A Reply to the Questioning Christian
D.C. Toedt (aka The Questioning Christian) is one of the regular contrarians who hangs out at TitusOneNine, Kendall Harmon's blog. D.C is a lawyer who regularly raises doubts about the historical reliability of the New Testament--especially when it comes to either miracles or the historic doctrines of the church. In a recent discussion over at TitusOneNine, D.C. raised the following objection:
If we're to believe Acts, it's abundantly clear that the apostles regarded Jesus as a mortal. They thought he was a special mortal, to be sure: in their minds, his resurrection proved that he had been designated by God to return Real Soon Now as Israel's liberator. [Evidently they were wrong about that.] But there's nothing in their reported early preaching that even hints they thought Jesus was God Incarnate. The standard orthodox response is that it took the church awhile to come to that conclusion. OK, fine: then the conclusion is far from self-evident -- and it's not at all unreasonable for others to conclude otherwise.)
I responded rather hastily, "Sorry, D. C., you're wrong." This resulted in a few interchanges at the end of which D.C. left this challenge:
Many of you think the apostles always believed a high christology, but Acts clearly suggests otherwise -- which raises interesting questions that William Witt and others seem afraid to confront.
Never one to back down from a challenge, I promised D.C. to get back to him, but when I finally finished my response, I realized it was way too long to post as a blog comment, so I'm putting it as a post on my own blog in hopes that some find it valuable.
One of the causes for frustration in the current discussions between the orthodox and revisionists in the mainline churches these days (especially on the blogs) is that so often the debates are between an uncritical orthodoxy and an uncritical revisionism. Many of the orthodox seem under the impression that critical biblical scholarship is essentially unchristian, and always leads (or will inevitably lead) to heresy. Many revisionists endorse a kind of popularist uninformed version of biblical scholarship that amounts to little more than a philosophical prejudice that "miracles don't happen" combined with a search for "gotcha" difficulties. In my opinion, both of these approaches represent a kind of naïve epistemological fundamentalism that has its roots in the Enlightenment, specifically in the Cartesian methodology of doubt and a "foundationalist" or "methodist" rationalism. (Perhaps more on this later some other time.) A single difficulty is thought to uproot the entire faith, so "conservatives" launch an all out attack against any recognition of genuine diversity or plurality or development in the Scriptures as attacks on Christian faith, while the revisionists regard such diversity, development, or pluralism, as definitive arguments against orthodoxy.
Both sides seem oblivious to the history of what I would call "critical orthodoxy." There has been for at least a hundred fifty years a careful and thoughtful application of historical and literary method to studying the Bible that has led not to doubt, but confirmation of orthodox faith. I think of the work of scholars like B.F. Westcott, Walther Eichrodt, Sir Edwin Hoskyns, Joachim Jeremias, Oscar Cullmann, C.F.D. Moule, and, more recently, Brevard Childs, N.T. Wright, Richard Hays, and Ben Witherington. While not a biblical scholar myself, but a systematic theologian, I have learned much from those who are. I offer the following as a reflection of "critical orthodoxy."
http://www.willgwitt.org/blog/trackback.cfm?3B1ADBF5-19B9-F975-3EE2C24BBA61DD43
I think that in your first paragraph marked "2)" you mean to refer to C. F. D. Moule's _The Origin of Christology_ (Cambridge, 1977).
Well done, my friend. Lots of useful information here, clearly presented. I don't know how Prof. Rodney Whitacre there at TSM in Ambridge would respond to your summary of scholarly views of the crucial topic of Christology in the NT writings, but I'll offer just a couple comments.
While I'm in agreement with most of what you've written, and while I think you've covered a very large, complex topic with admirable brevity and fairness, I see things a bit differently in some respects.
First, I can't agree that Paul has "the highest" Christology in the NT. I think it's clear that John's is even higher. There simply isn't anything in Paul that really compares to the magnificent declaration of the mystery of the Incarnation in John 1:1,14 or such lofty sayings as "The Father and I are one" (John 10:30) etc. I do agree, of course, that Paul does indeed take it for granted and teach that Jesus was and is divine, but the places where this is EXPLICIT are surprisingly few. Personally, I think Romans 9:5 is one of the rare places in the undisputed letters of Paul where Jesus is descirbed as "God," although the textual variants there show that this particular reading is not certain, just probable.
I'm glad you called attention to the very revealing and significant use of the term kyrios (Lord) in many places in the NT where citations of the OT that refer to Yahweh are applied without the slightest reservation to Jesus. And since D C Toedt was claiming that Acts reflects a low, adoptionist Christology, it's important to stress that Acts is one of the places where this equation of Yahweh with Jesus is clearly attested in more than one OT citation, e.g., the long quotation of Joel 2 in Acts 2 ends with, "and everyone who calls upon the name of the LORD will be saved" (Acts 2:21). And in the context of Peter's Pentecost sermon, it's clear that the Lord whose name brings salvation is Jesus himself. And as you know, Bill, Paul makes the same profoundly meaningful exegetical move in Romans 10:13. The importance of that point can't be overemphasized. I'll just point out that the fact that BOTH Luke and Paul cite the same OT passage and use it in the same manner shows that this was a commonplace idea that strongly suggests that we are seeing evidence here of a very early Christian tradition that predates them both.
Finally, although more could be said, I'll just add my two cents worth that I find Raymond Brown's reconstruction of the historical development of Christology in early Christianity, as attested in the NT, more compelling than James Dunn's, or anyone else's for that matter. I think Brown was right in discerning that the REALIZATION of the full divinity of Jesus and all it meant worked backwards, from the resurrection, to the baptism of Jesus (in Mark), to the birth of Jesus (in Matthew and Luke), to the grasping of the realities of the incarnation and pre-existence of the eternal Word (in John, though also glimpsed in Hebrews 1 or Phil. 2 etc). But I'm glad you brought out so clearly the essential point that there is a big difference between the time we discover something to be true and the time when it was first true. Jesus always was divine, and the church caught on to that fact much earlier than skeptics like Toedt are willing to admit.
Keep up the good work, Bill. It's so refreshing to see a systematic theologian who pays close attention to the work of biblical scholars. I'd be the first to acknowledge freely that you know more about NT scholarship than I know about systematic theology!
Citing Dodd, you suggest that the apostles, <em>immediately after Pentecost,</em> preached only a summary-type <em>kerygma</em>, while intentionally preserving in secrecy a more-complete <em>didache</em> that already existed at that time.
1. I'll have to re-read your posting more carefully to see what evidence Dodd might offer to support such a conjecture. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any. It's very difficult to credit the much, much-later writings of Paul and the anonymous gospel authors as providing such support. (Among other problems, we have to ask my two favorite theological questions of those authors: How, exactly, do you know what you're saying, and what indications do we have that it's reliable?)
This especially true given that Paul's 1 Thessalonians, thought to be the earliest surviving Christian writing, consistently distinguishes between God and Jesus. That letter never so much as hints that Jesus <em>is</em> God, as opposed to his beloved son and anointed one.
2. The secret-<em>didache</em> conjecture seems quite inconsistent with the tone of Acts. That book gives the clear impression that the apostles joyously and urgently proclaimed everything they 'knew,' even under threat of death, to anyone and everyone who would listen. That doesn't sound like men who were holding back 'secret knowledge' reserved only for initiates —gnosticism, anyone?
3. In the introduction to his eponymous gospel, 'Luke' went out of his way to emphasize his careful historical work. He also was writing for 'Theophilus,' who (if a real person) presumably was one of the initiates into the <em>didache</em>. It therefore seems pretty implausible that Luke's summary of the apostles' earliest post-Pentecostal speeches in Acts would have omitted that they were holding back crucial secret knowledge.
4. If the secret-<em>didache</em> conjecture is correct, the apostles would have had to develop the <em>didache</em> in the short time between their last encounter with Jesus after the crucifixion and their first post-Pentecostal preachings. That must have been a remarkable set of doctrinal development discussions amongst the apostles — one that goes completely unmentioned in Acts, which is really strange, given that the author(s) later devotes so much space to the purity-code dispute recounted in Acts 15. The <em>didache</em> seems incomparably more significant than the purity code; it's hard to imagine Luke's "orderly account" omitting all mention of its development in a mere 50 days or so.
-----
Again, nice work on the scholarship.
I offer a few (very few) thoughts about your recent post on Titusonenine which has been fleshed out on your blog
Critical biblical scholarship arose as a response to the Enlightenment in which all knowledge became subject to rationale criticism and the scientific method. Liberal Protestant theologians did just that. Harnck traced the rise of dogma from the 4th century up until the Protestant Reformation. He concluded that Christians and Hellenistic philosophies were so comingled it resulted in some beliefs that were, in his opinion, not Christian.
Importantly, he claimed that Christians were not only free to critique doctrine and biblical texts but they were bound to do so in pursuit of truth. For him and others there were no taboo areas of research. Furthermore, his studies led him to distrust speculative theology whether orthodox or liberal. He was more interested in practical Christianity found in praxis than in a system of theology. He found the gospel of John the most speculative and the least historic. One only has to read the prologue to arrive at that conclusion. Harnack denide the possibility of miracles but argued Jesus was a healer.
From Liberal Protestant theology came forth the idea that Jesus was primarily and ethical teacher. Many of the dogmas of the Church belong to the speculative theology constructed by the human imagination in response to deep human need but which have been rendered obsolete by rational and the scientific method.
Harnack argued against Kant who believed experiences of God are fanatical illusions and appeals to God’s grace and mercy were signs of human weakness and frailty. For Harnack , the love of Jesus found media res through word and sacrament disclosed a higher righteousness exemplified by the golden rule upon which rests all the law and the prophets
Jesus was a great exemplar of healing, forgiveness, non-attachment and care for others and most especially care for the poor and the outcasts found in societies. The moral authority of Jesus is the life he lived and the death he died in surrender to the hope for the coming of God’s rule in the hearts and minds of men and women.
The debates of the church fathers were too very abstract. They really only exist to convey simple truths about a loving God who wishes divine love and a higher righteous and higher consciousness in the hearts and minds of those who turn to God in trust.
As a parish priest I simply do not have the time, inclination nor energy to devote to biblical studies as do you and others who have risen to debate. To be perfectly frank, I find the biblical witnesses too varied and complex to offer much further insight into the ongoing debates. As someone quipped, bible scholars can hardly agree about what to order for lunch let alone agree on a hermeneutic.
This all goes to say, that I appreciated your posting to D.C. Toedt and I appreciate his conversation with you as well. It raised the bar at Titusonenine a blog which I find more and more difficult to visit as tensions rise.
It causes me to wonder about the whole Protestant enterprise. How is it that each man with a bible in hand could not possibly come to differing conclusions given the vastness of the scriptures? How can Protestants agree that councils may err and yet blindly follow the thought of a Calvin, Luther, Harnack, Witt or Toedt without acknowledging fallibility is built into our limited perspectives? Pluralism is a natural byproduct of the Protestant ethos? What has happened to charity and the willingness to concede in all humility that none of us can be certain?
Anyway, thanks for raising the bar. Your knowledge is vast and you are a fine man and scholar. One last comment, I believe ACTS is more saga than history. It kind of reads like a Louie L’amor novel…it then becomes rationale for me.
Blessings,
Fr. Tom Gibson
St. Mark’s , Cocoa, Florida
ps. I have added your blog to my favorites
My experience reading theology especially as it appears on this website is that it is quite free from imagination which is not to say that it's not grounded in human experience and language. I hope you have a chance to read the article on analogy and participation that appears on this website. I'd be interested in hearing your comments.
I am not suggesting that immediately after Pentecost the disciples preached only a summary kerygma, while keeping a didache "secret" from public view. Nor does Dodd suggest that.
The distinction between kerygma and didache is not between open and secret, but between "preaching" (which is addressed to outsiders) and "teaching" (which is the more detailed instruction intended for those who are already members). Indeed, kerygma and didache are simply the Greek words for "preaching" and "teaching."
You write that "It's very difficult to credit the much, much-later writings of Paul and the anonymous gospel authors as providing such support." There is nothing nefarious about Dodd's claims. (The distinction between public preaching and instruction--as for catechumens--was a fairly standard feature of early catholic Christianity. Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures are an example.) Dodd argued that the distinction between kerygma and didache is fairly clearly present in the NT documents (specially Paul), and was simply trying to answer the question: what was the substance of this kerygma that Paul (and others) talked about? Dodd believed that he had found the answer in the Acts sermons, for which he found close parallels in summary material in Paul and elsewhere, e.g., 1 Cor. 15: 1-8.
Whether Dodd makes his case for the distinction is something that can only be tested by comparing what he wrote with the actual texts to which he refers. Certainly his claim for this distinction was fairly well accepted in subsequent NT scholarship. And he didn't make the claim as an apologetic device to address issues in the development of christology. It is simply one of those finds of biblical scholarship that would appear to shed light on other areas as well--including the questions you raised.
As for those "much later" writings of Paul, and the anonymous gospels, you're missing the key point that I keep trying to drive home. Acts is one of those later writings. Paul wrote before Acts, as did all of the writers of those anonymous gospels, except for John. The author of Acts was one of the writers of one of those gospels--and Acts has to be read as a sequel to Luke's gospel. The christology in Acts--including the sermons--has to be read in the light of Luke's gospel.
So you're misreading me to presume that I was saying that Luke in Acts was withholding "secret" knowledge. To the contrary, as I (and many of the scholars I cited) argued, the sermons in Acts are short summaries of the material of which Luke's gospel and Acts provide a more complete account. If you want to find the full content of Luke's christology, read the rest of Luke and Acts. The sermons are certainly not complete summaries of everything the church believed, or even the actual sermons preached, and could not be. After all, in terms of length, they measure from a few verses to a few paragraphs.
So it really does not matter whether or not Dodd is correct in his conviction that Luke was providing an accurate summary of the early preaching of the church. The primary purpose of Luke's inclusion of the sermons is a literary one--not simply to give a historical account of the rise of Christianity. Luke's inclusion of the sermons plays an essential place in articulating his own theological vision, and they are a short summary of everything he writes elsewhere.
As for 1 Thessalonians. It does not include anything like a complete exposition of Paul's christology. Paul speaks of God and Christ and the Holy Spirit without further elaboration, clearly assuming that his hearers know his meaning. Paul does indeed distinguish between Jesus and God. Paul's hearers would have understood the word "God" (theos) to refer to the Father, so to simply equate Jesus and God would have been to say that the Father and the Son were the identical same person--the later heresy of Sabellianism.
What Paul does do already in 1 Thessalonians is to regularly use the word "Lord" (kyrios) when referring to Jesus. Paul's regular terminology in 1 Thessalonians is "God the Father" and "the Lord Jesus Christ." I made the point in my original article that NT usage distinguishes between a relative and an absolute use of kurios--and the latter is clearly intended in 1 Thessalonians. Interestingly, Paul refers to "the day of the Lord" in ch. 5:2, when he is speaking of the return of Christ. But "day of the Lord" is, again, a citation from the OT (used numerous times, Is. 2:12, 13:6-9, 34:4, Jer. 46:10), which in its original context refers to the "day of Yahweh." So this seems to be another one of those instances in the NT when the writer quotes an OT passage that clearly refers to God and applies it to Jesus.
I do get that Acts is a later writing. But unlike Paul, the gospel writers, etc., Acts affirmatively states what the apostles (purportedly) preached immediately post-Pentecost. As a guide to the apostles' christology at that time, it's not much to go on. But it's better, I submit, than than trying to extrapolate backwards from Paul, the gospels (including that of 'Luke'), and other much-later writings, by authors who clearly had their own agendas.
-----
As to Luke/Acts being as much literary as historical: By analogy, Herman Wouk's WWII novel The Winds of War, and its sequel War and Remembrance, seem to be pretty accurate historically. But if you were contemplating making a major life commitment on the basis of what Franklin Roosevelt supposedly said and did, I doubt you'd rely on those novels per se, at least not without significant corroborating evidence.
-----
If, as you say, Luke was writing not just as a neutral historian but to outline a particular theology, I would think we're obligated to consider the possibility of author bias and the resulting danger of error. We also have to ask the same questions I posited last night: How is it that he knows what he asserts to be true, and what indications of reliability or unreliability do we have about those assertions?
-----
I don't see that we can put a lot of evidentiary weight on "those instances in the NT when the writer quotes an OT passage that clearly refers to God and applies it to Jesus." Those instances certainly are not inconsistent with a belief in Jesus' divinity. But I don't think we can say they contribute to a compelling suggestion of it. To my untutored eye, it seems at least as plausible that Paul et al. were simply borrowing some convenient and familiar literary forms.
------
I sense that we may be losing sight of the main point in my earlier postings, to which your main posting above responds: The most direct evidence we have of the apostles' earliest post-crucifixion preaching (viz., the sermon summaries in Acts) says nothing whatsoever about their holding to a high christology. This suggests that a high christology was a later development, possibly among newer believers who had not known and worked with Jesus in life. That immediately raises the question: Why should we privilege the views of these later believers (or for that matter, those of the apostles) over any other worldview.
Avery Cardinal Dulles in his book, "The Craft of Theology" begins with a wonderful chapter called the Critique of the Critique. What he does is turn the critique like that of D.C. back upon itself in order to show the leap of faith undergirding it. So, let's drop the hermeneutic of suspicion as if one were free of the taint of faith and join in with a hermeneutic of trust which entails being a committed member of a community.
My question was: Why should we privilege the worldview of the early church over any other. A central theme of that worldview was the prediction that the risen and ascended Jesus would be be returning Real Soon Now. That prediction didn't exactly pan out, did it.
(The usual response, that a thousand years is but a day in God's sight [2 Peter 3.8], comes across as excuse-making.)
Too many people, not least so many of our young people, abandon religion in favor of 'spirituality,' whatever that means. In large part, I suspect, it's because the early church's views simply aren't as compelling as the traditionalists insist.
----
I've heard Cardinal Dulles speak but have not read his book, and can't find anything online about The Critique of the Critique. I would hope his thesis is not that any critique can itself be critiqued, therefore we must abandon all critique and embrace pure faith. That would be unfortunate; as theologian David Pailin says, belief without regard to truth is fundamentally atheistic, because it worships human wishes instead of Ultimate Reality.
I don't know what you mean when you say that a central theme of the early church was that Jesus was returning real soon. What we have from Paul's first letter to the Thess. and Peter's second letter is instruction from the apostles on how to live in the hope of Jesus' imminent return. The central theme is that Jesus will come like a thief in the night.
No, Cardinal Dulles is not a fideist. If you can't get a hold of Dulles's book then I would strongly recommend that you read Pope John Paul II's encyclical Faith and Reason. Another good example of how faith(the doctrine of creation ex nihilo) interplays with reason(faith seeking understanding) is William Witt's paper on this website on St.Thomas Aquinas' theology of God and the World.