Category Archives: History

Christianity, History

My Writing Project Is Done—Sort Of

Leave a comment
This man was instrumental in establishing our church. Yet almost no one in the congregation knows anything about him. His secrets will all be revealed. Well, maybe not all.

As I’ve said in other posts, my main writing project has been a book for our church’s 100th anniversary. Originally planned to be held in Oct 2021 (a delay due to covid), then pushed to around April 2022, and finally set for July 2022, the delays in the celebration mean I’m way ahead of schedule. But I really had no idea how big the book would be. So, predicting when I would finish it was difficult.

Yesterday I had a meeting with our pastor, my first with him to discuss the book since he asked me to write it last November. I’ve been running progress reports and snippets by the Anniversary Committee, and I’ve had drafts posted on our Google Drive site. And, I’ve shared the manuscript electronically with a couple of people outside of the church and received feedback. But, until you have the pastor’s blessing on the product, you don’t know whether you’re on the right path.

Fortunately, Pastor Mark seemed pleased with the book, maybe even impressed. He made some helpful suggestions on additions in a few places. I’ve already made a couple of those changes. The others will require interviewing people. They will be short interviews of people I have already spoken with.

At present, the book is a little over 28,000 words long, about double what I thought it might be when I undertook the project (though, as I said, I had no basis for knowing how long it would be). By the time I add these few items remaining, it should still be less than 29,000.

The main work remaining is to find photos and load them in the book. They will be placeholder photos, coming in at on-line quality (which won’t do for print). And the layout of those photos within the book will be somewhat of a nightmare. I’ll begin that work when I’ve put the last few words in the book and change the page size to the print size. Fortunately, one on our committee is an expert at digital layout. I’ll either turn the photo insertions over to her or will lean heavily on her expertise.

So when I say that the book is done, I guess I’m saying that all essential words are there. If some said to me tomorrow, “You’re out of time; we have to go to press now”, I would feel good about what’s already written and have no regrets. Sure, more high quality photos nicely arranged and a few more words would be worthwhile. But I will be happy whether they get in the book or not.

So, it’s almost on to the next project. Stay tuned for more about that.

America, Documenting America, History

Peaceful Transfer of Power: A Defining American Characteristic

Leave a comment
Both the people of the new nation and those who ran the government wanted power to transfer peacefully. With all in the same mindset, peaceful transfer happened.

This is now the third (and I think the last) post in my series on defining characteristics of the USA—those things that make us stand out from all other nations: peaceful transfer of power.

When we made our second attempt at being a new and independent nation, under a new Constitution, George Washington became our first president. So revered was he that he could have been president for life. Actually, Americans might have accepted him as king. But Washington knew that someday power would have to transfer from him to someone else. Two terms was enough, he thought. Let the transfer happen peacefully.

My book on the Constitution doesn’t spend a lot of time on transfer of power, but it’s a good primer on how we got this amazing document.

You see, historically, transfer of power had been a violent affair. If it was peaceful, it was because a monarch’s heir was clearly popular with the people and with those in leadership who had surrounded the now dead sovereign. Going back a long way, it was common for the new king to kill the other potential heirs, assuring that he wouldn’t be challenged in his position and that, sometime in the future, power would transfer to his own heir, without challenges. Yet, even at that, the new king (or queen) would often be challenged. Looking through the kings of Israel in the Bible books of Kings and Chronicles shows frequent struggles in the first few months of the new king’s reign.

This also happened in Europe. At least three times in British history a king was overthrown. Sometimes it occurred without bloodshed. The nation had become more sophisticated, so potential rivals weren’t killed off. Heirs in other nations weren’t always so lucky. A study of the transfer of power in Europe would be fascinating. The same for other countries outside Europe.

I just updated my first Documenting America book for conditions in 2020.

What about in America? Washington declined to run for a third term. The nation elected John Adams as president in 1796. Power transferred peacefully and the baby nation chugged on. But Washington and Adams were of the same political mindset. What would happen when someone with different beliefs came to power?

That happened in 1800, along with the first of what would later come to be called a “constitutional crisis”. Thomas Jefferson was elected president. Actually, he tied with his vice presidential running mate, Aaron Burr. It took a vote by the House of Representatives to break the tie, and a constitutional amendment to correct a minor flaw in the relatively new document so that such wouldn’t happen again. The point is, however, Jefferson, of a different political party than Adams, came to power and all was peaceful. The nation chugged on. Adams wasn’t exiled; his children weren’t killed; Jefferson didn’t kill off or exile other potential rivals. The people didn’t riot in the streets over who became president. All was peaceful.

The new nation was showing that we could govern ourselves. Peaceful transfer of power from one party to another occurred. No coercive force was necessary. The American experiment was succeeding.

Looking at future elections, the peaceful transfer of power occurred all the way up to 1860. The South couldn’t accept Lincoln as president and his new political party as the one that would be setting policy and making laws. Rather than accept that, they declared themselves no longer part of the United States of America. The government said no, you can’t do that. We have property in your state and we will defend that property. The southern states said oh yeah? Just try it. And civil war broke out. The North won (as we know), and the nation stayed as one nation.

After fourteen peaceful transfers of power, including once at the death of a president, we had our first experience with violent transfer. It wasn’t pretty.

We had a questionable transfer of power in 1876, as the winner of the election was in dispute. I have more study to do of that transfer. Suffice to say that a compromise was reached, a president was selected through a combination of constitutional provisions and cooler heads who didn’t want to go through another bloody transfer prevailing.

From that time on, we had peaceful transfers all the way up to 2000. Even in 2000 the transfer was peaceful, though the closeness of that election required the judicial branch to get involved. Some say the judicial branch stole the election from Gore and awarded it to Bush. Some say Bush won it outright (by a tiny margin) and the courts simply prevented Gore from demanding endless recounts. Either way, while the transfer of power was in question, and while we wish it hadn’t come down to the Supreme Court,  it happened peacefully.

Then came 2016. Trump won. Many people didn’t like it. The people who favored the other candidate took to protesting in the streets, though that died out. Transfer was contentious but, as the election wasn’t in doubt, was peaceful.

That brings us to 2020. While Biden appears to be leading and heading toward victory, that’s the way it was in 2016 and the outcome is not certain. But what is certain is that if Trump wins again there will again be protests in the street. Will these turn violent? Will the transfer of power—actually the need to not transfer power—be peaceful? Or, if Biden wins, will Trump peacefully allow the transfer of power to take place? Will we have a clear winner, or will the courts have to intervene again?

Peaceful transfer of power, a defining American characteristic. We are not far from seeing it end. It has happened because the people and leaders wanted it to happen, and because we had a supreme law that everyone accepted and revered. Right now we don’t know if either of them do. And that could have disastrous consequences of our country.

America, American Colonial History, Documenting America, History

Land Ownership: A Defining American Characteristic

Leave a comment

My research into US history and genealogy has convinced me that widespread ownership of land was a uniquely American phenomenon. I have more research to do, especially into European land ownership, but what I’ve been able to glean from American documents has been instructive.

In Documenting America: Lessons From The United States’ Historical Documents, I cover a curious 1792 writing of James Madison. Then in the US House of Representatives, Madison wrote about an unfortunate situation in Great Britain, then, concerning his fellow Americans, wrote:

“What a contrast is here to the independent situation and manly sentiments of American citizens, who live on their own soil, or whose labor is necessary to its cultivation….”

Madison realized that Americans tended to own their own land. Since that contrasts with the situation in Britain, I conclude most Britains didn’t own their own land. It seems to me, from history readings years ago still clinging to a few gray cells, that the feudal system was long gone in England by the time Madison wrote this, but clearly elements of that system remained. Land was owned by English nobility—princes, dukes, earls, and whatever other titles there were—had huge holdings of land and leased it to the poor peons who worked it for the lord, dividing the proceeds with him.

Land ownership in America wasn’t universal, but it was widespread. As I study my wife’s genealogy on her father’s side, which stretches back to the earliest days of Massachusetts Bay Colony, I read a lot of wills and inventory of estates. Most of them include land. Upland lots, marsh lots, lots on “The Way”, town lots, farms. Defined by maple trees, stone walls, and nascent rights-of-way, almost every estate, be it modest or great, had land in it.

That’s not to say that everyone had an equal amount of land. In Ipswich, Massachusetts, many people received a 2-acre lot in town, but some lots were better than others. One man would sell “the eastern 15 feet of my said lot to….” Another man carved a small house lot out of his 2 acres for his wife’s sister and husband. Land was subdivided and sold at a brisk pace. But it was people’s to sell. In England, none of these people would have had land.

I realize, of course, that much of this land was stolen from the native peoples. Or they were enticed with alcohol and sold their land for a fraction of its worth. This is a shameful chapter in our history. Wealth was stolen or coerced away from the rightful owners.

My research into three Ipswich families in the mid to late 1600s led me to the issue of Mason’s claim. It seems that John Mason had been granted title to a large tract of land in what is now Northern Massachusetts. The towns of Newbury, Rowley, Ipswich, and others were settled on these lands beginning in 1633. Land was apportioned to the settlers, who built houses, established farms and trades, and lived a rugged existence. Civil war in England, the Cromwell years and then the restoration, made enforcing Mason’s claims difficult. He died without ever seeing “his land”.

But come the 1670s and Mason’s grandson said, “Hey, that’s my land!” Court battles took place, one court ruling in favor of Mason’s claim, another overruling that. It must have been quite the legal doneybrook.

But, in the town records, in extant pamphlets and broadsides, you see the fear of the people. Their land might not be theirs after all. Some feudal lord who was the king’s friend had a title to it. People were scared. In England, Scotland, and Wales they could never dream of owning land. Here in the New World they had 20 upland acres and a town lot, plus some marshland that was really arable. And some grandson of some wealthy person is going to take it from them? Fortunately for the colonists, the grandson eventually gave up.

As New England and other Atlantic seaboard places filled up, the march west began. At times seeking gold, most settlers were after land. Somewhere beyond the mountains was land for the taking, and they would go get it. Once again, England, France, Germany, Spain, and other European nations had no equivalent.

Even today, the quest for land goes on. It’s not quite the same as it once was. A hefty bank account is also a sign of wealth, and you can have that while renting. But home-ownership remains a strong American goal. Americans want land, at least a lot of us do.

But times have changed, and with the size of our population we no longer have as high a percentage land ownership as we did in the colonial years and soon after. Not being a landowner changes one’s perspective.

So far I’ve covered two unique aspects of the USA that I consider worth studying: self-determination and land ownership. Stay tuned for the third, which will be coming in about a week.

America, American Colonial History, Genealogy, History, Politics

Self-Determination: A Defining American Characteristic

Leave a comment

My first characteristic of what makes the United States of America different than most other nations is the concept of self-determination. In other words, we chose our own form of government and our own leaders, and have maintained that for over 230 years. Actually, the choosing of our government goes back much further than that.

The residents of Waterville Vermont wrestled with choosing leaders and setting the tax rate in the mandatory annual town meeting. How interesting it was to read those records.

From the moment that Europeans came to these shores in the early 1600s, selection of leaders through voting has been a part of our nature. The form of government was at first based on what the colonists knew back home, or what was imposed on them by the terms of the charter by which the colony was established. However, slowly, the form of government changed and settled into a pattern.

First it was pure democracy at the local level, with a fledgling republic at the colony level. By the time of the revolution, when the colonies considered themselves states, republican form of government was well-established. At the local level even, a mini-republic had mostly replaced democracy. Some vestiges of democracy remained, but for the most part the form of government was a republic.

Of course, a republic requires active participation of its citizens in terms of voting. At regular intervals, from as short as six months to as long as two years, the people chose their leaders. In doing so peacefully, the people were saying, “We are satisfied with this form of government. All we are doing now is choosing those who will lead us, either returning those already in leadership or voting new ones in.” Election after election, for more than a century before we were a nation, this process took place from New Hampshire to Georgia. Those eligible to vote chose new leaders and kept their form of government.

The colonies did well governing themselves, until the King of England tried to impose new government on them. Resistance to that became the seeds of the American Revolution.

Self-determination. We will govern ourselves. How different this was than in the Europe they had left! England had a monarch, a king or queen, who ruled. In the 17th Century the parliamentary system was flexing its muscles and growing in importance. England went through three revolutions (one bloody, two peaceful) and one counter-revolution. All other European nations had much the same. The monarchy was a coercive power. The people didn’t choose it so much as the king ruled by “divine right”. France, in a bloody revolution that would eventually lead to a worse dictatorship than the kings ever were, would throw off that monarchy thirteen years after the American Colonies declared their independence. Other nations would eventually follow suit. But it was the bloody American Revolution that set much of that in motion.

As I researched my first genealogy book, Seth Boynton Cheney: Mystery Man of the West, I had occasion to look into town records of Waterville Vermont, where Seth was born and raised until he was 13. It was interesting to see the notices of the town meeting on the last Saturday in March (right in the middle of maple sugar harvest no less) and having all voters required to attend. I read how they set the tax rate: “Voted to establish the rate at $X” or “Voted a rate of $Y to construct a fence around the cemetery.” These people were governing themselves at the local level, deciding big issues as a democracy but electing representatives to lead the municipal republic the rest of the year. I “watched” as new towns were formed, Waterville carved out of Bakersfield because the Waterville residents couldn’t cross the snow-covered mountain in March to attend the town meeting. Self-government in action, the form of government chosen by the people and maintained year by year, decade by decade, century by century.

As I researched my second genealogy book, Stephen Cross and Elizabeth Cheney of Ipswich, I saw the same thing from a much earlier period, Ipswich in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the years 1647 to 1710. I actually went back earlier than that, as I was simultaneously researching an earlier ancestor in the Cheney family, the subject of a future book. I saw the same thing with the town, and more so at the county and state level. One rabbit-hole I went down with my research that took place during Stephen’s and Elizabeth’s lives was the change in colonial charters forced upon the colonies by the king of England. This did not go over well. In fact, the seeds of the American Revolution were sown right here, as people, who had chosen and maintained a form of government they liked—self-determination—had a form of government and leaders forced on them—a coercive power—who served at the whim of and benefit of the monarch, not the people. Ipswich was a hot spot about this and some consider it to be the cradle of American independence.

Now, in 21st Century America, we have a hard time conceiving what the world was like during our colonial days. Oh, we know from studying our history what the colonies were like, and may have a vague understanding of England, from whence most of those settlers came. But I think we need more study of just how different the government was in our world. And to what extent the people had, not just the right, but the obligation to maintain that government through votes and taxes. We had our faults back then, and took far too long to address those faults. Compromises would eventually be forged that would keep us as one nation rather than several regional federations, compromises that later would almost tear us apart.

Yes, I believe self-determination is a defining characteristic of the United States of America. Other nations now have it. Yet many other nations only dream of it. It defines the USA. How long can we keep it?

America, American Colonial History, History, Politics

Three Traits that Mark the USA

Leave a comment
When the time came for a new form of government, American traits were well-established. This series of blog posts will explore those.

What is it that differentiated the United States of America? What separates us from all other nations? Or is there anything? Are we the same as the other nations, but we became wealthy and powerful by chance of time and location? Did we just happen to find the right combination of population and resources?

Many talk of American exceptionalism. When did that kick in? Were we exceptional at the beginning, or did we develop into an exceptional people and nation in response to circumstances?

These are difficult questions. I’ve been pondering them for a while—at least ten years, since I’ve been writing the Documenting America series. I’m learning more and more as I do the research on this. In addition to that, I do a lot of research into genealogy—American genealogy. My first genealogy book dealt mainly with the years 1830-1910, long after American traits would have been established. My second genealogy book dealt with the years 1640-1710, right in the foundational period. As I wrote that genealogy/family history book, my thoughts began to focus on that question: what differentiated the USA from other nations?

As I researched to finish this work, I came upon some Massachusetts Bay Colony documents that led me to concluding one of the characteristics I’ll discuss in this series.

Added to researching my books is a love of history and an ability to self-study and learn. I love to read, and history is about my favorite topic to read. Since I started writing history books it’s difficult to read history for simple enjoyment or personal learning. Still, I try.

I don’t know that I’ve finished my thought process on all of this, but I believe I have identified three items that are in our nature that made a difference in our journey to exceptionalism.

  1. The consent of the governed. Another explanation for this is self-determination. We decide what type of government we want and establish it.
  2. The common man as a landowner. A big difference in the USA is everyone—just about everyone—owned land. This gives a huge change in perspective on government.
  3. Peaceful transition of power. When we change leaders—with two notable exceptions—the transition happens easily and peacefully.

These are probably not the only things that have contributed to making the USA into the nation that it is, but I see them as critical components.

In three posts coming soon (maybe not next, but soon), I’ll cover these three factors. By the time I finish them, I may have another one or two posts to make in the series. I hope many will read these posts, and consider how these helped to make us what we are.

book reviews, History

Book Review: “Love Is Eternal”

Leave a comment
My 1954 copy of this book has no dust jacket, and the spine is too faded to read. It came from my parent’s house. Without the dust jacket I can’t tell if it’s a first edition, though it was published in 1954.

Having finished a book back in March, and taking a lot of time working my way through my magazine pile, I also began glancing on my shelves for what to read next. I found two different non-fiction books that looked good and moved them from bookshelf to reading pile. It was really time for reading a novel, however, so I went back to the shelves.

In the garage, on a shelf that contains hundreds of books slated for donation or sale, I found a volume that looked intriguing. It’s Love Is Eternal by Irving Stone. The spine is worn on this 1954 print and I could hardly read the title on it. Opening to the title page I saw the subtitle is “A Novel About Mary Todd and Abraham Lincoln”. Now that sounded interesting. Lincoln is my favorite president; he naturally featured prominently in my non-fiction Civil War book. So I took this from the shelf and decided it would be my next read.

I must interject here that I am not related to Mary Todd, at least not that I know. If I am, it’s more than eight generations back someplace in the Old World. I’ve never looked for a connection back there. I probably should.

464 pages and 36 sittings later and the book is read. Wow, that’s a long time you say. Yes, just under 13 pages per sitting. That was about all the time I felt like I could devote to reading during this period, as it included my intense research and writing of a family history book, my wife’s hospitalization, and a period much devoted to decluttering.  It wasn’t due to the book itself, but to life circumstances.

What a good book! Stone goes to great lengths to be faithful to the historical record. Based on the title I was expecting it to alternate between Abraham’s and Mary’s point of view, but it was all from Mary’s. That’s good, though unexpected. It shows Mary as a pampered southern belle, her daddy’s favorite. She socializes with all the important Kentucky politicians. She follows two sisters from Lexington KY to Springfield IL, where she will perhaps find a husband. She meets Stephen Douglas and other important men, but then meets Abraham Lincoln and others fade from her view.

Stone spends a lot of time on the early years, and progressively less on later years. All major events of Lincoln’s political career are covered, but in fewer words for the presidential years. I suspect Stone thought Lincoln’s presidency has been covered in great depth and that the early years needed more coverage. The book ends with Mary leaving the White House a few weeks after Lincoln’s death.

If I had to pick at some things that I didn’t like, I can find only two. First, I would have liked to have some data provided, perhaps a listing of the parents, siblings, and perhaps the grandparents of Abraham and Mary. What with parents, step-parents, siblings, half-siblings, step-siblings, etc, I sometimes was confused. For Mary, especially, being one of 16 siblings, I couldn’t keep them straight. A timeline for each of them would have helped, as would have a couple of simple maps, of Lexington and Springfield.

Second, I wish Stone hadn’t spent so much time on Mary’s clothes. He constantly talked about the gowns she wore, giving color and style. Who cares? I suppose that helped to develop her character and the situations she lived in, but it got kind of tiring after a while.

So, I pulled this book from the sale/donation pile, but is it really a keeper? I think my wife would enjoy it and I’m going to encourage her to read it. Meanwhile, from my deculttering and organizing work, I found two other Irving Stone books in my library about president’s wives: Those Who Love (Abigail Adams) and The President’s Lady (Rachel Jackson). I also have a first edition of his book They Also Ran, about those who ran for the presidency as nominees of their party but never won, which I read decades ago and remember it as being excellent. I also read (from a library copy) Stone’s 1980 book The Origin about Charles Darwin, also excellent. So, I think I’ll keep this and have a mini-collection of Irving Stone books. Whether I get to read them or not is another question.

family, History

It’s Over Over Here

1 Comment
When Dad set type for the “Stars and Stripes” newspaper in Europe during World War 2, he suggested this for the headline of the VE Day special edition, and the editor agreed. A typesetter chose the headline, 75 yeas ago today. Well, the type was probably set 75 years ago yesterday, but let’s not quibble.

I have been trying to find something to write about today. In recent posts I’ve covered decluttering, which I could write more on but is actually boring if covered too much. Who wants to know about what I’ve thrown out today?

I could write about helping a fellow writer with a used computer, allowing her to write more efficiently during these times when she can’t get to the places where she used to use a computer. That wouldn’t be bad, and perhaps I’ll cover that in a future post.

I could write about The Teachings and how I’m doing with it. Again, I’ve written about that several times. While I’m making progress, I don’t really have much new to report.

Dad at the mobile Linotype unit in Italy in 1943. He was within sound of the guns, subject to enemy bombers if they ever came over. Note the pin-up girl on the machine!

None of those sounded good, so yesterday and earlier this morning I didn’t write anything. Then I realized what day this is. May 8. VE Day. Victory in Europe in World War 2. This was the day that the Stars and Stripes newspaper used the headline Dad suggested. He was setting type for the S&S in Marseilles, France. On May 7 the news came that the Germans were surrendering. The next day would be the end of the war in Europe. A special edition of the paper was called for. Dad suggested this for the momentous headline, and the editor agreed.

The S&S were put out in several places in Europe. Each place had its own editor, and each place put out a different newspaper, the stories being what the editor chose as being applicable to that area. So this was the headline from Marseilles, not from Paris, London, or Rome.

So, 75 years ago today, a Linotype operator chose the headline for the newspaper that marked the end of fighting in the European theater.

book reviews, History

Book Review: The Commanders

Leave a comment
An excellent read for anyone interested in the early historical accounts or the 1988-1991 era.

In our garage is a large bookshelf, scavenged years ago when the company was downsizing, that hold the books we trot out whenever we have a garage sale.  I finish a book, if it’s not a keeper, I bring it to the shelf and stuff it in somewhere.

As I did that recently, and looking for a new book to read, my eyes fell on The Commanders by Bob Woodward. I knew I’d never read it so pulled it from the shelf. It had belonged to my father-in-law, a book we brought back from his house after his death. The front page included a discussion of an illness he was going through, then in the book he had made much marginalia.

The book interested me because I understood it to be about Desert Storm, a time in history of special importance to me. I figured, knowing Woodward, it was an expose of everything our leaders did wrong. That turned out to false, however. It is more of a simple “here’s how our military operated in that point in time.”

Written mostly in 1989-90 and published in 1991, Woodward describes it as a mixture between journalism and history, a bit more history than newspaper accounts (because of the access he was given to principals) but not quite history with hindsight and full access to documents.

I found the book engaging and informative. The writing style is excellent.  Being ex-military, Woodward understands things such as chain of command, relationships between branches of the armed services, and how the military and civilian leadership of our defense establishment works. Being an investigative reporter he knows how to dig out the story.

And dig out the story he did. I won’t go into a lot of details, but Woodward gives us lots of information about Bush, Cheney, Powell, and others involved in using the military as part of our national security strategy. He seems to have had access to Colin Powell and possibly Dick Cheney. These two key figures feature prominently in the book.

Woodward doesn’t paint any one in a bad light in the book. He treats people fairly, explaining where they were, who they talked with, how they made decisions, how they dealt with the press during the run up to the Panama invasion in 1989 and the development of Desert Shield in 1990-91. It ends with the first few attacks the morning that Desert Storm hit an unbelieving Iraq on January 17, 1991.

This is a good book and I recommend it to anyone interested in the early historical accounts of the 1988-91 era. Is it a keeper? Alas, no. Not because of the quality, but because I have too many books and I don’t expect to ever read it again, nor do I expect my wife will want to read it or my future heirs will thank me for leaving it to them to deal with.

So, I will remove the page with the personal note, put that in my father-in-law’s papers, and put the book back in it’s slot on that bookshelf in the garage to await the next sale or donation. The next reader will just have to put up with his marginalia.

Church History Novels, History, The Teachings, Writing

“The Teachings” and Its Place in History

Leave a comment

I’m not totally over my cold, but it’s better, and I’m back in the land of the living. So, here’s the next post in the series.

Doctor Luke’s Assistant ended in May 66 A.D., just as the Jewish revolt was breaking out. In DLA, no actual battles occurred, but unrest was growing.

The Teachings begin two weeks after the end of DLA. War breaks out before the end of the year and will continue until 70 A.D. This is the timeframe for my new book, so have to work in events of the wr into the book, event making them part of the plot. The main characters will be going here and there in Israel—and maybe even to other nations (still working that out), so I need to get things right. I can’t have the main character confronting Roman soldiers in Caesarea when the fighting at that point of the war was taking place in Galilee.

But where do you get information about the war, information that will give a specific timeline? I have a number of history books on Israel. Each of them covers the war, but none of them give a timeline. They say this happened first, that happened second, etc. But none give much of a timeline. Various online sources weren’t much different. I ran into an online Jewish encyclopedia recently. Perhaps, when I fully explore that I’ll find more info, but an initial look tells me it doesn’t have what I’m looking for.

That leaves me with the works of Josephus. Written by Josephus about 15 years after the war ended, The War of the Jews was the most extensive history written about this war. Josephus was a Jewish general on the Israeli side who lost a battle, was captured by the Romans, and ended up on the Roman side. As a result, his history is suspect. Did he skew things to favor himself? Does he treat the Jews more negatively than is justified and the Romans more positively, even though he’s a Jew?

Back in the late 90s or early 2000s, we bought a four-volume edition of Josephus’ works. Now they are available on-line in a number of places. I’m glad to have the print edition, however, as I can extensively mark in it, and am doing so.

Alas, the timeline is difficult to establish in Josephus’ War. He gives a few dates, even down to the day, but in an archaic dating system. I’m reading slowly in it.  I’m underlining. I’m taking notes. As it is the best reference available, it’s what I’ll use most.

I can ignore Josephus’ qualitative statements and just focus on timelines. Where was the fighting going on as 66 A.D. turned to 67 A.D.? What Roman general might my characters have interacted with? Where was loss of Jewish life greatest, should I decide to kill off any characters?

So many decisions to make. I want events to track with history. I want my characters to interact with that history accurately. It will slow down my writing to do this, but that’s how I want to do it.

Christianity, Church History Novels, History, The Teachings

The Teachings: a.k.a. The Didache

2 Comments
The twelve apostles’ importance to the growing church cannot be over emphasized.

In my last post, I began a series of posts about my novel-in-progress, The Teachings,  saying I would make several posts to explain what my intentions are for the series and for this particular book.

Today I’ll discuss the underlying Christian document. In Greek its title is The Didache. This translates to The Teachings. That’s the short title. The longer title is The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. It is relatively short, shorter than the Gospel of Mark, the shortest of the four canonical gospels.

What are the contents? You would think from the long title that it was a list of things the apostles said as the church formed in the years are Jesus died. The gospels told of Jesus’ life and teachings. Acts told about the formation and initial growth of the church. The Didache then gathered the teachings of the apostles. Peter said this, John said that, Matthew said this, Bartholomew said that.

Here’s what the full title looks like in Greek.

But no, The Didache doesn’t quote from the apostles. Rather, it is a type of church manual. One book I read calls it the earliest church manual. It begins with a section called The Two Ways, speaking of the way a Christian should live. The two ways are called the way of life and the way of death.

After this it talks about false teachers, food offered to idols, baptism, fasting, the Lord’s prayer, and communion. A section deals with teachers, apostles, and prophets who travel among the churches and how they should behave and how the churches should greet and provide for them. Additional topics are meeting on the Lord’s day, the offices of bishops and deacons, and being watchful for the second coming of Christ.

When was it written? The relative simplicity of church government suggest it was written at an early time. The ecclesiastical hierarchy developed slowly and became burdensome sometime in the 2nd Century. The Didache seems unaware of that system. I read quite a bit about this. Scholars have suggested  any time from 60 A.D. to 180 A.D. Those that favor the later date suggests that the simple church structure was the writer’s attempt to show how it was at the time of the apostles. Those who favor the earlier date point to the absence of government structure as evidence that the date of writing has to be early.

For The Teachings, I chose the earlier date. The book is set from 66 A.D to about 74 A.D. (I won’t be sure of when the book ends until I finish writing it; it may end closer to 71 A.D.

Who wrote it? No one knows, and I’ve seen no speculation about that. The two ways section is very close to a part of the Epistle of Barnabas, a non-canonical writing thought to be from the first century. Other parts of The Didiche echo other writings from outside the Bible, but nothing seems to suggest who wrote it. Most likely that will remain a mystery.

Bryennios found The Didache while rummaging in a Turkish library.

How has history treated it? That this book was once an important part of the church is evidenced by mentions of it by church fathers in the late 2nd Century up into the 4th Century. However, many years later and it was lost. No one read it; no one copied it; no one mentioned it any more. Why would it fall out of favor? Perhaps because it wasn’t considered authoritative enough to be included in the New Testament (though some early lists of Christian scriptures do include it). Possibly the primitiveness of church government made it passe once the structured church had a complicated government. Why go to the trouble of copying a book that no one used any more?

The Didache was thus known to have existed, but we had no copies of it (save for a fragment or two) until 1873. A Greek Orthodox official was looking around in a library in Turkey and found a scroll that bore a date of 1056 A.D. Several books were written on this scroll, including the complete text of The Didache. The finder published the text 1883, and within three years the collective scholars of the church, in the Middle East, Germany, Great Britain, and the USA were in an uproar, arguing about it, trying to figure out its place in the church and composition time.

For this book of mine, assuming it was put together around 66 to 71 A.D., who wrote it? Scholars see it as a composite document, not written at one time, maybe not even by one person, and perhaps not at the same place. That is the premise I’m going with. One man will primarily responsible for its assembly, but the contents will come from many places. I may even write in a delay in issuing it.

In my next blog post I’ll write about what was going on in the world at the time my man is working on The Didiche.