Roman Catholicism claims to have a high regard for
Scripture, but the behavior of Roman Catholics betrays their true attitude.
Par for the course, the Roman Catholic writer Mark Shea has spread
some urban legends that denigrate the Scriptures (HT:
James Swan). And because of the nature of Shea’s readership, such myths
spread among other Roman Catholics who take him at his word. But an analysis of
what he says shows the
bankruptcy of what he says.
The Church has always had the habit
of taking the best of whatever we humans come up with and pressing it into the
worship of God. … St. John cribbed the idea of the Logos from Greco-Roman
platonic philosophy to describe Jesus. St. Paul turned gnosticism on its head
by stealing a gnostic code word to describe Jesus as the “fulness” of God.
He is talking about the words ὁ λόγος (the logos or “the Word”) from John 1:1, 14,
and also the concept of πλήρωμα (“fullness”), Col 1:19 and other references.
Neither of Shea’s statements is true. In fact, both of these concepts have deep
roots in the Old Testament, which led the Biblical writers John and Paul to
embrace these concepts.
As an aside, first of all, John did not “crib” anything – and
nor did Paul “steal” anything. As writers of Scriptures, these men “spoke from
God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). But such is
the low Roman Catholic view of the Scriptures.
Even so, while the λόγος concept was present in Greek
culture, John’s usage of it has its roots in the concept of God’s “Word” in the
Old Testament. Carson says:
However the Greek term [“logos”] is
understood, there is a more readily available background than that provided by
Philo or the Greek philosophical schools. Considering how frequently John quotes
or alludes to the Old Testament, that is the place to begin. There, the ‘word’
(Heb. dabar) of God is connected with
God’s powerful activity in creation (cf.
Gn 1:3ff.; Ps. 33:6), revelation (Je. 1:4; Is. 9:8; Ezk. 33:7; Am 3:1, 8) and
deliverance (Ps. 107:20; Is. 55:1). If the Lord is said to speak to the prophet Isaiah (e.g.
Is 7:3), elsewhere we read that ‘the word
of the Lord came to Isaiah’
(Is. 38:4; cf. Je. 1:4; Ezk 1:6). It was by ‘the word of the Lord’ that the heavens were made
(Ps.33:6): in Gn. 1:3, 6, 9 etc. God simply speaks, and his powerful word
creates…. In short, God’s ‘Word” in the Old Testament is his powerful self-expression
in creation, revelation and salvation, and the personification of that ‘Word’
makes it suitable for John to apply it as a title God’s ultimate
self-disclosure, the person of his own Son.
… the ‘Word’ he is talking about is
a person, with God and therefore distinguishable from God, and enjoying a
personal relationship with him. More, the
Word was God. That is the translation demanded by the Greek structure. …
Here then are some of the crucial constituents of a full-blown doctrine of the
Trinity. [By placing this concept at the beginning of the Gospel], ‘John
intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse’
(Carson, “The Gospel of John,” 115-117).
The concept of “fullness”, too, appears in multiple places,
notably in Col 1: For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through
him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making
peace by the blood of his cross.”
There are two problems with Shea’s comment (that Paul “stole”
a “Gnostic code word”) to indicate the concept of “fulness”:
1. Gnosticism didn’t yet exist at
the time that Paul wrote Colossians. In fact, this particular “hymn” from
within Colossians, Col 1:15-22, is most likely a pre-Pauline confessional
formula that existed and was used by the church in honor of Christ long before
Paul wrote this letter. (Many such hymns exist throughout the New Testament). Gnosticism
was a second- and third-century force, and Paul wrote Colossians around 60 AD.
So this pre-Pauline hymn was from much earlier than that.
2. In fact, the language used in
verse 19, “God in all his fullness” is a reflection of Isaiah 6:1 and 6:4, in
which God himself “fills the temple”. The verse (a part of a pre-Pauline hymn)
in fact is almost a direct pick-up of the temple language from Psalm 67 17-18: “God
was well-pleased to dwell in [the temple in Zion]…The Lord will dwell [there]
forever … in the holy place”. Beale (“A New Testament Biblical Theology”, pg
544) notes, “In particular, here God’s dwelling in the architectural temple on
Zion now finds its fuller expression in God’s dwelling in Jesus as his end-time
temple. Jesus, as an individual, eschatologically instantiates and
typologically fulfills all that the OT temple represented”.
Of course, Shea’s low regard for Scripture is what causes
him to miss the genuine riches and “fullness” that God has prepared for his
people in Christ, in Christ alone for that matter, which he
misses because his happy Roman Catholic world is genuinely littered with Pagan
accretions which he must buy into as “the total deposit of the Faith”.
Hi John,
ReplyDeleteYour article reminds me of Garry Wills' assessment of RC biblical scholarship during the first half of the twentieth century. He referred to it as a "laughing stock". Some things never change.
I'm glad to see you are back in the saddle!
Peace.
Hey Constantine -- I actually think their biblical scholarship is pretty decent these days. Shea's quip is a result of the Magisterium's view of its own importance.
ReplyDeleteScripture speaks very highly of itself. But the Magisterium can't quite speak so highly of itself. So it's got to bring Scripture down a notch or two. It's very devaluing.
Thanks for your friendship!
You are right, of course, that Wisdom/Word Christology is greatly anticipated in the OT. However, the Church fathers, especially those in the east, also drew upon their Platonic heritage when considering the Logos. The early Church used the Wisdom/Word Christology of Scripture to relate to the Platonism of the pagan world. This is clear and reasonable enough, and I believe it is all Shea was driving at.
ReplyDeleteHi Philip Jude, yes, but "St. John" did not "crib" anything, and it is not likely at all he had Platonism on his mind. And it is very clear that Gnosticism, even "incipient" Gnosticism, wasn't around when Paul wrote (much less, before Paul wrote). Shea's boastful statements about these things are wrong, that's all I was driving at.
ReplyDeleteHe certainly spoke carelessly. This is what he says in response to my comment (re-posted on his blog):
ReplyDelete"Fair enough. However, John nonetheless “translates” the OT ideas by making reference to the Platonic terminology familiar to his Greek speaking readers."
Considering that John wrote his gospel so late, and in an area populated by Hellenistic cosmopolitans, the Spirit may indeed have led him to strategically emphasize Logos Christology, knowing full well that it would resonate with philosophically-minded gentiles.
Your point regarding the gnostics: Gnostic tendencies were present in the church from the start. Isn't this rather uncontroversial?
A quick Google search reveals that this Protestant Bible site supports the idea that the Colossian heresy was at least partially gnostic:
http://bible.org/seriespage/background-colossians
"The problem of the Gnostic thought in Colossians: It has been advocated that the nature of the heresy facing the Colossians with its Gnostic bent could not have existed until much later. However, scholars have discovered incipient features of Gnosticism present even in pre-Christian movements."
And it quotes Barclay:
"…But the idea of two worlds, the idea of the evil of matter, the idea that the body is a tomb, and that the flesh is evil, are ideas which are deeply woven into both Jewish and Greek thought. There is nothing in Colossians which cannot be explained by longstanding Gnostic tendencies in ancient thought, although it is true that the systematization of Gnosticism came later."
Mr. Bugay I do hope your wife is doing well. God be with you and yours.
ReplyDeletePhilip: First off, there is no question that Shea is demonstrating a very low regard for Scripture. This low regard from Scripture has its origins in the fact that "Mother Rome" must somehow show its own pronouncements the equivalent of Scripture. And Roman pronouncements are very dumb, and so the Scriptures must be dumbed down.
ReplyDeleteAnd further to that, Shea is using his soap box to denigrate Scripture right from the sources. The "reader question" had nothing to do with the source of the Scriptures. We know that "what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person."
Shea is showing us his heart.
"Fair enough. However, John nonetheless “translates” the OT ideas by making reference to the Platonic terminology familiar to his Greek speaking readers."
There is no question that John had to use "terminology". The question is, what is he trying to say with that terminology? How can John best describe the eternal nature of Jesus Christ?
Considering that John wrote his gospel so late, and in an area populated by Hellenistic cosmopolitans, the Spirit may indeed have led him to strategically emphasize Logos Christology, knowing full well that it would resonate with philosophically-minded gentiles.
Too much of Roman Catholicism is based on such wishful thinking, and the creation of dogma out of such wishful thinking.
Your point regarding the gnostics: Gnostic tendencies were present in the church from the start. Isn't this rather uncontroversial?
I'll grant that "Greek" tendencies were present in the Greek-speaking culture. "Gnosticism" was a much later phenomenon. "The first attested use [of the word "gnostics"] for persons as a distinct social entity" occurs in Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", 1.11.1. (Everett Ferguson, "Backgrounds of Early Christianity", pg 301).
So sure, call anything and everything a "gnostic tendency". It takes that kind of imprecision in order to make a case for Roman Catholicism.
And it quotes Barclay:... it is true that the systematization of Gnosticism came later."
Shea says, "Paul turned gnosticism on its head..." -- this is a ridiculous and anachronistic statement. Even if some "incipient" Greek concept existed at the time of Paul, do you honestly intend to try to defend the notion that this first-century Christian hymn (Col 1:15-20) was actually anticipating a second-century movement and heading it off at the pass?
The truth is, this hymn was making a positive description of Christ using Old Testament concepts. It unfortunately had no effect on the later "systematization of Gnosticism".
Shea is speaking out of the depths of his heart.
John,
ReplyDeleteShea's examples seem particularly lame. Even if these ideas were in the minds of the writers and they were "reinventing" them, it's hard to see how they were using "the best that we humans have come up with."
If I say "Jesus is the greatest prophet, not Muhammad" am I "cribbing" from Islam, much less implying that it is some praiseworthy religious movement?
This reminds me of people like Shea and Armstrong who defend the notorious Assisi events by claiming it's the same thing Paul did on Mars Hill.
Constantine,
I don't know what Wills meant, but he would probably say the same thing about Evangelical scholarship today.
-Steve Jackson
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePhilip,
ReplyDeleteBut isn't it just as likely (if not more so) that John is saying, in effect, "Jesus is the logos, but not in the way you understand it."
Likewise, Paul could be saying "Jesus is the fullness, but not in the way you pagans understand it."
Of course this assumes that these writers have something other than the OT background in mind, which Shea hasn't demonstrated.
Although I think some modern scholars overdo it, there clearly are times in the NT where terms used in the Emperor cult are applied to Jesus in order to subvert the cult. The NT writers aren't "cribbing" from Emperor worship.
-Steve Jackson
"Shea is showing us his heart."
ReplyDeleteI don't feel comfortable casting such a serious judgment, given that the only experience I have of Shea is via blog. Not exactly a reliable means of getting to know someone's heart, mm? Don't you think you're overdoing this a bit much?
"Too much of Roman Catholicism is based on such wishful thinking, and the creation of dogma out of such wishful thinking."
It isn't wishful thinking so much as a reasonable and informed hypothesis based upon historical facts.
"I'll grant that "Greek" tendencies were present in the Greek-speaking culture. "Gnosticism" was a much later phenomenon. "The first attested use [of the word "gnostics"] for persons as a distinct social entity" occurs in Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", 1.11.1. (Everett Ferguson, "Backgrounds of Early Christianity", pg 301).
So sure, call anything and everything a "gnostic tendency". It takes that kind of imprecision in order to make a case for Roman Catholicism."
Irenaeus may have popularized the term, but surely it existed much earlier: consider the schools of Marcion and Basilides. Anyway, gnosticism is nothing but crude paganism dressed in fancy Platonic garb. Such theosophical nonsense was definitely prevalent throughout the Roman world, especially in the oriental provinces.
"Shea says, "Paul turned gnosticism on its head..." -- this is a ridiculous and anachronistic statement. Even if some "incipient" Greek concept existed at the time of Paul, do you honestly intend to try to defend the notion that this first-century Christian hymn (Col 1:15-20) was actually anticipating a second-century movement and heading it off at the pass?
The truth is, this hymn was making a positive description of Christ using Old Testament concepts. It unfortunately had no effect on the later "systematization of Gnosticism"
I agree that Shea spoke carelessly. He went overboard. Pushed too far.
Nonetheless, from my study, which is admittedly limited, I figure that an unsophisticated form of proto-gnosticism was indeed infecting the Colossian church. This seems to be the consensus among historians.
This doesn't mean that Paul was using their ideas, however. Just because you recognize this reality doesn't mean you need to jump in bed with Elaine Pagels. There was probably some cross-pollination, but the evidence seems to suggest that the gnostics stole Christian vocabulary and concepts, not vice versa.
As for the hymn itself, I consider it wonderful and utterly genuine, a true artifact of early Christian piety. It is most definitely inspired by Old Testament sources.
I find it strange, though, that you reject the two books it most closely draws upon: Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon.
[25] For she [Wisdom] is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into her.
[26] For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.
[27] And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new: and in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God, and prophets.
[28] For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom.
[29] For she is more beautiful than the sun, and above all the order of stars: being compared with the light, she is found before it.
[30] For after this cometh night: but vice shall not prevail against wisdom."
--The Wisdom of Solomon 7:25 (KJV)
I simply do not understand why you Prots have dropped these most beautiful texts, especially given their wealth of Christological and trinitarian insights.
Hi Steve, thanks for your comments here. But I have found that there is some exceptional evangelical biblical scholarship these days.
ReplyDelete"Of course this assumes that these writers have something other than the OT background in mind, which Shea hasn't demonstrated."
ReplyDeleteIt is absurd to suggest that Paul was unfamiliar with the major religions and philosophies of his day.
Paul grew up in Tarsus, a major cultural crossroads and the Roman capital of Cilicia. He was an intelligent and educated man, as evidenced by his brilliant and poignant writing. He learned at the feet of one of the great rabbis of his time. He was a Roman citizen who quoted Aratus, Euripides, Epimenides, and Aeschylus.
Paul was a Greek by culture, a Roman by law, a Jew by ethnicity, and a Christian by faith. The whole package.
In short, he was very much a cosmopolitan, although he gave up his worldly wisdom for the foolishness of Christ.
Philip, the question isn't "how educated Paul was", but what was informing his teaching and writing.
ReplyDeleteAnd "prots" did not "drop" those texts. You cited them from the KJV and Carson, whom I cited, notes these passages. They are not, by far, the most important.
Given that Paul quotes pagan playwrights and philosophers verbatim, I find it difficult to believe he was working strictly off the Old Testament.
ReplyDelete"And "prots" did not "drop" those texts. You cited them from the KJV and Carson, whom I cited, notes these passages. They are not, by far, the most important."
I realize there are many others. Could you give me your favorite anticipations of Wisdom/Word Christology in the Old Testament (outside Proverbs and Psalms)? Just interested. This is one of my favorite topics. I just finished reading Skarsaune's "Incarnation: Myth or Fact."
Philip, I know Shea from his blog, past personal interactions, and interactions with others. So no, I don't think I'm overdoing it when I say his quip highlights the low regard Roman Catholics have for Scripture, or that he shows what's in his heart.
ReplyDeleteAs for "Wisdom/Word Christology", it has not been a major topic of study for me either. Hurtado seems to rely on Sharsaune's work and expand upon it. I am currently working through Beale's New Testament Biblical Theology.
You have me at a bit of a disadvantage today. I am in a hospital room and having to key this in on my phone. But what is the nature of your interest in all this?
I hope you're safe and sound, John!
ReplyDeleteMy interest is simply that of any Christian committed to understanding his faith. I am particularly fascinated by Logos Christology because it piques the philosophical (or wannabe philosophical) dimensions of my intellect.
I am catholic, by the way. (Probably obvious by this point.) I certainly hold Scripture in high regard. Certainly, this is not the case for all of us. Mark Shea seems like a good enough guy to me, if a little self-righteous.
The Bible might not receive as much attention among Catholics, but that is because we have a fuller sense of God's activity among men. The Word did not only become Flesh and Book, but Eucharist and Sacrament and Church, too.
We trust and love the Bible because of the Church, which is Christ's body (Colossians 1:24), the communion of saints (I Corinthians 12), a spiritual house of living stones (I Peter 2:5), holy Mount Zion (Hebrews 12:22), the "pillar and ground of the truth" (I Timothy 3:15). Christ did not bother to write down so much as a single word, but He took the time to establish His church and bequeath it with the power to represent Him (Matthew 10:40) and judge for Him (John 20:23).
Anyway, do feel better. God bless you and keep you!
Philip, I am well, it is my wife who is ill. You can search Bethany Bugay on this blog to read all about it.
ReplyDeleteYou make a lot of assumptions about what "the church" is; I won't accept those assumptions and I challenge them. If you are as aware as you appear to be with some of the early church scholarship, you must be aware of those challenges.
God be with both of you, then.
ReplyDeleteI realize that Catholic historiography is lacking in places, but overall I find it more compelling than the Protestant alternative.
Rest assured, God is with us.
ReplyDelete"Lacking a bit" is quite an understatement; meanwhile, Philip Schaff virtually created the discipline of church historiography. What is it that you find more compelling about Roman Catholic historiography?
I believe it is a truer, more accurate, more complete account of early church events. Protestant historiography typically depends upon an imaginary post-apostolic or post-Constantinian rupture. In reality, the Catholic Church has maintained orthodoxy and orthopraxy from the start.
ReplyDeleteSaint Ignatius could very well have been writing to persecuted Catholics in present day China. Justin Martyr could very well have been describing a contemporary Mass in his First Apology. Etc.
Some Protestants have strayed from the Way more than others. For instance, conservative liturgical Anglicans are strong little-"c" catholics, which is why so many are becoming big-"c" Catholics.
Anyway, this is a mighty discussion. Surely, we have both encountered apologists for the other side who are bright and erudite. Yet we are where we are, mm?
I have appreciated the interesting conversation.
I think your view of church history is very simplistic. There was a whole world of "church history" before Ignatius. 80 years represents a lot of foundational history, during which time the church was neither "catholic" nor "Catholic". There, I suggest, you will find the true church, the church that Christ and the Apostles really founded, that became changed in ways that were not necessarily good, long before Constantine.
ReplyDeleteIf you really have an interest to explore the foundations of Christianity, there is the place to look. This is where the evidence is highly scriptural and rarely based on the kind of speculations like the kind that Mark Shea spouted off.
Yes, we both have our apologists, but yours are more like Shea, and less likely to be accurate with their history.
John,
ReplyDeleteI don't know why Wills has a low regard for pre-Vatican II Catholic Bible scholarship. He probably thinks it is insufficiently critical and excessively polemical. I would disagree with that. There was some good stuff from those days defending, for example, Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, the traditional dating and order of the Gospels, etc.
Shea, being a convert from Evangelicalism to Catholicism, probably has a higher regard for the inspiration of the Scriptures than the current pope and members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
I can't judge Shea's heart, but I can judge his head. As his post shows, he has no knowledge of theology, history, OT exegesis, NT exegesis and critical thinking. He apparently thinks this isn't necessary to defend his positions because (he thinks) he is such a witty and clever writer.
-Steve Jackson
Hi Steve:
ReplyDeleteI don't know why Wills has a low regard for pre-Vatican II Catholic Bible scholarship. He probably thinks it is insufficiently critical and excessively polemical. I would disagree with that. There was some good stuff from those days defending, for example, Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, the traditional dating and order of the Gospels, etc.
I don't know enough about RC Biblical scholarship from those years to comment on it. However, I am somewhat familiar with the changing theological tides, and it's not hard to see the the types of things building up to Vatican II.
What I do perceive is that "liberal" and "conservative" biblical scholars are tending to find the same factual kinds of things. There is a confluence of factual understanding. The difference is how these factual things are being understood. So there is also a divergence in that there are some who don't accept the supernatural value of the Scriptures, and there are those who do. And so, this is the important thing to watch out for.
So I believe we can read the works of the most current of biblical scholars, whether they tend liberal and conservative, and not be afraid of the liberals. We can accept some of their factual conclusions. We just need to understand where they are coming from and watch out for those things.
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteLet me add a little to my earlier remark citing Dr. Garry Wills.
Wills makes his observations in his book entitled, “Why I am a Catholic”. The work is a fairly sweeping survey of church history. This particular comment comes about halfway through the book where Wills is offering his analysis of the post-Vatican I Roman church. Specifically, Wills complains that the Pontifical Biblical Commission, established in 1902, required all Catholic seminarians to be taught that the first five books of the Bible were personally written by Moses, that John wrote the fourth Gospel and a few other fairly glaring examples. (I don’t have the book with me right now, so my memory fails.) It was based on those restrictions that Wills indicted Rome for its lack of scholarship.
I think John is perhaps right to note that that has changed in this post Vatican II era. Although it should probably be noted that much disdain attended the true scholars of Rome from within their own communion. (i.e. Brown, Murray, Wills, etc.)
Peace.