific interests. There was no such thing as disinterested historical writing. If both authors were guided by the Holy Spirit, then we would have to say that each of them followed the impulse of a decidedly different Spirit.
The Gospel of John is the first Gospel where Jesus offers long discourses. According to the Catholic biblical scholar, this is a sign that one has here homiletic material woven within a "life of Jesus." To this I would add that a Jesus preoccupied with his status and his merits is decidedly different from the Jesus of the Synoptics who is the servant of God. In the Synoptics Jesus is preoccupied with the inbreaking Kingdom of God. Jesus gives no teachings on the character and works of the Messiah. In John's Gospel, Jesus openly identifies himself as the anticipated Messiah and as the one who will raise the dead and judge the entire world along with his Father. Since Jesus does those things normally reserved for the Host High, it is no surprise that Jesus characterizes himself as equal to God.
This "equality to the Most High" breaks the strict monotheism of the early church. Mohammed, peace be upon him, was educated in a milieu where each nation had its own divinely authorized prophet sent by God. It is not surprising that those who submitted to prophet Mohammed would learn that Isa (Jesus) was equal to Mohammed but surely not equal to the Most High.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To understand how Jesus' mission in Hades increased during the first three centuries (CE), go to https://www.academia.edu/s/6fbde5b9c5?source=link
Yes, Raed Rahim Khuder , Eusebius of Caesarea is often considered one of the first to write a comprehensive history of the Christian Church.
Yes, Eusebius of Caesarea is often considered the "Father of Church History" because he wrote the first comprehensive history of the Christian Church. His work, "Ecclesiastical History," written in the 4th century, is a crucial source of information about the early Christian Church and its development. Eusebius' writings have had a significant impact on the study of church history and are highly regarded for their historical value.
Generally speaking, Eusebius is considered the first truly known church historian. There are fragments of at least one earlier church history, but beyond a few fragments it is unknown.
As for those who suggest Luke as writing the first church history, what he appears to have written was not a history in the usual sense, but rather what one might today refer to as a "spin document". That is a record not to present actual facts but rather to provide an account that supports a specific message without regards to actual facts. The general style used seem to have been a generic Greco-Roman adventure tale. It contains certain, apparently standard, features, including a maid who forgets her primary duties and a shipwreck among others. But in all likelihood, based on Paul's letters, he never made it back to Jerusalem from Anatolia (modern day Turkey) rather having been arrested in Anatolia and transported directly from there, after some time in custody, to Rome and from Rome to exile until pardoned in the year of four emperors.
As for the gospel accounts, my research suggests that Mark and John were the earliest gospels, and likely at least aware of each other being written. There seems to be some slight active correlation between them, although they drew their approach for their accounts from different classical inspirations. Matthew and Luke both drew from Greco-Roman biographical styles for their gospels.
Dear Sirs,
Acts is the first Church history, in that it covers the history of the establishments or beginings of the Churches (or Pregnancies) of the Churches of beyond Israel, of Samaria, Aethiopia, Syria, Rome and many nations (Acts ii, viii, x...).
In addition, to (William Mayor) speak of the Praxis or Book of Acts, as "a 'spin document'. That is a record NOT to present ACTUAL FACTS, but rather to provide an account that supports a A SPECIFIC MESSAGE WITHOUT REGARD TO ACTUAL FACTS".
This is certainly a mistaken veiw. All of the, Book of Acts, is real history, even the day-dream of Saint Petros in Joppa (Acts x.), actually occured.
The familiar, Acts of the Apostles, which is commonly styled as the 'Canonized' Acts of the Apostles. Is not the only Acts of the Apostles or Canonized text however. For after this there was a collection of the individual 'Acts' of each Apostle, in addition to the acts of their 'Martyrdom'. These are the historical narratives that record the establishment of each National Church, and foundation Ecclesiatical history of each Apostolic Church. And this Ecclesiatical History was a complilation of 10 Books, or Acts, which where bound tobether in one volume.
What is more the Canonicity of these text is evidenced and support, in that they were read every day in the Apostolic Church even unto today. And were incorperated into what is called in Graek, the Synaxarion, or in Latin, the Synaxarium, Lectionary, Bravary or Legenda.
Notwithstanding, Eusebius following other writers, he complied a comprehencive history of thre Church in/for his time, in the 4th century. Hence, his is not the first, but he hoped to bring and compile a history upto his time. He omitted much however, and mainly focused on the Alexandrian Church, and some of the better known Church of teh Roman empire. But Omitted the history of the Indian and Aethiopian Churches for example. Which are both Apostolic Churches, the former establishe by St. Thomas the Apostle, the Latter by St. Matthew the Aposle and First Evangelist. What is more, to justify my statment about Eusebius (A Bishop of Cesaeria, Israel) writing on the more familiar Churches within Roman Empire, notice that neither Southern India (Kerala), nor Aethiopia, were part of the Roman Empire. For Aethiopia was was Empire inits own right and the most Ancient Kingdom (Empire) and powerful, along with Rome, Persia and China at the time of teh early Christian Era upto Eusebius' time.
You also mention, the 'Life of Constantine', additional detail can be gleaned therefrom, for example, it mentions that an Aethiopian deligation. In Chapter XLI - XLV it speaks of the Churches in Bethlehem. And in chapters XLIV - XLVII deals with Queen St. Hellena, the Mother of Emperor Constantine; and thereafter about more Ecclesiatical History.
Most Sincere Regards
Rev. Deacon Gabra AGZIAABHIR JR
Gabra Agziaabhir Jr, there is a problem in asserting the actual historicity of the book of Acts, in that in places it actively contradicts Paul's autobiographical comments in Galatians, that is in Galatians, Paul in in Damascus only one time prior to going on his missionary journeys, and on that occasion, he must escape over the wall to evade Arabs. In Acts, when he is in Damascus and must escape, it is from Jews. In Acts Antipas acts against Christians, looking at his coinage minted 33-4 CE Antipas is pro-Christian.
In Acts 10 and 11, well before Paul seeks to have his gospel approved, the issue of gentiles and their relation to the Mosaic law in the church is addressed by God through Peter. This raises the question of what was the unique gospel that Paul needed approved.
If you wish to assert that Acts is historically accurate, please address these issues directly.
Dear Sirs,
Now a number of commentators mention, that the Gospel of St. Mark was written first!
One (Aaron Milavec) states that St. Matthew and Luke followed. Another (William Mayor) that Mark and John were the Earliest Gospels; hence he reiterates the same, in a different but equally the same phrasology, deviating therefrom however, with the addition of also placing St. John prior to Sts Matthew and Luke.
However we might choose to phase it, one is afraid to say, without apology, that the Gospel of St. Mattheus was induptably written first.
And notwithstanding, the Gospel of St. Johannes, was written last.
Infact, as odd as it may seem, the order of the Gospels written, is Sts Matthew, Mark Luke and John!!! (funny enough).
This neo-scholarship which deems to redress and rewite the order of Gospel compilations is unhistorical, and unjustifiable. All the Church Fathers are clear on the order, including Eusebius. So either Eusebius was right about this point or otherwise wrong, you cannot have it both ways.
And Eusebius himself was not stating his opinion on this, but citing other ecclestiastical writers who came before him, who explicitly state that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written FIRST (Historia Ecclesiastica, Bk.III.xxiv.5).
...
Finally, while speaking on the Gospels, it ought to be clarified for those who are not familiar with Theological Termonology, that the 'Synoptics' spoken of (by Aaron Milavec), is to say, refers to, the Three Synoptic Gospels of Sts Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Whereas St. Johns' Gospel, is written structually a little different, not without reason, albeit, that they all give different aspects of the same, the whole.
Most Sincerely,
Rev. Deacon Gabra AGZIAABHIR JR
Gabra Agziaabhir, there are many problems existent in the traditional accounts of church history. Even Eusebius himself offers contradictions if one pays close attention. Eusebius implies, for example, that the original author of the gospel of John was a Jewish high priest, yet the apostle John clearly was not.
If tradition was consciously created to conceal Christian association with the 1 Jewish War, thus dating back to circa 73 CE, when the last Jewish temple acceptable for sacrifices was demolished, then to continue the protection, the truth needed to be suppressed until it was clearly safe to admit. Full safety was not achieved until the mid-late 4th century, at the earliest, well after Eusebius's "Ecclesiastical History", was written and thus making tradition "official". Thus, there is reason to actively dig below the obvious in Eusebius if we wish to know the truth, and recall, "the Truth will make you free". The church lost any pretense of being free when it was purchased by Constantine.
Dear William Mayor,
Of course as one has mentioned myself, Eusebius was 'Compiling' an Ecclesiastical History based on his known sources, and thus he included some writers that stated slightly differening things, for these earlier writers were also depending on their sources!!! and so on. For example, there where a number of Judes and Thomas' and thus some confusions arrived as to which went where. Yes this is true.
However, it must also be noted that it is only in neo-Protestant and Secular Theological circles that the ordering of the Gospels is challenged. Orthodox East and West, and Catholics do not Challenge this. An these are the Original Apostolic Churches. Furthermore, the Old Protestants also do not reorder them. Hence, it is only the latter day School of thought that does.
As to "Full safety" in the Church, at the time of the writing of Eusebius, again, yes, in the Churches within the Roman Empire, East and especially West. But Aethiopia was not part of that equation, nor was India, as acute and important examples of Apostolic Churches, which notwithstanding, remain till today.
Thus I agree with you that we ought to use Eusebius as a text source, which nonetheless must be understood as a compilation of different early ecclesiatical writers. An Eusebius certainly also meant his work to be understood so, that is why he cites the writers whom he gleaned his data from. Thus clearing himself of personal error to a large degree.
It is we that must use Eusebius along with other extant sources preserved, for which there are a significant amount.
As to your last comment about Emperor Constantine, viz. "The church lost any pretense of being free when it was purchased by Constantine."
This statement, which is a common thread among Neo-Protestant and Secular Theologians, is also not something to subscribe to. Firstly, Constantine did not purchase anything in relation to the Church, it was the contrary rather. Constantines Father was Christian; as was his Mother also.
And Constantine was associated to the Church in Rome, and its wider Empire. Not outside. Albeit that he helped to call together what we style as the first Oecomenical Council as Nicaea. That council was deliberated, to deal with TRUTH, and if the Emperor was not true, the Bishops apointed by GOD to defend the faith would not accept Constantine who himself is hailed 'Defender of the Christian Faith'.
Most Sincerely
Dear William Mayor,
You make some good points about St. Paul's Gospel; by which I understand you to mean 'spoken-Gospel'. Yes, Peter was Chosen by the HOLY SPIRIT to preach to the Gentiles in and around Israel and prior to St. Paul. But the reason St. Paul goes to the Gentiles/Nations, with a Gospel solely-aimed-at-them, was contexually different, for the Jews rejected him, his spoken-Gospel to such an extent, that he refused to preach to them anymore, as they had hard hearts, and stiff necks, but would preach thus now only going to the Nations. For as he was a spirtiual leader, he thought that they would all the more listen to him as they were of his class, and that they would respect him, whereas many of the others (Apostles) were simple fishermen.
I am uncertain about your dates for the numismatic data on Antipas? For 33/34 AD was the time of the Crucifixion and Ascension, and of the Baptism of the Samaritans and Aethiopian Eunuch (Acts viii). St. Steven was Killed just prior to this, and thereafter, St Paul was willingly persecuting the young Church (Acts ix). And there where perecutions, hence why St. Phillip was in Samaria.
You speak also of Galatians, I do not address this directly in this brief reply, for suffice it to say for now, that as you have stated that in one place it states that St. Paul flees from Arabs and in another it is Jews. We must also recall that in the OT that the wife of Moses is called both an Midianite and a Aethiopian. And Joseph the Patriarch is sold both by Ishmaelites and by Midianites, who we may also call in addition, Hebrews; for the Ishmaelites as were the Midianites, both sons of Abraham.
Again, it may also be stated that the Israelites, being Hebrews, also sold Joseph into Egypt.
Hence, the Israelites, Ishmaelites and the Midianites all can be said to have sold Joseph into Aegypt. What is more, all of them (these tribes) are Hebrews.
Most Sincerely,
Rev. Deacon Gabra AGZIAABHIR JR
Eusebius of Caesarea is widely regarded as the first historian to provide a comprehensive account of early Christianity. His seminal work, "Ecclesiastical History" (or "Church History"), written in the early 4th century, is considered the foundational text of Christian historiography. In this work, Eusebius meticulously documents the development of the Christian Church from the apostolic era through to his contemporary period, covering crucial events such as the lives and martyrdoms of Jesus and the apostles, the spread of Christian teachings, the various persecutions faced by Christians, the formation of early Christian doctrine, and the establishment of ecclesiastical structures. Eusebius’s "Ecclesiastical History" is particularly valuable because it draws on numerous primary sources, many of which have not survived independently. As a result, his work remains an indispensable resource for scholars studying the early history of the Christian Church and its formative centuries.
Gabra Agziaabhir Jr, Sir, I would point out to you a few problems with your arguments. First, and perhaps most important, tradition proves exactly one thing, and one thing only, that it is tradition. It does not prove truth, as it is correctly noted that a lie, if repeated often enough, becomes accepted as truth.
Now I admit to using tradition at times in my work, but only when it is supported by other evidence. Unsupported tradition is only tradition and nothing else.
Secondly, you claim that only neo-Protestantism and secularism question the composed order of the gospels. I have in my personal possession commentaries, written and published by Roman Catholics, that count Mark as the first gospel. Third, Nabataeans, often called Arabs in the Roman era, and Jews were distinctly different groups, often at war with each other, including shortly after the death of Herod the Great as well as in the mid-30's CE when Aretas and Antipas had a conflict. Do you really wish to suggest that either Luke or Paul would wish to label them as one and the same group during the 30's CE?
Finally, the existence of Mark in the canon is an enigma. As we have it today, it does not meet the criteria for a good written work in the 1st century CE, nor the 2nd or even 3rd. So, given that Matthew and Luke contain roughly 70% of what Mark records and both meet the criteria for being good written works, why was Mark preserved? To answer this, I would cite both tradition and Clement of Alexandria. Tradition holds Mark to be the reminiscences of Peter and composed in Rome. Clement writes that Mark composed a work about the deeds of Jesus while in Rome, and following the death of Peter, relocated back closer to Palestine, various locations are implied by tradition, and wrote again recording things from both his own as well as Peter's memories. I would submit that we have both works still, unlike the claims of many scholars, Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic, contained in a single work, that is the Gospel of Mark. That is to say that rather than writing an entirely new work, Mark rewrote his original work and included the memories of both himself and Peter in this new work. That the original work fit with the expectations of "good writing" even as the revised work did not. But also, that the revised work concealed aspects of the original that had become problematic. Evidence of this rewriting exists in the multiple endings for Mark, just as the multiple endings for John suggest, along with other evidence, that John was rewritten at some point in time.
If I am correct about the rewritings and the purpose behind them, tradition has excellent reason to conceal the truth, but the oft repeating of tradition does not make the concealment to be true today.
Gabra Agziaabhir Jr, it occurs to me that I did not address your concern about me claiming that Constantine "bought" the church. You should recall that the Edict of Milan recognized the church as acceptable, but do you also remember that bishops of the western church asked Constantine to intervene is a heresy dispute, I think it was with the Monantists, where he was asked to order the heretical group to vacate a church they controlled. The group refused, and Constantine did not force them out, but instead gave money to the orthodox group as compensation, and as recognition that they recognized him as their leader. This was effectively a partial purchase.
Then in 325, following Constantine's gain of total control over the empire, when the eastern church planned a council, Constantine intervened and offered his villa in Nicaea as the location for the council, and offered transportation for attending bishops, although only two from the west chose to accept the offer and attend. Both were in Constantine's close circle.
But to proceed one needs an awareness of "ad hoc" councils in the Roman empire. These were called by the emperor, and certain rules were followed. One was that only the emperor sat without permission. In the official record of Nicaea, the bishops sat, and Constantine requested permission to sit, a perfect inversion. Another was that there were no records of the proceedings made at the time, and there were no records made of this council at the time. Third, every official attendee was allowed to speak and vote, but all votes were to be in accordance with what the emperor decided. Now admittedly Athanasius claims to have swayed the bishops to reject Arianism, at the time he was a presbyter and thus unlikely to be allowed to speak. Further, the accepted term "homoousias" had been rejected as heretical at earlier councils. However, this term would have fit well with what appears to have been Constantine's theology, arguing for Constantine to have pushed it, not another attendee. Such would be evidence of the church's bending to Constantine's will, something tradition would wish to deny.
Finally, there is the issue of Constantine's order of 50 bibles from Eusebius. Eusebius was the most influential bishop in the east at the time and a strong supporter of Arius. However, the production of 50 bibles would be an incredible economic boon to whomever received the order, and as no single diocese would be able to handle the entire order, the recipient would be in the position to be a major benefactor to other bishops by subcontracting, thus enhancing their power. Now since there is only one known time when Constantine and Eusebius interacted, and since Eusebius threw his support behind Constantine and enhanced his reputation within the Christian church, is it not extremely plausible that this was the occasion for the order of the Bibles? And if so, would this not constitute a purchase if support, and effectively the church by one who would earn the title of "isopostollos" or "equal of the apostles", even though he would only be baptized just shortly before his death?
Tradition denies that the church was purchased, but I believe that all evidence points otherwise, and tradition finds an independent church to be far preferable to one that can be purchased by worldly things.
Dear William Mayor, Greetings,
I would begin by pointing out, that I stated that I have not addressed the issue of the Arab and Jewish question that you posed in the Praxis and Epistle. I only pointed out that the Biblical text is a holy text, and is full of mystery and nuances. Thus did I point out with this essence and context, that not all is always what it seems, the sacred text is history yes, but also mystery. Only this I was shewing. Time permitting and GOD willing I will answer you question directly in another reply, GOD willing.
Now the word 'tradition' is also a nuanced term. And means different things to different people. I was not using the term tradition at all; you perhaps were or have done however. I speak not of tradition in the neo-secular and protestant sense regardless. And to reiterate, I speak her not of tradition. When I speak, I speak either of history or mystery. But let us speak of 'history'. History proper dictates that the first Gospel was written by St. Matthew, the second by St. Mark, then St. Luke and then St. John, this is history. Apostolic history, and Ecclesiatical history.
Lets take the first two names of 'Holy Writ', of which one has made mention, thus, for: St. Matthew an original Apostle of the LORD, and First Evangelist - is the Apostle of Aethiopia, and St. Mark later becoming Apostolic, evangelised and established the Church in Alexandria, Aegypt.
Indigenous Aethiopian history evidences that the Apostle St. Matthew, arrived in Aethiopia in the year AD 40. Which agrees with Irenaeus (Greek Bishop of Smyrna, Turkey), who wrote in the 100s or second century if you like, that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel and then left for his place of evangelisation. Eusebius in his History, also agrees with this from several sources. For Origen also of the 100s or 2nd century, evidences the same. Pantaenus (180- 190 AD) of Alexandria also even before Origen, also speaks of the Gospel of St. Matthew being originally written in Hebrew, agreeing with Irenaeus and Origen.
Now in the very 1st century, we have the writer Papias who also writes, that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jew in Hebrew, thus shewing that it was written 'first', before any Apostle left the Holy Land; and Papias was also as Irenaeus, a Greek Bishop (of Hierapolis); part of what is also called today Turkey.
Here it may be reiterated, that one added the Aethiopian indigenous witness to substantiate the fact that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written before the Apostle arrived in Aethiopia AD 40.
Hence we have, Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Origen, and notwithstanding, the indigenous Aethiopic sources.
...
All these ecclesiastical writers state that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. However, I recall that you have stated the following:
“Matthew and Luke both drew from Greco-Roman biographical styles for their gospels.”
Because for those who place Mark before the Gospel of St Matthew, make the Gospel of St. Matthew to then be late, and thus concieve of an original Greek Gospel, as with the others. To the contrary however, this is clearly not the case, as I have evidenced.
Origen says to the contrary:
“The first is written according to Matthew…who having published for the Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew.” (q.v. Eusebius, H.E.)
This is also to say that Matthew wrote his Gospel prior to the 70 AD or the distruction of the Temple and dispersion of the Jews in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, for he wrote it for the Jewish Converts in Judea. And as stated earlier, the Aethiopic history attests that St. Matthew arrived in Aethiopia AD 40.
Herein I only deal with the date and authorship of the Gospel of St. Matthew, for that is all that is need to evidence the true circumstances. That is, that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written First, prior to that of St. Mark. And that it was written for the Jewish converts in the Holy Land. Hence prior to 70 AD. And in the Hebrew Language. But more precisely, was written or finished AD 40.
Most Sincerely,
Rev. Deacon Gabra AGZIAABHIR JR
Dear Wiliam Mayor,
People deem to turn a blessing into a curse, of course it was a Blessing what Constantine did for Rome, by stopping the persicutions and martyrdoms for a time of peace.
But neo-Protestants and Secular Theologians try to turn it into a curse, it is bazaar.
Notwithstanding, there is a great difference between an offering and support, than a bribe. Constantine had no need to bribe Christians, it is Absurd.
King David tried to build the House of the LORD, but the LORD GOD said to him, no, for he was a man of war. But Solomon, whose name interpretes as 'Peacable', was a man of Peace hence it was he to build thehouse of the LORD. Now, was Solomon bribing the Levites, by building the Houseof teh LORD. Was King David trying to bribe the Levites and people by trying to build the House of the LORD. Or did they desire to make a contribution and offering from their heart.
Did King Cyrus, not a Jew, did he want to bribe the Jews in Babylon into sending them back to Isreal to build the Second Temple? Or did he do the right thing and gave a peace offering the the MOST HIGH.
Queen Helena, built the Church of the Holy Sepulture after digging for six months, as the first Great Archaeologist, seeking to retrive the Holy Cross of our LORD GOD and SAVIOUR IYESUS KRISTOS. Or was she endevouring to bribe, she was a Christian a long time already. And she advised her son Emperor Constantine often.
No, your statement cannot be justified, this narrative is a neo-Protestants stance, which is propound, but not justifiable.
What is more, in Aethiopia, all the Christian Kings of Kings or Emperors for the last Two Millennia, have built Churches, repaired Churches, and offered gifts, large and small. These were offerings.
IN 1965, furthermore, the first Apostolic (Oriental Orthodox) Council between all the Churches was conveined by Emperor Haile Sellassie, since the Oecomenical Council in the first few centries. For it is a Precident that such councils are presided over by the King or Emperor if they be Christian, as the first three were. For even the King is anointed into office by the Bishops, and as the Bishops are subordinate to the King in respect to his juristiction, so is the King subordinate to the bishop in their juristiction, and the King can be excommunicated, or refused the Holy Qorbana (Holy Body and Precious Blood, which gives eternal life and forgiveness of sins).
...
In regard to the 50 Bibles, of course these were on parchment and hence the great price, as the best scribes and skins were needed.
Most Sincerely
Indeed, Eusebius of Ceasarea (c263-339AD) is considered to be the, "father of Church History" He set such a pace in his notable works such as, "The Ecclesiastical History" that covered essential topics such as the life and teachings of Jesus Christ
Christand dd and the
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology