|
Post by sandwiches on Jun 27, 2012 12:17:33 GMT
Former P.M.Tony Blair's choice of summer reading: www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/what-makes-tony-blair-tick-7892622.html?origin=internalSearchHis summer reading list consists of Headhunters by Jo Nesbø, the Norwegian crime novelist, and Christian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicaea by Geza Vermes, an account of the historical origins of Christianity, to be published next month.Re Vermes,? I have enjoyed some of Vermes' books such as Jesus the Jew and The Changing Face of Jesus but does he have a bit of an agenda? He had an article in Standpoint giving a flavour of the ideas in his new book and there was an article in the Times earlier in the week. www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/4204/full/Jews, Christians and Judaeo-Christians GEZA VERMES Among the oldest Christian writings, two in particular offer a splendid insight into the divergences between the two branches of the Jesus followers. The 16 chapters of the Didache, or Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles...It contains no identifiable chronological pointers, but is generally assigned to the second half of the first century CE, thus probably antedating some of the writings of the New Testament.Perhaps the most significant element of the doctrine handed down in the Didache concerns its understanding of Jesus. This primitive Judaeo-Christian writing contains none of the theological ideas of Paul about the redeeming Christ or of John's divine Word or Logos. Jesus is never called the "Son of God". The switch in the perception of Jesus from charismatic prophet to superhuman being coincided with a geographical and religious change, when the Christian preaching of the Gospel moved from the Galilean-Judaean Jewish culture to the pagan surroundings of the Graeco-Roman world. At the same time, under the influence of Paul's organising genius, the church acquired a hierarchical structure governed by bishops with the assistance of presbyters and deacons. The disappearance of the Jewish input opened the way to a galloping "gentilisation" and consequent de-judaisation and anti-judaisation of nascent Christianity...A contrasting view is found in Larry Hurtado's works?: www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Devotion_to_Jesus.shtmlDevotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity: Recent Scholarly Developments Devotion to Jesus as divine appeared more as an explosion than as an evolutionary development By Larry W. Hurtado Professor of New Testament Language Literature and Theology University of Edinburgh (Scotland) In the new book that I mentioned earlier (Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity), I reinforce the judgment that devotion to Jesus as divine appeared more as an explosion than as an evolutionary development so quickly and so early that already in our earliest extant evidence (Paul’s undisputed epistles) it is taken for granted as characteristic of Christian circles, whether in Judea or the Diaspora and whether Jewish or Gentiles. For example, Paul’s reference to “all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:2) suggests that the devotional action in question (to “call upon the name” of Jesus represents an invocation of him as a divine figure) was ubiquitously a feature of early Christian religious life.In my own work, the focus is on the religious beliefs of earliest Christians and the devotional practices that expressed their religious convictions. Most scholarly work, however, has concentrated on what I refer to as the “christological rhetoric” of the New Testament and other early Christian writings, that is, the beliefs about Jesus and the ways that these beliefs are verbally expressed. Scholars usually refer to these beliefs as the “christology” of this or that text, author, circle, or period of Christianity. In the sort of work that I have carried out and encouraged, however, there is a broader scope of phenomena that comprise what I refer to as “devotion to Jesus.”...the results of the more recent scholarly efforts that are referred to here represent a major revision in our understanding of what earliest devotion to Jesus was and how it developed.Anyone any views on the merits of these different approaches or maybe I should just try Headhunters by Jo Nesbø, (the other book on Mr Blair's reading list)?
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jun 27, 2012 13:52:00 GMT
I'm not impressed by Vermes' comments. This primitive Judaeo-Christian writing contains none of the theological ideas of Paul about the redeeming Christ Assumed knowledge. Irrelevant. Mere quibbling. Didache 9:2First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever. Anyone going to tell me this isn't identifying Jesus as the Son of God?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 29, 2012 0:12:54 GMT
I'm no scholar, but I've always felt there was clear development in the early christian understanding of Jesus.
In the gospels, the disciples (understandably) struggle to comprehend. "Who is this?" is perhaps a typical reaction. In Acts 2, Peter's words are almost adoptionist: "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah." The greek "Lord" could mean either Caesar or Yahweh, and it continues to be used throughout Acts (presumably indicating Luke has faithfully recorded how things were expressed at the time, and not placed later views in their mouths). But by the time the letters and gospels were written, the divinity of Jesus is more clear.
We might be tempted to think this whole process was driven by Paul. But we might be tempted to think that the gentile mission was all Paul's idea too, except we have the account of the Holy Spirit changing Peter's views on the subject in Acts 10 & 11.
The historian needs evidence, but as a christian, I feel quite comfortable with taking Jesus at his word when he promised that the Spirit would lead his followers into further truth, and to see the gentile mission and the recognition of Jesus' divinity as parts of that process.
You would hope that Hurtado and Vermes might be able to agree about the historical facts even if they draw different conclusions, but I have no idea how much their differences are factual and how much agenda or just different interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jun 29, 2012 3:37:40 GMT
I'm not impressed by Vermes' comments. Didache 9:2First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever. Anyone going to tell me this isn't identifying Jesus as the Son of God? Er, no. But Jews had long regarded the Messiah, like David, to be Yahweh's son without any idea that meant he was divine. Let alone that he WAS Yahweh. All Vermes is doing is presenting the widely accepted and hardly controversial view that the development from "Son of God" to "God the Son" was an evolutionary process. I don't understand the OP's stuff about Vermes somehow having an "agenda" either. They don 't come much more eminent and esteemed than Geza Vermes. Hurtado's interpretations fit more neatly with orthodox Christian beliefs and I gather Hurtado is a Christian. So who has an "agenda" here exactly? I'm more inclined to see Vermes the learned secular Jew as the more objective analyst given a choice.
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Jun 29, 2012 3:52:33 GMT
Perhaps the most significant element of the doctrine handed down in the Didache concerns its understanding of Jesus. This primitive Judaeo-Christian writing contains none of the theological ideas of Paul about the redeeming Christ or of John's divine Word or Logos. Jesus is never called the "Son of God". This is one of those cases where since the exact phrase "Son of God" is not directly applied to Jesus, it somehow is believed the concept does not exist. Much like denying the concept of the Trinity because the word "Trinity" does not appear in the New Testament. Consider, for example, Chapter 7 of the Didache: And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. So who exactly does Dr. Vermes think is being referred to as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? And does not this language make a direct allusion to Matthew 28:19? Furthermore there is a description within the Didache of Satan posing as the Son of God which refers back to the earlier use of Son. Finally there are numerous quotes or allusions to Paul's letters in the Didache which makes the idea that this group had a vastly different theology quite questionable. With all respect to Dr. Vermes, he comes off here as pulling a "Doherty" by claiming since certain things mentioned in the Gospels are not explicitly mentioned in the Didache, they must not have been known even if the purpose was different and the context implied they probably did know these things (Doherty did the same for Paul's letters). If that is indeed what he is arguing, it is a bit of a shock for someone as respected as Vermes.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jun 29, 2012 5:00:14 GMT
But Jews had long regarded the Messiah, like David, to be Yahweh's son without any idea that meant he was divine. Let alone that he WAS Yahweh. Sankari agrees with that. The issue is not the meaning of 'son of God', but whether or not the Didache calls Jesus 'son of God'. Vermes says it doesn't, but it does. There's no doubt that the development from 'son of God' to 'God the son' was an evolutionary process; Sankari agrees with that as well. But Vermes claimed Jesus is never called 'son of God' in the Didache. The Didache does call Jesus 'son of God'. If Vermes meant to say 'Jesus is never called 'God the Son' in the Didache', there would be no problem; that's perfectly true. I also.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jun 29, 2012 6:11:54 GMT
The greek "Lord" could mean either Caesar or Yahweh Or another mortal authority figure (e.g. Abraham in I Peter 3:6; king of the unjust servant in Matthew 18:25-27, 31-32, 34).
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jun 29, 2012 6:14:08 GMT
Er, no. But Jews had long regarded the Messiah, like David, to be Yahweh's son without any idea that meant he was divine. Let alone that he WAS Yahweh. Oh, absolutely. I also believe the earliest Christians did not consider Jesus to be divine, let alone Yahweh.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Jun 29, 2012 13:16:22 GMT
Thanks for some interesting replies. I am not sure that an academic who is "secular" is necessarily more objective than one who is not. Hurtado (from what I have seen of his articles) is not arguing in his academic work that Jesus was divine I did raise an enquiry with Professor Hurtado on his blog, quoting a sentence or two from the article by Professor Vermes in Standpoint and his reply (partly quoted below) is here: larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/a-thoughtful-spanish-language-review/As I and numerous others have shown over a few decades now (and as earlier scholars had shown from the early years of the 20th century), treating Jesus as somehow sharing in divine-like status and significance is presupposed in our earliest extant texts (Paul’s letters take us back to within ca. 20 years after Jesus’ execution). Anyway, since he was polite enough to reply to my enquiry, I think I will try one of Professor Hurtado's books!
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Jun 29, 2012 19:59:57 GMT
Oh, absolutely. I also believe the earliest Christians did not consider Jesus to be divine, let alone Yahweh. On what grounds? The Jewish concept of messiah had many varying qualities as Tim notes; but the earliest Christian documents available have a bunch of the world's staunchest monotheists worshipping Jesus as Lord (capital L).
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jun 29, 2012 22:22:08 GMT
But Jews had long regarded the Messiah, like David, to be Yahweh's son without any idea that meant he was divine. Let alone that he WAS Yahweh. Sankari agrees with that. The issue is not the meaning of 'son of God', but whether or not the Didache calls Jesus 'son of God'. Vermes says it doesn't, but it does. My mistake. The perils of reading/posting on an iPhone while waiting in a queue in an airport. On what grounds? The Jewish concept of messiah had many varying qualities as Tim notes; but the earliest Christian documents available have a bunch of the world's staunchest monotheists worshipping Jesus as Lord (capital L). There are no capitals of any kind in Greek uncials. And kyrios is a good translation for the Aramaic 'mar, which is the title by which disciples referred to their teacher. As for the "worship" part, James D.G. Dunn's recent book has done a very solid job of showing that is hardly straightforward support for the idea that the first Christians considered Jesus to be God.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jun 30, 2012 0:18:20 GMT
Where do you want to start? Bear in mind that we can't simply claim that kyrios means Yahweh whenever it suits us; we need to show a reason why it must mean this in any given verse and context. No they don't. You will search the NT in vain for any passage where Jesus is unambiguously identified and worshipped as the God of Israel. (Notice also that the Father alone is referred to as 'almighty'; Jesus never receives this honorific). Throughout the book of Acts we receive details of the apostles' preaching lectures, yet in none of them do we find the message 'Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah, is the God of Israel.' Jewish accusations against Christians in the NT are highly detailed, yet we never find them claiming that Christians have deified the Messiah or compromised Jewish monotheism in any way. Time and time again the charges laid against them concern the Law of Moses (Acts 6:13; 7:14), alleged breach of Jewish customs (Acts 7:14), alleged propagation of unlawful customs (Acts 16:20-21), proclaiming Jesus as king (Acts 17:5-7), etc. Time and time again we find the apostles distinguishing Jesus from the God of Israel in their epistles: - Romans 1:7, 'Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!'
- I Corinthians 1:1, '...called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God'
- I Corinthians 1:4, '...the grace of God that was given to you in Christ Jesus'
- II Corinthians 1:2, 'Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!'
- Galatians 1:3, 'Grace and peace to you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ'
- Ephesians 1:2, 'Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!'
- Philippians 1:2, 'Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!'
- Colossians 1:2, 'Grace and peace to you from God our Father!'
- I Thessalonians 1:1, '... to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace and peace to you!'
- II Thessalonians 1:2, 'Grace and peace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!'
- I Timothy 1:2, 'Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord!'
- Titus 1:4, 'Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior!'
- Philemon 1:3, 'Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!'
- I Peter 1:3, 'Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!'
- II John 3, 'Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Son of the Father'
Notice the regular distinction between 'God' and 'Lord', as we find in Acts: - Acts 2:36, ''Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.''
To Peter, God was someone other than Jesus, and Jesus was 'Lord.' We find this explicitly demonstrated in his speech at Pentecost (Acts 2). Psalm 110 applies the non-divine title of adon ('lord' or 'my lord') to the Messiah. Peter applied that same non-divine title to Jesus. (Herbert W. Bateman IV is one Trinitarian who recognises this distinction, though it leads him to reject Psalm 110 as Messianic precisely because it does reflect a non-divine Christ; see 'Psalm 110:1 and the New Testament', Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (Oct. 1992): 438-53). In Peter's mind, Jesus was the Messiah of Psalm 110 but he was not God. To Paul, the same distinction applied (I Corinthians 8:4-6, 'one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ'). James F. McGrath ( The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context, University of Illinois Press, 2009, p.41-2) is helpful here: Commentators today agree that I Corinthians 8:6 is polemical (e.g. Erik Waaler, The Shema and The First Commandment in First Corinthians: An Intertextual Approach to Paul's Re-reading of Deuteronomy, Mohr Siebeck, 2008). In defiance of pagan polytheism, Paul affirms his commitment to the one true God of Israel by saying that there are many which are called 'God' and many which are called 'Lord', but to Christians there is only one God (the Father) and one Lord (Jesus Christ). Claiming that 'Lord' means 'Yahweh' in I Corinthians 8:6 is both exegetically unjustifiable and theologically problematic, not least because it defines Jesus as 'Yahweh' to the exclusion of the Father and does not resolve the Trinitarian dilemma that Jesus is not defined here as 'God.'
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jun 30, 2012 2:23:45 GMT
No they don't. You will search the NT in vain for any passage where Jesus is unambiguously identified and worshipped as the God of Israel. (Notice also that the Father alone is referred to as 'almighty'; Jesus never receives this honorific). [snip] Great summary - I've saved that for future reference. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jun 30, 2012 3:47:58 GMT
Great summary - I've saved that for future reference. Thanks. I agree, very nice one. I really recommend Clippings for saving this kind of material and being able to get at it easily later on.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jun 30, 2012 10:56:40 GMT
Great summary - I've saved that for future reference. Thanks. My pleasure.
|
|