In the course of reading an article the other day I came across this intriguing citation of something Dom Gregory Dix once wrote which seems apt to reprint here on Trinity Sunday. The citation is made by Eduard Schweizer who does not use scare marks, so I am not exactly sure where Dix ends and Schweizer continues:
the church of Jerusalem in the year 35 would certainly have sided with Arius, not with Athanasius, since she would have been unable even to understand the concern of Athanasius and his whole problem. Nonetheless it was Athanasius and not Arius who confessed in the fourth century the faith of the church of Jerusalem, because he maintained this uniqueness of Christ, with the church of Jerusalem, even though he expressed it in a different pattern of thinking.
(E. Schweizer, "Two New Testament Creeds Compared" in W. Klassen and G.F. Snyder (eds.) Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation (1962), p. 173, with footnote reference to G. Dix, Jew and Greek (1953), 80f.)
This will not be the first nor the last time that folks point out that it is very unlikely that 1st Century Christian communities had the beliefs proscribed as the orthodox Christian faith by many Christians of the 21st Century. Often subscribing to the abused, worn out and out of context phrase, "the faith delivered once for all."
ReplyDeleteHow could Christians gathered solely around the teachings which coalesced into the Marcan gospel have believed the same as 21st Orthodox believers? One begins to get an idea of the evolution of Christian beliefs just from the synoptic gospels. The faiths of the Lukan and Matthean communities were much more complicated than the Marcan beliefs. Not to mention the Eurasian communities that relied on the teachings of Paul and had not even heard of the Synoptic Gospels.
"Not to mention the Eurasian communities that relied on the teachings of Paul and had not even heard of the Synoptic Gospels."
ReplyDeleteWell, evidently not, if they hadn't yet been written. But Paul's gospel agreed with the Church in Jerusalem and Luke was his traveling companion. The message was orally proclaimed long before it was written. For how long? Having read John Wenham's books (and John Robinson's), I incline now to the view that the Synoptics were a good deal earlier than the conventional (solid fact-free) suppositions that place them post AD 70. For example, I see no reason to date Acts after c. 64, so Mark could be from the 50s - or even earlier. That's a minority view of course, but it takes a long time to get 19th century hypotheses out of the collective scholarly mind. ('Form an orderly Q here ...') Regarding the wide and early distribution of the Gospels, see Bauckham's 'The Gospel for All Christians'.
On the question of Arius and his prenumbra, the central question is whether Jesus is fully divine and eternal (which Arius denied, as have his epigoni since, including Socinus, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Rudolf Bultmann, and Jack Spong). Gordon Fee's big book on Paul's Christology and Simon Cole's (name?) on Pre-existence in the Synoptics (including Mark!) are weighty counters to the idea that these are post-biblical notions. Of course you won't find the weord 'homoousion' there, nor are the dots joined, but there is enough there to show what the embryonic apostolic faith taught.
Without going all the way with Newman in his theory on 'The Development of Christian Doctrine' (but by golly, wasn't his 'Biglietto' speech prophetic about the course of liberalism? you'd swear he was thinking of Tec - or St Matthew's-in-the-city), we can readily agree that it takes times for the implications of revelation to be worked out. But there is a difference between development - unfolding what is already there in nuce - and macro-evolution - one species becoming another (such as Maurice Casey alleges).
I don't know what David means by 'the Lukan and Matthean communities'. I don't think such entities actually existed. There were just churches across the Mediterranean world, and they all received the same writings and the same apostles. And if anyone thinks 'the Marcan beliefs' are simple, he has mistaken style for substance. They're not simple at all.
"Palaiologos"
My bad - I meant Simon Gathercole, who lectures at Cambridge, and in his 'The Pre-Existent Son: Recoverign the Christologies of Matthew, Mark and Luke' disputes the views of his Doktorvater Jimmy Dunn (as he did also in his thesis on Paul). Here's a taster:
ReplyDeletehttp://wn.com/Pre-existence_of_Jesus_part_2
"Palaiologos"
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteThe question to ask of 21st century orthodoxy claimants is whether they could join a Marcan or Pauline prayer and praise meeting and worship Jesus?
I think the answer is "Yes! Alleluia."
Hi Peter P,
ReplyDelete"Form an orderly Q here ..."
Very droll!
What if Q doesn't and didn't exist? Who to form the Q behind? :)
Mark's composite citation of Isaiah and Malachi reads:
ReplyDelete"I will send my messenger before *your face."
Whose face? The Father is addressing His Son. There is no birth narrative in Mark but there is pre-existence. Mark, according to tradition, reflects Peter. I think there are also Pauline currents there, but I will have to investigate this.
On a more general point, all of us use inherited language at different levels, and it is only over time that we grasp the 'sensus plenior' of what we are saying. To 'hold the catholic faith' (in the language of the so-called Athanasian Creed) is not the same as consciously understanding it all.
"Palaiologos"
"What if Q doesn't and didn't exist? Who to form the Q behind? :)"
ReplyDeleteWell, in that case I imagine St Mark would think of his apostolic mentor and advise us: "Mind your P's and your Q's"! :)
Wer zuletzt lacht, ist der Lachmann! :)
"Palaiologos"
You have now changed the subject Dr. Peter by your comment. Could these 21st Century Christians in good conscience join the 1st Century Christians in their worship if they were aware that the 1st Century Christians were Arian in their Christology?
ReplyDeletePeter the Greek engages in reading much of his current belief back into ancient context. Peter, you will find it difficult if you do not remove the rosey glasses.
I don't know what David means by 'the Lukan and Matthean communities'. I don't think such entities actually existed. There were just churches across the Mediterranean world, and they all received the same writings and the same apostles.
That is the problem Peter, you don't think, meaning you don't believe, but that does not mean that they did not exist. And you have no idea who went where in the expanding Christian world. I see the evidence pointing to a far different reality on the ground than your simplistic homogeneity.
No, that last remark was a fallacy. Let me start again. A rich Farmer said to his Butler, 'What shall I do about this Orchard?' 'Clear it, sir. Then you'll have a Goodacre.'
ReplyDelete"Palaiologos"
For those not bothered to read Anglo-American scholarship on gospel composition, Peter P's witticism above concerns scholars arguing for theories such as Mark using Matthew and Luke as sources, Matthew as first gospel, Luke utilising Mark and Matthew as sources, and the non-existence of Q.
ReplyDelete"That is the problem Peter, you don't think, meaning you don't believe, but that does not mean that they did not exist."
ReplyDeleteTienes razon,hermanito, pienso pero no creo!
The idea that there were 'Lucan', 'Matthean' and Marcan' communities is a scholarly retrojection of the 20th century idea that 'communities' rather than writers produced books and that we can mirror read what was going on in their lives through the emphases of each book. to which I say: weeee-ll - maybe - but you can lose sight of the witer very easily by piling up baseless hypotheses and forgetting that first century churches did not live in hermetic bubbles but were in constant communication with each other. I've studies and taught enough classical Latin and Greek to know that the Mediterranean world was a busy, moving place - just what Acts tells us, in fact! Have a look at the essays in Bauckham's 'The gospel for all Christians', including one called 'The Holy Internet' on 1st century travel.
"And you have no idea who went where in the expanding Christian world."
Paul & Luke all around the Med - & to Spain!; Peter probably to Rome, with Rufus; Mark probably to Egypt, after Rome; Titus to Illyria?; some probably to Persia; Thomas to....?; Addai and Mara?
"I see the evidence pointing to a far different reality on the ground than your simplistic homogeneity."
Nothing simplistic about it at all. The impact of Christ on his apostles was multifarious - but also remarkably unified. The Synoptics, John and Paul (sounds like an old pop group!) expressed their understandings of Christ in different language and imagery, but came up with a remarkably cohesive view, including pre-existence, divinity, and worship of Christ. Read Gordon Fee, Simon Gathercole, Stephen Noll, Richard Bauckham. you will find they answer "the questions asked by an intelligent sixth former" (12th grader) (to quote Rowan Williams).
"Palaiologos"
Peter, I doubt anyone would argue that Mark used Matthew and Luke! Not even Peter the Greek.
ReplyDeleteThe scholarship is;
Mark was the first.
The Matthian author used Mark, shared some material also used by the Lukan author, designated Q, and also had some unique material, designated M.
The Lukan author of Luke/Acts used Mark, shared the material also used by Mathew and had some unique material designated L.
And we should not even start with the Johanine material!
I think the statement is false, and that the church of Jerusalem would have sided with neither.
ReplyDeleteWhat the church of Jerusalem most likely would have done is: confronted the teachings of both camps, studying the issue.
However, it's important to remember that we believe that the Holy Spirit has guided the church; and that these early confrontations with gnosticism, Sabellianism, etc. etc. had something to do with the very guidance of God of His church - as ugly as some of the disputes were, and as bad as the behavior was of some Trinitarian Christians (though we needn't believe that specific bad behavior was willed by God). So I am inclined to believe (and David, you will probably find this ridiculous, but so be it) that "were things to be done over," the early church would again confront very similar types of challenges, and would have formed its doctrine in more or less the same way we have it; this being part of the fulfillment of Christ's promises.
It's also worth mentioning that teaching which implies that Jesus is dead (when speaking in "ordinary langauge"), is also not Arianism.
Also: "if they were aware that the 1st Century Christians were Arian in their Christology?" - the presupposition here is also false. Though they didn't use the term homoousious, they obviously also did not reject this; the questions with which they were confronted at the time also did not pressure them into this kind of thinking. I can sort of see where you're coming from with the appelation "Arian" here, but it's misapplied.
Archimedes did not have Newton's developed theory of gravity; nonetheless, he agreed very much about the general principle, without having the same vocabulary or detailed notion; Archemedian inventions functioning just the same in Newton's time as in his own. That Archimedes would not have understood some aspects of Newton's "gravity" (without acquaintance with the motivating factors, and Newton's own thought), does not mean that he did not believe that terrestrial objects tend to exert a downward force.
Above metaphor will be apt in some ways; not so apt in other ways.
“You have now changed the subject Dr. Peter by your comment. Could these 21st Century Christians in good conscience join the 1st Century Christians in their worship if they were aware that the 1st Century Christians were Arian in their Christology?” - Brother David
ReplyDeleteWhat is interesting David, and a real breakthrough in recent NT theological and exegetical studies, is the emphasis upon the worship of these very first Christians - of this Man who is now understood to be on a par with Yahweh, and so worthy of all worship. This totally undermines Arius’s (and Classical Hellenic) logic.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteThere is no 'the [definitive] scholarship' on gospel composition. There are a series of competing theories, one of which (the one outlined by you) has substantial support for the time-being.
It seems to me that 'orthodoxy' might be a relative term, dependent on what the contemporary 'movers and shakers' declare it to be.
ReplyDeleteConsider the followers of 'virtue on line' blog spot, for instance. David Virtue considers himself to be host of the Orthodox Voice of the Anglican Communion. Well, if he's orthodox, give me heterodoxy every time.
The focus of my religion is that of Christ Incarnate, Crucified, Risen and Glorifed - now alive and reigning with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Full Stop!
Sorry Dr Peter, I did not mean to infer that the scholarship was definitive, I was just trying to outline those particular scholarly theories a bit more accurately.
ReplyDeleteBryden says: "What is interesting David, and a real breakthrough in recent NT theological and exegetical studies, is the emphasis upon the worship of these very first Christians - of this Man who is now understood to be on a par with Yahweh, and so worthy of all worship".
ReplyDeleteWhich amplifies what I said at 9:06. Dick France, Hurtado, Bauckham have all dealt with this point - see Bauckham's seminal little book 'God Crucified'.
And the point about "seminal" (Lat. 'seed') is that a seed produces a particular plant.
Thee is enough material out there to answer "the questions of a bright 20th century sixth former" (I've verified the quote more accurately now) who really wants to learn.
But ah, if "the sholarship" was the simple "one way Street(er)" as David believes, what would Mark Goodacre do on a winter's evening? I think it will be a good few years before the implications of Bauckham's 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses' sinks in. Or people even read Wenham's hypothesis.
"Palaiologos"
Ah, Peter P., the inimitable style of a previous bishop of Monmouth ;-) lovely quote. Full text here if you ever need it.
ReplyDeleteI think it will be a good few years before the implications of Bauckham's 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses' sinks in - so PP.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely!! His tome has enormous implications re the Four Gospels in particular, and how we should view the entire NT witness generally.
As for David Wenham: what a delightfully creative lad, the fruit of many years quietly beavering away!
What is Wisdom?
ReplyDelete'As Scripture says: I shall destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing all the learning of the learned.
'Where are the philosophers now? Where are the Scribes. Where are any of our thinkers today? Do you not see how God has shown up the foolishness of human wisdom?'
Paul, Corinthians 1:19&20
Something for all of us to think about! Who among you is wise?