The Difficulty Of Paul's Labors

One of the factors we should take into account when evaluating a figure like the apostle Paul is the difficulty involved in accomplishing what he did. That gives us some information about his sincerity, his confidence, his love, and other aspects of his character. For example, among many other things that could be said:

"Paul's unbounded confidence, irrepressible energy, directness, and personal charm were irresistible (though not to all), and soon there were tiny Christian communities scattered throughout the region. He was an indefatigable traveler. Given the difficulties and dangers of travel in those days and the extent of territory he covered, his success as a missionary is astonishing." (Robert Wilken, The First Thousand Years [New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2012], 20)

We should keep things like those in mind as we read Acts, Paul's letters, the early patristic comments on Paul, and other relevant sources. A lot of work went into what we so easily think about and read about (2 Corinthians 11:23-33). We can have some awareness of these facts without having much appreciation for the full weight of their significance.

Early Interest In Gospel Authorship

It's common today to claim that the gospels initially circulated anonymously, even for as long as several decades. Here's something I recently wrote on the subject in the comments section of an old thread:

In closing, I suggest that people think about the context of early Christianity and whether it was a setting in which the gospels are likely to have circulated anonymously for nearly a century. Christianity wasn't a philosophical system of ideas that were being promoted independently of authority figures. Rather, it was a system founded on the authority of named individuals, starting with Jesus and going on to the apostles and other individuals who were named (Matthew 10:1-3, Mark 3:13-19, Ephesians 2:20, etc.). Luke's gospel opens with a reference to the significance of eyewitnesses (1:2), a concept that requires distinguishing among sources (differentiating between those who were eyewitnesses and those who weren't), which would include distinguishing among the authors of written sources. The fourth gospel expresses an interest in authorship, its own authorship with the implication of concern about authorship more widely (John 21:24). Ferguson raises doubts about whether Papias was discussing the authorship of the canonical gospels or the authorship of other documents instead, but there was a concern about authorship of gospels or similar documents either way. And Papias cited an earlier source (the elder, probably the apostle John), who likewise was interested in authorship issues. The same can be said about the authorship concerns expressed in the dispute between Marcionism and Christian orthodoxy. I've cited other sources in the same timeframe, prior to the late second century, with similar authorship interests.

In that sort of atmosphere of concern for named authority figures, distinguishing among sources, and trying to discern who wrote documents like the gospels, it's far more likely that the gospels were circulating with authorial attributions than that they were circulating anonymously. There would have been a high degree of interest in the gospels' authorship well before the second half of the second century. And early belief in their traditional authorship attributions provides a far better explanation for the prominence of the gospels and how little dispute there was about their authorship.

“The Paradigmatic Bishops of History”: Agreement (with BOH) and Methodology

Brandon Addison has published the second and third parts of his blog series addressing the “development” of the office of “bishop” in the city of ancient Rome:

Part 1, Prolegomena: https://hakalonhumas.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/the-pardigmatic-bishops-of-history-prolegomena/

Part 2, Agreement: https://hakalonhumas.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/the-paradigmatic-bishops-of-history-agreement/

Part 3, Methodology: https://hakalonhumas.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/the-paradigmatic-bishops-of-history-methodology/

Here is the original article: “The Quest for the Historical Church: A Protestant Assessment”

Here is Bryan Cross’s 200-page dogmatic puff piece, “Bishops of History”

“The Pardigmatic Bishops of History: Prolegomena” - Brandon Addison

Brandon Addison has completed a paper that responds to Bryan Cross’s response to his “The Quest for the Historical Church: A Protestant Assessment”.

He’s set up a blog in order to make the response manageable. His initial response article may be found here:

https://hakalonhumas.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/the-pardigmatic-bishops-of-history-prolegomena/

I’ll put up links as more portions of this as they become available.

Meanwhile, here are some of the conclusions from Brandon’s initial article:

I have undertaken the burden of proof in this article to prove that the church in Rome was led by a plurality of presbyters in the city which we have defined as “presbyterian.” In the second section I attempted to demonstrate that this view was not unique to Protestants and that the vast majority of well-respected Roman Catholic scholars who shared this view did so not because they had violated their interpretative paradigms, but because the evidence had persuaded them in that way.

In the third section we saw how every mention of church leadership in Scripture refers to a plurality of leaders. From Acts, the Pastorals, and 1 Peter we saw that the biblical witness always refers to leaders in the plural, often using “presbyters” and “bishops” as equivalent terms. This equivalence of “presbyters” and “bishops” was further articulated in the fourth section where the extant literature never speaks to a monarchical leader in Rome but instead to a plurality of leaders in the city.

In the fifth section I explored the historical context of the lists of bishops found in the writings of Hegesippus and Irenaeus. We determined that Hegesippus’s list was created as an anti-Gnostic polemic concerning the apostolic teaching and not concerned with the succession in the office himself. The list of Irenaeus borrows from Hegesippus’s utilization of succession lists (which Hegesippus borrowed from Judaism) and also uses a pre-existing source composed at the time of Eleutherus c. AD 180. We noted that Irenaeus’s list is either factually wrong about Peter and Paul founding the Roman church, or at least not supportive of the Roman Catholic idea of succession from Peter.

In the sixth section I gave a broad overview of the argument for fractionation of Roman Christianity as found in Peter Lampe. I then showed how the work of Roman Catholic scholar Allen Brent demonstrates the fractionation of Roman Christianity even further than does Lampe, as in the case of anti-pope Hippolytus.

Here is Bryan’s 200-page dogmatic puff piece essentially asserting Roman dogma contra Brandon – it’s this piece to which Brandon is replying.

Details about the ancient Roman “honor” system

Larry Hurtado, commenting on Peter M. Head, “‘Witnesses between You and Us’: The Role of Letter-Carriers in 1 Clement, in Studies on the Text of the New Testament and Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Michael W. Holmes on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, eds. Daniel M. Gurtner, Juan Hernandez and Paul Foster (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 477-93:

After reviewing major matters widely accepted about the letter among scholars, Head focuses on the named individuals who were apparently sent with this letter from the Roman church to the Corinthian church: Claudius Ephebus, Valerius Bito, and Fortunatus (1 Clem. 65:1). He argues (cogently to my mind) that they are not simply letter-carriers, but important emissaries of the Roman church, who likely had a role in amplifying further the concerns of those who sent them, and may have been intended to have a role also in the resolution of the problem in the Corinthian church.

With previous scholars, Head notes also that the names of these individuals suggest that Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito were likely freedmen of the imperial household. Their names reflect the family name of Claudius (emperor, 41-54 AD) and his wife Messalina (from the family of Valerius). Such individuals would have had “a prominent social position” (492), illustrating the early inroads Christianity was beginning to make in somewhat higher levels of Roman society.

I’ve argued elsewhere that it was the presence of the Roman “honor” system that gave the Roman church its own sense of importance. Details like this help us to flesh that out – not only in terms of “who” was in the church, but “what” they were doing, and “why” they were doing it.

See also: Background on the ancient Roman church.

Update on Possible First Century Mark Fragment

After a brief flurry of rumor and innuendo regarding the possible find of a number of early New Testament manuscripts (first hinted at by Dan Wallace), Tim Henderson has this update on his Earliest Christianity blog:

Most people know that Brill Publishing announced in 2012 that they would be handling the publication of the manuscripts acquired and studied by the Green Scholars Initiative. At that time, it was expected that the first volume would appear in early 2013. However, this has yet to take place. Many also are aware that the alleged first-century manuscript of Mark and other NT manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd centuries are part of this same collection that will eventually be published in Brill’s series.

In correspondence with one of Brill’s editors, I was informed that they are currently planning to publish the first volume of the “Papyrus Series” by the end of this year, “hopefully” by the annual SBL meeting in November. It was not indicated to me which manuscripts would be appearing in this first volume, though the initial Brill announcement from 2012 indicated that the (then) planned initial volume would feature a 3rd-century BCE papyrus of a previously undocumented work of Aristotle.

So it appears that those of us waiting for the publication of the Mark fragment (and others) will be waiting quite a bit longer. Nothing appears to be imminent, unless they decide to release details in anticipation of publication.

In my estimation, any release of information about additional second- or third-century New Testament manuscripts will be an inestimable treasure, and worth the wait.

Brandon Addison’s “Called to Communion” article available in .PDF

Brandon Addison’s “Called to Communion” article, “The Quest for the Historical Church: A Protestant Assessment”, is now available in .PDF format:

http://reformation500.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/brandon-addison-ctc-article-20140501.pdf

The liturgy of “the early church” actually begins in the fourth century.

http://calvinistinternational.com/2014/02/24/quest-historic-liturgy/

...what many people typically mean when they speak of the liturgy of “the early church” is actually a historically-contingent sample from a span of about four or five hundred years, beginning with, rather than climaxing in, the fourth century. This sort of observation does not tell us whether a certain liturgical form is good or bad, nor even better or worse, but what it does do is place the entire discussion firmly in the realm of human law, tentative investigation, and, thus eventually, prudential application.

What this means for Protestants seeking to appropriate the findings of the liturgical renewal movement is that they must always receive such proposals in a somewhat critical manner. They can be appreciative of good order, appealing aesthetics, and even a sort of historical pedigree, but they can never confuse these things with divine right, nor even “the catholic tradition.” All “historic” liturgies should be brought into conversation with biblical and Reformational principles. Perhaps, most of all, we should keep in mind the great freedom we have in these manners. A certain amount of diversity is granted to us by the freedom of the gospel, and this diversity has been with the Christian church since the earliest days.

High Church?

These two links recently caught my eye:

http://mereorthodoxy.com/millennials-joining-high-church-traditions/

The point here isn’t to get into a fight about who has more converts, but simply to highlight the fact that the trickle of noteworthy evangelicals going to Rome tends to get a fair amount of coverage while the stream of young people leaving Catholicism for Protestantism seems to receive far less...

That said, there is still an interesting discussion to be had about millennial Christians who aren’t happy with the state of evangelicalism and who are looking for something different. There’s a type of younger evangelical who is a conscientious, thoroughly orthodox believer who feels frustrated with the triviality and faddishness of popular evangelicalism.

http://calvinistinternational.com/2014/01/15/high-church-ancient-church-limits-aesthetic/

In that second link, Peter Escalante quotes from the Council of Nicaea:

FORASMUCH as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord’s Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to the Holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.

He continues: I myself don’t really buy the reasoning that seems to be behind this particular canon, but that’s not the point. The point is, this was a widely held view in the ancient church, and not so widely held in [today’s] “high church.”

My point would be, much of what we see that goes by the name “ancient church” really begins in the 4th century. People who want something like a more genuine Christianity as it was “in the beginning”, that is, in earliest Christianity, would do better to look to the Baptist Pot Luck Lunch.

Roman Catholicism as a misinformation campaign

Roman Catholicism: How Myth Becomes Dogma

Roman Catholicism as a whole is a misinformation campaign of incredible proportions. In fact, a close study of Roman Catholicism, and especially its apologetic methods since the Reformation, shows precisely how myths (many myths, in fact) become dogma and become etched in the popular belief system surrounding it.

In my last blog post, on the topic of The Roman Catholic “Eucharist”: Accretions, Equivocations, and Anachronism, I cited Paul Bradshaw, a Professor of Liturgy at the University of Notre Dame, from his work “The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship” (Second Edition, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, ©1992, ©2002). Bradshaw, an Anglican professor of liturgy at Notre Dame, was very clear about the state of the evidence:

Earliest Christians: “What did they know, and when did they know it?”

Larry Hurtado has posted a link to his article “Interactive Diversity: A Proposed Model of Christian Origins”:

Abstract
Although the ‘trajectories’ model of early Christian developments introduced by James Robinson and Helmut Koester has been influential in some circles, and particularly emphasizes diversity in early Christianity, the image of a trajectory may oversimplify matters and may in some cases impose an artificial connection of texts and phenomena. The undeniable diversity of early Christianity also involved a rich and varied interaction and a complexity that is not adequately captured in a ‘trajectory’ approach. A model of ‘interactive diversity’ more adequately reflects the complex nature of early Christianity.

Here is his own summary of the piece:

In the article, I consider the strengths and weaknesses of the “trajectories” model of early Christianity proposed influentially by James Robinson & Helmut Koester, and propose what I consider a superior model: “Interactive Diversity”. The core problem with the trajectory-model is that it does not adequately reflect the complexity and interaction of various forces and versions/voices of earliest Christianity, oversimpl[if]ying things. It rightly represents a recognition that there was significant diversity and also development, but I don’t think the model sufficiently reflects the complexity involved.

Moreover, I think examples of its application show that it can work mischief, later supposed stages of a trajectory used to interpret supposedly earlier stages. Whereas, the question begged is whether the phenomena in question really are part of some connected, essentially uni-linear development at all. And is it methodologically sound to construct such a hypothetical trajectory and then interpret earlier phenomena through later ones?

The “trajectories” model (and Robinson and Koester) is a kind of “scholarly appropriation” of the largely discredited (but still hanging around) view of “earliest Christianity” known as “the Bauer Thesis”.

Hurtado’s article largely supports the work of Andreas Köstenberger and Michael Kruger in their work “The Heresy of Orthodoxy”.

Köstenberger and Kruger write that “Koester’s and Robinson’s argument, of course, assumed that earliest Christianity did not espouse orthodox beliefs from which later heresies diverged. In this belief these authors concurred entirely with Bauer, who had likewise argued that earliest Christianity was characterized by diversity and that the phenomenon of orthodoxy emerged only later (“The Heresy of Orthodoxy”, pg 29).

One of the key weaknesses of “the Bauer Thesis” is that Bauer “unduly neglected the New Testament evidence and anachronistically used second-century data to describe the nature of “earliest (first-century) Christianity”. Bauer’s weakness is that he discounts early references to canonical books “on the grounds that they had not yet become Scripture” (124).

Köstenberger and Kruger note that Bauer’s failure here “is especially ironic since the subject of his investigation was the earliest form of Christianity. The authors here argue extensively for the notion that those who study earliest Christianity “start our studies of the canon with the New Testament itself and then move forward to the time of the early [second-century] church” (124). As Michael Kruger has argued elsewhere, the writings of the New Testament were regarded as Scripture before the ink was dry on the manuscripts.

In other words, the place to start in understanding “earliest Christianity” is to ask “what did they know, and when did they know it” in an historical, “start-at-the-beginning” nature. (It’s simple, I know, but for some reason, some people want to look at later times and make those later times normative for Christianity).

Hurtado’s model of “interactive diversity” supports the view that Köstenberger and Kruger have argued for.

Earliest Christian Manuscripts project

Larry Hurtado writes about A Substantial Study of Early Christian Manuscripts that is attempting “to provide a well-founded answer to some key questions about how earliest Christian Greek manuscripts were copied”:

More specifically, his question was how much these manuscripts were copied ad hoc (so to speak) and “in house” informally, by amateur/inexperienced copyists, and how much by trained/experienced copyists. The larger issues involve the culture and setting of earliest Christian book-production, how they regarded, handled, and transmitted their scriptural texts. To answer these questions, Mugridge examined with impressive care the physical and visual features of 516 manuscripts, which amount to every published copy of a Christian literary text from the first four centuries CE.

In the heart of his thesis (“Part B”), Mugridge analyses the 516 manuscripts according to a very wide list of features, showing that the great majority exhibit features that reflect trained, experienced and skilled copyists….

His key conclusion is that the great majority of early Christian literary texts were copied by experienced, trained copyists, although often not those of highest calligraphic abilities. This is not really a new view, but Mugridge provides by far the most thorough-going accumulation of data in defence of it.

Larry Hurtado on “Triadic” Beliefs in Earliest Christianity

Larry Hurtado recently put up a blog post in which he discussed earliest Christian devotion and beliefs in the context of another talk given by Anthony Thiselton:

Back from the annual meeting of the British New Testament Society (King’s College London, 6-8 Sept), I want to report on, and engage briefly, the plenary lecture by Professor Anthony Thiselton: “Must We Rest Content with ‘Binitarianism’ in New Testament Studies?” I respect and admire Professor Thiselton greatly, and this is not in any way intended to refute or negate his lecture. But, given that he opened with a reference to some of my own work on early Jesus-devotion and the re-shaping of Jewish “monotheistic” devotion to include the figure of Jesus, I want to attempt briefly some correction and clarification on a couple of matters.

Thistelton, drawing from a forthcoming work, The Holy Spirit: In Biblical Teaching, Through the Centuries, and Today, “focused more on how the ‘Holy Spirit’ (or ‘Spirit of God’) features so prominently in the NT and in subsequent early Christian religious thought, and he urged that there is an organic historical connection between the kind of beliefs that we have in the NT writings and subsequent doctrinal development that led to the doctrine of the ‘Trinity’.”

Hurtado notes his own distinction between “binitarian” “devotion” and “triadic” “beliefs”:

In characterizing the “pattern” of earliest Christian devotional practice, I have noted that there are typically two figures identified as recipients of devotion: God and Jesus. My focus in noting this has been that it comprises a remarkable, and to my knowledge singular, “mutation” in what otherwise seems to have been Jewish devotional practice in which a second figure (Jesus) was included in such a programmatic manner with God as rightful recipient of corporate devotion. (I may say that it is now nearly 25 years since I first published this view of matters, and I have yet to note any significant correction or refutation of it. It still appears that the devotional pattern reflected in the NT is, in its time and setting, novel and without real analogy or precedent.) …

I’ve typically responded by underscoring the point that my emphasis has been on the devotional/worship practice of early Christianity, and that in this the Spirit does not really feature as a recipient in the way that God and Jesus do. Of course, the Spirit is prominent in the NT! Of course, the Spirit is integral to the religious outlook of those believers reflected in the NT. Indeed, the Spirit is portrayed as profoundly involved in early Christian worship/devotion, inspiring and empowering it. But the Spirit does not feature as identified recipient of earliest Christian devotion. …

In my own recent book, God in New Testament Theology (Abingdon Press, 2010), I shfited focus to the “God-discourse” that we find in the NT, and noted that this has a “triadic” shape. That is, we have ubiquitous references to “God”, “Jesus” and the “Spirit”. Indeed, I document the greater frquency of references to the Spirit in the NT in comparison with the OT and other Roman-era Jewish texts. This “triadic” shaped discourse obviously helped to drive and shape subsequent doctrinal reflection that led to the doctrine of the “Trinity”, although that subsequent doctrinal reflection also involved the incorporation of issues and conceptual categories additional to those reflected in the NT.

On going back to the first century church

Andrew Preslar 907

My question is exactly, “What is God saying?” Furthermore, I want to know “Where has he said it?” and “What does it mean?” I also want to know “What is God doing, and where, and through whom, and in what ways?” I cannot begin my inquiry into these question by exegesis, because I need first to know that there are sacred texts, which texts they are, where they come from, and where to find them. Otherwise, there will be nothing to interpret

Even if we say, for the sake of argument, that the church precedes the Bible (or the New Testament), we’re not living in the first century. We don't have direct access to the 1C church. Our access to the New Testament church is mediated by the New Testament itself. Even if the church were prior in the order of being, the New Testament is prior in the order of knowing.

I know this is where where you guys say you begin:

ideally an adult would come to seek full communion with the Catholic Church only after a careful study of Church history, the Church Fathers, and Scripture. He would start with the Church in the first century at the time of the Apostles, and then trace the Church forward.

But my question to you is, when you say “start with the church in the first century”, how do you get there? Do you ride some magical telephone booth back to the first century? You talk about “a careful study of church history”, but your response shows very clearly the presuppositions you take with you back there:

It would be foolish to pluck and bite into the fruit without considering the tree that produced it (the visible, human side of Scripture). In this case, it is a very old tree, and much grown from its seed-like origin. And of course the same God who breathed out the Bible gives life to the tree. The Word of God, being alive and powerful, gives us all things in their place, in union with him, with his Body, and because he is alive and powerful, his written word lives. Sacred Scripture is not a dead letter, but to know and appreciate this, we have to take it, to feed upon it, in context.

You realize this paragraph is chock-full of assumptions that need to be examined.

How do you get to the first century, New Testament church?

And when you get there, what do you find there? What do you suppose (imagine, etc.) you find regarding the church's leadership, authority structure, etc.

Otherwise, we are left with the option of willy-nilly deciding the God must have produced a book, and then just selecting whatever we like from the shelf, and digging in with exegesis of the text.

This too is attributing things to me that I don’t accept. I don’t “willy nilly decide that God must have produced a book”. This is a horrible assumption for you to make.

Bryan's Excellent Adventure

Bryan said: "…ideally an adult would come to seek full communion with the Catholic Church only after a careful study of Church history, the Church Fathers, and Scripture. He would start with the Church in the first century at the time of the Apostles, and then trace the Church forward, decade by decade, to the present day. As he traced the Church forward through the centuries, he would encounter schisms from the Church (e.g. Novatians, Donatists). In each case he would note the criteria by which the party in schism was the one in schism from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Christ founded, and not the other way around. By such a study, and by the help of the Holy Spirit, he would discover that the Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that Christ founded in the first century, and that has continued to grow throughout the world over the past two millennia."

How does he propose to get there? What does he suppose (imagine, etc.) he would find, regarding the church's leadership, authority structure, etc. Does he want to argue that what he would find back there in any way resembled a gub'ment structure he'd find in a church today?

Christology between Jesus and Paul

Larry Hurtado has a new blog post out noting just how quickly there was a well-developed Christology, after the death and resurrection of Christ. He relies on Martin Hengel's work, Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity:

* Paul's letters (which date from ca. 50-60 CE), including notably Romans (addressed to a "pre-Pauline" Christian community), already reflect a developed christology, and do not indicate any real development across the years in which they were composed, the maximum period for the christological development reflected in the letters can be no more than ca. 18 years, "a short space of time for such an intellectual process" (39). Or, to cite another memorable statement: "In essentials more happened in christology within these few years than in the whole subsequent seven hundred years of church history" (39-40).

* This christological development took place above all in Jewish-Christian communities in Jerusalem, Caesarea, Damascus, Antioch and other places in Syria and Roman Palestine, involving both Greek-speaking and Aramaic-speaking believers.

* It is dubious, thus, to employ the multi-layered schemes of the old History-of-Religions scholars or the modified versions put out in the 60s and 70s, involving "Primitive Palestinian", "Hellenistic-Jewish", and "Hellenistic-Gentile" stages of development, all of these sometimes posited as preceding Paul's "conversion".

* Speaking of Paul's "conversion", which likely must be placed within at most a couple of years subsequent to Jesus' execution, we have to consider that an "enormously rapid christological development" took place within this even shorter period. Paul's characterization of the cognitive content of his religious re-orientation is that it was a "revelation of God's Son". But, since he then promptly associated himself with other Jewish Christians (including Peter/Cephas, per Gal. 1), the most reasonable inference is that the christological view he adopted was pretty much what he had been opposing [as a Pharisee]. And that means that some pretty powerful developments must be dated within the very first few years!

* Given this tight chronology, it is also dubious to ascribe much to any supposed influence of pagan religious ideas and practices on these early christological developments. It requires a strong necessity to ignore chronology, and some implausible assumptions about psychology too, to posit, for example, that early Jewish Christians were somehow unconsciously disposed to treat Jesus as bearing divine-like honour through the subtle influence of pagan ruler-cults.

I am taken with this: "In essentials more happened in christology within these few years than in the whole subsequent seven hundred years of church history". Roman Catholics talk "development" over centuries. What their "development" primarily does is to obscure what was "once for all given to the saints", primarily in the quest for who was greatest [and, not coincidentally, proclaiming themselves the greatest]. To be a Roman Catholic apologist is to miss the pearl of great price.

The Redemptive Meaning of Christ’s Death and Resurrection in Earliest Christianity

Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, ©2003), notes that Paul provides the best source we have for looking at Palestinian Jewish Christianity of the 30s and 40s, prior to Paul’s missionary journeys, and prior to the writing of his letters.

Jesus’ Redemptive Death and Resurrection

There is no dispute that in Paul’s letters Jesus’ death and resurrection hold powerful redemptive significance, and there are numerous and extensive scholarly discussions of the relevant Pauline texts and ideas. Our concern here, however, … [is] rather with the sorts of beliefs that were embraced broadly in the Pauline congregations. So it will be sufficient to summarize beliefs about the redemptive effects of Jesus’ death and resurrection reflected in Paul’s letters, and to focus on their religious function in Pauline Christianity and the degree to which they represent an innovation or the appropriation of beliefs from earlier Christian circles.

All along, Hurtado’s point is to show that the religious themes in Paul’s letters are the best, earliest sources that we have that show what earliest Christianity was like – especially the first 20 years after the Resurrection, and before Paul began his missionary journeys.

Several specific observations about Paul’s references to the redemptive effects of Jesus’ death and resurrection are in order. First, in a goodly number of places Paul simply refers to these matters in brief, formulaic statements, without further explanation, which indicates that Paul presumed an acquaintance with them among the churches. In fact, in some cases Paul’s references to Christ’s redemptive death/resurrection are tucked into statements that really have some other focus. In 1 Thessalonians 5:10, for example, Paul refers to “our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us” in a statement about God’s eschatological salvation, and in the larger context of an exhortation for ethical preparedness for the coming event (5:1-11). In the midst of another hortatory passage, Romans 14:1-15:13, there is a brief reference to Christ having died and risen to be Lord of the living and the dead (14:9), and an appeal to show regard for fellow Christians as those “for whom [ὑπὲρ οὗ] Christ died” (14:15). A similar sentiment appears in 1 Corinthians 8:11, in a passage urging Christians to shape their behavior with regard for “the brother for whom [δι᾽ ὃν] Christ died.” In 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, where Paul urges believers to avoid fornication, there is an allusion to Christ’s redemptive death (v. 20) with the reminder to believers: “You were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.” There is also the short reference to Jesus as “our paschal lamb” in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, which requires and presupposes an acquaintance with passages such as Deuteronomy 16:1-8 and with this paschal interpretation of Jesus’ death. Here, too, we have a passing reference to Jesus’ death set in a context all about Christian behavior.

Here is 1 Cor 5:7-8:

7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

And here is Deuteronomy 16: 1-8:

1 Observe the month of Aviv and celebrate the Passover of the LORD your God, because in the month of Aviv he brought you out of Egypt by night. 2 Sacrifice as the Passover to the LORD your God an animal from your flock or herd at the place the LORD will choose as a dwelling for his Name. 3 Do not eat it with bread made with yeast, but for seven days eat unleavened bread, the bread of affliction, because you left Egypt in haste—so that all the days of your life you may remember the time of your departure from Egypt. 4 Let no yeast be found in your possession in all your land for seven days. Do not let any of the meat you sacrifice on the evening of the first day remain until morning.

5 You must not sacrifice the Passover in any town the LORD your God gives you 6 except in the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name. There you must sacrifice the Passover in the evening, when the sun goes down, on the anniversary[a] of your departure from Egypt. 7 Roast it and eat it at the place the LORD your God will choose. Then in the morning return to your tents. 8 For six days eat unleavened bread and on the seventh day hold an assembly to the LORD your God and do no work.

Continuing with Hurtado:

Earlier in 1 Corinthians (1:18-25), Paul famously contrasts “the message of the cross: with human wisdom, characterizing his message as “Christ crucified” (1:23); and in 2:2 there is an epigram-like statement, “I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Both statements seem to presuppose that the intended readers share with Paul an understanding of the significance of Christ’s crucifixion. This is confirmed by two other passages in 1 Corinthians where Paul explicitly reiterates teachings and traditions previously delivered to the Corinthian believers, and in which the redemptive meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection is stated.

The first of these is 11:23-26, where Paul reminds the Corinthians of the tradition about Jesus’ last supper, which includes words of Jesus about the bread representing “my body which is for you [τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν]” and the cup representing “the new covenant in my blood.” Both of these formulaic and compressed phrases refer to Jesus’ death as redemptive. Thus Paul reminds the Corinthians that in their eucharistic meal they “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (v. 26).

In another rehearsal of a relevant tradition previously conveyed to the Corinthians (15:1-8), there is the statement that “Christ died for our sins [ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν] according to the scriptures,” and that after burial “he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures” (vv3-4). This tradition presents Jesus’ death and resurrection as fulfilling of divine purposes, and briefly but explicitly indicates the redemptive meaning of Jesus’ death (“for our sins”).

Early Sources On The Death Of The Apostles (Part 1)

(This will be a five-part series.)

Information about the death of the apostles is important in many contexts. How long were the apostles alive to serve as witnesses of events or to lead the earliest churches, for example? What does the manner of their death suggest about their willingness to suffer for their beliefs? If any of them died as a martyr, how many did so? Did any of them renounce Christianity later in life? These and other issues related to the death of the apostles are significant, yet they often aren't addressed well by Christians or their critics.

Paul’s letters as our best source for information of earliest Christianity (in the 30’s and 40’s)

I’m continuing to work through Larry Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, ©2003). Hurtado notes that Paul provides the best source we have for looking at Palestinian Jewish Christianity of the 30s and 40s, prior to Paul’s missionary journeys, and prior to the writing of his letters.

He talks about Paul’s qualifications:

Paul’s Jewishness

In chronological terms, and in terms of its pervasive relevance, the first factor to take very seriously is Paul’s Jewish religious background and its continuing effect in his Christian beliefs and life… precisely because Paul is remembered mainly for his efforts to win believers among Gentiles, it is important to recognize that the formative religious tradition for him was Judaism of the Roman period.

It is clear that even in his role to the apostle to the Gentiles Paul’s motives and conceptions were heavily indebted to biblical and Jewish categories. For example, he likened his apostolic appointment to a prophetic calling (Gal 1:15, echoing Isa. 49:1), and he seems to have seen his mission to the Gentiles in terms of passages in Isaiah about the nations coming to worship the God of Israel (e.g., Rom 15:21, quoting Isa. 52:15) (87).

Jewish Monotheism

Jewish insistence on the uniqueness of the God of Israel and the exclusive validity of worship offered to their God made them unique (and in the eyes of some, notorious) among the ethnic groups of the Roman Empire. Their religious exclusivity provoked significant questions and difficulties as well, for virtually all aspects of Roman-era life were linked to the gods and were charged with a certain religious character.

Two features of Jewish monotheism are especially important for appreciating the historical significance of the devotion to Christ that is reflected in Paul’s letters. First, in addition to refusing to accept and worship any of the other deities of the Roman religious environment, conscientious Jews also maintained a distinction between the God of Israel and any of the exalted figures who could be seen as prominent in God’s entourage, such as principal angels or revered human figures like Moses or Enoch. This distinction was most clearly maintained in discouraging the worship of these figures; and devoted Jews insisted that worship was to be given to God alone. In light of this attitude, the level of reverence for Christ reflected in Paul’s letters is historically remarkable …

Second, the Jewish monotheistic stance forbade apotheosis, the divinization of human figures, and thus clashed with a major theme in pagan religion of the time. Philo’s quip about Gaius Caligula’s claim to divinity aptly illustrates Jewish attitudes, and is all the more important in coming from a diaspora Jew who in some other respects shows a cosmopolitan attitude: “Sooner could God change into a man than a man into God” (91-92).

Paul as a Convert

It is necessary to appreciate the nature of Paul’s zealous preconversion stance in order to grasp the significance of the change in his religious convictions. Study of the Phineas-zeal tradition in ancient Jewish sources has provided us with valuable help in catching the force of Paul’s allusion in his references to his religious “zeal.” The offenses mentioned in ancient Jewish sources as justifying (even demanding) “zeal” of the type associated with Phineas were serious: idolatry, perjury, sorcery and poisoning. Against fellow Jews publicly committing such offenses, the devout Jew was authorized to take vigorous action, which could even involve the death of the offender. The rationale seems to have been that the religious integrity of the Jewish people, the collective Jewish responsibility to exhibit faithfulness to the God of Israel was at stake. If, as seems likely from his references to his own preconversion actions, Paul saw himself as carrying out this sort of firm disciplinary effort, then he was responding to something he found deeply offensive, even dangerous, in the beliefs and practices of the unfortunate Jewish Christians on the receiving end of his zeal Consequently Paul’s shift from this attitude to an enthusiastic participation in the Christian movement is remarkable, and must have involved profound changes in his religious views.

As a convert, especially having moved from opposition against the Christian movement to being an adherent, Paul had to undertake a rather thorough reformulation of his religious views, indeed his whole religious “self.” As anyone acquainted with political or religious converts (or even with smokers who become nonsmokers!) will know, a radical shift in commitment often involves a more enthusiastic and also a more thoroughly thought-out appropriation of the views to which one converts than may be characteristic of those whose acceptance of the position came less traumatically.

This is part of the reason why we sense in Paul’s letters that we are dealing with both an enthusiast and a “thinker,” or at least with someone who has given a good deal of consideration to his religious views; and it makes Paul’s letters all the more valuable as historical sources. In them we have affirmations of Christian beliefs and practices that are accompanied by, or give indications of, a rationale for them. Having worked out his understanding of his Christian beliefs in various Christian communities of the very earliest years of Christianity, he gives us at least a glimpse of the sorts of reflections going on in such groups.

Moreover it is reasonable to think that the basic Christological views that he embraced and espouses in his epistles reflect the beliefs he had previously found objectionable and had opposed so vigorously. In fact, in a number of places Paul recites traditional formulations that likely illustrate the beliefs of those he persecuted, beliefs he that accepted as a convert (e.g., Rom. 4:24-25; 1 Cor 15:1-7; 1 Thess 1:10) (94-96).

Paul’s Gentile Mission

Another distinctive feature of Paul, and the third key factor to bear in mind in considering Paul’s letters, is his mission to the Gentiles…Over against some other Jewish Christians, Paul insisted that faith in Christ was sufficient basis for the full inclusion of Gentiles as partakers in God’s salvation, fellow members of the ekklesia, and fellow heirs of Abraham (e.g., Gal 2:1-5, 11-18; Rom 4:13-17). And he insisted that the Holy Spirit-empowered obedience to Christ was the defining content of their ethical obligation (e.g., Gal 5:6, 13-26)…

Paul includes the belief that “Christ died for our sins” among the traditions that he received and among the beliefs common to him and the other Jewish Christian leaders he refers to in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. But Paul’s mission required him to develop the rich implications of Christ’s redemptive death that he presents in passages such as Galatians 3:1-29 and Romans 3:9-31. In these passages Paul seems to be presenting his own reflections [or “revelation”] rather than simply reciting Christological tradition. Particularly in his views of how Christ is to be understood in relation to the Torah, it is likely that Paul’s Christology shows the effects of his special mission to the Gentiles.

Nevertheless, given Paul’s concern to maintain links with, and acceptance of his mission in, the Jerusalem church, and given also his need to present arguments for his own views with premises that could command the assent of those with whom he disagreed, we should be careful about attributing too much originality and distinctiveness to him. Though he drew practical inferences that were apparently not shared by all, specifically as to Gentile Christian obligations and the proper Jewish Christian attitude toward Gentile converts, it is not at all clear that in other respects the beliefs about Christ and the devotional practices reflected in his letters constitute a major departure from prior Christian tradition (96-98).

Where to begin? A word about method.

All along, I’ve been hoping to provide a true picture of the earliest church – it’s leadership, it’s worship patterns, how it understood itself in the context of the world. The truest picture we have, with as much detail as we can provide.

In that respect, I’m continuing to work through Larry Hurtado’s work Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, ©2003). What was striking about this earliest church was that “devotion to Jesus as God” was not only characteristic “always, everywhere, and by all” of the earliest Christians. Such devotion  was not only ubiquitous among earliest Christians, but it was “noteworthy phenomenally early”, it appeared with “unparalleled intensity”, and it appeared even in the midst of an “exclusive monotheistic environment”.

Here is a word about his method of pursuing that study.

In any study of earliest Christ-devotion the letters of Paul certainly must loom large, for these invaluable writings reflect an intense religious devotion to Jesus at a remarkably early point in the emergence of the Christian movement. But some readers will perhaps wonder why I commence here with a chapter on Paul, and then turn to an analysis of early Jewish Christianity in Roman Judea (Palestine). In strict chronological order there were, of course, Christians before the apostle Paul, as we learn from Paul himself. In his letter to Rome, for example, Paul sends greetings to Andronicus and Junia, two members of the Roman church who were fellow Jews and who “were in Christ before me” (Rom 16:7 [see my posts on Andronikos and Junia, Part 1 and Part 2 – JB]), and in his letters to Galatians Paul refers to “those who were apostles before me” in the Jerusalem church (Gal 1:17). By all accounts the first groups in the emergent Christian movement were made up of Jewish adherents in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Roman Judea (Palestine). Once again, among the relevant evidence (indeed the earliest evidence we have) are references by Paul to Christian groups in “Judea” as far back as his own conversion on the early 30’s (79-80).

Hurtado here notes that “it might seem more logical” to begin with a direct analysis of those “pre-Pauline” Christian groups. And in fact, he interacts with John Dominic Crossan, who does so (“The Birth of Christianity, New York: Harper Collins, 1998) while avoiding Paul in this discussion. “But in developing his views of Christian groups of the 30’s and 40’s [Crossan] depends upon, and hypothesizes from and about, material from sources that are in fact much later than Paul” such as the four canonical Gospels; other “Gospels” that are much later (“Gospel of Peter”, “Gospel of Thomas”), and the Didache.

But Paul’s letters are dated in the 50’s and 60’s, and his conversion “is most likely to be dated within a couple years (at most) of Jesus’ execution, that is, within what in terms of social history must be regarded as the “birth” of the Christian movement” (83). In fact, Paul frequently speaks of his interactions with other individuals from earlier dates. In that respect, he provides a reliable eyewitness account of the church in the 30’s and 40’s A.D.

Paul’s acquaintance with Palestinian Jewish Christians and their faith goes back even earlier than his participation in the Christian movement. Prior to his conversion, as a zealous Pharisee, he had become sufficiently acquainted with the beliefs and practices of Jewish Christians to determine that they were so dangerous as to justify his firm efforts to “destroy” the Christian groups and the ideas they promoted (as he testifies in Gal. 1:13-14; 1 Cor. 15:9; and Phil 3:6).

Furthermore, according to autobiographical statements in his letters, following his conversion Paul was active in Christian circles in Arabia, Damascus, and then “the regions of Syria and Cilicia”; and in the first few years he became personally acquainted with Cephas (Peter) and James the Just, leaders of the Jerusalem church (e.g., Gal. 1:13-24; 2 Cor. 11:32-33). The Paul who wrote the letters that we date in the 50s had been for some time prior a very widely and well-connected participant of the Christian movement, acquainted with Jewish Christians of Judean/Palestinian provenance all through the 30s and 40s as well as with Gentile congregations of the 50s (the main period of his Gentile mission). We can put locations of Pauline activity on the map of the Roman world with confidence (e.g., Jersualem, Damascus, Antioch, Thessalonica, Philippi, Corinth), and we have names of people involved with him (e.g., Barnabas, Timothy, Silvanus, Titus, and a rather impressive list of others that we could put together from Paul’s letters).

In other words, in any thorough discussion of Jewish Christians of these early decades, it is not only appropriate to take full account of Paul and the rich evidence in his letters, it is a failure of method not to do so.

Summarizing his own method for looking at Palestinian Jewish Christianity of the 30s and 40s, Hurtado gives these reasons:

1. Pauline Christianity is the earliest form of the Christian movement to which we have direct access from undisputed firsthand sources.

2. Paul’s letters, which are addressed to Christian circles already established and operative in the 50s, also incorporate and reflect emergent Christian traditions of belief and religious practice from still earlier years.

3. Paul’s own associations with Christian circles, which include important Jewish Christian figures such as Peter, James the brother of Jesus, Barnabas, and others, go back to his conversion, which is to be dated approximately 32-34, and so his acquaintance with beliefs and practices of Christian circles is both wide and extremely early.

4. Several of Paul’s letters reflect disagreements between him and other Christians, in particular some Jewish Christians with different views of the terms for full acceptance of Gentile converts, making Paul’s writings our earliest and most unambiguous evidence that there was a certain diversity of beliefs and groups in the earliest decades of Christianity, and also our best indications of the nature of this diversity and whatever commonality linked the groups.

5. The Christ-devotion attested in Paul’s letters amounts to a notable development in the history of religions, especially when set in the context of the Jewish religious tradition and the larger Roman-era religious environment, and his letters exhibit this development as having already taken place at a remarkably early point in the young Christian movement.

6. Finally, the place of Christ in the Pauline letters also anticipates, represents, and likely helped to promote the Christological beliefs and devotional practices that came to be widely characteristic in Christian groups after Paul.

Contrary to those who say that there is a dearth of historical material available about the earliest church, and rather that we ought to rely on what Christians of the 4^th and 5^th centuries said about Christ, Christianity, and “the Church”, beginning with Paul (and the other writings of the New Testament), we have an incredibly rich source of historical the churches life, practices, “τὸ εὐαγγέλιον”, earliest worship, “sacraments”, and more.