| Letters of Paul |
| Articles |
| Extra-Canonical Gospels |
| Ashton, John: The Religion of Paul the Apostle (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000). Library of Congress 00-105010. [Lev Baesh] | ||||
| Den Heyer, C.J.: Paul: A Man of Two Worlds. Trinity Press International, Harrisburg, PA, translated by John Bowden, 2000. ISBN 1-56338-301-2. #225.9/H514p [Ronald W. Francey] | ||||
| Dunn, James D.G.: The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998.) Moulton Library 227 D 922t [Leo Paquin] | ||||
| Eastman, Brad: The Significance of Grace in the Letters of Paul. New York: Peter Lang, c. 1999. Moulton Library #227.06 Ea78s. [Violet Eastman] | ||||
| Keesmaat, Sylvia C.: Paul and his Story: (Re)Interpreting the Exodus Traditions. (Sheffield Academic Press, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series #181, Sheffield, England, 1999). ISBN 1-85075-964-2. #222.12 K258p. [Ronald W. Francey] | ||||
| Matera, Frank J.: Strategies for Preaching Paul (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 2001.) Moulton Library 251 M417s [Leo Paquin] | ||||
| Roetzel,
Calvin J. Paul : The Man and the Myth (from: Series on Personalities of
the New Testament, D. Moody Smith, series editor). Publisher. Columbia, S.C.
University of South Carolina Press, 1998. Collation: xii, 269 p. ; 24 cm.
ISBN 1-57003-264-5. St. Paul’s School, Ohrstrom Library #225.92/P28R. [Julien
Olivier]
| ||||
| Thompson, James W. : Preaching Like Paul: Homiletical Wisdom for Today (Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001) 251 T374p [Mary Edes] | ||||
| Wallace, Richard and Williams, Wynne: The Three Worlds of Paul of Tarsus (London and New York: Routledge, 1998). Bangor Theological Seminary, Moulton Library #225.92 W155t. [Anna Mae Mayer] | ||||
| Van
Buren, Paul M.: According to the Scriptures: The Origins of the Gospel and
the Church's Old Testament ( William B. Eerdman's, Grand Rapids MI;
Cambridge UK 1998 ) 220.6 V915a [Mary Edes]
| ||||
| Wangerin, Walter: Paul: A Novel (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2000). PS3573.A477 P3 2000. [Anna Mae Mayer] | ||||
| Walton,
Steve. Leadership and lifestyle: The Portrait of Paul in the Miletus speech
and 1 Thessalonians. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Collation: xiv, 256 p. ; 23 cm. Moulton Library (BTS): 225.92/W1781; ISBN 0
521 78006 3. [Julien Olivier]
| ||||
| Watson, Francis: Agape, Eros, Gender: Towards a Pauline Sexual Ethic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). [Lev Baesh] | ||||
| Witherington, Ben: The PAUL QUEST: The Renewed Search For the Jew of Tarsus. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, c. 1998. Moulton Libraray 227.09 w775p. [Violet Eastman] |
| Shelter, Jeffrey: "Reassessing an Apostle." U. S. News & World Report v. 126 no 13 (April 5, 19999): p. 52-5. ISSN: 0041-5537 Number BRDG99022145 Copyright: The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. [Violet Eastman] |
| Volf, Miroslav: "The Social Meaning of Reconciliation," Interpretation 158-172 54, no 2 (April 2000): p.158-172. ISSN: 0020-9643 Number 52600636 Copyright: Interpretation International April 2000 [Violet Eastman] |
| Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt. What Think You of Christ: Jesus at Issue Between Christians and Jews, Theology Today, vol. 58 no.2 (July 2001 ) [Mary Edes] |
Useful link: http://www.ntcanon.org/writings.shtml
Dr. Thompson is the Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Theology at Abilene Christian University and the editor of Restoration Quarterly. He is the author of several other books, including Our Life Together, The Mark of a Christian, Strategy for Survival, The Church in Exile, Equipped for Change and commentaries on 2 Corinthians and Hebrews. He was a translator of the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. His research interests include the relationship between biblical interpretation and preaching. (biographical information obtained from Dr. Thompson's web site: http://bible.acu.edu/GST/faculty/thompson.htm)
The intended audience for Preaching Like Paul includes preachers, of course, but might well interest any person or group whose aim is to foster and encourage a stronger sense of corporate identity in our increasingly pluralistic religious communities.
Dr. Thompson's basic premise is that the situation confronting Christian preachers in the post Christian twenty first century is not unlike that which was met by the apostle Paul in his own pre Christian age. His reasoning being that the hearers of both eras were and are unfamiliar with and unschooled in the basic tenets of the Christian faith. The author recognizes that in every age, including Paul's own, preachers have attempted to communicate the Gospel message in ways that are understandable to the hearers of that age. Most recently we have seen a move away from argumentative, Aristotelean preaching, that is: 'getting an idea across', to a narrative style, or leading the hearers to 'experience the text.' (pg.3) He states that, beginning in the late nineteen seventies, and acting on the common observation that the Good News was old news to contemporary listeners, preachers began to develop and engage in ever more creative, narrative styles of preaching in order to capture and keep the interest of congregants whose attention spans had been largely formed and dictated by TV standards. This shift in preaching style was, at the time, needed and welcomed by many, including Dr. Thompson. However, it is the opinion of the author that, as a result of that trend, preaching is now, more than ever, being directed toward the concerns of the individual, or at most, the immediate concerns of the individual community. Thus, contemporary preaching, which no longer places any requirement or response from the listener, has devolved from that which is concerned with the 'larger agenda' of Christian faith and formation (pg. 90), into a sort of consumer driven commodity that functions as a self help aid for individual congregants, or 'counseling on a group scale.' (pg. 87)
That said, Dr. Thompson believes that today we may no longer assume that our hearers are familiar with Christian texts, ethics, liturgy, or history, and so it is time once again to revisit our task as preachers. He sees Paul's letters as a possible corrective model for recapturing those aspects of preaching that might educate and/or 'remind' (pg. 135 ff.) parishioners of who(se) they are, and what is expected of them as members of the whole; aspects that were central to the early formation of the corporate identity among worshipping Christians: evangelization and pastoral care. Evangelization and Pastoral Care are not to be understood as post enlightenment scholarly discourse, or the more enthusiastic revival round-up alternating with hand holding at bedside. Rather these concepts should be reclaimed: evangelization as careful and continuing education in what it means to call oneself a Christian, and pastoral care as the kind of shepherding that is aimed toward the entire community, leading them, as a body, in a particular direction and utilizing both rod and staff, correction and encouragement, to that end.
In conversation with other religious scholars, and drawing primarily from Paul's letters themselves, Dr Thompson contends that the form, style, content, and overall intent of Paul's letters, while never intended as sermons per se, were never the less intended to be read, and heard aloud. They are therefore, he believes a valid, appropriate, and mostly overlooked source of inspiration for today’s preachers.
The irony of course is that, as Paul points out, his preaching was not always successful, and that many if not most who did hear him were neither converted nor impressed. But, like the vigilant parent who consistently and continuously instructs the children in the benefits of eating dark green, leafy vegetables, and urges them to eat their spinach whether they like it or not, Paul never waivers in his message, believing that 'God has called him to be faithful, not successful.' Not depending '...on his cleverness, sermonic technique, audience manipulation, or adaptation of the text for maximum results, [Paul] confronts the audience with a message that it does not want to hear, leaving the response to God.' And in so doing, 'Paul gave his listeners a clear choice, a message they could reject! We easily forget that most of them did.' (pp. 48-9.)
As one who preaches regularly to small rag-tag group of about the same size as the early Christian communities, I felt this book might have something useful or at least interesting to say, and in that regard I was not disappointed. This is an accessible text and offers the reader a great deal on which to reflect with regard to the role and function of modern preaching. The primary questions it raised for me are: To whom am I preaching? What is my responsibility to them and to the church? How do we navigate the needs of the church within the wider goal of world community?
Given my final question, what is missing, for me, is a necessary word of caution. While Dr. Thompson does admit to the counter cultural aspect of preaching in this manner, he does not admit to the outright danger of it. Yes, he sees the danger in terms of possible offense and rejection of the message, but not in terms of exacerbating the problem of polarization between those within and those outside the Christian faith. He seems disturbed, as I know many people are, by the growing pluralism in our churches and seeks to reign them in for their own good, but I am not convinced that pluralism is in every instance an ill to be overcome. It is, I agree, a reality that must be addressed from the pulpit, but I would argue that our focus must be fixed on that filament thin line that says, Yes to the Christian faith on the one hand, and, Yes to the 'larger agenda' of God which remains beyond our grasp.
For better and for worse, the letters of Paul succeed in fostering and encouraging solid corporate identity in the church, while at the same time laying a foundation of sectarianism and exclusivity that has remained with us to this day. It is how the Christian faith has survived in the large numbers it still enjoys world wide, but its exclusive claim to authority has a shadowy legacy, as well, and one we ignore at our own peril.
I chose this book because it appeared to be interesting. Besides, being the last to choose from the list, my options were limited.
Calvin J. Roetzel (Arnold Lowe Professor of Religious Studies at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota) is the author of several books, including The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context. Roetzel received his Ph.D. from Duke University and has studied at Oxford, Tübingen and Tantur Ecumenical Institute in Israel. The author’s purpose is stated in chapter one: "…our aim here is…to attempt an overview of Paul’s life in light of his historical context and the New Testament and apocryphal writings either by him or about him." (9-10)
After Acknowledgements and Abbreviations, the book has an Introduction followed by six chapters, which constitute the body of the book. It is followed by a lengthy (81 pages) post-text made up of an Excursus on Pauline Chronology, Notes and extensive Bibliography, Index of Scriptural Passages and Index of Subjects. The Introduction is well worth reading and, for the busy inquirer, will serve as an excellent summary of the whole. The body goes from chronological (The Early Paul and The Apostle to the Gentile) to thematic (The Letter Writer, The Theologizer, "The Model Ascetic," and The Mythic Apostle.
To say that this book is well researched and documented is an understatement. There are 542 notes (considerately organized by chapter, with a page notation at the top), 13 double-columned pages of Index of Passages (references are to the Hebrew Bible, O.T. Apocrypha, N.T. Apocrypha, N.T. and the Qumran texts) and 14 pages of bibliography. Moreover, the author uses—and appropriately cites—numerous parallel texts from the literature—letters especially—of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Countries. Fortunately, although it by no means a novel, I found that the text remains relatively unencumbered by all this documentation. The notes offer the reader the opportunity to read more extensively about an item of particular interest. I found myself doing so every two pages or so. The same is true of the biblical references which abound within the text, some of which are written in Greek others with author emphasis or translated by him. Moreover Roetzel draws heavily upon historical data to help interpret the texts and fill in the gaps "like the sympathetic observer who imagines an entire table where Rembrandt painted only a corner." (Introduction, 2) Nevertheless, Roetzel makes every possible attempt to allow the text to say only what it means, seeking substantiating evidence elsewhere. When literary, historical and theological interpretations are sought from contemporary authors, Roetzel outlines the possibilities and then tells us which, if any, he prefers and why.
Roetzel focuses his interpretation of Paul’s life first on those seven letters which he sees as "undisputed letters" (in chronological order: I Thes., Gal., 1 Cor., 2 Cor. 10-13, Phil., Philemon, 2 Cor. 1-9, Rom.); secondly, on Acts, which he sees as written some 10-20 years after Paul’s death and which contains information more theological than historical; thirdly, on biblical texts, canonical and then apocryphal; finally, on other texts, parallel documents of the period (especially Josephus and Philo of Alexandria), commentaries by Church Fathers and texts which, although not historical and clearly prejudicial, offer insights into the legacy Paul has left even to this day. (See, e.g., the chapters on Paul’s asceticism and mythical status.)
Roetzel’s rigorous textual analysis confirms some "certainties" about Paul’s origins and early life up to his "call" (a word he prefers over "conversion," which implies a foregoing of Judaism); he questions others and flatly rejects a few. According to this author, Paul was and always remained a Jew. He grew up in a strongly Hellenized environment but only "probably in Tarsus" (for this quote and the next, 42). And it is "doubtful that he was a citizen of either Rome or Tarsus." A Diaspora Jew, Paul "shared a broad range of convictions, an evaluation of what was scriptural, and an approach to texts that were Pharisaic." (24) But Roetzel stops short of asserting that Paul was a Pharisee. Moreover, according to Roetzel’s analysis, "it is unlikely that Paul studied under the great Pharisee Gamaliel"; and, as a member of the working class," he would have "learned a skill from his father." Later, "Paul’s persecution of messianists did not include capital punishment." (39) But how does he arrive at these conclusions? One example will illustrate the method: Was Paul a Pharisee? Paul’s being a Pharisee would seem to be one of the core, popular beliefs about Paul. It gives meaning to the persecution accounts, drama to Paul’s "conversion" and substance to his theology of grace. Yet the best Roetzel can say is that Paul was "one partial to Pharisaism." (43) Why? First, Acts (23:6; 22:3) is to be discounted as burdened with theological baggage. But what about Paul’s own words? Roetzel would say that, on this subject, they are few and questionable. The only explicit text is Phil. 3:4-6 "…a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee." But, asks, Roetzel, could the text (kata nomov pharisaios) not be translated, "I am sympathetic to and inclined toward the Pharisaic point of view"? Next, from this internal analysis, he examines Gal. 1:14 where Paul refers to "the traditions of my fathers." If Paul were a Pharisee, why doesn’t he say so clearly here? Finally, Roetzel asks if it would have been possible for Paul to be a strict Pharisee in the Diaspora. The evidence, he says, is weak. Therefore, he concludes that Paul was inclined toward Pharisaism, a statement he proves by first analyzing Pharisaism in Paul’s time: important studies by Neusner and Rivkin who examine the Mishnah, Talmud and Midrashim; and other exegetes, Josephus and the Gospel references. From that analysis, he can say that the Pharisees of the day were concerned with the spiritualization of text and tradition, concepts which, through internal analysis of Paul, Roetzel sees as important. Therefore, Paul, probably not a Pharisee, is heavily influenced by Pharisaism.
I am glad I read this book although "enjoyed" is a word I would use with precaution. Given the tightness of analysis, the casual reader might be discouraged. Yet, there is much of value here for both lay and specialized audiences. Whether the book gets read by general audiences or not, I believe that several interrelated concepts, central to the author’s analysis, warrant wider exposure: (1) Paul—the one who would grow to mythic proportions for both friend and foe—was first a man, and considerable data can be found to document his life (e.g. "where he grew up, the language he spoke, the Bible he knew, the status of his parents, and his training at his father’s side to work with leather." (176); (2) "Paul’s humanity…can hardly be understood outside of the sacred world that he inhabited." (177); and (3) Paul’s theologizing, as evidenced in his letters, evolved, and his "social and theological worlds intersect." (177) It is at their nexus that we discover the real Paul, provocative to some, an inspiration to others, vastly influential.
I chose this book because the title seemed interesting.
C.J. den Heyer is Professor of New Testament at the Theological University of the Reformed Churches in The Netherlands. The author’s claim is that the primary way one knows Paul is through an historical and biographical approach. Paul’s theology and beliefs developed gradually so chronology is important (p. 5.)
A brief introduction mentions the importance given to Paul’s life through the centuries. He wrote within the context of his own time and not for us two thousand years later. The author uses fourteen chapters to describe the chronology and context of Paul’s life to further our understanding of Paul’s letters.
The repetitive theme is that Paul is a man of two worlds: a Jew and a Christian. A biographical sketch names Paul as a Diaspora Jew, a Roman citizen, a Hellenistic Jew, from a family that had him educated in Pharisaic Law, taught by Gamaliel, a Zealot. Paul was well educated, speaking several languages and traveling widely.
The author claims that there are only two textual ways to know Paul. One can read the second half of Acts which gives a chronology of Paul’s life and travels and one can read Paul’s letters. Often the chronology in Acts differs from that of Paul’s letters. Which is accurate? The author claims that Paul ought to know about his own travels and happenings and so discounts Acts (p.19.)
The author prefers to not label Paul’s experience or vision on the road to Damascus as a conversion experience but rather names it as an apocalyptic vision, an event where Paul experienced the living Christ. For Paul, although the scandal of the cross was important, it was the bodily resurrection that was of utmost importance. It was not the suffering Christ but the crucified Christ that was central (p. 76.)
Den Heyer emphasizes Paul’s concern regarding immorality especially that which existed in the Hellenistic city of Corinth. Corinth was a cosmopolitan city with great diversity in religions which included pagan worship, worship of the Greek Goddess Aphrodite and the Egyptian Goddess Isis. Women were said to have much more predominance and freedom of expression. Prostitution was an accepted norm. Gentile Christians often frequented the houses of ill repute and continued to do so as followers of Christ. Jewish Christians felt they and anybody else who were Christians must continue to strictly adhere to the Torah (pp. 137-146.)
The author states that Paul’s text saying women should take a subservient role and should be quiet was written within the context of women’s freedom of expression within the Hellenistic culture. Den Heyer claims we take much of Paul’s writing out of context today.
Paul is often portrayed as one who is very direct, sarcastic, and emotional. He is defensive especially regarding his sense of being called, not by man, but by God as an apostle of Jesus Christ. Repeatedly Paul begins several of his seven letters mentioning his being an apostle so that he may be more credible among the people. He is often not listened to by the Gentile Christians as he persecuted them so vehemently prior to his Damascus episode. He is not accepted by the Christian Jews because he seemed not to follow the specifics of the Torah especially regarding cirmcumcision.
Paul worked toward unity, unity of all into the one body of Christ. He especially wrote that we are "to live in harmony with one another" (p. 251.) We are "standing with empty hands" before God (p. 271) regardless of our being Gentile Christians or Jewish Christians. We should fear not because it is not forgiveness that is important but that we have been set free by God.
"Paul’s striking remark about ‘Christ as the rock in the wilderness’ was not the result of a theological reflection between the two Testaments" (p. 152.) Den Heyer emphasizes that Paul believed that scripture, what we call Old Testament, gave several warnings to people about the ways of right living but that now, for Paul, the end of the ages had come (I Cor. 10: 11.) We are the one body.
Den Heyer gave me some incite into a re-reading of Paul’s letters. I have a new way of interpreting "Jew first" when used in the Roman setting where the Jews were no longer first but were returning from being cast out of the area. In this context, the expression is used not to make claim of Jewish superiority but as a reminder to the Gentile Christians that the Jews had been first and now deserved appropriate respect.
I appreciate the work done in describing the Hellenistic culture and the effect it had on Paul. I also feel closer to the emotional side of Paul as he worked toward unity.
I choose this book because I was interested in learning more about the culture of Paul’s time, how it interfaced with the Jewish religion and in how it influenced his writing.
Richard Wallace is a lecturer in the Department of Classics at Keele University and the treasurer of the Classical Association.
Wynne Williams is a retired teacher of ancient history at Keele University.
Together Wallace and Williams co-authored the book, The Acts of the Apostles: A Companion (1993). The authors’ purpose, stated in the preface, "is to give readers who are interested in Paul of Tarsus some insight into the sort of world in which he moved."
After a list of illustrations, the preface and a list of abbreviations, the body of the book is divided into the following four parts: 1. The World of Paul, 2. Peoples, Cultures and Languages, 3. The City, the State and the Individual, 4. Paul’s Cities. An extensive bibliography and index follow. The introduction in part one alerts the reader to the three worlds that the authors intend to address, namely, the native cultures of the region in which the activities of Paul took place, the Hellenes or speakers of Greek, and the Romans. Each chapter ends with suggestions for further reading and there is a 10-page bibliography containing 173 cited books and articles.
This book is scholarly and is heavily documented. It delves into the historical, social, political and cultural contexts from the time of and before Paul of Tarsus. The authors consistently cite the biblical passages that correspond with or that illustrate the material of the chapters and effectively quote from the philosophers, historians and rulers of the ancient world. In total it gives the reader a large picture of the consequences of Hellenization, Roman rule and local cultures on the thinking and actions of Paul and vice versa.
As an illustration, we can look at the concept of self-identification. While Cicero (Stoic philosopher, 106-43 BCE) lists the various levels of association among humans such as same people, tribe, language and kindred, Paul seeks to establish a new level of association: "Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian (non-Greek), Scythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all in all. (Col. 3:11). The authors note that this type of Jewish self-identification by religious allegiance rather than by political or ethnic ties was probably unique in the ancient Mediterranean world. (p. 118) The concept of slavery is another aspect of the ancient world that is discussed in both biblical and secular literature. While Paul says that masters should treat their slaves justly and fairly (Col. 4:1), Seneca (Roman statesman and Stoic philosopher, 4 BCE- 65 C.E) says slaves should respect their master, not fear them. (p. 148) In this case the authors believe that "there is no reason to believe that the attitudes of Christians to slavery in antiquity were ever significantly different from those of their non-Christian neighbors." (p. 149)
While I appreciated the wide historical and cultural scope of this book, I found myself wishing that the authors had taken more time to delve into the personal religious world of Paul and the way in which it interfaced with the Greek and Roman worlds. The parts of chapter eight that deal with religion and philosophy were helpful in that regard, but I would have liked to have seen more throughout the book. That being said, I still found this book very useful in giving shape to the reality of that time period. It gave me a deep appreciation of the difficulties and challenges that Paul encountered in his travels and in his preaching. The section that covered the cities of Paul’s travels was very inviting. Again, it heightened my appreciation for the diversity of peoples who were touched by Paul’s preaching as well as my understanding as to why Paul was so often on the run. While this book was not written for the casual reader, it can be a valuable resource for any student of New Testament times. For the most part, the text reads fairly easily, but there are times when the parenthetical material and foreign names and terminology require the reader to slow the pace. Just the same, it is worth the effort.
Malina describes The Three Worlds of Paul of Tarsus as a work of "social history" that describes the reality of the regions associated with Paul, namely, his own ethnic enclave, the wider area of Hellenistic influence and the sphere of Roman influence. After describing the structure of the book, he goes on to charge that "the book lacks adequate explanation of the presuppositions and models the authors employ to make their evidence evident." He notes that terms such as pagan, Jew, or Christian are anachronistic for the time period being explored in the book, that the treatment of the concept of self-identification lacks cross-cultural perspectives and that the authors "totally ignore the social scientific investigations of people in biblical studies." Malina also claims that Israelite henotheism is incorrectly identified as monotheism.
The reviewer concludes in the end that the book provides a wealth of useful information.
After reading this review, I have several comments. It would have been useful to me if Mr. Malina had given an example of a passage in the book that lacked an adequate explanation of its presuppositions and demonstrated how he would have presented the same material. As it is, this particular critique leaves me hanging in mid-air.
Terms such as Christian, Jew or pagan might be anachronistic for the time if put into the mouths of Paul or Seneca. However, I think the authors use of those terms helps the reader to identify religious groupings in terms that are readily understandable in the year 2002. I don’t think they suggested that those terms were in use during the time of Paul.
I agree with Malina that the book relies little on biblical studies. Although not completely absent, I think that a more explicit and expanded treatment of Jewish culture and religious practices of the time would have enhanced the book.
Finally, the concept of henotheism, belief in one god without denying the existence of others, is a new one for me. And it is the first time that I have read that the Israelite relationship to Yahweh was something other than a belief that there is only one God.
It would be interesting to do a bit of research on that topic.
I chose this title because of its appeal. Paul remains enigmatic to me. I hoped to learn of the man's leadership style and, and perhaps, in the process, gain insight into leadership in today's Christian community.
Steve Walton is an ordained priest and former chaplain to the Bishop of St. Albans (England). He is an author and a Lecturer in Greek and NT Studies at the London Bible College. In this revised version of Walton's PhD thesis (Univ. of Sheffield, 1997), the author is addressing specialists interested the "Paul of Acts and Paul of Epistles" debate.
There are seven sections to the book, but its core structure is quite forthright: (1) An examination of Paul's Miletus speech found in Acts 20:17:38 (the reason for its choice, the objectivity of possible parallels, and the context of the speech); (2) a comparison of the Miletus speech and Luke's Gospel; (3) finally another comparison, this time to 1 Thess. To this the author adds an examination of two other letters (Eph. and 1 Tim.), asking if they could have been used for this comparative study rather than 1 Thess. He concludes with a summary, followed by implications for further study of the Miletus speech and the Paul of Acts, Paul of epistles" debate and he proposes future work suggested by this study. There are two excursus into the text and translation of Acts 20:28b and the text of Lk. 22:17-20.
The text is tight. The author proceeds methodically, examining question after question with rigorous analysis. The exegetical evidence offered is of three types: Intense scholarly research (what 20th century authors have to say about a particular issue or interpretation), some logical analysis, and much linguistic scrutiny. There are constant references to the Greek text, to word counts, word study and word-groups; he examines other or parallel texts in the Gospel, Acts, Pauline and Pseudo-Pauline letters. Several pages of parallel texts in diagram form illustrate the author's point. If that is not enough, the reader is referred to copious footnotes. Walton weighs the pros and the cons of each issue, attempting to make as many definitive choices possible.
Walton's overall purpose is to revisit the "Paul of Luke, Paul of the epistles" debate by studying the Miletus speech of Acts 20:17:38 and comparing it to an epistle with similar themes, an epistle deemed to have been definitely written by Paul. If this comparison proves positive (and it does), he expects to link the two texts demonstrating that Luke knew Paul or, at least, his writings and used this knowledge in the composition of Acts. But, in his view, which epistles qualify as definitely Pauline? For Walton, they are six in number (although the intense analysis arriving at this conclusion is assumed here): Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., 1 Thess. and "probably" Phil. Thematic similarity dictates his choice of 1 Thess. for the present study.
Walton sees in the speech "four themes…specially worthy of note." (84) They will be developed further when the Miletus speech is compared to other material in Luke-Acts (particularly the Last Supper) and 1 Thess. These themes are: the fulfillment of leadership responsibility, suffering, attitudes to wealth and work, and the death of Jesus. My interest in the leadership issue leads me to use it here as an example of the author's methodology.
Having read the Miletus text carefully, the author states that the leadership "theme runs through the whole speech." Paul sets out his own track record and uses it to urge "the elders to fulfill their ministry." (84) Seeking to understand that record, Walton examines the vocabulary. Paul says that he has done his work well. (1) The repetition of pas (all) demonstrates that he "has carried out his task fully"; it "underscores Paul's faithfulness in fulfilling his task." Scholars, including L.T. Johnson, agree. (2) Seven negatives in the text show "the fulfillment of Paul's responsibilities." (85) Again the scholars agree. The author then shows how Paul tells the elders, both explicitly and implicitly, to imitate him; Greek text and verses are cited. Finally, he examines the designations given the Ephesian leaders; there are three: presbuteroi, episkopoi and poimenes. What is unusual, he says, is Luke's "using the first two terms for the same group." (86) Again, Walton's scholars agree-there are his usual reference to periti. So, he asks, what does Luke really mean by these words? The analysis takes him to other citations in Acts and to examination of the usage of the first two in the Jewish and Greco-Roman world of the time. Taking then R.A. Campbell as the decisive authority in the matter (why is not said), episkopoi is interpreted as "senior leadership of the church in Ephesus" and oi presbuteroi tès ecclèsias as an honorific designation "which implies that Luke did not read the church leadership titles of his own day back into apostolic times." (86)
This was not, for me, easy or particularly enjoyable reading. It was like having my interest in a beautiful, ancient city subjected to mathematical analysis of arcane engineering. If I gained some of understanding of Paul's leadership, the contemporary application of that understanding remains mine to do. Walton addresses the specialist. The trade jargon abounds: Doppelwerk, Sondergut, paranetic, frühkatholisch world, epexegetic… A careful reading of his text would entail checking at least the biblical references (better done in Greek). That would be a long and even more painful task, which might, however, be worth the effort for the serious student. However, even the non-initiate can gain insight from watching Walton the specialist at work. I was also occasionally drawn into discussions that I found of particular interest: leadership, the idea of Lukanisms, the reflection on "Jesus the consummate leader" (134). Finally, the author has made the text more intelligible-if not elegant-through two devices I found useful: the use of decimal numbered outline in the text and summary statements to keep the reader on target.
Having read and thoroughly enjoyed The Red Tent by Anita Diamant, an artful telling of the stories of Leah, Rachel, Zilpah and Bilhah through the voice of Dinah, it was my hope that Wangerin’s retelling of the story of Paul might be equally as artful and engaging.
Walter Wangerin holds the Jochum Chair at Valparaiso University, where he is a writer-in-residence. He has written three children’s books along with thirteen other books, including the award winning The Book of the Dun Cow and The Book of God. Paul: A Novel has been awarded the Gold Medallion Book Award in recognition of excellence in Evangelical Christian Literature. Wangerin is a Lutheran pastor and is reaching out to a wide audience with the intention of presenting the story of the emerging church after the death of Jesus. Paul is at the center of his rendering of the story.
This novel fits into the genre of biblical fiction. It has a prologue set in Corinth, which corresponds to the action of section three, five major sections set in Damascus, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, and Jerusalem respectively, and an epilogue set in Rome. The book’s ninety-nine chapters are presented as first person narratives by voices of the New Testament such as Prisca, James, Jude, Luke, Rhoda, Titus and Paul himself. The main exceptions to this are the chapters narrated by Seneca, a Roman statesman and Stoic philosopher who died around the year 65 CE. His chapters provide the political backdrop to Paul’s time and put into context the names of Roman officials that appear in the New Testament writings.
While it is easy to trace the biblical parallels of the chapters written in the voices of Luke and Paul, the other chapters are necessarily far more inventive. Not knowing the writings of Seneca, it is not possible for me to determine how much they might be based in his actual letters. There are no footnotes or citations to indicate the sources the author used in the writing of his book. However, there is an extensive character list of all the names that appear in this novel along with a very brief explanation of each person.
All in all, this book paints a portrait of Paul as a tireless preacher of the message of Christ, blest with a gift of enormous persuasion and willing to face any hardship in pursuit of his mission. The struggle that faced the early church over what to do with Gentile converts and the keeping of the Law gets major play along with Paul’s understanding of his new freedom in Christ. Paul generally is able to out-walk, out-preach and out-argue anyone, Jew or Gentile, Greek or Roman. In this paragraph, narrated by the apostle James, Paul has once again gained the upper hand in the on-going disagreement about what demands should be placed on Gentile converts.
"I folded my hands and tucked my chin into my throat. I was suffering a sudden sense of panic. I needed time to reflect, because my mouth had outrun my mind. That last statement of mine had, in fact, shifted my position, and Saul had recognized the variance faster than I did. He had leaped on my words and changed the language to his own advantage. The Law to us is still the Law, I’d said, with stress on the personal distinction, us. It permitted Saul to extrapolate: but not to the Gentiles." (p. 156)
Described in great detail are Paul’s physical afflictions: scarring from his numerous beatings and an excruciatingly painful back. While he requires a morning backrub to get him up and running, the apostle, by and large, seems to be able to overcome any impediment. Indeed, even prison cannot hold Paul back. Such is the strength of this teaching that prison officials are forced to change guards on a daily basis lest Paul’s persistent teachings convince them to set him free.
My overwhelming response to this book was annoyance. While it was easy to read and, at times, entertaining, the complexities of the early Jesus movement and of the emergence of the new church were glossed over in favor of an ever triumphant Paul. Other apostles, such as Peter and James, are diminished in stature as Paul is presented as the one person who truly understands the implications of the message of Jesus and how it must be lived. In the end, the story does little justice to Paul, as I was left with an impression of a man unable to appreciate and respect the religious concerns of his brother Jews, his own religious heritage or the feelings of those who did not see eye to eye with him. I sympathized with Prisca and Barnabas and they tried to collaborate with Paul. It would not have been an easy task if the author’s rendering of the apostle is even close to reality.
A novel such as this one allows the author to present a certain point of view. In that regard, the author does a good job. He sees Paul as a dedicated apostle, responsible at once for carrying the message of Christ to the Gentile world and for protecting the Gentiles against an unnecessary imposition of Mosaic Law. However, the way in which this is portrayed gives me pause to consider the dangers of Christianity triumphant. For this reason I would be reluctant to recommend the novel.
Book review of Paul: A Novel by Walter Wangerin / Reviewer: Jill Pelaez Baumgaertner / Source: "The Christian Century" v. 117 no 22 (Aug. 2-9, 2000) p. 796-800. [Anna Mae Mayer]
Baumgaertner offers an enthusiastic review of Wangerin’s novel on the apostle Paul. She feels that he overcomes the many pitfalls associated with biblical fiction and succeeds in writing an imaginative book that retells the scriptural story while remaining grounded in the scriptural texts. She takes the time to point out some Lutheran emphases in the retelling such as Paul’s love of paradox, and the theology of the cross and of the two kingdoms. She attributes this to the fact that Wangerin is a Lutheran pastor. She might have added to the list Paul’s emphasis on faith, not the law/works, a recurring theme in the book.
Baumgaertner wondered how Wangerin would handle some of the more problematic passages from Paul’s letters, especially his teachings on women. She generously allows that Wangerin’s approach is almost convincing. "He portrays Paul admitting to Prisca that until he saw Lydia preach and lead worship, he thought women should always remain silent. The experience changed his mind." My opinion is that Wangerin’s approach fails. By straying so far from the text on this point, Wangerin missed a prime opportunity to add a realistic dimension to his portrayal of Paul and to present the situation of women at that time. I agree with Baumgaertner that the scene that has Prisca’s husband Aquila getting up from the table to serve the meal is contrived. She feels that it was a valiant attempt to deal with text that does not allow much wiggle room. I feel that it just doesn’t work.
Baumgaertner concludes, "In the main, this novel masterfully integrates theological thinking, historical research and artistic rendering. It does more than merely play a biblical story for its imaginative possibilities; it presents what one thought one knew about scripture in such a way that it becomes a new exploration."
Baumgaertner is the Century’s poetry editor and, as such, might not hold the same concerns as I do about this book. She concentrates on Wangerin’s presentation of the material and sees the presentation as imaginative. I am concerned about the theological message that it sends even as a novel. Perhaps Baumgaertner’s assessment of this book is fairer, especially considering that it is a novel. Having previously stated my reservations about this portrayal of Paul, I won’t repeat them here. But, those reservations will not allow me to share Baumgaertner’s enthusiasm for this book.
Paul M. van Buren (1924-1998) was professor emeritus of systematic theology at Temple University. His other books include Christ in Our Place, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel, The Edges of Language, and the three volume Theology of the Jewish Christian Reality.
The intended audience for this book is anyone who wishes to explore and, hopefully, make some sense of the long and complicated relationship between and among Jews and Christians. Paul van Buren's writing is like an invitation. Open and engaging, it welcomes the reader into an exploration of our religious traditions and their possible origins. van Buren is, it seems to me, the consummate bridge builder. He expresses his own deeply felt convictions with a degree of respect and humility that is uncommon in much theological writing.
I chose this book because at my core I have always felt my own faith to be more intimately related to Judaism than seems culturally acceptable or somehow appropriate. My own ancestry is undeniably Christian, albeit of an ultra protestant stripe, and so I have never seriously considered converting to anything else. At the same time I have always sought out those connecting points between the faith of my immediate heritage, and that which I believe gave it a shape and language with which to express itself in the ancient world and, still, today.
This is a book in two parts, each part consisting of six clear and accessible chapters.
In part one, using 1Cor 15:3-5 as a point of departure, van Buren explores the development of early Christian thought and tradition as a community responds "... to the death of Jesus and the indescribable occurrences that followed..." van Buren contends, and common sense would concur, that, being a religious community, this small Jewish sect that followed Jesus would have turned first of all to their religious texts and traditions in order to make sense of the otherwise senseless death of their leader. In other words, they applied a new hermeneutic to their traditional stories as a means of gaining insight and understanding in the face of tragedy. Thus, when Paul reports to church in Corinth that what he has received: "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," the scriptures to which he refers can be none other than those available to first century Jews within the context of Second Temple Judaism.
Although van Buren cites many traditions and stories from the Old Testament to which Jesus' followers may have referred in coming to terms with all that had happened, he focuses primarily on the binding of Isaac (Gen. 22:1-19), and concludes that it is this story to which Peter, and the twelve, later followed by Paul, may have turned in their search for meaning. This is one of the main points of van Buren's discussion. As difficult a text as it is, and as much as we may wish to turn away from it, the "aqedah" was a foundational story for Israel and one with which both Jewish and Christian traditions wrestle to this day. Further he asserts that Paul's major contribution the the Christian movement was not, therefore, the concept of atonement, for that concept originated in the earlier tradition, but rather that Paul took that message to the Gentiles.
In part two van Buren asserts that Christianity and Judaism offer us two interpretations of the same biblical tradition, neither diminishing the other, but each in their own way "[bearing] Israel's tradition into the present."
The image that came to me as I read this section was from my undergraduate years as a music major. In music theory class we would be given a bass line above which we were to compose a melody and attendant harmonies to complete "the song" as we each heard it. in our hearts and heads. The integrity of the fundamental line is not lost to the new and various melodies that are written above and grounded in that original bottom line. So it is with our divergent and still faithful post biblical melodies, each built upon the bass line of God's enduring word to Israel.
It is in chapter seven, at the beginning of part two, where van Buren's passion for his subject matter is most evident. In these pages Paul van Buren identifies and abhors the subtle and not so subtle anti Semitism that has so plagued Christianity for these nineteen hundred years. Here the author issues an invitation, rather I should say an imperative to us all - that we ought to reclaim scripture in its fullness, to study the Old Testament for what it is - the very foundation of the stories and traditions that gave birth to Christianity, and apart from which we have no story, outside that of little known or documented history, to tell. As a practical consideration, van Buren suggests that the church would do well to incorporate into the common three year lectionary a far more extensive array of Old Testament texts from which to base our study, our prayer, our careful consideration, and our faith. (pg. 80)
I suppose I have given away my hand all along in this review. I enjoyed and appreciated this book for the affirmation and insight it afforded this reader with regard to a more unified memory and vision of faith among religious kin. This is a hopeful text and one to which I will return. I look forward to reading more of van Buren's work and I would recommend it freely, knowing full well that it will not please everyone as much as it did me. I end with what was one of my favorite passages from the book, for I believe it reminds us of how wonderfully human we are as we attempt, in every generation, to make sense of the mystery that is so deeply woven into our heritage.
" ...what is handed on to us from the past comes with the unmistakable smudge of the fingers of our ancestors upon it, but it will not leave our hands to be given to the next generation without bearing our own dirty fingerprints, evidence of the history through which we shall have passed." (pg. 110)
I chose this book because the title seemed interesting and because I wanted to learn more about Paul’s story.
Sylvia C. Keesmaat authored this book from seeds of interest from a graduate seminar at McMaster University in Hamilton. Her research commenced in coincidence with the publication of Richard Hay’s work Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (p.9.) The only other information on the author is that portions of several chapters previously appeared in the JSNT and in Horizons in Biblical Theology 18 and in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (p. 12.)
The preface introduces the major hermeneutic: intertextuality. The book has seven chapters that begin with an introduction (except for chapter 7), have a body, and end with a summary. The work is highly academic with an exhaustive number of footnotes, references, scripture cross-references, a detailed bibliography, references to texts other than scripture. The book is 237 pages of text.
The book is a scholarly work attempting to discern how Paul relates scripture to his letters. The author focuses on Romans 8:14-39, Galatians 4:1-7. The steady theme throughout the text is that Paul uses the retold and reinterpreted Exodus story throughout his letters via the mechanism of intertextuality. Intertextuality "designates the structural relations among two or more texts" (p. 48) via quotation, allusion, or echo. Allusion is an intended reference and an echo is a non-intended reference.
To add emphasis that Paul intentionally referred to the telling and reshaping of the Exodus story, Paul not only used intertextuality but he would really be focused on same through his use of occasional intratextuality.
The author repeatedly picks up Pauline phrases like being led and into fear and associates them to the Exodus story. She not only examines all notions of the relationship Paul was intentionally or non-intentionally pulling from his knowledge of the scriptures dealing with the Exodus story but she also looks for other scriptural incidences for the same phraseology.
The author takes up five chapters dealing with sections of Romans 8, one chapter working with sections of Galatians and summarizes her work in the last chapter. She nuances the differences in interpretation of the telling of the Exodus story depending on the readership of Romans and the readership of Galatians.
"Paul’s telling (of the Exodus story, emphasis mine) is new each time he tells the story for a new community (p. 234.) "Paul calls us to a groaning with creation, to realize our role in its suffering and redemption, and to a hope for its renewal (p. 236.)
I would rather have sat on a hemorrhoid than read this book. The author’s name should have been Boring for that is what the book was to me. I am thankful (partially) that each chapter had an introduction and more especially thankful for the two page chapter summaries. I am amazed that one could choose such a vocation and get pleasure from same. Yet, I expect one or two of our colleagues may really enjoy such an academic work. ;-)
I read the book with one hope in mind: how could I use the information within my pastoral ministry? My only sense of usefulness comes from the last chapter that looks to the retelling of the Exodus story within the context of postmodernism, to looking at the new exodus which offers us hope into the future. I can preach a reshaping and reinterpretation of the Exodus story to the new Gentiles, those outside the border of accepted Christianity.
I chose this book because grace as portrayed in the New Testament writings is the basis of my spirituality and religious belief as a Christian person. I hoped that focusing on Paul’s letters and the significance of grace in his writings would be both affirming and thought-provoking.
Brad Eastman wrote this book and it is Volume 11 in a collection of books made available in the Studies in Biblical Literature series. This series is available to scholars and institutions interested in studying the latest developments in biblical scholarship with a very unique theological approach. It was originally written as a dissertation. Brad Eastman’s intention was to "explore a large number of Pauline texts in detail, seeking to elicit the development of grace and human responsibility." (editor’s preface)
The volume consists of seven chapters with notations listed after each chapter. There is an extensive bibliography and author index at the end of the book. Each chapter is literally riddled with authors quoted, noted, and referenced.
Mr. Eastman is seeking to prove that Paul’s understanding of grace is exactly that, a gift. Our good works are not to be interpreted as a requirement for salvation, but rather as a thankful reaction to our new life in Christ. Then, and only then, can we live within the law.
"For Paul it is clear that, without God’s help, people would be unable to extricate themselves from their plight. In Galatians we see that Paul believes that people would not have become believers were it not for God’s initiative." (p 92)
As I mentioned in the structure section of this review, this book is cramped and cluttered by other author’s opinions, insights, findings, suggestions, questions, concerns, dismissals, and proposals with a lot of Greek thrown in to help substantiate or refute a purported claim. When the author does, in fact, take a stand it is surrounded by counter-interpretations and arguments and couched in a less than confident stance.
Paul sets "faith in Christ" over against the "works of the law." The meaning of p i s t e w s i h s o u c r i s t o u has been, and still is, vigorously debated. Many interpreters now favor taking i h s o u c r i s t o u as a subjective genitive so that the phrase would mean the "faith"(or faithfulness) of Christ," rather than "faith in Christ" (objective genitive). Although there have been many intriguing and noteworthy discussions advocating the former, it seems to me that the latter is still the more likely interpretation. Paul argues that a person is not justified by works of the law, but by faith in Christ.
That said, it still remains to determine why "works of the law" are ruled out as a means of justification by Paul. There are several different ways to construe Paul’s rejection of "works of the law," as well as the meaning of the phrase itself.
He then goes on to list five authors and their examples to back up or refute a particular claim. (refer pp 75-77.)
Another Example
Paul describes justification as being d w r e a n t h a u t o u c a r i t i ("as a gift, by his grace"), but there is some question about the relation between d w r e a n and t h a u t o u c a r i t i . According to Cranfield, d w r e a n (gift) and t h a u t o u c a r i t i ("by his grace") support and confirm each other. Michel, observing that d w r e a n underscores the fact that man is not owed anything, but remains a recipient, says that c a r i s simply describes justification as an act of the grace of God. Doughty, believing that d w r e a n is a part of the traditional confessional material which Paul is using, asserts that t h a u t o u c a r i t i represents, in typical Pauline language, Paul’s commentary on the traditional formula d i k a i o u m e n o i d w r e a n . What Paul actually wants to emphasize by his reference to c a r i s is the "grace-character of the gift!" If Doughty is correct, it means that Paul explicitly interprets salvation that has been made available through God’s act in Christ by using the word c a r i s . (refer p 135)
Although I found the subject matter of this book interesting and challenging, it was very distracting to have to wade through all the referenced author quotes, comments, and criticisms in order to try to glean where Brad Eastman was going and what he was proposing.
It is not a book I would recommend to anyone who had a deadline such as ours. If I had the luxury of reading this book without the constraints of my multi-faceted schedule, perhaps it would not have felt like such a burden to wade through. That being said, it is an excellent research book but a difficult read.
Miroslav Volf, Professor of Theology, Yale University Divinity School.
In this article, grace and forgiveness do not stand in opposition to justice and blame, but affirm justice and blame in the act of transcending them and showcases the distinctive character of Paul’s use.
Paul never says that God is reconciled (or, that God reconciles himself) to human beings, but always that God reconciles human beings to himself or that human beings are reconciled to God. It is not, in fact, God who must be reconciled to human beings, but human beings who must be reconciled to God. Nor is it by people’s repentance, prayers or other good works that reconciliation between God and human beings is accomplished, but rather by God’s grace alone. (p. 161)
Paul’s distinctive use of reconciliation lies in his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, where he intended to persecute the early followers of Jesus Christ. (p. 161)
The encounter with the risen Lord on the road to Damascus not only stopped Paul from committing violence against fellow Jews, but did so by offering a radically different perspective on how God relates to God’s enemies. Grace, by which God justifies the ungodly, is the word Paul used in his autobiographical passages to describe God’s relation to him as God’s enemy as noted in this article by referring to Rom 1:5 and Gal 1:15. (p. 161)
It goes on to point out that though justice was an indispensable element of reconciliation, peace between Paul and the speaker of the divine voice was not the consequence of justice carried out, but of justice both armed and unmistakably transcended in the act of undeserved grace. (p. 162)
This article really helped me to see that the book that I struggled through just prior was worth it.
I chose this book because I was interested in learning more about Paul’s background.
Ben Witherington III is the author and he is a professor of New Testament. This book is an attempt by the author to "expose the reader to some new approaches to Paul and his letters as they bear on the quest for the historical Paul…" (p 11)
This book consists of an introduction by the author, eight chapters, a conclusion, appendix, bibliography, index of authors and index of subjects.
Each chapter begins with an italicized summary that leads the reader into Mr. Witherington’s discussion. Also within each chapter are several subheadings that take on a particular aspect of the chapter’s discussion and at the end of each chapter is a conclusion that sums up what has been discussed.
What is unique about the author’s approach is that he puts this work into a social and cultural context that brings the first century to life in a way that is not only historically accurate but also lifelike. Paul is not just a biblical figure. He is also an ancient Mediterranean person. He views Paul as a Jewish man, a Roman citizen, and an evangelizing Christian who is a prophet, apostle, rhetorician, and letter writer and we watch the transformation from extreme Pharisaic zeal for the letter of the law of Moses give way to a more compassionate, committed, universal call for the new law of Christ which is founded on the love and grace of God.
This is meant to be a scholarly biography of Paul. There is a great deal of historical and biblical background, reference to related works by other scholars, and other work by Mr. Witherington. It can be a bit heavy handed at times with reference to other author’s quoted work and corresponding biblical passages.
Paul lived in a very different social environment from ours, and to the extent that environment conditions and shapes personality, he was very different from modern persons, especially modern Western persons. This chapter investigates various aspects of first-century Mediterranean culture that have a bearing on Paul’s personality. For example, in antiquity people did not assume our current theories of personality development. Rather, it was believed that gender, generation and geography determine a person’s identity, which is to say it is fixed at birth. Paul or anyone else who claimed to have become a different person as a result of some experience (such as conversion) would likely be seen as a deviant, liar, or outcast. Furthermore, people did not strive to be individuals but rather derived their sense of identity from the group of which they were a part. Paul was Paul of Tarsus, or Paul the Pharisee, or Paul the servant of Jesus Christ. Yet very unlike many ancients, he gained his primary sense of identity, not from his physical family but from his Christian family and his relationship with Christ. It was more a matter whose he was than who he was… (p 18)
This book was a much friendlier read. The way the book was put together was very helpful. I enjoyed the stories as well as the history with regard to the actual writings taken from the bible texts. This book has helped me to gain a greater sense of who Paul was and what his life was like.
Shelter, Jeffrey, writer, U. S. News & World Report
In this article Mr. Shelter looks at Paul through his letters and writings to try to shed light on why Paul’s approach to the message of Christ seems to differ from those offered by other apostles who had a personal knowledge of Christ. He is also quick to point out that Paul’s background had much to do with his approach.
He never walked with Jesus of Nazareth, yet he traversed the Roman Empire proclaiming him the divine Christ. He never heard Jesus teach, yet he became Christianity’s most influential expositor of doctrine. He spoke little about Jesus’ life, yet he attached cosmic significance to his death and resurrection. (p.52)
The mother church in Jerusalem, led by Jesus’ brother, James, had kept strong ties to traditional Judaism. Its members worshiped at the temple and carefully observed the Law of Moses. As more and more Gentiles joined the fellowship of believers, leaders of the Jerusalem church grew increasingly concerned that the laws of Judaism were being neglected, particularly the law requiring circumcision of male converts. The question threatening to fracture the young church was a crucial one: Did one need to become a Jew first to become a Christian? (p. 54)
The debate over the life and works of Paul is certain to continue, not least because it goes to the very character of Christianity itself – whether, as Houlden says, it is "a religion devoted to the perpetual imitation of Jesus and the following of his teachings" or a faith "centering on elicited response" to the exalted figure of Christ. Whether or not Paul qualifies as Christianity’s true founder, his impact on the shaping of that post-Easter faith makes the search for ever clearer portraits of the man a worthy endeavor. (p. 55)
This was a very interesting article. I’m not sure it would be considered a credible source since it is from the U.S. News & World Report, but it certainly did bring to mind much of what Mr. Witherington pointed out in his book.
Miller is with Daystar University in Nairobi, Kenya.
Within the discussion of "the historical Paul," the particular contribution of this book, according to Miller, is its investigation of "frequently overlooked aspects of Paul’s life and thought." The author’s conclusions, however, are potentially controversial. Miller briefly describes the contents, signaling out chapters on Paul’s letter writing within the context of letter writing style of the day; Paul’s asceticism and particularly his celibacy, both of which are seen as key to understanding the man; Paul’s theology as not static but dynamic, a phenomenon whose development can be followed by reading closely from 1 Thessalonians through 1 Corinthians and Romans; and Paul’s legacy in the second and third centuries. The reviewer is enthusiastic about Roetzel’s work. He finds it well documented, with arguments that are well supported, a book, he says, which "represents the mature work of a seasoned New Testament scholar." Controversy provoked by Roetzel’s conclusions (particularly with regards to asceticism) will have to deal with its author’s competence. Miller finds the book useful to both scholars and pastors, who will profitably make use of it in the preparation of sermons and lessons.
The review is short and to the point. Miller seems to have grasped the essence of this book.
Berge is with Luther Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Berge’s review is straightforward: First an overall assessment, then a summary of each of the six chapters, and a final appraisal.
To describe Roetzel’s approach, Berge uses the analogy of painting. The author, he says, is an artist who sets out to paint a portrait of Paul. The canvas on which he works is Paul’s formative years, which, as they are presented by Roetzel, do not correspond to the usual presuppositions concerning Paul. For Roetzel, Paul was neither a Roman citizen nor a student of Gamaliel II. Rooted in Judaism throughout his life, Paul was nevertheless "on the margins of his Jewishness." This painting image of Berge gets somewhat confused when he states that "This is the basis canvas on which Roetzel works and the presuppositions from which his portrait of Paul emerges"—as though the canvas and the portrait were one and the same. But we can understand what he’s trying to say. The "palette" is what Roetzel considers to be the seven genuine letters of Paul and, to a lesser degree, Acts, useful only when it does not contradict the letters which are the primary documents.
In the chapter-by-chapter analysis, Berge points out those elements which he considers most important. In chapter one, The Early Paul, besides what was said above, Berge notes that Paul was of the working class and that his Christophany experience caused him to reevaluate his Pharisaic understanding of the Holiness Code. From chapter two, he notes that Paul emerges as the suffering apostle. Chapter three provides an analysis of the letter writing form in the times. The letter becomes Paul way of responding to the content of the gospel. Chapter four points to Paul the "theologizer" so as to "better appreciate the vitality and dynamism of his theologizing." In chapter five, Paul is not only shown to have been an ascetic but to have drawn "upon ascetic truth in the Hebrew Bible, Greek philosophy, Hellenistic tradition, diaspora Judaism, Qumran, Pseudepigrapha, and early Christian life." In chapter six, The Mythic Apostle, Berge returns to the painting analogy to say that here Roetzel creates "a portrait of Paul apart from the Reformation lens of seeing Paul as the great theologian of the early church." His reading of first and second century documents sees Paul as, in Roetzel’s words, "the quintessential celibate, as powerful miracle worker and martyr." (Roetzel, 156)
Berge likes the book. He sees it as "well-documented, well-written, and fresh in its approach to creating a portrait of the person Paul." He concludes with words from Roetzel’s final paragraph: "The theological Paul who is most often presented to us without the human dimensions is docetic. And a human Paul without a theological dimension is a caricature." (Roetzel, 177)
The review is complete and, in my opinion, presents Roetzel’s book very well.
The authors are not identified.
In this relative short review, the authors present an overview of Walton’s book, describe the method of analysis and the choice of 1 Thess. They then summarizes the conclusion and finish with a personal evaluation.
The overview follows the book’s chronology, pointing first to the analysis of the Miletus speech in Acts 20; then its comparison to three similar speeches by Jesus, with recurring themes of leadership, suffering, money and the death of Jesus; finally comes the comparison to 1 Thess. The authors of this review then remind the reader that the points of analysis are "vocabulary, ideas, and style of argument." In summarizing the conclusion, they point out that Walton sees the Miletus speech as "both thoroughly Lukan and thoroughly Pauline." And, they point out, it is impossible to know, according to Walton’s analysis, if Luke’s knowledge of Paul and his thought was first hand or if it came from "reliable Pauline tradition."
Their assessment of Walton’s book is short and to the point. Here it is in its entirety: "This is a highly technical work, with copious reference to earlier scholarly studies and with a great deal of detailed argument. It is certainly not for the casual reader and is aimed at other scholars; as such it is clearly an important and valuable book."
My thoughts exactly. I have, however, added in my review that even the non-specialist can benefit by reading this book in order to watch firsthand a contemporary exegetical scholar at work. If nothing else, the experience may help the student or pastoral person to appreciate the type of scholarship which eventually trickles down to non-specialists.
I picked this book because of the title and because of the gossip I have heard that Paul was a sexist pig.
This book was written by Francis Watson, a Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the University of Aberdeen in 2000. My guess as to his intended audience is the academic community, both faculty and students.
The book is built around three New Testament texts in combination with modern secular and theological writings. Corinthians II, Romans &, and Ephesians5 are set off with works by Woolf, Freud, Irigaray, St. Augustine, and others. Watson begins each section with secular text and its message about the church and sexual politics and structure in society and then dissects Paul’s words as a precursor for this thinking or in juxtaposition to these religious texts.
My sense is that the author is not writing a treatise that requires evidence; rather it is an attempt to open new questions, both theological and secular, about sexuality as described in Pauline texts and in those modern texts included in this volume. This book is not heavily footnoted. The author simply brings quotations from all the sources used, both New Testament and modern writings, and backs up interpretations of modern scholarly work with references to other academic writings. Watson does use Hebrew Scripture and Greek sources to back up English translations of New Testament text.
With I Corinthians II: 13, Watson discusses the move from women’s right to speak publicly, while veiled, to the exclusion of women’s voices in public prayer. Watson concludes that by the point in time that women are not free to speak in church, "the link between the veil and the authority to speak is broken, so that the veil becomes the uniform condition of women in church." (p.83) Watson appears to be making the argument that the Pauline view of women and prophesy has more to do with the separation of body and Spirit than with silencing women. Watson further relates this text to other scripture, both Hebrew and Greek, which support an earlier understanding that the male image is seen as Godly and the female is earthly. The veil allows the audience to hear the word of God without the distraction of the body. The male body is not a distraction and therefore need not be covered in public prayer. The author offers us the vision of receiving Agape, the Divine flow, without the influence of Eros, the earthly manifestation and somewhat confusing form of love. The uses of secular text, such as the writings of Woolf, allow us to see the further manifestation of this separation in secular life.
I loved reading this book. It gave me new insight into text analysis, the author’s intent, and caused me to look at structures in my life that are shaped by historical interpretations of earlier Biblical text. I also came to have a greater appreciation for the inclusion of the Song of Songs in the Hebrew Bible and for the energy the Rabbi’s of old expended in institutionalizing away the Eros and concretizing the Agape within the text. The flow from secular to theological and back again reminds me of how influential biblical interpretation, and religious community’s use of text as support for norms, shapes our view of life. I think this book should be read by all students of Testament and clergy and museum builders. Woolf’s ability to see a museum as the inside of a bald man’s head, with all he sees and thinks about the world, moved me.
I picked this title because of my fascination with the Jewish beginnings of Christianity and my wonder about the Jewishness of the character of Paul.
This book was written by John Ashton, a Lecturer in New Testament Studies in the University of Oxford. It is a revision of a series of eight lectures given, by the author, over a several month span. It is intended to reach an academic audience concerned with the role of Paul in early Christianity and those who question Paul’s origin and why he chose the particular audience to bring his message.
This work is divided into eight sections, one for each of the original lectures, and each based on another look at the character of Paul. It begins with a basic introduction to comparative religion and then introduces Paul as Enigma, Shaman, Convert, Mystic, Apostle, Prophet, Charismatic, and Possessed.
The author uses Hebrew and Greek source material, both Biblical and its contemporary writings to support his hypotheses. The author has extensive footnotes and a detailed bibliography. From time to time, the author comments on the legitimacy of other commentator’s theories and even resorts to calling some "far fetched".
The author asserts that all religion, like art and music relate back to an already known: the "nothing new under the sun" approach to life. In doing so, he teaches that the character of Paul is not a new invention, rather a "weird form" of an earlier Jewish personal quality or group of qualities. He also introduces Paul as a Greek God type that fits with Greek understanding. Ashton asserts that one can’t understand something for which there is no context and therefore Paul’s message, as defined by his personhood, must comport with already known experiences of God and Holy preaching.
In his chapters on Paul the Possessed, Ashton uses Romans 7:13-25 to identify the character of Paul as one shaped by enduring affliction translated into spiritual grace rather than the ordinary dream or vision. (pp. 216-217) Here he notes that this is a difficult chapter to interpret and uses literary deconstruction to get at his point. Ashton uses the RSV of the Bible and his own translation, side by side, for comparison and liberally sprinkles Greek and Hebrew into his discourse.
I was entertained by this book. The author spent a good deal of page space telling the reader of his credentials and what he thought of lesser writings. I found my reading periodically interrupted by internal giggles at his pomposity. I did like the character treatment of Paul and the systematic descriptions of his role and function in his letters. I resonated with his view of Paul’s letters as not intended to develop a systematic theology. Rather, he portrayed these letters as categorical in nature, with elements of Paul’s many qualities necessary for preaching to diverse populations. I think that our D. Min group would profit from this work. I am glad to be reading New Testament theories, even before working my way through the entire text, because it offers me an opportunity to go in with eyes wide open.
This article is a previously unpublished lecture delivered at the Hamburg Kirchentag in 1981, translated by Robert F.B. Grieg and J.C. O'Neill.
Though written nearly twenty years before van Buren's final work, Marquardt deals with the same subject and expands upon van Buren's earlier ideas with regard to right relations between Jews and Christians. Above all, Marquardt calls Christians to a new christology which acknowledges and celebrates our continuity with Judaism rather than our division from it. That is to say, Marquardt understands Jesus as the one who extends God's call to the people of Israel to be a light to the nations, to the gentiles, so that through him we may also call ourselves the people of God. We cannot separate Jesus from his Jewishness without cutting ourselves off from the very God we claim.
Like van Buren's work I find Marquardt's ideas compelling, refreshing, and above all convincing. If I have a frustration with both Marquardt and van Buren it is with the scope of the discussion. More than ever we must begin to address the inherent plurality of religious belief in the world, even as we negotiate the fine line between personal confession of faith and exclusive claims of correct belief. Marquardt himself addresses this concern, but only in the context of Jewish Christian relations. Marquardt was perhaps constrained by of the parameters of this particular lecture, rather than strict theological conviction, never the less I was disappointed that he could not carry this line of thinking a bit further. He writes: "The issue is whether the judgments of belief should appear as condemnations of other beliefs or of unbelief. Unfortunately, we Christians are used to making it sound like that. From the beginning we have thought that we were only able to give clarity to our belief through the condemnation of what we were not able to regard as right belief. We have always wanted only to say Yes, if we could at the same time burst out with a No, as if our truth obtained its force not from itself but only from the supposed untruths." ( pg. 197) It is my hope that in the coming years we may become more adept at extending the conversation and widening the circle of acceptance.
Soulen is familiar with van Buren's earlier work with regard to Jewish Christian relations, and begins his review of According to the Scriptures by noting a slight shift in van Buren's "long standing thesis that for Christians revelation happens as the fresh interpretation of Israel's Scriptures." Soulen continues parenthetically stating that : " Readers wishing to think about what else revelation must also be to be revelation must seek help elsewhere."
That pretty much sums up the tone of this review. Although Soulen clearly appreciates van Buren as a thoughtful and innovative theologian,( I wondered if that was the case before van Buren's death or only posthumously) he gives the impression that he sees van Buren's work in that regard as one man's attempt to come to terms with his own issues.
The review is quite straight forward in relaying to the reader the general content and meaning of the book in question, but there is a tone of voice that belies discomfort and disagreement with the premise long before one reaches the opening sentence in the concluding paragraph which states "van Buren's book is unconvincing as an account of Christian origins."
I was left with the impression that Soulen missed the point of the book. I do not agree, though I may be mistaken, that "van Buren desired a christology free of messianic and eschatological implications..." as Soulen suggests. I think van Buren's point was rather that those who followed Jesus in his own time may have only come to understand the fullness of Christ as they wrestled with the events of history against the background of their own tradition. Where Soulen contends that we cannot know that for sure given the scant historical information we have at our disposal, he is not willing to make the same claim with regard to his own christological stance. And the beat goes on....
Matera is the chair of the department of theology at the Catholic University of America. He hopes to reach all those who are involved in preaching, particularly those Catholic priests who historically have avoided preaching on Paul.
The text is structured thematically and follows the order of the Lectionary. His strategy for each section is to discuss each of the following areas: 1)the historical and literary background of the text 2)the context of the text and 3) its theological themes.
Matera’s bibliography reveals a variety of commentaries. He uses the information in the commentaries to assist preachers to understand the connection between Paul and the churches. Example: 1 Corinthians – at the beginning of each of the liturgical cycles, Matera explains to his readers the historical context. In this case, he notes that Paul established a congregation in Corinth during his second missionary journey. The author elaborates upon the historical context. He then presents the structure of 1Corinthians 1-4. His intent is to get preachers familiar with both the historical and literary contexts, then, he believes, they will be better able to interpret the texts.
For each Sunday, Matera identifies a theme, e.g., "the called and sanctified community" (1Cor 1:1-3), "unity of mind and person" (1Cor 1:10-13, 17).
This brief work is limited in its scope but certainly could be helpful for those preachers who have avoided Paul. It is an applied theological work. I enjoyed that. Since it follows the lectionary, it is a bit "choppy". Perhaps the lack of a comprehensive view is what I liked least about the book.
James Dunn has written several books on Paul. They include Christology in the Making (1980), a commentary on Romans (1988), Jesus, Paul and the Law (1990, and commentaries on Galatians (1993) and Colossians and Philemon (1996). I chose this title because I had skimmed through his Christology in the Making many years ago.
The text is an academic, 800-page tome with an extremely detailed bibliography. It consists of nine chapters beginning with God and humankind, working through humankind under indictment, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, salvation, the Church, and ethics.
Dunn considers Paul to be the greatest theologian of all time. He provides over 40 pages of index of Scripture and other writings of antiquity to substantiate his text. This is a book of scholarly research.
Dunn’s intent is to re-assess Paul’s relationship with his ancestral religion – Judaism. Since Paul is constantly alluding to the Jewish Scriptures, there becomes a dialogue within a dialogue. Paul’s native Judaism is in dialogue with the wider cultures of the Hellenistic and the Roman worlds. The author’s approach is one of discovering and uncovering the dialogue. He wishes to do so by getting into the mind of Paul.
What I read of this text, I found difficult and tedious. It got into more detail than I am currently interested in at this time of my life as a D.Min. candidate. I would certainly be a fine resource for a Ph.D. candidate in Biblical Theology.
I did not choose to read this book, simply to read any of those offered in class. I am unfamiliar will almost all Christian post canonical literature.
According to the text itself, the author is "Thomas the Israelite". He is addressing a specifically non-Jewish audience with which he has some familiarity. He addresses them as "brothers and sisters". His purpose for writing this work appears to be to introduce some of the early miracle workings of Jesus Christ, as performed in his youth, in his native land. One can assume that this audience is outside of Jesus’ homeland and did not know him as either an adult or a youth.
This work is divided into 19 small chapters that each tells a single story of young Jesus’ miraculous powers. The stories begin at age 5 and end with Jesus, age 12, at his home Synagogue discussing with the elders. This work begins with a prologue and ends with a blessing, much like the works attributed to Paul in the New Testament.
While the author does not site other canonical text in this writing, there are passages that reflect earlier themes and stories. According to the editor of this version of the story, Robert J. Miller, 3:2-3 of this story "may recall the episode of the withering fig tree" as described in Mark 11:12-14 and Matthew 21:18-19. Here, the withering boy is likened to a tree that will bear no fruit. Passages like this, found throughout this work, point to it’s having been created later than those Gospels. It may have served to fill in gaps in the life of this leader as well as to delineate his growth in his humanity and in compassion.
The character of Jesus, as described in this work, is maturation over time. This text allows the reader to believe that while the divine powers of this man were fully developed as of age 5, his humanity blossomed throughout his youth. He begins his miraculous career by killing those who offend him. He moves on to heal those who have fallen in his path, and ends his youth in study.
The stories presented in this text are miraculous and evocative. The early chapters made me laugh with a bit of discomfort. The theology associated with a boy wonder that can’t seem to control his temper is not what I expected of the focus of Christian doctrine. If this work was contemporary with the canonical Gospels, I understand why it was not included as it does not portray the vision of a completed master. Rather, it appears to embody a developing vision as it expresses the developmental stages of youth. If it is a later text, I imagine it was not written much later, since the quality of this figure is not one that would be held up as an example to be followed. My sense is that this text was created later than the others, but not so late as to have a fully formed Christian religion with a unified sense of identity of its God. I enjoyed this work and it moved me to read others, not included in the New Testament.
The Egerton Gospel: author unknown; original document perhaps written during second half of fist century, perhaps copied in the second half of the second century. The work exists as fragments. Named after the Englishman who funded the purchase from Egypt, the work was first published in 1935. An additional fragment, Papyrus Koln 255, was discovered and published in 1987.
I chose this gospel at random from the choices presented.
The structure contains six brief chapters with several gaps sprinkled throughout the work. Scholars have analyzed the work with respect to dating, style of writing and contents in order to attempt to determine its placement and effect on other gospel writings. Was the gospel written prior to Mark and was it a source to be used by the other synoptic gospel writers and by the writer of John? The conclusion is against such hypothesis. The gospel is not written using the same structure as the synoptics.
The gospel includes miracle stories, controversy dialogues, and incidents of violence toward Jesus, none of which are wholly preserved. (p. 412) In Chapter 1, Jesus makes charges against the legal experts. In Chapter 2, concerns a leper made clean and shown to be made clean before the priests. Chapter 3 deals with attempts to trick Jesus regarding what to do with the coins. Chapter 4 is the miracle story on scattering seed across the Jordan. Chapters 5 and 6 are too fragmentary.
The work seems to favor an early style of writing gospel events. That is, the work may result from the collection of common stories passed on orally and then rearranged by the author. The intended audience may well have been the early followers of Jesus.
One unique aspect of the gospel is the telling of a miracle story not found elsewhere. Jesus scatters seed throwing it across the Jordan River and instantly fruit grows. Chapter 4, verse 2: "As they were perplexed at this strange question, Jesus walked over and stood at the bank of the Jordan River. 3 He extended his right hand, [took water,] and scattered it over the […] 4 And then […] [scattered] water […] the […] and it [became full] before their eyes and produced fruit […] [much] […] into […] [them]
I found the gospel interesting as it contains some familiar stories that help to convince me that there may, in fact, be some level of truth to stories read elsewhere or at least that the stories were commonly known. I find it somewhat amusing, enlightening that there is so much guesswork in attempting to fill in the blanks of this fragment. I remember the warning from my seminary professors that we are to do exegesis and leave the eisegesis alone. That is, work with the text and don’t make up stuff. So, how would one preach on this text??? One certainly cannot use the exact words as there are not exact words.
is found in its earliest manuscript form as the Bodmer Papyrus V, which dates from the early fourth century. (Hock #2, p. 17)
The Scholars Version Translation with footnotes can be found in The Complete Gospels, Robert J. Miller, Editor (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1994) Library of Congress number: BS2553.S23 1994, and in The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas by Ronald F. Hock: (SantaRosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 1995) Library of Congress number: BS2860.J2A3 1995. [Anna Mae Mayer]
At the end of the gospel, the author identifies himself as James and says that he wrote the account at the time of the death of Herod. (4 B.C.E.) If both those claims were true, then James could very well be the half brother of Jesus and he would have had to have written the account before his own death in 62 C.E. However, both these claims are dubious. The Infancy Gospel of James clearly reflects knowledge of the gospels of Matthew and Luke, neither of which was written before the death of James. Scholars believe the Gospel of James was probably written around the middle of the second century as evidenced by its influence on other Christian literature. (Hock #2, p.17) It is unclear as to whether the author is a Palestinian Jew or merely imitated the Palestinian Jewish literature of the time. (Lowe) Since his gospel shows confusion about the geographic location of Bethlehem to Jerusalem and Judea, some suggest he was a stranger to Palestine and might have been from Syria or Egypt. (Hock #2, p. 18) The audience would have been those early Christians who were interested in the birth and early life of Mary.
The Infancy Gospel of James has 25 chapters. It is written as a narrative. Treated in the first sixteen chapters are the birth and early childhood of Mary, her passage to womanhood, how she was taken into Joseph's care, the visit from a heavenly messenger who announces to Mary that she will conceive a child, Joseph's discovery of her pregnancy and the subsequent test both Joseph and Mary endured to prove their innocence against respective charges of sexual misconduct. Chapter 17 moves into very familiar and very unique territory. It describes Mary and Joseph's journey to Bethlehem in compliance with the census order from the Emperor Augustus, the miraculous birth of Jesus in a cave, Joseph's experience of the world "standing still," a declaration of Mary's post-delivery virginity by Salome, the visit of astrologers from the East and Herod's attempt to kill Mary's child. Chapter 22 relates how Mary and Elizabeth are both able to save their sons from Herod. Chapters 23-24 describe the murder of Zechariah for withholding information on the whereabouts of John. Chapter 25, which concludes the gospel, contains the autographic subscription of James, but for the reasons discussed earlier, we can safely assume that the gospel is pseudonymous.
In reading the Infancy Gospel of James, it was clear to me that the author had knowledge of both Old and New Testament writings. The story of Mary's parents, Anna and Joachim, echoes the story of Abraham and Sarah around the pain of being childless. Anna's lament calls to mind Hannah's lament and Anna's pointed exchange with her slave is similar to Sarah's strained relationship with Hagar. The infancy narratives found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke are also sourced frequently in James' gospel. Some examples that are easy to spot include Mary's exchange with the heavenly messenger, Mary's visit to Elizabeth, Joseph's dilemma of what to do with a pregnant Mary, the census of Augustus, the visit of the astrologers and Herod's attempt to kill Mary's baby.
However, there is a great deal of original material in this gospel that I found very engaging. The circumstances of Mary's conception are no less heavenly sent than those of Jesus, and because of it Mary's upbringing is exceptional. Her bedroom is turned into a sanctuary, nothing unclean is allowed to pass her lips. On her third birthday she is taken to the temple "where she was fed like a dove, receiving her food from the hand of a heavenly messenger." (8:2) The manner in which Mary comes into the care and protection of Joseph is distinct and the test they undergo at the hands of the high priest is not duplicated from Matthew or Luke. While the journey to Bethlehem and the birth strike several familiar chords, Joseph's narrative found in chapter 18 is unique. His description of how the earth stood still (presumably at the moment of the delivery) as he searched for a Hebrew midwife is on a par with the choirs of heavenly host described in Luke. And while Salome is the doubting Thomas of this gospel and nearly loses her hand because of it, it is she who declares that there has been a virgin birth and that the child has been born to be king of Israel. The Infancy Gospel of James also offers a creative explanation of how John, the son of Elizabeth and Zechariah escaped the murderous intentions of Herod.
I found this gospel extremely intriguing for a number of reasons. First of all, I choose it because I thought it was written about the early life of Jesus. When I began to read it, I realized that would not be the case, but I also realized that I had heard much of this material before as part of my religion classes in grade school. At the time, I assumed the stories came from the bible, and after awhile I forgot about them. However, the story about Joseph being an old man, of a dove appearing from his staff and of Jesus being born in a cave are definitely in my memory banks from days gone by. Beyond that, I find it fascinating and more than a little amusing that a gospel which was rejected by the Catholic church in the west at the urging of St. Jerome still managed to exert such a heavy influence on members of the Catholic church's membership. Ronald Hock, in his book The Life of Mary and the Birth of Jesus, notes that the Council of Ephesis in 431 declared Mary the Mother of God at the urging of Pulcheria, the sister of the Roman Emperor Theodosius II. The information that drove her to seek the declaration was derived in large part from the Gospel of James. The stories drawn from this gospel have inspired art work in many parts of the world and in some of the most magnificent churches of the world and have become part of the lyrics of at least one Christmas carol known to me, "The Cherry Tree Carol."
The reason for writing this gospel is also interesting. Upon first reading it, my impression was that it was written to bolster up the image of Jesus by relating not only his miraculous birth, but by presenting a very illustrious portrait of his mother, Mary. However, the main point of the gospel is Mary. Ronald Hock relates that a popular title for this gospel was "An account of James regarding the birth of the exceedingly pure Mother of God." (Hock #1, p. 4) This ancient title is certainly more descriptive than "The Infancy Gospel of James." Hock also relates that this gospel is written in a specific literary style used in the Roman Empire in the 2nd century, C.E. The Infancy Gospel of James fits the style of an encomium, a style that gives special tribute to the subject, in this case, Mary the Mother of God. (Hock #2, p.23) The elements of an encomium are all found in the gospel: family background, upbringing, adult pursuits, virtue (the most important element) and a comparison with someone of equal or greater virtue. (Hock #2, p.24) In my opinion, it's an interesting piece of writing that opens another window into the early Christian community. The way that it has seeped into our consciousness and art and teaching only proves that you can't hold a good story down. As far as I'm concerned, it's recommended reading.
| 1. Hock, Ronald F.: The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 1995) |
| 2. Hock, Ronald F.: The Life of Mary and the Birth of Jesus: The Ancient Infancy Gospel of James (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 1997( |
| 3. Lowe, Malcolm F.: "Ioudaios of the Apocrypha: A Fresh Approach to the Gospels of James, Pseudo-Thomas, Peter and Nicodemus," Novum Testamentum 23 (January, 1981) |
| 4. Miller, Robert J., editor: The Complete Gospels (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1994) |
John Dominic Crossan The Cross that Spoke: The origins of the Passion narrative. San Francisco: Harper & Row, c1988; xv, 437 p., 22 cm, bibliography. ISBN 0-06-254843-3. BTS: Bangor, 229.8 C884c. I chose this book because it appears as recommended for understanding the Gospel of Peter and because it offered my first opportunity to read Crossan.
Author
J.D. Crossan is best known as a member of the controversial "Jesus School" of Gospel exegesis. The book jacket says that he is "professor of biblical studies at DePaul University in Chicago" and "the author of In Parables and In Fragments, and numerous other books and articles. He has served on the editorial board of the Journal of the American Academy of Religion since 1977… [and] of Semeia: An Experimental Journal for Biblical Criticism since 1973, and as its general editor since 1980." Crossan was featured in the Jan. 10, 1994 issue or Time magazine. A recent search by google.com came up with 1.350 hits for J.D. Crossan, mostly references to the author’s books, articles by him or critiques of his work.
Structure
The book has a Prologue, twelve chapters organized into three Parts, an Epilogue, and an Appendix. There follows a bibliography, an author index and a text index. At the core of the book are the three Parts: (1) Theory (Discovery, Interpretation and Thesis); (2) Text (chapter by chapter: Trial, Abuse, Crucifixion, Burial, Guards, Women, Twelve); and (3) Theology (Vindicated Innocence, Communal Resurrection, Roman Confession). The Epilogue summarizes the author’s theories, especially that which is basic to this book, The Cross Gospel. The Appendix has an English-language translation of the Gospel of Peter, which is particularly helpful because in it Crossan points out "three distinguishable strata" developed in his book; namely, the original stratum of the Cross Gospel, the intracanonical stratum, and the redactional stratum used to bind those two preceding layers smoothly together.
Evidence
Entering the world of Crossan analysis is like plunging into apparently calm and vaguely uninteresting ocean waters only to discover a world both amazingly diverse and intricately linked. The linchpin of Crossan’s analysis is his fine-toothed combing of the text in both Greek and in translation. Next in importance is his examination of the intracanonical Gospels and other intracanonical Christian scriptures where he seeks out parallel texts and possible allusions to the subject matter of the Gospel of Peter. The backbone of what I consider Crossan’s primary insight (viz., the Passion-Death-Resurrection narratives are faith using prophecy for story and not prophecy realized) are the intrabiblical and extrabiblical texts of the Hebrew scriptures (both Hebrew and Septuagint), especially, those passages best known to Christians as referring to the Passion, e.g., Psalm 22 (21) and the Suffering Servant texts of Deutero-Isaiah.
But there’s more. Seemingly unwilling to leave a stone unturned, Crossan examines early Christian writings both well-known (Ignatius of Antioch, Justin, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Origen, Melito of Sardis…) and lesser-known (Christian Sybilline Oracles, Barnabas, Lactantius…). He delves into the Passion sources of the Koran (‘Abd al-Jabbar) and the pertinent narratives of historians of the day, both Jewish and Roman (Josephus and Tacitus, for example). In all this, Crossan gives minute attention to literary genre and word usage. The analyses provide him with a new "source," which is key to understanding the book. He hypothesizes the existence of an original version of the Gospel of Peter, which he calls the Cross Gospel. For Crossan, the existence of the Cross Gospel is at least as "sure" as that of Q; without the Cross Gospel, he concludes from exhaustive reasoning, there are more questions left unanswered than resolved.
For Crossan, the Cross Gospel is one of four original Gospels, all of which fall into two categories: Sayings Gospels (Q, which looks to the future and apocalyptic consummation; and the Gospel of Thomas, which looks to the past and " Edemic Androgyny") and Passion-Resurrection Gospels (the Cross Gospel, which portrays the Resurrection as communal and tied to the past of Israel; and Paul’s Gospel, with its beginnings of a future resurrection). For Crossan, the Cross Gospel is the source for Mark, and together they inspired Matthew and Luke, and all were sources for John. Finally the Gospel of Peter, although most dependent on the Cross Gospel, would in fact also have also drawn from the Synoptics. Crossan leaves to another study the dating of the Cross Gospel, but his analysis suggests the mid-first century. The Gospel of Peter would remain, as previously thought, a product of the latter part of the second century.
An example: Nailed to the cross in the Gospel of Peter, 6:21
Crossan’s analyses are very complex, with each piece fitting into the next like a highly intricate jigsaw puzzle, except that which eventually comes together is something more akin to a three-dimensional structure than the usual two-dimensional picture which we are used to. To illustrate his methodology, I suggest we examine a relatively minor analysis which he does of the Gospel of Peter, chapter 6, verse 21: "and then the Jews drew the nails from the hands of the Lord." This analysis is but a little more than three pages long; compare that to the an entire chapter (31 pages) on "The Guards." (Note that, unlike the verse numbering in The Complete Gospels, Crossan’s translation keeps accumulating the verse numbers from chapter to chapter, which can be confusing if referring to the Complete Gospels text.)
The posed question is "Why does the account of the deposition mention only nails in the hands and not also in the feet?" (227) His analysis has two parts. (1) Crossan looks to history for an answer. "The only crucified skeleton ever discovered [discussed earlier in the book] had the man’s arms tied to the crossbar but his feet nailed to either side of the post" (228). He then theorizes that "It may have been customary at some times or in some places to balance security and economy by binding one set of the crucified’s extremities while nailing the other." It is therefore possible "that the Cross Gospel remembered or imagined [my emphasis. This little word is in fact critical to the author’s developing theory] only Jesus’ hands as nailed to the cross which his feet were bound at the bottom" (228). (2) Crossan then looks in a direction directly related to his central thesis, prophecy, suggesting "three strands of passion prophecy involved." First, passion prophecy speaks of a generic nailing without reference to hands of feet (cf. Barnabas referring to Psalms 22: 20a, 119: 120a, and 22:16b). The words kathèloô (nail) and sarx (flesh) are also used by Ignatius of Antioch. Second, a case can be made for both hands and feet (Psalm 22:16b and c, a theme picked up by Justin Martyr I Apology and again in Dialogue with Trypho. Third, other texts of prophecy "which drew attention to the stretching out of Jesus’ arms on the cross. These latter are more types than passion prophecies: Moses with arms uplifted during the battle between the Israelites and the Amalekites (Ex. 7:11-12); and a reference ("I spread out my hands") in Isaiah 65:2a made useable by Paul’s reference in Romans 10:20. Then, "The same allusion lies behind the statement in Sibylline Oracles 8:300-302…" (230). Moreover, both above texts from Exodus and Isaiah "are applied together to the Crucifixion in Barnabas 12:2-4. What conclusion should be drawn from all this? Says Crossan: "I propose that the statement of Gospel of Peter 6:21…is a reflection of the prophetic emphasis on the outstretched hands, as in Exodus 17:11-12 and Isaiah 65:2a, rather than on the nailed hands and feet, as in Psalm 22:16c" (230). But, if that is the case, what are we to make of the challenge of Jesus, "See my hands and my feet" (Lk24:39)? Crossan’s response is consistent with his basic theory on prophecy and the Passion-Resurrection narratives: Luke "may be either a reflection of that psalm or just a general presumption about how the Crucifixion was carried out." On the other hand the triple emphasis on hands and side (Jh 202:20, 25, 27) "may require more precise explanation."
Reader response
I recommend that anyone with an interest in understanding or teaching the Gospels should experience at least one book by J.D. Crossan, hopefully a detailed analysis such as this one. Read it, if not for the pleasure (and after the initial experience, I found the analysis tedious, to say the least), at least to understand what the Jesus school is about. Like it or not—and many do not—this analysis has attracted the popular imagination (see Time, Jan. 10, 1994). A reading will at least make clear that if one disagrees with Crossan, it has to be on his terms—exegesis and critical analysis not theology.
The critics are numerous, and they stand both to the right and to the left although my conversations and reading suggest that those most scandalized by Crossan are defenders of the integral text. Crossan has gone much further than claiming literary dependence of one text upon another (Mark as the first gospel, inspiring the Synoptics, and all influencing John), further than hypothesizing texts (Q or, in this case the Cross Gospel). He simply dismisses ALL the Passion-Resurrection narratives as having been invented by the various authors who also depend on one another for literary content. Does this deconstruction make Crossan a heretic and opponent of the faith? I think he would say no. For Crossan, faith is more important that narratives, and narratives are expressions of faith which retrospectively refers to prophecy for understanding.
When I understood this, I was beginning to understand this book. Which brought back to mind my reading, in the summer of 2001, of James Carroll’s Constantine’s Cross. Carroll often refers to Crossan analysis. And why not? Both are, in fact, fundamentally preoccupied with the vitriolic anti-Semitism of the Gospels. (It is interesting that the illustrations on the jacket of The Cross that Spoke are more from the 20th century C.E. than from the first.) It has become acceptable, if not fashionable, at least in more "liberal" Christian traditions, to now add a disclaimer to the anti-Semitic texts used in liturgical settings. (Appropriately I write these lines on Good Friday, 2002.) Whereas, when I was an altar boy we still prayed, on this day, for "The perfidious Jews" and at this time, heard "Let his blood be upon us and upon our children." In our present commemoration of the Passion and Death of the Lord, we pray for all who believe in God, and the verse from Matthew is explained as not applicable to all Jews of all times. There are those who would disagree. They might be better off not reading Crossan. But, if one struggles (as I have) not only with such egregious "sacred" texts but also (and this is an element new to this review) with the internal conflicts and contradictions of the story, then Crossan is worth reading and considering as a worthy alternative. The most that can happen is that, plunged into the sea, you will be exposed to a world both fascinating and sure to attract your intellectual attention. Finally, and on a very personal level, I will add two things. First of all, I admit that there is much I don’t understand in The Cross that Spoke. The book took longer to read than I expected. I feel that to do it justice I would have to spend a full year. Secondly, I find in it missing elements, such as the role of the oral tradition. Finally in my innermost being, there is something of Crossan’s thesis which that resonates as profoundly true and worthy of reflection, particularly in our potentially glorious and still deeply troubled world.
John Dominic Crossan Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus. San Francisco: Harper & Row, c1995; xii, 238 p.; 24 cm. Includes bibliographical references, index and (in Appendix) a "compositional strata" translation of the Gospel of Peter. ISBN 0 06 061479 X. BTS location: (Bangor) 232.9 C884w; (Portland) 232.9 C884w. I chose this book because it came up in my search for further exegetical scholarship on the Gospel of Peter. [Julien Olivier]
Author
For notes on the author as scholar and professional, I refer the reader to comments I wrote under this heading while reviewing a previous Crossan book which focused more intently on the Gospel of Peter. That book is entitled The Cross that Spoke (1988). But, in Who Killed Jesus?, Crossan, perhaps best-known as a member of and spokesperson for the controversial "Jesus School" of Gospel exegesis, offers a very interesting view into his personal life. The context for this self-revelation is the Epilogue, "History and Faith," in which Crossan examines his own threefold presuppositions in writing this book: autobiographical, theological and historical. Why should a scholar, normally detached and objective in his analyses, want to tell so much about himself? First of all, this book is clearly polemical. It is an apologia, not pro vita sua, but pro libri sui Who Killed Jesus? is Crossan’s response to Raymond E. Brown’s "monumental, two-volume study The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave" (page 1). Because his own work on the Cross Gospel (which Crossan sees as the predecessor to the Gospel of Peter) "represented a very different scholarly interpretation" to Brown, Crossan was called by the New York Times for "a dissenting opinion." The article, written by Peter Steinfels, appeared in the NYT National section on March 27, 1994. This additional celebrity status made Crossan vulnerable to all sorts of questions. Under "Autobiographical Presuppositions" in the Epilogue of Who Killed Jesus?, the author says that "The questions put to me after public lectures or on radio call-in shows are usually theological rather than historical, usually personal and autobiographical rather than methodological and theoretical, usually more about faith than about fact." And so Crossan describes his own "presuppositions and prejudices…life experiences and situations" which "may have influenced [his] historical reconstruction for better or worse" (211). Born in 1934 of Irish, Catholic "lower-class peasant farmers" and "middle-class urban shopkeepers (212), Crossan entered "a Roman Catholic religious order, the Servites, a move which brought [him] to the United States in 1951. He was ordained a priest in 1957 but spent his "entire priestly life as a graduate student or seminary professor" (214). He left the order and the priesthood in 1969 and "managed…to disentangle being a priest from being a scholar" (214).
Structure
The preface sets the tone and establishes the purpose of this book: coming to terms with Christian anti-Semitism, which—call this Crossan’s proximate purpose—Raymond Brown’s two-volume commentary does not do. Thus the response to Brown. The core of the book is presented in seven chapters, sandwiched between two very essential explanations, the Prologue entitled "History and Prophecy" and the Epilogue spoken of above. A person wanting to get a sense of Who Killed Jesus? and of Crossan’s style in general could, in my opinion, read these first and last sections, especially the first. The chapters proceed chronologically, following the last days of Jesus: Crime, Arrest, Trial, Abuse, Execution, Burial and Resurrection.
Evidence
Crossan seeks evidence in numerous sources but primarily in a literary analysis of the four intracanonical Gospels and the extracanonical Gospel of Peter (abbreviated from now on with Brown’s GPet). Why is GPet particularly important to Crossan? Both Brown and Crossan agree that "the gospel of Peter must be taken seriously and not simply dismissed or ignored" (6). It is Crossan’s theory that GPet had a precursor in the so-called Cross Gospel, a theoretical text of Jesus Passion compared to Q Gospel in the Sayings area. The Cross Gospel would have been a primary source for Mark’s Passion account and, through Mark, those of the subsequent Synoptics as well as John. But, for Crossan, practically everything in these accounts is "prophecy historicized" and not "history remembered" (page 1 and elsewhere in the book). Thus, the "prophetic" texts of the "Christian Old Testament," are the core of Crossan’s evidence. Primary to the whole study is Psalm 2 where, for Crossan, Christians found the basic "stuff" which would become the Passion narrative. Other important prophetic material is found in other Psalms describing undeserved suffering and subsequent vindication and in numerous other Old Testament texts, some of which will surprise the reader for their association to the Passion.
Critical among all these "prophetic" texts is that of the two goats in Leviticus 16:7-10 and 21-24. One animal is "accursed," the scapegoat upon whom sin and abuse are heaped; the other is "for the altar," a burnt offering to God. (The quotes are from the extracanonical Epistle of Barnabas, thought to have been written between 96 and 98 C.E. Crossan, 123). Crossan’s exegesis of that Leviticus text also refers to the "Day of Atonement" in the Jewish Mishnah’s second of six divisions. Other sources cited and analyzed in Who Killed Jesus? include a variety of authors spanning the first century B.C.E. to the fourth century C.E.: Roman such as Tacitus (Annals) and Horace (Epistles); Jewish such as Josephus (Jewish War, Jewish Antiquities) and Philo (Embassy to Gaius, Against Flacus); Christian such as Odes of Solomon (Syriac, 2nd cent. C.E.) and Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechesis). Note that Crossan cites the latter as an example of outright anti-Semitism, an aberration stemming from the eventual Gospel stories of the Passion. Besides Brown, he quotes few contemporary authors; one important exception is Jorge Luis Borges (The Aleph and Other Stories) used to show how a creative writer invents seemingly real details such as street names in geographic places to give credence to a story. (Apply this, says Crossan, to Resurrection details, e.g. Joseph of otherwise unknown Arimathea.) What about purer linguistic analysis? This book contains relatively little—at least in the eyes of a specialist. That is no doubt because Crossan is writing a popularization of his ideas. Still the lay reader might still find here a considerable amount of Greek (transcribed in Western alphabet) and word analysis. In summary, Crossan’s evidence appeals to the mind (historico-literary analysis) and to the heart (let’s put an end to anti-Semitism) of the reader who is interested in all this but not necessarily trained.
An example: Abuse, particularly "Jesus as Scapegoat"
Chapter four deals with "scourging and abuse." The first, as testified by the historians Philo and Josephus, was a common first-century preparation for crucifixion. In comparison to this barbarism, "theatrical mockery and/or minor maltreatment seems hardly worth mentioning." Yet, all the Gospels mention it, "even doubling it just as the trials are doubled" (119). So Crossan is drawn into an analysis he terms "Jesus as Scapegoat." It is, for him, "the central chapter of the book in place and importance." The remainder of that paragraph so reveals the core of his argument that I cite it in its entirety: "It is here that I see most clearly the validity of the hypothesis that the passion narratives are prophecy historicized rather than history remembered." And, in the style of direct address to the reader featured throughout this book, he adds, "Furthermore, if I cannot persuade you in this chapter, I doubt if I can do it anywhere else" (119).
Crossan’s argument. First, "The Text." "Imagine yourself as one of those learned followers of Jesus searching the Scriptures to understand his fate and your destiny" (120). In search for "dialectic of persecution and vindication," you find your way to Leviticus 16:7-10, 21-24, which describes a ritual involving two goats differently sacrificed, and two sets of clothing to be interchanged by the high priest. Second, "The Ritual," expanded upon in the Mishnah ("code of Jewish law promulgated…at the end of the 2nd century" C.E.): two he-goats, alike in appearance; scarlet wool attached differently to each, which on the goat sent into the wilderness is divided with one half tied to a rock; abuse of the scapegoat by the heaping of sins. Enter here other Old Testament texts significant here: Is 50:6 and Zechariah 3:3-5 (both 6th century B.C.E.) and Zechariah 12:10 (dated 4th or 3rd centuries B.C.E.) Third, "The Exegesis." The methodology is suggested by the Christian but extracanonical Epistle to Barnabas (dated 96-98 C.E.) which cites Leviticus and the goat ritual comparing it to Jesus. The scapegoat gets "spit…and goad…and scarlet wool about its head." So it was with the Son of God. As to the other, when they see him "come at that time [Crossan: parousia] they [will] be astonished at the likeness" (123). There follows analysis of "The twin goats of the Day of Atonement" (the accursed and that sacrificed on the altar) and "The Twin Comings of Jesus" (Passion/persecution and Parousia/vindication). For the first, the Epistle of Barnabas finds supportive texts of spitting in Isaiah (50:6) and piercing in Zechariah (12:10). For the second, both texts are from Zechariah: crowning and robbing (3:5) and seeing (12:10). This, says Crossan, is the "scholarly exegesis" of a Christian in search of answers. But such exegesis "is a long way from popular narrative" (126).
So that bring the analysis to the Fourth Stage, "The Story." Crossan asks, "How could you possibly get from an intricate exegetical treatise like Epistle of Barnabas 7 to a simple popular narrative that anyone could understand and remember?" (126) Crossan’s response: "You would need some framing structure." He finds it in a text from Philo (Against Flaccus) which describes the anti-Semitic actions of "the lazy and unoccupied mob in the city" of Alexandria who take out their animosities against "a certain lunatic Carabas," setting "him up on high to be seen by all and [they] put on his head a sheet of byblos spread out wide for a diadem, clothed the rest of his body with a rug for a royal robe…[and a] papyrus…for his scepter…Others approached him, some pretending to salute him…" From "a story such as that," "somebody with magnificent imagination," theorizes Crossan, put together "an exegesis such as Barnabas 7," and came up with the abuse portion of the Passion in the Gospel of Peter (GPet 3:6-9). The rest of the chapter is given to "following the trail of the reed," referring to that used to goad the scapegoat to the dessert. It leads to a discussion of scourging, buffeting, spitting in Is. 50, the study of a distinction between scourging in Isaiah and flogging in Mark. The story develops. The reed itself is combined with Zechariah’s "piercing." Comparing the intracanonical accounts, Crossan shows development from Mark (abuse is Jewish and Roman; in the latter, they struck his head with a reed") to Matthew where the reed is placed in Jesus’ hand as "a mock scepter just like the papyrus for poor Carabas" and Jesus is struck in the face, buffeted with no mention of reed. When it comes to John, "The reed has become a spear, and the nudging…becomes piercing…accompanied with an explicit allusion to Zechariah" (130). The argument ends with quotations from two post-Gospel Christian sources. From the Sibylline Oracles: "They shall pierce his sides with a reed because of their law…and his side they pierce with reeds for the sake of the law." From the Acts of John: "My Lord…said…I am being crucified and pierced with lances and reeds…" (131). Crossan’s conclusion to this "historical reconstruction (to which my summary does not do justice): "Jesus may well have been flogged as part of the regular brutality preparatory to Roman crucifixion…But any part of spitting and nudging comes from the popular scapegoat ritual…Nowhere can you see the process of historicizing prophecy so obviously as her. And if you do not believe it here, you will probably not believe it anywhere else" (132).
Reader response
If I hadn’t read The Cross that Spoke before reading this book: (1) I would have understood even less of what the author is saying here, and (2) I might not have had the courage to read backward to the longer and more difficult book. The less technical Who Killed Jesus? helps to understand the detailed analyses of the previous book. Having said that, it is difficult for me to go from a childhood, literal acceptance of the Passion texts to Crossan’s view that this is mostly fabrication, "prophecy historicized." It would be easier for a 21st century, biblically literate and rather liberal Christian to go the route of Raymond Brown, seeing in the Passion texts some creativity yet maintaining the "verisimilitude" of most of the texts. Crossan’s exegesis, on the other hand is consistent in both the Christian Old and New Testaments. All is written for faith understanding. This challenges my basic presuppositions: You can say that about the Creation narrative, for example, but don’t touch my Jesus stories! On the other hand, Crossan two books on GPet and the Passion brought back thoughts of 40 years ago when I wondered if the historical and literary analysis we were doing couldn’t/shouldn’t be applied to New Testament texts. To be fair, I have to say that the ideas he presents aren’t totally new to me, but never have I seen them expressed with such rigorous logic and in reference to an underlying principle: Christian Judaism is but a branch of the ancient faith, comparable to that other branch, rabbinical Judaism. I am certain that scholars have had a field day with Crossan, and I will be reading a few articles critical of his analysis. Personally, my biggest problem with his line of thought is trying to imagine the Gospel writers seated in their studies with texts spread out before them, picking and choosing in a thoughtful manner elements to be included in their own accounts, adding their own imaginative story description when convenient to their purposes, and couching the entire product in careful exegesis and artful literary techniques. This will take some more thought on my part! More thought also do I need to give to recurring themes in Crossan such as Sabbath, which he sees as key to the Genesis story. Finally, I fail to grasp the great significance of the descent into Hell best portrayed by the speaking Cross in GPet 10:42. From a faith perspective, two thoughts come to mind as I reflect on this reading. (1) I must say that Crossan is a healthy challenge to Christian smugness which would have all our texts spell out in clear evidence the very things which we are called upon to believe. It’s one or the other: Faith or rationality. (2) He has an insight I can’t quite grasp but which seems promising: The Gospel writers, in narrating the Passion of Jesus, are in fact describing the sufferings and hope of their own contemporaries. That would mean that they see these contemporaries as Jesus today, resurrected and alive. There is, in Who Killed Jesus?, much more to think about (Why does Mark—the "short version"—end on a note of betrayal and incompletion?). But I don’t want to spoil the fun of discovery for a potential reader.
Article. Albert Verdoodt. "Critique de l’approche de J.D. Crossan à partir de la sociologie et de l’histoire," in Social Compass 46(4), 1999, 471-79. I chose this article because of its promise of a critical study of Crossan.
The author is from Belgium. He has diplomas in religious studies, political and social science and Russian. He has taught as visiting professor in Canada and Burundi and has published in the area of The Rights of Man.
Evidence. He makes his case by quoting experts knowledgeable in Scriptural studies but also experts in the areas from which he criticizes Crossan. Although Crossan uses strict criteria to establish the history of Jesus, he introduces "considerable exotic material" in his arguments. Yet Crossan uses very little socio-economic data. Crossan’s analysis relies heavily on three areas: the "intercultural anthropological vector," history of the Greco-Roman era and of the first century C.E. Jewish history, and the "literary vector." Verdoodt criticizes Crossan’s approach from sociological and historical perspectives.
Example of historical critique. The text must be examined "as an historic document marked by and responding to events of the past" (474, all translations mine). It is "of exegetical tradition, especially at [the University of] Louvain to consider the Apocryphals [extracanonicals] as dependent upon the canonical [texts]. That may be less evident for the Gospel of Thomas by it in undeniable for the Gospel of Peter and the Secret Gospel of Mark" (476). It appears that the author is therefore critical of Crossan’s position on GPet because, well, that has always been the position of experts. Nor does he seem to realize that Crossan does not place the Gospel of Peter as anterior to the Canonical Gospels, only the hypothesized Cross Gospel, the forerunner of GPet. Also noteworthy is the discussion of "receptivity" by which the Gospel was not only given by had to be received. Quoting the Greek (?) Orthodox theologian Zizioulas (1984), the Councils are the means by which texts were admitted into the Canon of the Bible. Thus, Crossan should not depend on his personal, limited approach.
Reader response. I found reading this critique interesting because it begins to tell me how Crossan’s peers are dealing with his radial interpretations of the story of Jesus. This article goes beyond my immediate interest in the Passion narratives in general and the Gospel of Peter in particular. Compared to the scholarship of Crossan, however, Verdoodt makes a poor showing. His critique remains generic and relies on the scholarship of others and of "the tried and proven" that has always been.
"Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" from the Christus Victor Ministries, Answering the Skeptics website: http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=342.
I read this article as it represents the critique of Christians who, because they read the Scriptures literally, are strong in their opposition to "liberal" interpretations of the Gospels. [Julien Olivier]
The material as a whole is a "Critique of the Jesus Seminar." Interested readers could review the entire web site. There are eight paragraphs in the section "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?". I read the first: §1 Trying to get around the Resurrection. Subsequent paragraphs ask whether early Christians could have made up the story; they also inquire into Joseph of Arimathea, the "evidence," 1Cor. 15, the Gospel accounts and whether they contradict each other. The article does not address the Gospel of Peter as such but refers to J. D. Crossan and his Passion-Resurrection theories. Footnotes refer to Crossan’s Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (1993) and to a Jan. 10, 1994 article in Time magazine. They could have referenced The Cross that Spoke and Who Killed Jesus?, both of which use the Gospel of Peter as a key text to understanding the Passion. Reference to Crossan is made in the context (1) of the core importance of the resurrection which "more than anything else stamps [Jesus] as the one and only Son of God. This "affirmation of the supernatural within history…cannot be allowed by scholars with a commitment to naturalism. It must, therefore, be explained away"; and (2) of the "naturalistic scholars" who, for the past 200 years, have attempted to explain the Resurrection "by proposing a number of theories": Jesus never died, the disciples stole his body, hallucination on their part, myth that evolved over time… It goes on to present a very simple outline of Crossan’s ideas.
My thoughts. To begin to understand what Crossan is proposing, one should read the author himself just as persons interested in the material discussed here should review the entire web site. But are they mutually exclusive? Do belief, which is the important factor in this site, and critical study talk past each other? Note that Crossan too speaks of himself as a Christian believer of the Catholic tradition. And so we are not speaking of believers versus non-believers. The issue is one of basic position in face of interpretation.
"The Gospel of Peter" from the Early Christian Writings website: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html.
I read this article because it seemed like a fairly objective piece readily available to all via a website. [Julien Olivier]
The article begins with a list of online texts (translations) and resources for the Gospel of Peter. Pretty handy since all one has to do is click to get there. It also lists six "offline resources" (books) for this Gospel. I note that, for Crossan, the one evident reference (The Cross that Spoke) is omitted although this book is mentioned in the analysis. The six are listed below. The section devoted to Information on the Gospel of Peter is a discussion of the sources of the Gospel of Peter according to recent scholarly work. The prevailing theory is that "the Gospel of Peter is dependent on the canonical gospels" either by oral tradition (Raymond Brown, mentioned here but not in the references) or "directly." Independence from the canonical Gospels (Ron Cameronm) seems to be a more recent theory. For some, "its sources of the passion narrative is oral tradition." On the other hand, "form criticism and redaction criticism indicate that the Gospel of Peter was dependent upon a number of sources." Some would say that the document as we have it antedates the four canonical gospels and could have served as a source for their respective authors. Crossan finds a famous reconstruction of what he calls the Cross Gospel which served as the basis for all four canonical gospels and the eventual Gospel of Peter. "Koester has criticized this hypothesis for several reasons": dependence upon one late manuscript, underestimation of oral tradition, and the appearance stories which are independent of each other in the canonical gospels.
The article concludes with a summary from Koester which very much resembles the Cross Gospel theory of Crossan: "The Gospel of Peter…is not dependent upon any of the canonical gospels. It is a composition which is analogous to the Gospels of Mark and John. All three writings, independent of each other, use an older passion narrative which is based upon an exegetical tradition that was still alive when these gospels were composed." That sounds strangely like the Cross Gospel.
Offline Resources for Gospel of Peter:
| H. B. Swete, The Akhmim Fragment of the Apocryphal Gospel of Peter (Church History 2001) |
| J. Rendel Harris, A Popular Account of the Newly-Recovered Gospel of Peter (Church History 2001) |
| Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press 1990), pp. 216-240. |
| John Dominic Crossan, Four Other Gospels (Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press 1985), pp. 125-181. |
| Ron Cameron, ed., The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press 1982), pp. 76-82. |
| Robert J. Miller, ed., The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press 1992), pp. 393-401. |
Introduction to a book on Preaching the Gospel from the Gospels. Author unknown. Found in the Hendrickson Publishers website at http://www.hendrickson.com/pdf/introduction…
I found this reference in searching google for the Gospel of Peter. The author seems to either be updating and republishing his own 1954 book or introducing that of another preacher. He refers to the Gospel of Peter in the context of J.D. Crossan and H. Koester, scholars involved in the "unprecedented attention…being given to non-canonical gospels, especially in the U.S.A." The Gospel of Peter is high on the list of extracanonicals being studied. Crossan and Koester, he says, "claim that many of the sayings of Jesus in these documents are not only independent of similar saying in the Synoptic Gospels but even earlier and more authentic than they. Understandably the substance of the teachings of Jesus is thereby considerably changed." (I note that, in fact, the saying issue is handled elsewhere in Crossan; it has little or nothing to do with Crossan’s analysis of the Gospel of Peter.) The author does, however, get to the heart of Crossan’s Gospel of Peter analysis: "J.D. Crossan even maintains that he has isolated a source of the Gospel of Peter, which he names a Cross Gospel and that it is a source of the passion narratives of all four canonical Gospels."
My comments. I would like to know who this author is and how he uses the new scholarly insights into the Gospels to help preachers better accomplish their mission. The article is a reminder that, ultimately, unless scholarly research be "only" an intellectual pursuit for academics, it must have repercussions on preaching and into http://www.hendrickson.com/pdf/the spiritual lives of believers.
Article: Arthur J. Dewey. "Time to Murder and Create," in Semeia 49,1 (1990), 101-126.
Arthur J. Dewey. "Time to Murder and Create," in Semeia 49,1 (1990), 101-126. I chose to read this article because it represents a critique of relatively recent research (Brown, 1987); Cameron, 1982; Koester, 1980, 1983; Crossan, 1976-88…) compared with original analyses (Harnack, Zahn, 1893) from the point of view and using the critical, contemporary literary methodologies. More pointedly, it is a "critical counterpoint to Crossan’s recent contribution concerning the compositional development, genre, and theology of Gos. Pet." coming from colleagues (Crossan is on the Semeia board) and scholars who use similar analytical tools as he does and not from exegetical opponents, determined by their basic principles to reject his analyses. [Julien Olivier]
Authors. All I know comes from the top title page: "Xavier University."
Structure. The introduction is followed the three sections and Summation; there are three pages of Works Consulted. The three sections are: (1) Redactional Observations (The Crossan Hypothesis, Methodological Considerations, Redactional Analysis; (2) The Question of Genre (Generic Components of the Persecution Story, Questions and Complications); (3) The Retelling of the Tale (Epiphany Material, Redactional and Secondary Elements, The Final Layer, Historical Considerations of Gos. Pet. 5:17).
Evidence. I note the following evidence used by the authors (the use of a technique appears on the page cited but is not limited to that place): Comparison of literary genre (111); word analysis of the Greek text which is either internal to the Gos. Pet. (105) or in comparison to Paul (1 Cor: 112; 1 Thess: 123); Old Testament story reference to Judges (113); reference to "the larger historical situation" (122), viz., the fall of Jerusalem (113), redaction according to the needs of the community (122), the social situation/climate of the times which saw Christians pitted against Jews (123).
Rather than illustrate the author’s use of evidence, I will go to his summation (123-24). "This paper has suggested that there are some fundamental questions regarding the formal, redactional, and generic elements of Gos. Pet. My contention is that a close analysis of the text yields rather significant possibilities, especially if we consider the basic genre of what can be detected as original material." He calls "original material" the "first layer" and characterizes the genre as that of "persecution and vindication." The content which drove the format derived from speculation upon psalms, prophets and, perhaps, "the ancient political ideology of Israel. (Sounds to me much like the Crossan theory of the Cross Gospel.) This layer’s purpose: "this narrative was used…to come to grips with the probable collision of ideological expectation and the political failure of Jesus of Nazareth. The second layer "expanded the story of the righteous one by the addition of a miraculous epiphany story. When? Possibly "during the early stages of missionary advancement by the Jesus movement." In the third layer is found emphasis on particular individuals ("The Joseph Fragment") and "a focus upon the guilt of the leaders of the people." The fourth layer reveals "a decided self-definition of the disciples of the Lord over against ‘the Jews.’" Date it from after the fall of Jerusalem. The author ends with several observations: (1) This line of composition with the "emerging…picture of historical development of the many-sided Jesus movements in the first century"; (2) Gos. Pet. may "carry some of the earliest gospel material" and the final redaction may be "chronologically equivalent to Mark"; (3) most significantly, "the earliest stage of Gos. Pet. holds within it the generic seeds of the subsequent passion narratives"; and—take note of this one—(4)at this "earliest stage we do not have sheer historical report; on the contrary, we have an imaginative attempts to discern the Wisdom of God."
My comments. In J.D. Crossan’s 1988 monumental study of the Gospel of Peter entitled The Cross that Spoke, there is an English-language translation of this Gospel which occupies less than four pages (409-13). A month ago, I read those few pages in a very few minutes. Now, each time I read a commentary and am sent back to that text, I am offered new insights or at least new theories. Amazing! So many people having so many ideas and writing so much material over so little text! Having said that, I personally find in the present article several new and potentially interesting elements with which to reflect on Gos. Pet.: (1) The idea that the original genre is that of persecution and vindication; (2) the culling of a "Joseph fragment" (106); (3) the reference to 1 Thess. 2:16a to date the "world divided into opposing camps" (123); (4) the addition of a fourth layer to Crossan’s three; (5) the concept that Gos. Pet. would have been completed shortly after the fall of Jerusalem. Note that this conclusion by Dewey is definitely contrary to Crossan’s dating of the final version (at least late first century). Finally, (6) does the title of the article refer to the "murder" of Jesus and the "imaginative attempt to discern the Wisdom of God," i.e., the "creation" of this Passion-Resurrection story and, thereby, subsequent versions?
The Gospel According to Peter. A Study by the Author of "Supernatural Religion." London: Longman’s, Green, and Co., 1894. 139 pp. I chose to read this book because it is one of the first published studies on the subject and the oldest I could put my hands on. (The Gospel of Peter—GPet below—was discovered in 1886.) [Julien Olivier]
The author is not named. I note that Arthur Dewey in an article published in Semeia: (49,1) says that "The works of Adolf Harnack (1893) and Theodore Zahn (1893) have framed the subsequent discussion." Both and Zahn are also mentioned by the author of this book. Whoever this is did not seem to have "framed the…discussion."
Structure. There are twelve chapters to this book, including the Conclusion. A useful Greek "text of the fragment" is found in the Appendix. (1) Chapters 1 and 2 examine the text itself: its discovery, followed by an English translation. (2) Chapters 3-6 inquire into possible early references to GPet in known documents: the letter of Serapion, Justin Martyr, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Diatessaron of Tatian. (3) Chapter 7 attempts to date the fragment through "internal indications; (4) Chapter 8 is "the most important part of our examination"—also the longest chapter—in which the fragment is compared to the canonical Gospels. (5) Chapter 9 returns to the issue of date: "The relative antiquity of this document." (6) Chapters 10 and 11 look at both GPet and "the Gospels" in the light "Prophetic Gnosis." Then comes the Conclusion followed by the Greek text of GPet.
Evidence.
This may be a late 19th century book, but, the author’s literary criticism is classical. But I seemed to feel in its pages the thrill of discovery. The author’s primary evidence is the text itself, using the Greek text. Then comes a search of early Christian documents, followed by comparison to the canonical Gospels. Attention is paid to literary genres and word usage. The author also cites a fair number of contemporaries, sometimes to agree with them, as with a Mr. F.C. Conybeare who finds in Polycarps’s Epistle to the Corinthians a "probable reference" to GPet (17). At other times the author disagrees; e.g. with a Mr. Rendel Harris who "has not succeeded in proving that the Gospel of Peter betrays such traces of a ‘highly evolved prophetic gnosis.’" In fact his judgment of Harris is particularly harsh. I cite it at length as a kind of museum piece of exegetical criticism: "If this system of elaborate and perverted ingenuity," says the author of fellow scholar Harris," were applied to these Gospels, as it has been to the fragment [i.e. GPet], and every kind of false exegesis, childish reasoning, and wild interpretation, such as was current amongst the Fathers, brought forward to explain the construction of the four canonical works, the consequence would be terribly surprising to pious readers (127).
The analysis in chapter 8 follows the GPet section by section (as opposed to verse by verse as by Crossan). It uses the Greek text and is offers insightful interpretation. Of particular interest to me was the insistence placed on certain images (e.g. the "young man," page 99) which seem to receive less attention in the 20th century exegesis which I read. Having presented the evidence, the author seems to rely on a "common sense" approach to conclusions drawn. More on this below.
Example.
This early writer dates GPet as most likely older than the canonical Gospels, a theory more accepted in the late 19th century than in the 20th but which found favor once more in the last part of the 20th century. Why? After all the analysis, the author boils the reasoning down to common sense. GPet had to come before because of the many differences in the story. And this author would not have taken lightly the narration of predecessors having the importance to become canonical texts. Here is the key argument (my italics): "It is obvious that the feeling of the writer is one of intense devotion and reverence, and it is unreasonable to suppose that he could have passed over, altered, and contradicted so many points in the narrative of the Gospels, had he had those works before him" (109).
Noteworthy also is the final value judgment in the book’s conclusion: "It is the merit of the fragment that it presents considerable variation in the original sources, and shows us the fluidity of the early reports of that which was supposed to take place during the period which it embraces. We have in it a primitive and less crystallized form of the Christian tradition" (133).
My reactions. Judging by the number of scholars quoted in the text and footnotes, it seems that the discover of GPet created quite a stir among exegetes and (inferring as much from the quote about "pious readers") among Church persons.
Most interesting to me, however, were to find interpretations assumed to be "obvious" by this writer but which, some 100 years later, would later come under much closer scrutiny. For example, this study assumes in GPet "the anti-Judaism of the whole" (17). Not surprising! That was also my first impression. Crossan, however (The Cross that Spoke) takes great pain to show that, contrary to usual interpretation, GPet is not anti-Semitic because, according to the text, once they see what they have done, the people repent. The bad guys, says Crossan, are not the Jews but the leaders of the people who, realizing that the Lord has risen (they were present as were the Romans), nevertheless act contrary to evidence for fear of reprisal by the people. This is a key point of Crossan’s, both in The Cross that Spoke and in Who Killed Jesus?.
Another example where there is important divergence between an interpretation assumed by this author and Crossan, for example, in the 20th century, concerns verse 10b, referring to his crucifixion, we read: "But he kept silence as feeling no pain" (translation given in this book, page 8). The interpretation to which the author seems to subscribe (the italics being mine): "We have already referred to this as one of the recognized Docetic passages of the fragment." Nevertheless, the author hurries to add: "although there is no necessity to read it in this sense" (60). Definitely not, says Crossan, who reads it as the Lord indeed feeling pain but acting outwardly like one who did not feel it.
Finally, and this was the most surprising to me, I find in the last chapters of this book arguments which appear to be original in Crossan. They come under the title of "prophetic gnosis," which sounds very much like what Crossan calls "prophecy historicized." (See, e.g., the Prologue to Who Killed Jesus?, page 1.) Most important is the key prophecy upon which Crossan builds his argument in The Cross that Spoke: the two goats of Leviticus 16:7-10 with the same references to Zechariah, the Sibyllian Oracles and the Epistle of Barnabas! The argument is far from developed, but there it is in its infant stage. Did Crossan get the idea here? And who’s idea is this? Not that of the anonymous author of this book but of the infamous Mr. Rendel Harris!
The Dialogue of the Savior does not have a definitive date for its original composition. It has survived in a fragmentary Coptic manuscript from Nag Hammadi, dated some time in the fourth century C.E. (Emmel p.15) and discovered in Egypt in 1945 with companion texts The Gospel of Thomas and Secret James. (Miller vii)
It can be found in The Complete Gospels, Robert J. Miller, Editor (Sonomas, CA: Polebridge Press, 1994) ISBN 0 06 065587 9, and in the Nag Hammadi Codex, III.5 The Dialogue of the Savior, Stephen Emmel, Editor (The Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1984) ISBN 90 04 07558 5.
I randomly chose this manuscript in class during our Tuesday meeting last month.
Nowhere does the author appear in the work nor does the title identify any author except The Savior. The several sections of the work exhibit great differences in style and content. The work is, therefore, best seen as a compilation of various sources and traditions, or as the elaboration and expansion of an older dialogue. (Emmel, p. 1)
In The Complete Gospels it consists of forty-one chapters. It is likely the author intended the writing as a discussion of baptism, and in particular of the question: do baptized persons belong in heaven, or should they continue their struggle in the flesh, i.e., on earth? (Miller, p. 343)
The author answers the question as follows. First, the writing looks backwards – it describes a moment in the past, when Jesus and his disciples were together. But the reader sees the disciples not only as historical people; he or she finds that they stand for the community’s "catechumens" (converts in training) being instructed by their "teacher" (34:1). In this way, the instructions to the disciples in the Dialogue are probably addressed to those in the author’s community who are preparing for baptism. (Miller, p. 343)
The final author or editor is probably responsible for the work’s title, because after his first speech the Lord is identified as "The Savior" in the introduction to only two speeches (4:2; 6). Everywhere else the revealer is called "the Lord" (39 times) or simply identified as "he/him" (7 times, in introduction to speeches). His conversation partners, in order of appearance, are (1) Matthew (10 speeches); (2) Judas (18 speeches, including three addresses not to the Lord but to Matthew [17:4; 34:1; 37:7]); (3) "(all) his disciples" (7 speeches, including "his disciples, twelve in number" [32:1]); and (4) Mary (13 speeches). In addition, (5) "the son of Adam" has two speeches (17:8-10, 17). (Miller, p. 345)
Several things about this document make it almost certain that the final author combined various written sources to produce the present Dialogue of the Savior. First, a series of long speeches of the Lord seem to belong together, in terms of subject-matter and style (see especially 1-3; 8:2-8: 12:2-11; 15:4-16:8; 38: 41:3-7). Second, several of the speeches have transitions that interrupt the flow of the dialogue (see especially in 12:12; 17:1-12, 14-21). Third, there are some abrupt changes of subject-matter, as if the author switched from one source to another and back again. (Miller, p. 344)
Because of these features, it is now widely held that the author of the Dialogue made use of four sources: (1) a dialogue between the Lord and his disciples; (2) a creation myth; (3) a wisdom list (or catalog of elementary substances); and (4) an apocalyptic vision (or heavenly revelation). To these the author added an introduction (1-3), concluding instructions (41:6), and various other sentences that enable the Dialogue of the Savior to be read as a continuous whole. (Miller, p. 344)
The dialogue (4-8; 11; 13:1-15:10; 18:4-41:7) consists of short speeches; in each of these a traditional saying of Jesus is quoted, or reflections on a traditional saying. (Miller, p. 344)
These sections constitute the major source for the present work and account for about 65% of its text. In its composition the dialogue features brief questions or statements of one of the individually named disciples (sometimes also of all the disciples) and usually brief answers of the Lord. (Emmet, p. 2)
Several units comprise only one question and one answer, thus resembling many of the "sayings" of The Gospel of Thomas. In other instances, several questions and answers form a coherent unit discussing a particular topic. The final answer may appear at the end in the form of a traditional saying, but saying are also used in an initial statement of the Lord, which is then elaborated in the subsequent discussion, or in a question to a disciple. (Emmet, p. 2)
A wide range of topics is covered and individual questions and answers are frequently linked by "catch words" (words or phrases in two or more adjacent lines); but the dialogue does not follow a particular pattern of questions and answers. The author does not even state whether the Lord is speaking before or after the resurrection. (Miller, p. 344)
His discipl[es said, "Lord,] who is the one who seeks and […] reveals?" [The Lord] sai[d to them,] "The one who seeks [is also the one who] reveals […]. Matt[hew said to him, "Lord, wh]en I [heaar…] and [when] I speak, who is the one who [speaks, and who] the one who hears?" The [Lord] said, "The one who speaks is also the one who h[ears], and the one who sees is also [the one who] reveals." (7:1-4)
Judas said, "Tell me, Lord, what is the beginning of the way." He said, "Love and goodness. For if one of these had been among the archons, wickedness would never have come to be." (28:1-3)
The chapters that include the creation myth (9-10;12) do not give a complete "myth." They are pieces of a mythic drama, based on ideas in Genesis 1-2. (Miller, p. 344)
See Genesis 1:1. "the heaven and the earth" and Genesis 1:2 "darkness and water and spirit upon water and Genesis 1:4 "signs over the earth" and Genesis 2:5 "the lack of water on earth" are clearly present. The myth relates how the water which was originally separated from the earth by a wall of fire made the world fruitful: the Word cast forth from itself the four streams of paradise – milk, honey, oil, and wine – which assure fruitfulness for all generations and explaining that the true mind prevails over the powers of above and below. (Emmet, p. 8).
Judas said, "Tell [us, L]ord, what [there was] before heaven and earth came into being." The Lord said, "There was darkness and water and a spirit upon, the. Wa[ter]. And I say to [you,…] what you seek [and] search for, lo[ok, it is wi]thin you, and […]the power and the mys[tery …]spirit, because from […] wickedness comes […] the mind and […]. Look, […] […]." (9:1-4)
[…] said, "Lord, tell us where [the soul st]ands, and where the true m[ind] is." The Lord said, "the fire of [the]spirit came into being in […]both of them. Because of this […] came into being, <and> the true mind came into being wi[thin] them […]. If you se[t your so]ul on high, the[n you will be] exalted." (10:1-4)
Judas said, "Look! See that everything is […] just like these signs that are over [the earth]. Because of this they came to be so." The Lord [said], "When the Fa[ther establi]shed the world, he [gathered] water from it, [and the]Word came forth from it. He appeared in many […], and was higher than the pa[th of the stars which surround] the whole earth. They […], for the water that was gather[ed…] was beyond them […]of the water, a great fire [surr]sounding them like a wall. And […] time, when many things were separated from [what] was inside. When the [Word] was set in place he looked at […] and said to it, ‘Go and […] from you, so that […] in want from generation to gene[ration an]d from age to age.’ Th[en it] cast forth itself [spr]ings of milk and spri[ngs of]honey and oil and w[ine] and go[od] fruit and sweet taste and good roots, s[o that] it might lack nothing from generation [to] generation and from age to age. And it is above [..] […] set, namely […] its beauty […] And beyond […] was a great light, [more] powerful [than] the one like it, for this is [the one which] rules over the aeons that are [abo]ve and that are below. [The light was] taken from the fire and was scattered over the [pler]oma that is above and that is [be]low. On them all things depend." When Judas heard these things he bowed down and worshi[ped], and praised the Lord. (12:1-12)
The wisdom list (15:11-16:8), is a Christian revision of the expected list, commonplace among Greek philosophers, of the four cosmic elements (earth, air, fire, water). The element "earth" has been replaced by "body;" (Emmet, p. 8)
The author quotes a pattern of negative conditions ("if you do not…") and their consequences, ("then you will…"). ( Miller, p. 344-45)
"If you do not [understand] how fire came to be, you will burn in it, because you do not know its root." (16:1)
"If you do not first understand water, you know nothing; for what <then> is the use of your receiving baptism in it? (16:2)
"If you do not understand how the wind that blows came to be, you will fly away with it." (16:3)
"If you do not understand how the body which you bear came to be, you will perish with it. (16:4)
Other Christian expansions already included in the source used by the author.
He said to them, "That which supports the ear[th] is that which supports the heaven. When a word comes forth from the Majesty, it will come upon that which supports the heaven and the earth, For the earth <itself> does not move – if it moved it would fall – but <it does not fall> so that the first word might not be nullified. For that is the one who established the world and came to be in it and received <sweet> fragrance from it. For […] thing that does not move I […]you, all of humankind, for you are from that place: you are in the heart of those who speak from jo[y] and truth. Even if it comes forth among humankind from the body of the Father and is not received, it returns again to its place. The one who knows [..thi]ng<s> of perfection kno[ws] nothing. If you do not stand in the darkness, you will not be able to see the light." (15:4-11)
"And if you do not know [theS]on, how will you know the [Father]?" (16:5)
"And you will not know the root of all things; they are hidden from you." (16:6)
"Those who will not know the root of wickedness are not strangers to it." (16:7)
"Those who will not understand how they came will not understand how they will go; and they are no strangers to this world which will [ and] which will be humbled." (16:8)
The apocryphal vision (17) is unique in the Dialogue of the Savior because it includes a lengthy descriptive narrative and someone identified as "the son of Adam." (17:8). This "son of Adam,"
distinct from "the Lord" conversing with the disciples, directs and describes the journey of "a single soul"from the abyss to the heights of heaven. As they stood there, he saw two spirits bearing a single soul with them in a great flash of lightning. (17:16)
Meanwhile, the author tells us that the disciples see this drama in a vision, which they witness from "the edge of heaven and earth." Then he [took] Judas and Matthew and Mary […] the end of heaven [and] earth. (17:1) That these three persons, Judas, Matthew and Mary, are made the recipients of the vision connects the vision to the dialogue source in which these three disciples figure prominently. (Miller, p. 345)
The final author introduces "all the disciples" into the vision report: Then all his disciples praised him and said, "Lord, before you appeared here, who was there to give you praise – for from you all praises come to be? Or who was there to bless [you] – for from you come all blessings?" (17:14-15)
Yet there is no attempt to dissolve the tension between the present and the future. Therefore, in the Dialogue three "eras" are described. The first is the pictured, fleeting history of a believer’s soul being redeemed. The second is the climax in history of the Lord and his disciples, mentioned in the dialogue’s opening and long in the past by the time of the reader. The third is the future of the author’s community, whom the author hopes to convince that death, and life, may now be faced without fear. (Miller, p. 344) Matthew said, "Tell me, Lord, how the dead die and how the living live." The Lord said, "[You have] asked me about a saying [ that] which eye has not seen, nor have I heard it, except from you. But I say to you that when that which moves a person is drained out, that person will be called dead; and when what is living leaves what is dead, <it> will be called alive." (22:1-4)
I came into this with no experience with non-NT gospels. I found the Dialogue and its background information in The Complete Gospels and in Nag Hammadi Codex fascinating. Each time I read the material I came away feeling really affected by it, even though it was a bit of a stretch working around all the […] breaks. I am looking forward to reading the other manuscripts from The Complete Gospels.
Emmel, Stephen, editor: Nag Hammadi Codex III,5: The Dialogue of the Savior. The Netherlands: E.J. Brill , 1984.
Miller, Robert J., editor: The Complete Gospels. Sonoma, California: Polebridge Press, 1994.
I actually did have a reason for choosing this particular gospel. Mark has always been my personal favorite among the synoptics, and so Secret Mark seemed a good choice.
In 1958 Morton Smith, working at the monastery in Bar Saba, near Jerusalem, made an exciting discovery. He found, in the very back of a 1646 edition of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, a fragment of a letter of Clement of Alexandria that had been copied into the final page and back cover of the host book. The discovery of the previously unknown letter would have been enough to thrill young Smith, but in addition to that, the letter included reference to, and two examples from a Secret Gospel of Mark. This secret gospel appears to predate canonical Mark, and contains material that is strikingly similar to portions of the Gospel of John, specifically, the raising of Lazarus, though the young man is unnamed in Secret Mark.
The two passages cited by Clement of Alexandria fall neatly into place at chapter 10 of Mark; the first slips into the space between verses 34 and 35 and contains the Lazarus material; the second finds a niche in the middle of verse 46, and answers, though somewhat vaguely, the question: What happened in Jericho?
The letter addresses the usage of the secret gospel by a somewhat notorious sect of early Christians called the Carpocatians. Clement believes them to be a peculiarly odious bunch, and one that has perverted the secret teachings for their own hedonistic purposes. It is Clement¹s desire to set his corespondent, Theodore, on the right track with regard to the appropriate understanding and usage of this secret material.
There is general agreement among those who have studied this document in recent years, that it was intended for an inner circle of believers, while canonical Mark is aimed at the general population of Christians.
While the actual fragment, both letter and pericope, is intriguing, what I found most enjoyable was Morton Smith¹s recounting of his experience and the subsequent process he underwent as he began to research this surprising discovery. Smith recalls his experience and process in two different books, one, a more scholarly rendering, the other an infectious retelling that captures his personal memories, conversations, and feelings as the drama unfolded over the ensuing years.
It is fascinating to see, not only, the sheer numbers of pages, the varied speculations and ruminations that this find has generated among theologians, but also to sense the human thrill at glimpsing new possibility from the discovery of this ancient material. These are tiny fragments that contain only whispers beyond what has existed for us textually up to this point and yet they appear to throw the windows wide open to the sky. What is the relationship between and among the synoptics in light of this discovery, and can we now see a clear lineage to John from an earlier version of Mark? The mention of the women, ³the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved ... along with his mother, and Salome ...², as well as Jesus¹ refusal to see them have generated questions, possible answers, arguments. Whose mother are we talking about? Jesus² mother? The young man¹s mother? Is this a polemic against only these particular women, against all women? Why? What does it all mean? The young man who is raised and then initiated into ³the mystery of God¹s domain² in a secret nocturnal ritual, Is this the same young man we meet in the garden and at the tomb? What a romp! And yet it is more than that, of course. For our understanding of the texts that come to us across the generations have importance today, if that were not the case, such debates would have died out years ago.
In the end, though our appetite for greater gnosis is whetted, the Secret Gospel of Mark remains just that: a secret. To our frustration and delight, the search continues.
I would recommend Morton Smith¹s The Secret Gospel to anyone who ... well, to anyone. It¹s a great read. Clement of Alexandria and the Secret Gospel of Mark is a more valuable resource in terms of deeper textual interpretation and comparative studies among the various texts, but it is, as one would expect, less accessible to a general readership.
The following books and articles are available through the BTS library and were the sources I used ( some only ³scanned² ) in preparing this paper.
Thank you to the library staff for their patient and thorough assistance:
| Robert J. Miller , editor: The Complete Gospels: (Harper SanFransisco, 1992). |
| Smith, Morton. : Clement of Alexandria and the Secret Gospel of Mark ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973). |
| Smith, Morton.: The Secret Gospel ( New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1973). |
| Munro, Winsome.: ³Women disciples : light from secret Mark² (Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion; Spr 1992, p. 47-64) |
| Meyer, Marvin W.: ³The Youth in the Secret Gospel of Mark² :(Semeia no 49 1990, p. 129-153). |
| Donfried, Karl Paul, reviewer.: ³Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark²: (Christian Century July 1973, p. 759-760). |
| Bauckham, Richard J.: ³Salome the sister of Jesus, Salome the disciple of Jesus, and the Secret Gospel of Mark² (Novum Testamentum, July 1991, p. 245-275). |
| Brown, Raymond Edward.: ³Relation of the Secret Gospel of Mark to the Fourth Gospel²: ( Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 1974, p. 466-485). |
Author Unknown: The Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, approximately early 2nd cent.)
Scholars date the writing of this gospel anywhere from the time of the writing of the Synoptics to about 150 C.E. It is not an extant document, so we have only bits and pieces with which to work. The audience was certainly Jewish Christian.
As noted above, the gospel was probably written in Egypt, since most of its citations are derived from Christians living there. However, scholars are not certain of the exact location.
There are about 20 or more fragments of this gospel that appear in the writings of historians and church fathers of the first five centuries. Those who reference the Gospel of the Hebrews include the following: Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome. Jerome notes that it is he who translated the gospel from Hebrew into Greek. Miller notes, however, that there is reason to doubt this assertion, since it appears that Jerome got at least some of his material from Origen. As a result, Miller contends that there is no compelling reason to state that the Gospel of the Hebrews was not originally written in Greek.
It is estimated that there were approximately 2200 lines in the entire gospel as compared to 2500 in the Gospel of Matthew. It seems to have been written somewhat in the manner of the Synoptics, but overall, it does go its own way, leaving us with no real evidence that it deliberately followed the thought of either the Synoptic or the Johannine traditions. This is unlike the other Jewish Christian gospels that reveal a dependence upon the Gospel of Matthew.
The following are two examples of divergent views from the Synoptic or the Johannine traditions: First, in chapter one, both Jesus and Mary are described in terms of their pre-existence, before coming to earth. Mary is identified with the Holy Spirit or Michael. Later in 4d, it states, "Just now my mother, the holy spirit, took me." As Miller notes, this identification of the Holy Spirit with Jesus’ mother seems to stem from the gender of the Hebrew word for "spirit". Second, in chapter 9, we read the story of the first resurrection appearance to James the Just. Some scholars believe that this may suggest that the Jewish Christian community that produced this document looked upon James as their founder.
As the reader of the Gospel of the Hebrews, I was both intrigued and puzzled. I was intrigued by the variances in understanding and interpretation of some of the events described regarding Jesus’ life and ministry. I was puzzled because we have so very little to work with in trying to piece all this together.
Bibliography
| Cameron, Ron: The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Texts: (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1982). |
| Miller, Robert J., ed.: The Complete Gospels: (San Francisco: Polebridge Press, 1992). |
| Orr, James: "Entry for HEBREWS, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE’" "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. |
In every century, including our own history records women exercising leadership in Christian communities and in every century that leadership has been contested.
Against the public exercise of women’s leadership men such as those in I Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2 provide indirect evidence that women were in fact practicing public speech otherwise why bother to prohibit them? We have direct evidence concerning the Corinthian women prophets—Philip’s daughters, Amenia of Philadelphia, Philomene, the visionary martyr Perpetua, and several leaders of the Montanist movement including Maximella Priscilla, and Quintilla. All these women were accepted as prophets and exercised authority within Christian groups. One additional work lets us see a woman actually exercise leadership and hear arguments made to support that leadership: the Gospel of Mary.
The first part contains a postresurrection dialogue between the Savior and the disciples among whom Mary Magdalene plays an important role. After the Savior departs, controversy erupts among the disciples over the veracity of a vision Mary had of the savior. The work confines Mary’s vision and her leadership role among the disciples in the face of challenges from other disciples especially Andrew and Peter. (4)
In the Gospel of Mary, Mary plays the role of the prophet. She receives a vision of the Lord and assumes the roles of comforter and teacher to the disciples admonishing them to be resolute. She turns their hearts toward the "Good" so that they begin to discuss the words of the Savior. Mary is clearly fundamental in the role of the prophetic revealer to the other disciples. (5)
Mary clearly remembers the vision, since she is able to recount it later and there are no indications of a state or trance or possession distinct from sleep. The dream was auditory and visionary in that she not only saw the Savior but also heard him. They were able to converse and the dream account consists primarily of a dialogue between Mary and the Savior.
Mary has a vision in which she asks the Savior Lord how does a person who sees a vision see it—(with) the soul (or) with the spirit? The Savior answered, One does not see with the soul or with the spirit but with t he mind which exists between these two—that is (what) sees the vision and that is what…(text breaks off) (7:5-6)
The Gospel of Mary emphasizes the link between the human and the divine as the basis of hope for salvation, and it sees the soul in the body as a self divided against itself..
The Gospel of Mary argues that the most fundamental self, the soul, is not material but spiritual in nature. According to the Savior the soul’s attachment to the body is the cause of sickness and death. This doesn’t mean that the body is evil but if the soul is in proper relationship to God, the sickness that wrecks the body will be overcome. The body will not be saved or resurrected. The soul ascends to immortal rest. The material body returns to its root. (3:7-13)
The Gospel of Mary does not consider souls to be gendered; sexuality and the gendered differences inscribed on the body belong to the material nature.
For the Gospel of Mary sin is adultery that is the improper mixing of matter with the divine soul, such mixing results in sickness and death. (3:4)
For the Gospel of Mary it is the teaching of the risen Savior that brings salvation.
For the Gospel of Mary, it is not the soul that sees the vision, but the mind acting as the mediator between the sensory perception of the soul and the divine spirit. The bodily senses themselves obscure the capacity to perceive divine things. Because the mind is not associated with the senses, it is not damned by the presence of the spirit. (7: 1-4)
Only spiritually advanced souls have visionary experiences. Mary is praised by the Savior because she has not wavered at the sight of him.
Because gender is irrelevant it is possible to imagine Mary taking on the role of Savior at his departure, engaging in public instruction.
In the Gospel of Mary, the Savior goes out of his way to warn the disciples against constraining themselves by laying any rule or law beyond what he appointed for them. (4:9)
The Gospel of Mary fastened an ethics of release from external authorities and communal expression of divine authority.
In the Gospel of Mary, the portrayal of male authority about competition around the disciples for the Savior’s affection may belong to this perspective. Peter is happy to concede that the Savior loved Mary "more than other women" but he cannot bear the thought that the Savior may have loved her more than he loved the male disciples.(6:1-2)
The Gospel of Mary attempts to resolve conflict over authority by arguing for the ideal of a common humanity based on transcendence of bodily distinctions.
In the Gospel of Mary, it is Mary Magdalene who plays the role of the prophet. She receives a vision of the Lord and assumes the roles of comforter and teacher to the other disciples admonishing them to be resolute. She turns their hearts towards the "Good" so that they begin to discuss the words of the Savior. (5:9-10)
Sources:
| Fiorenza, E.S. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad Publishing Co. 1998. |
| King, K.L. Prophetic Power and Women’ Authority: The Case of the Gospel of Mary (Magdalene). In Kinzele, B.M., Walker, P.M. Women Preachers and Prophets through Two Millennia of Christianity. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1998. pp.21-41. |
| Wilson, R.MCl. The New Testament in the Gnostic Gospel of Mary. New Testament Studies. Vol 3. 1956-1957. p.236-243. |
