Over two billion people today identify themselves with Christianity, making it the most popular religion in the world. How did Christianity begin?
Historically speaking, Christianity is a first century spin-off of monotheistic Judaism. The label “Christian” comes from the book of Acts. According to the author of Acts (believed to be Luke), the name was attributed to the “disciples” of this new faith first in Antioch sometime in the middle of the first century.
So, what’s in a name? The word “Christ” literally means “Anointed One,” and Christians universally believe (then and now) that the A.D. 1st century figure named Jesus of Nazareth was (and, in fact, is) the “Anointed One.” The central point of Christianity is that Jesus of Nazareth is “the Christ.”
The Controversial Origins of Christianity
The central person of Christianity is Jesus of Nazareth or, as he is also called, Jesus Christ. It makes sense then to start with Jesus. The first problem with this approach is that there are some who argue that Jesus never even existed. That he is a fictitious or mythical figure of antiquity. If this is so, Christianity collapses.
Skeptics and Christians alike concede that the best records for the life, ministry, and teachings of Jesus Christ are the first-century Christian writings we know as the New Testament, particularly the Gospels.
This leads to the second problem. While only the most radical critics and skeptics of Christianity question the historicity of Jesus, the overwhelming majority of them scoff at the New Testament being fully accurate and trustworthy. Most will accept at least portions of the New Testament as being authentic, but some refuse to consider any of its content, unless corroborated by non-Christian sources.
With the New Testament then undermined and even (in some cases) Jesus himself being dismissed as a nothing more than myth, one can appreciate the apparent fog people today have when looking back to the first century to find the origins of Christianity. Is it even possible to return to the beginning?
Can we know the Truth?
Accepting that anything of history can be known (or that anything period can be known) relies on acceptance of what philosophers call the correspondence theory of knowledge or truth.
The correspondence theory essentially holds that statements which accurately correspond with or reflect known facts or affairs should be considered “true.” This theory has, in various forms, been upheld by some of the giants of philosophy, including Aristotle, Bertrand Russell, and Alfred Tarski.
Next, confidence in historical inquiry requires a rejection of cynicism. The cynic is likely to challenge and question virtually all conclusions or claims concerning ancient antiquity that contradict his or her interests, presuppositions, or biases. If, for example, a person is bitterly cynical about the oppression of the poor by the rich, he or she will likely automatically believe stories from the past which fit that mold and reject out of hand those that challenge it.
Taking this example a step further, a person bent on seeing the world (including its history) through the rich versus poor lens will probably see the publication and circulation of biblical texts and the growth of Christianity as a conspiracy to empower and enrich the haves at the expense of the have-nots. Any evidence (no matter how slight or indirect) which bolsters this perspective will be gladly embraced. Any evidence which contradicts it will be jettisoned.
Unless a person is therefore willing to accept the correspondence theory of truth and set aside any personal cynicism, the quest for the historical Jesus or at least the origin of Christianity is doomed to failure.
When did Christianity Begin?
Assuming we can accept that truth is knowable (at least in part) and that skepticism need not (and should not) include cynicism, then we must turn our attention to the time in which Christianity began.
There is widespread agreement that Christianity, at least in its primitive form, began in the first century. No one questions, for example, the presence of Christians in the Mediterranean world by the 50s and 60s AD. We know, for example, that Nero pinned the blame for Rome’s fire in the mid-60s AD on Christians.
What’s more, even the most liberal historians and scholars agree that the major books of the New Testament, including the Gospels, were written and in circulation by the middle of the 2nd century. Most put their completion and circulation earlier than that.
Who started Christianity?
If Christianity’s growth can be traced to the first century (early enough to be relevant and on Rome’s radar screen by the 60s AD), then its origin must be in the early to mid part of that century.
With this in mind, we return our attention to Jesus. The Jewish historian Josephus makes two references to Jesus – at least one of which is accepted as genuine and authentic. There are also references to Jesus in the writings of second century Greek satirist Lucian and Syrian philosopher Mara Bar-Serapion.
And what about the New Testament? While skeptics immediately and understandably discount the supernatural, there are still literary signs of “creedal statements” referring to Jesus as well as stories about Jesus which all four of the Gospels agree on. This seems to affirm, at the very least, a reliable core of evidence for the life of Jesus.
Scholars have dated the creedal passages to the years 30-50 AD, well within the primary timeline of Jesus and the generation that followed him. According to scholar Gary Habermas, these affirmations “preserve New Testament material, and are our earliest sources for the life of Jesus.”
Luke Timothy Johnson, a moderate in the Jesus scholarship debate, cautions against any extreme in the examination of Jesus in history. Says Johnson: “I find as much fault with the premise that one can read history directly off the pages of the Gospels as I do with the premise that one must junk the Gospels in order to do history.”
What is certain is that a core group of adherents emerged about this time claiming to have been eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life and teachings. These included some of the authors of the New Testament, such as Peter, James, and John. The apostle Paul was not a direct eyewitness, but claimed a supernatural encounter with Jesus and close association with others (like Peter) who were eyewitnesses.
Conclusion
While some may legitimately question Jesus’ divinity and others may argue that his record has been embellished, it is abundantly clear that something triggered the birth of Christianity – and did so in the first century. The New Testament has provided an explanation for that trigger.
*****
Sources for this article included:
Simpy Christian by N.T. Wright
The Evidence for Christianity by Josh McDowell
The Real Jesus by Luke Timothy Johnson
Charts of Apologetics and Christian Evidences by H. Wayne House and Joseph M. Holden
The copyright of the article What Caused Christianity? in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish What Caused Christianity? must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Aug 13, 2007 10:53 AM
Pink
:
. <i>While some may legitimately question Jesus' divinity and others may argue that his record has been embellished, it is abundantly clear that something triggered the birth of Christianity - and did so in the first century. The New Testament has provided an explanation for that trigger.</i> . Interesting is as good a word as any. . You leave us up in the air. . Does the New Testament actually talk about the triggering or is it more about the birth? . I could argue that Christianity was born as a result of the convergence of a variety of impingements the came together in a confluence during the Roman occupation of Jerusalem? . And that it grew out of its birth due--in great part--to its wide spread appeal to underclasses in all societies? .
Aug 13, 2007 1:48 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
You clearly see Christianity as a movement based on teachings - teachings that perhaps originated with a man in first century Syrio-Palestine, but have been embellished and enlarged by the "church" over the last 2000 years. As such, you enjoy trying to deconstruct it.
I see exercises in deconstruction to be pointless IF Jesus never existed in the first place. If Jesus isn't real, then Christianity is nothing more than a religious system which grew out of fables, myths, and politics. I have zero interest in such a Christianity. Count me out.
But if Jesus IS real, well, that changes everything. And that is why I am a Christian.
Aug 13, 2007 2:03 PM
Pink
:
. I don't have the slightest problem that Jesus existed. . To deconstruct does not mean to destroy. In fact, the end result of deconstruction can be a very uplifting event for the subject involved. I think you can accept that. . I don't think you can find any statement of mine where I reject Jesus as being real. I might not agree with what others say is the truth; but, none of us is in complete agreement regarding Jesus. .
Aug 13, 2007 2:47 PM
Boanerges
:
<i>I don't think you can find any statement of mine where I reject Jesus as being real</i>
So then, you accept Jesus as being real? How did you come to that conclusion.... A few examples would be sufficient.....
Aug 13, 2007 10:43 PM
Migisi
:
. Poor Pink. They've got you mixed up with me. I can't recall you ever suggesting that Jesus wasn't real.
Aug 14, 2007 4:35 AM
Pink
:
. <i>They've got you mixed up with me. </i> . I don't know. Maybe they think there's hope for you; but, that I'm one of those who, once was where they are, has "gone off the deep end ne'er to return". . Actually, from an analytical point of view it's kind of interesting, you being la femme and all. . I'm an old codger and it can be fair game to put me through the grinder. If you get my point. But, I gotta hand it to Brian--he doesn't cut you any slack. :) . From a sociological point of view there is a never ending litany of tests to verify that the "other" is exactly like "me" in the quest for absolute truth. The effort to police the boundaries of group identity seems to be a human instinct--as the children's song goes, <i>"One door and only one and yet its sides are two. I'm on the inside on which side are you?" </i>Sometimes we come to a place where we cannot abide the idea that someone else is the least bit different. Didn't you just mention robots in another place? . Odds Bodkins? . In our American society, it is generally agreed that the God of the Bible is in control of all that is. It is written into our minds from the gitty-up. Our currency says it and we learn that we are a "nation under God" in our public schools as well as when we watch any gathering where the Pledge of Allegiance is given. Our president always asks God to bless our nation and our congress opens with prayer. Some 70 to 90 percent of Americans believe in the God of the Bible. They had better if they know what's good for them--they could get the same treatment we're getting here. :) I remember the sense of group pride whenever anyone would offer up an opening prayer in one of the service clubs I belonged to and and ended it with, "...in Jesus' name I pray, Amen. " .
Aug 14, 2007 5:27 AM
Pink
:
. It is interesting that Christianity has changed its face and nature over the centuries. . The most recent and major edition, more or less, goes by the name of Evangelicalism. But, Evangelicalism is really Fundamentalist Christianity and it grew out of the nineteenth century's millenarianism when it was predicted that Jesus would return on various dates. The confusion and complications of those failed prophecies brought about the idea that the Bible, as the Revealed Word of God, was truthful and that it was the men involved in the predictions who were to blame. So, the Bible's authority was identified as one of the main Fundamentals. . But, it can be reasonably argued that it was the Great Depression of the 1930s that gave us the full blown Fundamentalist Christianity that we live with today. .
Aug 14, 2007 10:54 AM
Boanerges
:
<i>Evangelicalism is really Fundamentalist Christianity and it grew out of the nineteenth century's millenarianism when it was predicted that Jesus would return on various dates.</i>
fundamental means simply - basic fundamentals.....
nineteenth century's millenarianism
"predictions of the Second Coming
* William Miller and the Millerite Movement expected the second coming on October 22, 1844. The fact that this failed to happen the way people were expecting was later referred to as the Great Disappointment. Some Millerites continued to set dates; others founded the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Advent Christian Church, which continued to expect the Second Coming but no longer set dates for it. * The interpretation of the Second Coming is important in the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses, as these hold that it occurred in 1914, and instead of an apocalyptic Second Coming it is to be interpreted as an unseen presence, and the visible events of the final times will occur at a later date. * The followers of Reverend Sun Myung Moon consider Rev. Moon to be the Lord of the Second Advent called by Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday at the age of 15 on a Korean Mountainside. * Rudolf Steiner described the physical incarnation of Christ as a unique event, but predicted that Christ would reappear in the etheric, or lowest spiritual, plane beginning in the 1930s. This would manifest in various ways: as a new spiritual approach to community life and between individuals; in more and more individuals discovering fully conscious access to the etheric plane (clairvoyance); and in Christ's appearance to groups of seekers gathered together. See a series of his lectures on the subject. * Master Beinsa Douno prediction for the Second Appearance of Christ: "Christ Impulse will gradually penetrate into the human being and will take over guidance during the further development of the humankind (sic.). We are still in the beginning of all this now. In the future Christianity - but not the external, official, Christianity, but the mystic, Esoteric Christianity - will become a world religion for the whole humankind (sic.). Christ will be placed in the center of the New culture. Remember, that Christ is a manifestation of the Love of God. And He will come as an internal Light in the minds and hearts of the people. This Light will attract everybody around Christ as a great center. The opening of the human minds and hearts and the reception of Christ from within
Aug 14, 2007 11:04 AM
Pink
:
. Once again, I repeat from long times past, when it comes to Fundamentalist Christianity, YOU don't know what you're talking about. I was there, I know. .
Aug 14, 2007 11:13 AM
Boanerges
:
<i>Once again, I repeat from long times past, when it comes to Fundamentalist Christianity, YOU don't know what you're talking about. I was there, I know.</i>
Sorry.. but your account, and the facts, do not reconcile each other. Those you claim who are "fundamental Christians" that created "fundamentalism" - are nothing more than cults and isms...... Not - fundamental Christianity... Fundamental Christianity is not a movement, or an 'ism'. It simple means FUNDAMENTAL..... The Apostle Paul was an Evangelical. Nothing has changed in 2000 yrs - other than the [cults and isms] that come and go. As it was then - as it is now.
The revealed word of God does not change according to the liberals decree, nor the cults, nor the isms....
M't:24:5: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. M't:24:23: Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
