Marko Marina
Ph.D. in the history of early Christianity. Areas of expertise: Gnosticism, the social and ideological world of early Christians, historical Jesus studies, late antique monasticism.
Supervisors: Trpimir Vedriš and Ivan Bodrožić
Supervisors: Trpimir Vedriš and Ivan Bodrožić
less
Uploads
Papers
rada. Iz tog razloga, ovaj članak nastoji ispuniti vakuum te upoznati znanstvenu
zajednicu sa suvremenim pristupima u proučavanju kasnoantičkoga monaštva
kroz suprotstavljanje istih s tradicionalnom paradigmom čiji se utjecaj protezao
kroz dobar dio 20. stoljeća. Članak najprije predstavlja tradicionalnu paradigmu, odnosno njene najvažnije elemente, koristeći se poglavito primjerima sv.
Antuna i Pahomija, koji se često smatraju osnivačima dviju zasebnih grana monaštva. Potom se članak fokusira na suvremene paradigme, odnosno jednu od
njihovih najvažnijih metodoloških okosnica, koja se potom primjenjuje na konkretne primjere s prostora kasnoantičkoga Egipta. Nadalje, u članku se analizira,
kroz vizuru suvremenih historiografskih pristupa, specifična epizoda iz života sv.
Pahomija, čime se donose i vlastita razmatranja o pojedinim aspektima kasnoantičkoga monaštva u Egiptu. Konačno, članak, umjesto klasičnog zaključka,
razmatra nove smjerove istraživanjâ koja predstavljaju potencijalno plodonosno
tlo suvremenim povjesničarima, antropolozima, sociolozima i drugim znanstvenicima zainteresiranima za fenomen kasnoantičkoga monaštva.
se apostrofira jest i fenomen mučeništva. Prema takvu rezoniranju, hrabrost kršćanskih mučenika djelovala je kao element privlačnosti među rimskim pukom koji je tomu svjedočio. U prvom dijelu članka predstavljena je sinteza najčešćih uzroka koje (od Edwarda
Gibbona i Adolfa von Harnacka do Barta Ehrmana) suvremena historiografija ističe pri raspravi o trijumfu kršćanstva u Rimskom Carstvu. Potom se u članku predstavila i teorija o mučeništvu kao pozitivnom faktoru u kristijanizaciji Rimskoga Carstva, koja se još može
nazvati (prema Tertulijanovoj krilatici) teorija semen est sanguis Christianorum. U drugom dijelu članka predstavljene su uobičajene primjedbe koje dovode u pitanje historiografsku točnost spomenute teorije. Na kraju autor članka nudi novi argument koji dodatno opovrgava tezu o mučeništvu kao pozitivnom faktoru u širenju kršćanstva tako što u raspravu uvodi relevantnost fenomena otpadništva u ranom kršćanstvu. Osnovna se teza članka može definirati na sljedeći način: Nezaobilazan problem svake teorije semen est sanguis Christianorum ustvari su otpadnici, koji, usprkos tvrdnjama pojedinih crkvenih autora,
nisu bili irelevantna manjina na marginama života prve Crkve. Progoni kršćana i društveni pritisci kojima su bili izloženi otvarali su prostor za pojavu otpadništva, koje je djelovalo negativno na demografski rast nove religijske zajednice. Shodno tomu, pristupajući temi otpadništva iz historijske i sociološke perspektive, autor članka zaključuje da su otpadnici bili ozbiljan problem u ranokršćanskim zajednicama. Stoga svaka predodžba da je mučeništvo per se pozitivno djelovalo na kristijanizaciju mora uzeti u obzir i problem otpadništva, koje se u suvremenim raspravama gotovo potpuno zanemaruje.
Moreover, Carrier's hole underlying assumption about the development of Jesus' tradition in the 1st century CE (something that was missed by virtually all of the historical Jesus' scholars who opposed his views) is completely wrong. His "arguments" are utterly misplaced without any positive evidence in primary sources. Hence, it comes as no surprise that Carrier hasn't won any supporters among critical scholars.
Main thesis of the present paper, relying on the research done by social scientists, can be defined in the following way: even though the term “heresy” came to be used in the now-familiar pejorative sense in the 2nd century, the social and rhetorical dynamics reflected in this use of the term go back to the middle of the 1st century. These dynamics can be seen already in the New Testament epistles (such as Galatians, and 2 Peter). One of the main reasons for the early existence of these social and rhetorical dynamics is the character of the Christian faith. Because of the belief that Jesus Christ is the only source for the ultimate Truth, and salvation, Christianity, unlike pagan “religions”, was marked with exclusiveness. That is the main reason why we see situations of internal conflict withing 1st century Christianity. This is the context out of which the conceptual category of heresy initially emerged. Present paper also tries to see whether there may be an earlier settings of internal conflict that are analogous to these fist-century contexts. Relying on the studies done by John M. Royalty and Tony Miller, this essay claims that the earliest settings of internal conflict can be found in the dynamics of the Second Temple Jewish discursive formations. These discursive formations involve labeling certain views and practices as unacceptably deviant. The example of discursive formations highlighted in the paper are the Dead See scrolls - ancient Jewish religious manuscripts found in the Qumran Caves in the West Bank near the Dead Sea. The scrolls were the product of a sect of Jews living at nearby Qumran called Essenes. In their texts (especially in the Damascus Document, and the Rule of the Community) we can see a community that constructed its identity around the ideology of difference, the rhetoric of separation, and the condemnation of the other. The critical engagement with diversity in belief and practice can be dated to the earliest circles of the Jesus-movement precisely because it was a feature of the Jewish tradition that was the matrix of the early Christian movement.
In Conclusion, the best explanatory hypothesis for the emergence of the Christian notion of “heresy” is not the institutionalization of the Church during the 2nd century or the existence of other forms of Christianity (such as Gnosticism or Marcionism), but highly complex social and rhetorical dynamics that can be traced back to the earliest layers of Christianity with the ultimate source in the Second Temple Jewish discursive formations.
The conclusion of the article is that the criteria of authenticity cannot be only basis of studying Historical Jesus, and that such criteria could be replaced by a more sophisticated approach. Basic problem with such criteria lies in the fact of their incompatibility with respect to the way history is remembered. Such a methodological approach assumes that history, if done properly, will be able to tell us how it really was. Also, trying to find exact words of Jesus does not take into account that people tend to remember gist of the event, not exact details. Numerous psychological studies have shown that.
Also, very own act of remembering past events always includes present context. We are inclined to fill the gaps of our memory with things that are of great importance to us from the perspective of present events. Furthermore, present essay deals with specific criteria (e.g. Criterion of embarrassment, Criterion of dissimilarity etc.) and problems they have when one tries to use them as a means of getting to the real “historical” Jesus. The Criterion of dissimilarity, for example, ends up in a picture of historical Jesus whose foremost characteristics are his dissimilarity to Judaism. Getting there means that one has to have a presupposition that embeds anti-Judaism in methodology, a presupposition that is obviously wrong. Jesus was a 1st century Jewish teacher and that context is crucial if one wants to understand historical Jesus.
The second part of the article presents a different approach to studying Historical Jesus based primarily on a more adequate understanding of the relationship between the past and the present. Also, this approach takes the studies of social memory and perception into consideration and use those studies when dealing with primary sources for Historical Jesus.
rada. Iz tog razloga, ovaj članak nastoji ispuniti vakuum te upoznati znanstvenu
zajednicu sa suvremenim pristupima u proučavanju kasnoantičkoga monaštva
kroz suprotstavljanje istih s tradicionalnom paradigmom čiji se utjecaj protezao
kroz dobar dio 20. stoljeća. Članak najprije predstavlja tradicionalnu paradigmu, odnosno njene najvažnije elemente, koristeći se poglavito primjerima sv.
Antuna i Pahomija, koji se često smatraju osnivačima dviju zasebnih grana monaštva. Potom se članak fokusira na suvremene paradigme, odnosno jednu od
njihovih najvažnijih metodoloških okosnica, koja se potom primjenjuje na konkretne primjere s prostora kasnoantičkoga Egipta. Nadalje, u članku se analizira,
kroz vizuru suvremenih historiografskih pristupa, specifična epizoda iz života sv.
Pahomija, čime se donose i vlastita razmatranja o pojedinim aspektima kasnoantičkoga monaštva u Egiptu. Konačno, članak, umjesto klasičnog zaključka,
razmatra nove smjerove istraživanjâ koja predstavljaju potencijalno plodonosno
tlo suvremenim povjesničarima, antropolozima, sociolozima i drugim znanstvenicima zainteresiranima za fenomen kasnoantičkoga monaštva.
se apostrofira jest i fenomen mučeništva. Prema takvu rezoniranju, hrabrost kršćanskih mučenika djelovala je kao element privlačnosti među rimskim pukom koji je tomu svjedočio. U prvom dijelu članka predstavljena je sinteza najčešćih uzroka koje (od Edwarda
Gibbona i Adolfa von Harnacka do Barta Ehrmana) suvremena historiografija ističe pri raspravi o trijumfu kršćanstva u Rimskom Carstvu. Potom se u članku predstavila i teorija o mučeništvu kao pozitivnom faktoru u kristijanizaciji Rimskoga Carstva, koja se još može
nazvati (prema Tertulijanovoj krilatici) teorija semen est sanguis Christianorum. U drugom dijelu članka predstavljene su uobičajene primjedbe koje dovode u pitanje historiografsku točnost spomenute teorije. Na kraju autor članka nudi novi argument koji dodatno opovrgava tezu o mučeništvu kao pozitivnom faktoru u širenju kršćanstva tako što u raspravu uvodi relevantnost fenomena otpadništva u ranom kršćanstvu. Osnovna se teza članka može definirati na sljedeći način: Nezaobilazan problem svake teorije semen est sanguis Christianorum ustvari su otpadnici, koji, usprkos tvrdnjama pojedinih crkvenih autora,
nisu bili irelevantna manjina na marginama života prve Crkve. Progoni kršćana i društveni pritisci kojima su bili izloženi otvarali su prostor za pojavu otpadništva, koje je djelovalo negativno na demografski rast nove religijske zajednice. Shodno tomu, pristupajući temi otpadništva iz historijske i sociološke perspektive, autor članka zaključuje da su otpadnici bili ozbiljan problem u ranokršćanskim zajednicama. Stoga svaka predodžba da je mučeništvo per se pozitivno djelovalo na kristijanizaciju mora uzeti u obzir i problem otpadništva, koje se u suvremenim raspravama gotovo potpuno zanemaruje.
Moreover, Carrier's hole underlying assumption about the development of Jesus' tradition in the 1st century CE (something that was missed by virtually all of the historical Jesus' scholars who opposed his views) is completely wrong. His "arguments" are utterly misplaced without any positive evidence in primary sources. Hence, it comes as no surprise that Carrier hasn't won any supporters among critical scholars.
Main thesis of the present paper, relying on the research done by social scientists, can be defined in the following way: even though the term “heresy” came to be used in the now-familiar pejorative sense in the 2nd century, the social and rhetorical dynamics reflected in this use of the term go back to the middle of the 1st century. These dynamics can be seen already in the New Testament epistles (such as Galatians, and 2 Peter). One of the main reasons for the early existence of these social and rhetorical dynamics is the character of the Christian faith. Because of the belief that Jesus Christ is the only source for the ultimate Truth, and salvation, Christianity, unlike pagan “religions”, was marked with exclusiveness. That is the main reason why we see situations of internal conflict withing 1st century Christianity. This is the context out of which the conceptual category of heresy initially emerged. Present paper also tries to see whether there may be an earlier settings of internal conflict that are analogous to these fist-century contexts. Relying on the studies done by John M. Royalty and Tony Miller, this essay claims that the earliest settings of internal conflict can be found in the dynamics of the Second Temple Jewish discursive formations. These discursive formations involve labeling certain views and practices as unacceptably deviant. The example of discursive formations highlighted in the paper are the Dead See scrolls - ancient Jewish religious manuscripts found in the Qumran Caves in the West Bank near the Dead Sea. The scrolls were the product of a sect of Jews living at nearby Qumran called Essenes. In their texts (especially in the Damascus Document, and the Rule of the Community) we can see a community that constructed its identity around the ideology of difference, the rhetoric of separation, and the condemnation of the other. The critical engagement with diversity in belief and practice can be dated to the earliest circles of the Jesus-movement precisely because it was a feature of the Jewish tradition that was the matrix of the early Christian movement.
In Conclusion, the best explanatory hypothesis for the emergence of the Christian notion of “heresy” is not the institutionalization of the Church during the 2nd century or the existence of other forms of Christianity (such as Gnosticism or Marcionism), but highly complex social and rhetorical dynamics that can be traced back to the earliest layers of Christianity with the ultimate source in the Second Temple Jewish discursive formations.
The conclusion of the article is that the criteria of authenticity cannot be only basis of studying Historical Jesus, and that such criteria could be replaced by a more sophisticated approach. Basic problem with such criteria lies in the fact of their incompatibility with respect to the way history is remembered. Such a methodological approach assumes that history, if done properly, will be able to tell us how it really was. Also, trying to find exact words of Jesus does not take into account that people tend to remember gist of the event, not exact details. Numerous psychological studies have shown that.
Also, very own act of remembering past events always includes present context. We are inclined to fill the gaps of our memory with things that are of great importance to us from the perspective of present events. Furthermore, present essay deals with specific criteria (e.g. Criterion of embarrassment, Criterion of dissimilarity etc.) and problems they have when one tries to use them as a means of getting to the real “historical” Jesus. The Criterion of dissimilarity, for example, ends up in a picture of historical Jesus whose foremost characteristics are his dissimilarity to Judaism. Getting there means that one has to have a presupposition that embeds anti-Judaism in methodology, a presupposition that is obviously wrong. Jesus was a 1st century Jewish teacher and that context is crucial if one wants to understand historical Jesus.
The second part of the article presents a different approach to studying Historical Jesus based primarily on a more adequate understanding of the relationship between the past and the present. Also, this approach takes the studies of social memory and perception into consideration and use those studies when dealing with primary sources for Historical Jesus.
Reconsidering The Bauer Thesis".
Review of the book by Paul Hartog " Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts:
Reconsidering The Bauer Thesis".