Over the last year or so, I’ve been encouraged by the many different reviews of (and interactions with) my book, Christianity at the Crossroads: How the Second Century Shaped the Future of the Church. For a list of some of those reviews, see prior post here.
One of the reasons I wrote this book is because of the enormous gap in scholarship on the study of second-century Christianity. There just hasn’t been much done on this “Cinderella Century” (to use the phrase of Larry Hurtado).
But, of course, there are exceptions to that pattern of neglect. One is the fine book by Walter Wagner, After the Apostles: Christianity in the Second Century (Fortress Press, 1994). Wagner covers a lot of the same ground as my volume, but I also cover additional topics such as the development of the canon and transmission of the NT text.
Given that Wagner has written on this subject before, I was pleased to see that he reviewed my book recently in the journal Interpretation (vol. 73, p.316). Since my volume covers a number of controversial issues, I was thankful to see he thought I was even-handed in my treatment of them. His opening paragraph:
Michael Kruger provides a first-rate addition to works on a crucial period in Christian history. The second century is aptly characterized as messy, pivotal, and transitional for Christianity’s future. The book serves as an introductory text for college and graduate students as well as for clergy and general readers. Kruger deals respectfully with complex and controversial issues and includes positions contrary to his own fair treatment.
His closing paragraph:
Kruger provides a fine resource for readers so that the crossroads of the past can be seen in their historical settings and their relevance discerned for directions today’s Christians may take.
I’m grateful to Dr. Wagner for his kind review!
Lois Westerlund says
I fall in the classification of “general reader”; I am so very grateful for the combination of solid scholarship and spiritual nourishment, as parallels to our own time are drawn, or implied, as historical misconceptions are corrected, as our knowledge of this crucial century is increased. Grateful as well, for good writing, for clarity and the ability to keep the reader interested–often fascinated! I have learned so much, with great enjoyment!
Anthony Flood says
Looking forward to studying your new book, which is expected to arrive tomorrow. (I’m a happy subscriber to Canon Fodder. An ultra-dispensationalist (non-Darby-Scofield), but happy! (:^D))
Via Amazon’s Look Inside! feature I saw no listing for Arthur Penrhyn Stanley in the index. As you know, in his 1861 “Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church” there’s long (but hauntingly beautiful written) passage (pp. 15-16) in which he seems to “think out loud” about the (apparent) paucity of evidence connecting the Christian communities of the first centuries to those of the second. I’ve appended below a taste of his Victorian prose.
My questions: Did Dean Stanley overstate things? (Has he been discredited?) Does the evidence that’s been uncovered in the last century and a half put his musings to rest? Does a chronological overlap of canonical and non-canonical documents establish sociological continuity of community?
The NT ekklesiai were predominantly Jewish; the post-Acts churches were virtually Gentile (and in too many case frankly anti-Jewish) enterprises.
Below is the Stanley snippet. (Its ‘fore and aft’ will repay reading.) Thanks for taking the time to read my untutored thoughts. If you think I hit a “derail” in my thinking, please help get me back on track.
Again, can hardly wait to get your book.
Tony Flood
How was the transition effected from the age of the Apostles to the age of the Fathers, from Christianity as we see it in the New Testament, to Christianity as we see it in the next century, and as, to a certain extent, we have seen it ever since? No other change equally momentous has ever since affected its fortunes, yet none has ever been so silent and secret. The stream, in that most critical moment of its passage from the everlasting hills to the plain below, is lost to our view at the very point where we are most anxious to watch it; we may hear its struggles under the overarching rocks; we may catch its spray on the boughs that overlap its course; but the torrent itself we see not, or see only by imperfect glimpses. It is not so much a period for Ecclesiastical History as for ecclesiastical controversy and conjecture. A fragment here, an allegory there; romances of unknown authorship; a handful of letters of which the genuineness of every portion is contested inch by inch; the summary examination of a Roman magistrate; the pleadings of two or three Christian apologists; customs and opinions in the very act of change; last but not least, the faded paintings, the broken sculptures, the rude epitaphs in the darkness of the catacombs, these are the scanty, though attractive, materials out of which the likeness of the early Church must be reproduced, as it was working its way, in the literal sense of the word, “underground,” under camp and palace, under senate and forum, as unknown, yet well known; as dying, and behold it lives.
David Madison says
“The NT ekklesiai were predominantly Jewish; the post-Acts churches were virtually Gentile (and in too many case frankly anti-Jewish) enterprises.”
In one sense we have reason to be grateful for this, as I shall try to explain. Consider the suggestion that the Gospels were written in the second century by people who knew virtually nothing about the “real” Jesus. That scenario can be ruled out because of what you say above. Second-century Gentiles would not have the knowledge that would allow them to depict Jesus as the Gospels depict him. Nor would they have the motivation to create a character who enters into debates about the minutiae of religious observance.
There are people who would like to think that the Gospels were written very late. It is fortunate that we have such a strong argument against any attempt to do that, even though there are still cranks who try to do it anyway. So what about continuity? It is true that we don’t have a sequel to Acts which would take us from Paul’s arrival in Rome to the end of the first century. But our inability to demonstrate continuity in detail doesn’t mean that there wasn’t continuity. The fact that the Gospels and epistles were preserved shows that there was a concern with preserving continuity.
Lois Westerlund says
Thank you for this helpful comment.
Anthony Flood says
Thanks, David.
My interest, however, is in the apparent ethnic or “sociological” discontinuity between the groups as a factor that might explain (what I take to be) theological discontinuity.
Yes, of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I see no reason to be grateful for the former.
Tony
David Madison says
Well, Tony, I didn’t say that we should be grateful for the absence of evidence; at least, I hope I didn’t give that impression. My point was that the ethnic discontinuity, although not something to be grateful for in itself, had an incidental benefit: i.e., it gives us confidence about the dating of our sources.
Although there was discontinuity of ethnicity, I would argue that there was continuity of tradition. We cannot trace the evolution of the Church in as much detail as we would like, but that doesn’t mean that we have a (complete) absence of evidence. As I pointed out, the very fact that the Gospels and epistles were preserved, shows that there was indeed continuity. It might be argued that in spite of this (demonstrable) degree of continuity, there was still discontinuity in other respects. But that would seem to be a matter of speculation
Tom says
Good work Kruger