Why can't I find anywhere to buy it in Australia?
I would love it in print - not so much the actual translation, but the textual critical notes on it are rather amazing. It saves a lot of time instead of having to grab the TCGNT out.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Defining Early Orthodoxy: The Nature of Jesus
In my attempt at defining early orthodoxy, I believe the nature of Jesus is one of the prime categorical factors. The best way, in my opinion, to examine this would be through two chief questions:
Before beginning with my take on the evidence, I will spend some time on the alternate theories.
The Hellenisation Thesis (the Old New School)
In the 19th century New Testament and Christian origins scholarship was flooded by the 'History of Religion' School (or in German Religionsgeschichtliche Schule). This school of thought (propagated by both scholars and layman to the extreme of 'Christ Myth') believed in a sort of Hellenization process that took part in Christianity. That is, the Jesus movement of first century Palestine was thrown into a 'pagan' world and was syncretistically mixed with Graeco-Roman philisophy and religion to birth a 'divine Jesus'.
The thesis, as championed by Wilhelm Bousset in Kyrios Christos (1913), placed two schools of thought in the pre-Pauline period. There was the Palestinian Jesus movement and a Hellenistic Gentile movement. As the famed Rudolph Bultmann states, "the earliest church did not cultically worship Jesus...the Kyrios-cult originated on Hellenistic soil." (Theology of the New Testament). Although this school was abandoned in most forms, the concept of a Hellenistic development has continued - as championed in the more recent works of Burton Mack (A Myth of Innocence (1988) and Maurice Casey (Jewish Prophet to Gentile God (1991)). Casey, specifically, argues that first both Jews and Gentiles, ensrhined in Jewish monotheism, did not permit for Jesus to develop as divine. However, as Christainity became more of a gentile religion, with conversion to Judaism being bypassed, Jesus eventually became to be worshipped.
The New-New School
However, these theories have began to lose support in recent scholarship. Some notable examples would be the work of Martin Hengel (The Son of God (1975); Richard Bauckham (God Crucified (1998); Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity) and the mass amount of work by Larry Hurtado on the topic (One God, One Lord; Lord Jesus Christ (2003); How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God (2005).
So, why isn't the old 'new school' convincing anymore? Or, more subtly, why wasn't it ever really convincing?
The first reason - the rapid nature by which Christain devotion to Jesus arose among the various Christain communities cannot be explained by a later progressive syncretism. If we go to our earliest sources, what do we find? We find a high Christology. In Paul's letters we have evidence that Jesus is being thought of and worshipped in a similar way to YHWH-God himself. But we know this did not beging with Paul. In Philippians 2:6-11 (hover cursor to read it)we have a famous Christain hymn which many scholars claimes to be pre-Pauline. Of particular note in this hymn is"he [Jesus Christ] existed in the form of God" (Phil 2:6). Also of note is something of which I have earlier contended. The source of the high Christology in the prologue of John (although in my opinion an exegesis of Genesis 1 in light of the incarnation) echoes the Christology of this hymn as well as Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:6. As Richard Bauckham summarises, "The earliest Christology was already the highest Christology." (God Crucified, p.viii).
Furthermore, the issue with claiming thata Paul was an overtly Hellenised Jew out of touch with the ealy Jesus movement makes very little sense. Firstly, it is multiply attested to the fact that Paul had meetings with the Jerusalem Church, particularly, the Apostle Peter and James the Brother of the Lord. (Gal. 1 and Acts). If there was such a divide over the very nature of the divinity of God, we would surely find some sort of explicit statement or at least an apologetic. Evidently, we do not. Also, even if we do go to the Pauline mission we find that many of Paul's own disciples were Jews of the Second Temple Jewish mileu.
Finally, to claim that the followers of Jesus openly took on pagan beliefs and incorporated Jesus into such is inconsistent with the image we have of the early church. Why would a Church dedicated to pure monotheism; expressly rejecting pagan polytheism (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) turn Jesus into a seperate God other than the true God of Israel?
As Larry Hurtado summarises the pagan-influence thesis:
A Bibliography of Relevant Books:
- How did the earliest Christians view Jesus? Was he divine, the messiah, a prophet, a mere human - or any combination?
- How is this expressed in our earliest witnesses (generally, the New Testament.)?
Before beginning with my take on the evidence, I will spend some time on the alternate theories.
The Hellenisation Thesis (the Old New School)
In the 19th century New Testament and Christian origins scholarship was flooded by the 'History of Religion' School (or in German Religionsgeschichtliche Schule). This school of thought (propagated by both scholars and layman to the extreme of 'Christ Myth') believed in a sort of Hellenization process that took part in Christianity. That is, the Jesus movement of first century Palestine was thrown into a 'pagan' world and was syncretistically mixed with Graeco-Roman philisophy and religion to birth a 'divine Jesus'.
The thesis, as championed by Wilhelm Bousset in Kyrios Christos (1913), placed two schools of thought in the pre-Pauline period. There was the Palestinian Jesus movement and a Hellenistic Gentile movement. As the famed Rudolph Bultmann states, "the earliest church did not cultically worship Jesus...the Kyrios-cult originated on Hellenistic soil." (Theology of the New Testament). Although this school was abandoned in most forms, the concept of a Hellenistic development has continued - as championed in the more recent works of Burton Mack (A Myth of Innocence (1988) and Maurice Casey (Jewish Prophet to Gentile God (1991)). Casey, specifically, argues that first both Jews and Gentiles, ensrhined in Jewish monotheism, did not permit for Jesus to develop as divine. However, as Christainity became more of a gentile religion, with conversion to Judaism being bypassed, Jesus eventually became to be worshipped.
The New-New School
However, these theories have began to lose support in recent scholarship. Some notable examples would be the work of Martin Hengel (The Son of God (1975); Richard Bauckham (God Crucified (1998); Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity) and the mass amount of work by Larry Hurtado on the topic (One God, One Lord; Lord Jesus Christ (2003); How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God (2005).
So, why isn't the old 'new school' convincing anymore? Or, more subtly, why wasn't it ever really convincing?
The first reason - the rapid nature by which Christain devotion to Jesus arose among the various Christain communities cannot be explained by a later progressive syncretism. If we go to our earliest sources, what do we find? We find a high Christology. In Paul's letters we have evidence that Jesus is being thought of and worshipped in a similar way to YHWH-God himself. But we know this did not beging with Paul. In Philippians 2:6-11 (hover cursor to read it)we have a famous Christain hymn which many scholars claimes to be pre-Pauline. Of particular note in this hymn is"he [Jesus Christ] existed in the form of God" (Phil 2:6). Also of note is something of which I have earlier contended. The source of the high Christology in the prologue of John (although in my opinion an exegesis of Genesis 1 in light of the incarnation) echoes the Christology of this hymn as well as Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:6. As Richard Bauckham summarises, "The earliest Christology was already the highest Christology." (God Crucified, p.viii).
Furthermore, the issue with claiming thata Paul was an overtly Hellenised Jew out of touch with the ealy Jesus movement makes very little sense. Firstly, it is multiply attested to the fact that Paul had meetings with the Jerusalem Church, particularly, the Apostle Peter and James the Brother of the Lord. (Gal. 1 and Acts). If there was such a divide over the very nature of the divinity of God, we would surely find some sort of explicit statement or at least an apologetic. Evidently, we do not. Also, even if we do go to the Pauline mission we find that many of Paul's own disciples were Jews of the Second Temple Jewish mileu.
Finally, to claim that the followers of Jesus openly took on pagan beliefs and incorporated Jesus into such is inconsistent with the image we have of the early church. Why would a Church dedicated to pure monotheism; expressly rejecting pagan polytheism (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) turn Jesus into a seperate God other than the true God of Israel?
As Larry Hurtado summarises the pagan-influence thesis:
Both the chronological and the demographic data make it extremely dubious to attribute the level of devotion to Jesus that characterised earliest Christianity to syncrestic influences from the pagan religious context. Devotion to Jesus appeared too early, and originated among circles of the early Jesus movement that were comprised of - or certainly dominated by - Jews, and they seem no more likely than other deviout Jews of the time to appropriate pagan religious influences. (Earliest Devotion to Jesus, p. 42)Therefore, it is evidently clear that the alternate theses are inadequate to explain the evidence regarding the early devotion to Jesus as if he were YHWH-God. One must conclude that, as the earliest devotion was of a somehow divine Jesus, it is more than fair to say that the early 'orthodoxy' was in line with today's orthodoxy - Jesus was exalted, worshipped and more than a man.
A Bibliography of Relevant Books:
- Hengel, Martin (1995), Studies in Early Christology
- Bauckham, Richard, "Monotheism and Christology in the Gospel of John" in The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple
- Hurtado, Larry, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?
- Witherington, Ben, The Many Faces of the Christ
Friday, August 21, 2009
Bart Ehrman - Consistency, please!
Just to summarise his assertions on Lost Christianities:
However, when we turn to the historical Jesus painted in his Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium?
Do you believe that Ehrman really finds all Christainities equal?
Do you believe that he really finds all scriptures equal?
- Orthodoxy is just the belief that happened to win the 2nd-3rd century battles to define what was orthodox.
- The Canon of scripture was arbitrary and resulted only to establish orthodoxy.
- All other 'Christianities' and scriptures were just as legitimate
However, when we turn to the historical Jesus painted in his Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium?
- We use the orthodox Christian sources as they are the (1) earliest and (2) most reliable of the scriptures.
- We paint an eschatological Jesus based on the orthodox sources and testimony of orthodoxy throughout the ages.
- However, we do not paint an esoteric gnostic Jesus or a Marcionite Jesus which he lends equal legitimacy to in Lost Christainities.
Do you believe that Ehrman really finds all Christainities equal?
Do you believe that he really finds all scriptures equal?
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Quote of the Day
But the claim to have seen an angel or had a vision can hardly be disputed on historical grounds simply because post-Enlightenment man no longer believes in angels! Visionary experiences are too common in the history of religions for the account here to be dismissed on that score.James D.G. Dunn, Jesus the Spirit p.127
Pentecostal Discussion
Ben Myers, a scholar of the CSU School of Theology in Sydney, has republished his article Megachurch Worship: Supersize Me whereby he shares some of his thoughts on a recent visit to "a famous Sydney Megachurch" (presumably Hillsong.)
I agree with Myers here - and I have had my fair share of criticism of Hillsong. I believe it is fair to say that Hillsong is not as theologically thorough or focused as one would expect from a church. The preaching is often a man-centred gospel and the bible acts as your very own cliched and modernist 'Guide to a Better You'. As Myers quoted from the service: “The Bible isn’t a book about God’s love for man; it’s a book about man’s love for God.”
In the interest of fairness, Myers sought a response from Pentecostal Theologian Shane Clifton, posted here. Now, I do not think Clifton did a particularly good job in a response - it seems to be 'okay, so the preaching isn't all that accurate - but the kids like it, and that's what counts, right?'
I must concede that Hillsong does have its place - kids like it, and it is a great tool for bringing young people particularly into the church. However, the fun-loving atmosphere does not make up for a lacking or weak theology - there should be a balance, or at least an aim to push people deeper into the issues with reference to sound exegesis as opposed to the man-centred self-help guide for popular consumption. The gospel is so much more than that.
I agree with Myers here - and I have had my fair share of criticism of Hillsong. I believe it is fair to say that Hillsong is not as theologically thorough or focused as one would expect from a church. The preaching is often a man-centred gospel and the bible acts as your very own cliched and modernist 'Guide to a Better You'. As Myers quoted from the service: “The Bible isn’t a book about God’s love for man; it’s a book about man’s love for God.”
In the interest of fairness, Myers sought a response from Pentecostal Theologian Shane Clifton, posted here. Now, I do not think Clifton did a particularly good job in a response - it seems to be 'okay, so the preaching isn't all that accurate - but the kids like it, and that's what counts, right?'
I must concede that Hillsong does have its place - kids like it, and it is a great tool for bringing young people particularly into the church. However, the fun-loving atmosphere does not make up for a lacking or weak theology - there should be a balance, or at least an aim to push people deeper into the issues with reference to sound exegesis as opposed to the man-centred self-help guide for popular consumption. The gospel is so much more than that.
Defining Orthodoxy
Fun, fun, fun!
It's no secret that I am a person who affirms the clear existence of orthodoxy - especially an orthodoxy that is both apostolically (made up word?) authentic and superior to heresies. However, when dealing with orthodoxy and heresy in early papyri of letters - how would one define orthodoxy?
My points thus far:
It's no secret that I am a person who affirms the clear existence of orthodoxy - especially an orthodoxy that is both apostolically (made up word?) authentic and superior to heresies. However, when dealing with orthodoxy and heresy in early papyri of letters - how would one define orthodoxy?
My points thus far:
- Defined by the four-fold gospel canonical gospel tradition. As Hengel and others have shown, the canonical gospels were prominent and authoritative early on in Christianity. (The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ).
- However, we must also account for diversity in the New Testament. This brings us to James D.G. Dunn's Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. What unity was there? Dunn contends no real creed - but a consistency and unity between the historical Jesus and the exalted Jesus. Of course, I disagree with Dunn - but aye, so do a lot of people?
- The crucifixion of Jesus - such a belief can be linked to the pre-Pauline Jerusalem church; is found independently in the Gospels which are extended Passion narratives; is found in works of Paul; Peter (?); Hebrews, etc. (No pseudo-deaths (Thiering); etc)
- In light of above, a Jesus fitting into the Jewish milieu - a physical death as Jesus was fully man (so no docetism); and a physical resurrection belief.
- Whilst stressing the humanity of Jesus- we also have the belief in the divinity of Jesus. As Larry Hurtado has pointed out - the New Testament paints a Jesus that is both human, and subordinate to the Father - but also divine in some sense. (How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?). Furthermore, we must also account for the pre-Pauline Christology just in case we have someone Paul-averse. (The Many Faces of the Christ)
- A Trinitarian - or at least monotheistic binitarian - formula and belief.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Robert M. Price - Happy that Someone Recognised his Existence
I have no idea when the interview took place, but once upon a time Bart Ehrman was on the Infidel Guy webcast. On the issue of the non-historicity of Jesus, Ehrman unequivocally stated it is accepted that Jesus existed - no real scholar doubts this. The Infidel Guy was in shock - someone arguing that Jesus actually existed? That isn't the impression one gets when they read the pseudo scholarship of Earl Doherty and others of his ilk.
The Infidel Guy raises the 'multiple Jesus hypothesis.' He states, "Jesus Christ itself just means the annointed one...so basically, any Jewish sect that believed they had the Jesus Christ." Does Ehrman correct him that Jesus the Christ (Yeshua ha Maschia) was a name with the title Messiah/Christ added? Nope. He just lets him go.
So, the Infidel Guy brings in the big guns. Nope, not Richard Carrier...not Earl Doherty...not any other unknown Jesus Mythicist from the Internet - but the Robert M. Price.
"What do you think of Dr Bob Price...?" Asks the Infidel Guy, followed by an immediate "Don't know him...is he the guy who denied Jesus existed?...I don't think he's...I don't really know him, why would I?" The Infidel Guy rattles off some book names and Ehrman continues, "I haven't seen any evidence for his views."
The IG starts up again - "There are some people who have been looking at the evidence more than you with double doctorates...I even think he is a professor." Ehrman cuts him off again, "No he's not...he doesn't have a teaching job..."
So, that is how real scholars in academic circles at accredited institutes of higher education see Price. At first, no idea - and then a snicker out of him when they remember who he is.
So, why am I raising the dead?
Well, today I picked up a copy of The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Tradition by Paul R. Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd. What I found interesting was a review of it (actually in the book!) by Robert M. Price.
The Infidel Guy raises the 'multiple Jesus hypothesis.' He states, "Jesus Christ itself just means the annointed one...so basically, any Jewish sect that believed they had the Jesus Christ." Does Ehrman correct him that Jesus the Christ (Yeshua ha Maschia) was a name with the title Messiah/Christ added? Nope. He just lets him go.
So, the Infidel Guy brings in the big guns. Nope, not Richard Carrier...not Earl Doherty...not any other unknown Jesus Mythicist from the Internet - but the Robert M. Price.
"What do you think of Dr Bob Price...?" Asks the Infidel Guy, followed by an immediate "Don't know him...is he the guy who denied Jesus existed?...I don't think he's...I don't really know him, why would I?" The Infidel Guy rattles off some book names and Ehrman continues, "I haven't seen any evidence for his views."
The IG starts up again - "There are some people who have been looking at the evidence more than you with double doctorates...I even think he is a professor." Ehrman cuts him off again, "No he's not...he doesn't have a teaching job..."
So, that is how real scholars in academic circles at accredited institutes of higher education see Price. At first, no idea - and then a snicker out of him when they remember who he is.
So, why am I raising the dead?
Well, today I picked up a copy of The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Tradition by Paul R. Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd. What I found interesting was a review of it (actually in the book!) by Robert M. Price.
I am gratified that my friends and colleagues Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd have taken my work as seriously as they have in this comprehensively researched book.I myself am just shocked -as far as I know, in all the scholarly works on the Historical Jesus, Christian beginnings and the New Testament I have never come across a citation of Price. This must have been an achievement! Finally, someone has taken notice - if only to light the flame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)