Tom Wright's non-historical Jesuses and the Systematic end of Apartheid

Tom Wright often relies on an interesting and famous lecture by Ernst Kasemann in 1953, as hermeneutical background for serious historical Jesus studies. Wright usually offers Bultmann's "gemeinde theologie" and "non-historical Jesuses" as the fertile soil for Hitler and the Nazi ideology. As someone who has benefitted from Wright's scholarship, including his work on critical realism and historical methodology, my South African experience paints a different picture when it comes to the motivation to engage in historical Jesus studies.

Johann Heyns (renowned professor of Systematic Theology, who studied under Hendrik Berkhouwer in Amsterdam) was an early prophetic voice against apartheid, while at the same time being quite sceptical about historical Jesus studies. He became famous for his Kingdom of God theology, developed as a systematic theologian, which provided an hermeneutical framework for a socially just society. There can be little doubt that the latter contributed to a relatively calm and smooth political transition from old to new South Africa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Heyns

Beyers Naude, formerly head of the Afrikaner Broederbond, and later famous anti-apartheid activist, in later life indicated that it was BB Keet, his Systematic Theology professor at Stellenbosch, that laid the foundation for his theological dissent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyers_Naud%C3%A9

It could be argued that it was Systematic Theologians, and not a large majority of South African New Testament biblical scholars, who confronted the "non-historical Jesuses" of the old South Africa.
Personally, I am in favour of historical Jesus studies, but thinks Tom should probably nuance his 1953 Kasemann prop in light of the South African counter story ... 

Anthony Le Donne: Is Richard Bauckham guilty of a "philosophical assumption and methodological tendency" in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses?

In the comments of a recent blog post on www.historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.com, Anthony Le Donne - Assistant Professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary - claimed that Richard Bauckham - in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - is guilty of a "philosophical assumption and methodological tendency" in relation to eyewitnesses providing "very reliable source material". Connected to this is the claim that Luke "*must* ... have had access to some *very reliable* sources".

Le Donne's blog was actually focussing on a Bible Odyssey entry by Brent Landau titled 'Was Luke a Historian", in which the issues of eyewitnesses and reliable sources were discussed. I copy the key section in his blog post as background for understanding Le Donne's claim about Bauckham, together with my question in the comments, Le Donne's response, Bauckham's immediate response, and in conclusion brief reflections on Bauckham's relevant work.

Le Donne: "Luke may even have a reliable source that has conveyed the specific events mentioned in Luke 13:1-5. But why *must* Luke have had access to some *very reliable* sources? I think that Landau climbs out too far on this limb. Finally, why should we imagine - as Landau seems to - that eyewitnesses provide very reliable source material? ... There is a philosophical assumption and methodological tendency here that requires more conversation. So to my challenge: firsthand testimony is not necessarily better and sometimes much worse than secondary or tertiary works of reflection. This is true of 'quite minor events' and even more true of significant, life-changing events.
-anthony".

Mulder question: "Interesting Anthony. Do you think Richard Bauckham - in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - is guilty of the 'philosophical assumption and methodological tendency' you highlighted in Landau?"

Le Donne response: "Yes. -anthony".

Bauckham's response: "What is routinely ignored in discussion of my Eyewitnesses book, is that in the chapter on the psychology of eyewitnesses memory I explained that eyewitness memory can be very unreliable, but for that reason I drew from a an extensive study of the psychological research literature conclusions about what sort of things are most likely to be remembered well and under what conditions eyewitness memory is likely to be reliable. Therefore my arguments are not refuted simply by general claims that eyewitness memory is often unreliable. It is one of many points at which my critics simply have not read my work adequately ..."

Response

Having read Eyewitnesses myself, I was quite intrigued by Le Donne's "Yes" to my question. It didn't seem that Le Donne had the intention to qualify his answer until Bauckham himself joined the conversation. For what it's worth, I thought it helpful to highlight a couple of relevant sections in Bauckham's chapter on "Eyewitness Memory"(pp. 319-357).

In preparation for a discussion about a psychological approach to the memories of the eyewitnesses of Jesus, Bauckham presents two anecdotal instances that illustrate both how unreliable and how reliable eyewitness testimony in ordinary life can be. The second concerns an eighty-three-year-old man remembering accurate details of an event that happened more than seventy years previously. The first - relevant for our current discussion - concerns reminiscences of the pianist Rossini about his early meeting with Beethoven. Bauckham cites Jan Vansina who reflects on Rossini's reminiscences as a warning of how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be:

"The famous story of the reminiscences of Rossini about his early meeting with Beethoven may serve as a warning to the unwary. When first told, a few years after Beethoven's death, Rossini said that he went to to Beethoven's house, had great difficulty in being admitted, and in the end did not speak to the master whose command of Italian ... was insufficient. This last bit we may doubt - at least from this source. Towards the end of Rossini's life the story had become quite a tale. It involved the tortured master, in the throes of creation, receiving Rossini, advising him to continue his great work, and above all praising Il Barbiere di Siviglia as the greatest comic work ever written".

Bauckham argues that this example "illustrates how an eyewitness may himself reshape an autobiographical memory radically during the course of retelling the story over many years. The motive in this case is obvious. Rossini emerges as a thoroughly untrustworthy witness".

Later on, reflecting on Recollective Memory, Bauckham argues that the purpose for which the memory is recalled and communicated may strongly affect the construction of memory.

"Memories are not freely constructed. There are clearly constraints in the remembering process that account for the relative accuracy and the broad element of stability in memories recalled on different occasions ... If a person cannot recall sufficient accurate detail to reproduce an experience, the mind may fill in the gaps from its other stores of knowledge. The experience of one woman recalling her early memories is a nice illustration. She writes that one day she was reliving a memory of the Russian revolution of 1905, when she was five years old ... Her memory has misled her by supplying for this episodic memory information from a generic personal memory ... that was close to, but not the correct generic memory ... Another way in which the reconstructive process can be misled so that distorted memories occur is though misinformation acquired by persons about an event they remember. Such misinformation can be unconsciously adopted into their memory and become part of it. In extreme cases persons told about an event that allegedly happened to them can come to believe they actually remember it, even though the event never happened".

Against this background, it is indeed not the case that Bauckham is guilty of a philosophical assumption and methodological tendency which holds that eyewitnesses necessarily provide very reliable source material. In the section "The Reliability of Recollective Memory", Bauckham focuses on nine factors underlying the sort of memories that are more likely to be reliable:

(1) Unique or unusual events
(2) Salient or consequential events
(3) An event in which a person is emotionally involved
(4) Vivid imagery
(5) Irrelevant detail
(6) Point of view
(7) Dating
(8) Gist and detail
(9)Frequent rehearsal

Bauckham concludes by citing the results of two studies (cf. D.C. Rubin and M. Kozin; G. Cohen and D. Faulkner), illustrating how some of the nine factors determining memorability come together to promote and preserve memory of specific events:

"Rubin and Kozin asked a group of students to describe three of their clearest memories, and to rate them for national importance, personal importance, surprise, vividness, emotionality, and how often they discussed the event. The most commonly reported events concerned injuries or accidents, sports, and encounters with the opposite sex. Memories which were more vivid also received higher ratings for importance, surprise, and emotionality. Cohen and Faulkner also reported that memory vividness correlated significantly with emotions, importance, and the amount of rehearsal. In their study, the relative power of these factors shifted with the age of the person who was remembering. For younger people the amount of rehearsal was the most powerful factor. The vividness of their remote memories was preserved because the events were often thought about and talked about ... Events in which the subjects were actors were remembered better than events in which they were only bystanders, and unique occasions and first times were remembered more often than generic events or last times".

According to Bauckham, these studies illustrate the way several of the nine factors discussed tend to occur in combination, making it difficult to gauge their relative importance. On pp. 341-346, Bauckham applies these factors to the eyewitness memories behind the Gospels, concluding as follows:

"The eyewitnesses who remembered the events of the history of Jesus were remembering inherently very memorable events, unusual events that would have impressed themselves on the memory, events of key significance for those who remembered them, landmark or life-changing events for them in many cases, and their memories would have been reinforced and stabilized by frequent rehearsal, beginning soon after the event. They did not need to remember - and the Gospels rarely record - merely peripheral aspects of the scene or the event, the aspects of recollective memory that are least reliable. Such details may often have been subject to performative variation in the eyewitnesses' tellings of their stories, but the central features of the memory, those that constituted its meaning for those who witnessed and attested it, are likely to have been preserved reliably. We may conclude that the memories of eyewitnesses of the history of Jesus score highly by the criteria for likely reliability that have been established by the psychological study of recollective memory".

"Joy and sorrow in great and equal measure" - Completing a New Testament PhD by Dr Colin Bullard

Colin Bullard completed his PhD in New Testament under Simon Gathercole a while ago. I really enjoyed reading Colin's reflections back after the viva.  http://collinandcandice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-viva.html

I discovered some pictures I took of the Bullards somewhere on my desktop. Great memories!

The most extensive analysis of the Gospel of Thomas yet ...

The most extensive analysis of the Gospel of Thomas yet. 
http://www.brill.com/products/book/gospel-thomas

Scottish origins of the Dutch Reformed Church revival and seminaries in South Africa

Ever heard the names Andrew and John Murray? 

Their father, Rev Andrew Murray was one of several Scottish ministers who came to the Cape of Good Hope in the 19th century and became ministers in the Dutch Reformed Church.

Why was a seminary established at Stellenbosch in 1859?

Andrew and John Murray, who studied in both Aberdeen, Scotland and Utrecht, Holland saw the need for an evangelical and reformed seminary in light of the devastating liberalism in Holland at the time. The latter under the leadership of the likes of the young W.C. Opzoomer from Utrecht, rejected things like Jesus' virgin birth, his miracles, bodily resurrection and uniqueness. Jesus was followed for being a good moral example. Also, God had to be stripped of his personal and supernatural attributes, and became the panentheist god constructed by Karl C.F. Krause, whom Opzoomer followed.

It is always special for me when a British journal publishes good and interesting theological stuff from South Africa. Recently, the reformed Baptist journal Reformation Today (available here at Tyndale House, Cambridge) published an article by Rev Erroll Hulse in which he reflects on the 19th century revival in South Africa in which the Murrays played an important part. Two excerpts:

"Some pinpoint the beginning of the 1860 revival in the Cape to a prayer by Dr Andrew Murray Junior. It was so powerful and moving that it lit fires in the hearts of those present. They took these strong convictions home to share with others.

It is important to note that gifted-pastor preachers were given to the churches in the Cape. The best known of these was Andrew Murray Senior. For over thirty years he had prayed specifically every Saturday night for revival. He had two sons, Andrew and John, both of whom became well-known pastors".

The discussion of the 1902 revival in the Prisoner of War Camps  is absolutely amazing:

"After the Boer War (1899-1902) the Afrikaners found themselves in a depressed and poverty-stricken state. They had lost their farms and suffered terrible loss of life in the notorious prisoner of war camps. 26,400 women and children died in those camps through starvation and epidemics.

During the Boer War which eventually consisted of 400,000 British soldiers seeking to overcome about 80,000 farmers who were skilled marksmen. Captured Boer soldiers were exiled to prisoner of war camps in Ceylon, India, St Helena and Bermuda. It was there that they experienced very remarkable and powerful spiritual revivals.

They did not enjoy telephone or e-mail communication. Research needs to be done to establish the details of these revivals. We do however know how the revival began in Ceylon. Two prisoners engaged in a quarrel.  The British encouraged chaplains to minister to the prisoners and so it was that the resident minister exhorted the two unhappy prisoners to go out to the field that they used for rugby football and there pray together. They heeded this exhortation and came back later with the testimony that the Holy Spirit had fallen on them. The next evening four returned to that spot to pray together. They came back with the same report. This proved to be the beginning of the revival with an ever increasing nightly prayer meeting. When the war ended, it was calculated that 2,000 out of the 5,000 were committed to Christ".

So what happened after the war?

"After the war the seminaries were filled with men who dedicated themselves to the ministry and to missions. A mighty missionary movement spread across Africa. Throughout her history a battle with liberalism has taken place in the NG Kerk. Since the 1950s a downgrade has taken place. The spiritual decline has been catastrophic. Unregenerate liberal professors have been allowed to destroy the faith of the seminary students.  

We must pray that the Lord will give the gift of faithful leaders again. And we must pray that the Afrikaans believers will study their history and again be blessed with spiritual awakening".

Thank you Reformation Today!

http://www.reformation-today.org/rtindex.htm

FF Bruce's integration of academic and church life, and how he embarrassed Ernst Käsemann

Today 112 years ago, Frederick Fyvie Bruce, one of the most influential British New Testament scholars of the 20th century was born in Scotland. As a small tribute, I thought I will share two little excerpts of Tim Grass' biography of Bruce's life and academic work, published in 2011. Two specific sections caught my eye as I glanced over a few sections tonight. The first is the occasion of his presidential address, after being elected president of the SNTS in 1975 (with interesting comments about Ernst Käsemann's body language!); and the second, the lack of tension he experienced between his academic study of the Bible and his approach to the Bible in personal or church life:

The 1975 SNTS Lecture

 (http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bjrl/real-paul-bruce.pdf)*

"... in 1975 he became president of the SNTS ... His presidential address, delivered at Aberdeen, was on the subject of 'The New Testament and Classical Studies'. In it he contended that the classicists were uniquely placed to study the New Testament because it was part of the cultural world which was their field and because the skills required to do so were those which they used in studying ancient writings. As a test case he took the writings of Luke, and especially the book of Acts, arguing controversially for the essential historicity of the speeches recorded in it. His conclusion was that 'the Graeco-Roman contribution to early Christianity should not be depreciated as though it were an alien accretion upon the pure gospel' ... Bruce was probably well aware that his emphasis on the importance of the classical background and his attempt to achieve objectivity in his handling of the text would run counter to the more conceptually orientated and philosophically committed approach of many continental scholars, and that his lay status would not be approved of by some clerical scholars present, but his lecture was the best (his close friend Ward) Gasque had ever heard him give, 'bearing witness to his convictions as a scholar and as a disciple'. Ernst Käsemann, a distinguished if sometimes combative German scholar, was seen to grow redder as the lecture progressed, but it may be a mark of his respect for Bruce that he does not appear to have entered into debate with him at the conference" (p. 115).

The lack of tension between academic and church life

"The Christian acceptance of the Bible as God's word written does not in the least inhibit the unfettered study of its contents and setting; on the contrary, it acts as an incentive to their most detailed and comprehensive investigation" (p. 131 [F.F. Bruce, "Matter of Call" (letter), Christianity Today, 26 March 1965, p. 38]).

"I am sometimes asked if I am aware of a tension between my academic study of the Bible and my approach to the Bible in personal or church life. I am bound to say that I am aware of no such tension ... Naturally, when I discharge a teaching ministry in church I avoid the technicalities of academic discourse and I apply the message of Scripture in a more practical way. But there is no conflict between my critical or exegetical activity in a university context and my Bible exposition in church; the former makes a substantial contribution to the latter. At the same time, membership in a local church, involvement in the activities of a worshipping community, helps the academic theologian to remember what his subject is all about, and keeps his studies properly 'earthed'" (p. 131 [F.F. Bruce, In Retrospect: Remembrance of Things Past (London: Marshall Pickering, rev. edn, 1993)]).

*  This pdf is a related lecture delivered at the John Rylands University Library with the title: "Is the Paul of Acts the Real Paul?".

Adam or Divine Christology in Paul? Chris Tilling takes on Dunn, Casey etc

I will never forget that rainy afternoon in Durham, England, when I, together with Nijay Gupta and two other students helped clear Prof James Dunn's loft. Prof Dunn needed a few students to help him remove the boxes stored in his loft, as he was preparing to sell his house and relocate to the south of England where his daughter lives. After we finished clearing the loft of all the dusty boxes, we had a nice cup of coffee in the kitchen, each having the chance to ask Prof Dunn a few questions. One of my questions went something like this: "Professor Dunn, which of the books you have written, do you regard as the most controversial?" Prof Dunn's answer? Christology in the Making. An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, first published in 1980. I agreed with him, in part, because I analysed parts of his book for  an essay on the pre-existence of Christ in Paul's letters for one of the modules for my MTh at the University of Pretoria. Agree or disagree, anyone working on the pre-existence of Christ in Paul, has to engage with Dunn's book. 

With this in mind, I was delighted to see Chris Tilling's 2012 WUNT monograph: Paul's Divine Christology arriving here at Tyndale House this morning. Tilling dialogues extensively with the big names when it comes to Pauline Christology. They include the likes of Bauckham, Dunn, Fee, Garland, Harris, Hurtado, Martin, Schnabel, Schrage, Thiselton, Thrall, Waaler and Wright.

Here are a few bits and pieces of Dunn's interpretation of Philippians 2:6-11 compared with Tilling, as well as a short excerpt of the latter's findings to wet your appetite:

Dunn: "It may ... be that the pre-existence-incarnation interpretation of Phil. 2.6-11 etc. owes more to the Gnostic redeemer myth than it does to Phil. 2.6-11 properly understood as an expression of first generation Adam christology - one way of outbidding and countering the appeal of the Gnostic systems. How much truth is contained in the last comment is hard to discern. What we can say with more confidence is that the reading of these passages with the presupposition of a pre-existent heavenly redeemer resulted in a critical shift in Adam christology - a shift from christology of death and resurrection to a christology of incarnation - and not only in christology, but also in the concept of redemption which goes with it ... it is certainly arguable that all these subsequent developments are the consequence in part at least of losing sight of the original meaning and intention of the Adam christology" (James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making. An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation [SCM Press: London, 1989 2nd ed.], p. 128).

Tilling: "... if the passage [Phil. 2.6-11] was used as a hymn in the corporate worship of the early church ... then the singing of this 'hymn' about Christ would have constituted a feature of the 'corporate devotional practise of early Christians'. Dunn's rejoinder that the 'hymn' is 'not addressed to Christ, but gives[s] praise to God for Christ' would be more realistic if the biblical Psalms were always addressed to God and did not sing about God, which is, of course, regularly not the case. Besides, it is far from obvious that Philippians 2:10-11 must be addressed only to God, not Christ, especially as it is at the name of Jesus that every knee bends" (p. 127).

Excerpt of Tilling's findings: "... Pauline Christ-relation is a divine-Christology expressed as relationship. In light of this way of constructing and contending for a Pauline divine-Christology, the claims of Dunn, Casey and others who deny a Pauline divine-Christology were critically examined, and it was maintained that none of the arguments hitherto employed can  carry weight. For example ... Dunn's notion that Paul's 'christological reserve' only slipped into high Christology occasionally, are seen to crumble under the weight of data concerning the Pauline Christ-relation, Paul's divine-Christology. This way of dealing with the data in terms of the divine-Christology debate arguably has certain strenghts. To name a few: not only does it build on undeveloped lines of thought in Fee's work, but it constructively engages with the Christ-devotion emphasis in Hurtado, and the relational notion of identity in Bauckham" (p. 256).

FF Bruce's skepticism about German doctorate programs

Over the past few years, I've had the privilege of giving a few papers at German universities and having interesting discussions with German biblical scholars. I was recently struck after reading some of FF Bruce's thoughts concerning doctorate programs in Germany.

Tim Grass, in his 2011 "definitive biography" of Bruce states that the latter expressed a degree of wariness, even skepticism concerning German research doctorates. Apparently, in 1944, Bruce argued that German critical radicalism was due, not to the national character in Germany, but because of the doctoral dissertation system:

"As, generation after generation, German students submit dissertations for the doctorate of their faculty, they have the choice of confirming old views or presenting new ones. Naturally, more 'kudos' attaches to the publication of a new theory than to the re-establishment of an old one, and the most brilliant and ambitious students seek to put forth 'some new thing.' In some faculties the results of this tendency are wholly beneficial, but in such subjects as classical literature or biblical theology this is not always so. The number of probable hypotheses in these realms is limited, and these have long ago been exhausted, the chances are that improbable hypotheses will multiply" (p. 106).

Very interesting ...

The "resurrection fact" discussion in John Drane's New Testament Introduction (3rd edition)

"The whole existence of the early church was based on the belief that Jesus was no longer dead, but was alive and active through the work of the Spirit in the lives of his followers", writes John Drane in the 3rd edition of his very popular New Testament Introduction, which arrived here at Tyndale House, Cambridge this week.

But what exactly caused this "resurrection faith"? Apart from the claim that Jesus' actual physical body rose from the tomb, Drane discusses and critiques three alternative explanations. Here are a few bits and pieces:

1) The "resurrection fact" was a subjective experience

Drane: "The disciples ... were prepared to stake their lives on the fact that Jesus was alive. Many of them were brutally murdered for their faith, including Peter and other members of Jesus' inner circle, who would be prime suspects for having removed the body. It is highly improbable, if not impossible, to imagine that they would willingly have suffered in this way if all the time they knew where they themselves had hidden his corpse".

2. The "resurrection fact" was a theological creation

Drane: "There is no evidence from any source at all to suggest that the Messiah was to die, let alone rise from the dead. On the contrary, the Messiah was popularly expected to kill other people, and if he suffered and died himself, then by definition he was not going to be the real Messiah".

3. The "resurrection fact" was a later belief

Drane: "... there are the statements made by Paul in 1 Corinthians, written at least ten years before AD 66. By that time, one gospel had certainly been written, and furthermore, the gospel accounts were undoubtedly based on stories that went right back into the earliest days of the church. It makes no sense at all to suppose that belief in the resurrection was a late development".

Drane concludes the discussion saying that many other fanciful suggestions have been made from time to time to account for the "resurrection fact". "But", says Drane, "the overwhelming weight of all the evidence suggests that, however it might be described in cognitive abstractions, the 'resurrection fact' was a real, historically-located event. No other hypothesis gives an adequate account of so much of the evidence".

Revd Dr David Wenham, Vice-Principal and Tutor in New Testament, Trinity College, Bristol, has this to say on the back of the book: "This book has arguably been the  most  useful non-technical introduction to  the  New Testament available... A best buy for the student or lay person wanting a readable and reliable first handbook on the New Testament".

I was delighted to find a reference to Mark S. Goodacre's The Synoptic Problem at the resources section at the back of the book. Hopefully we can put the alleged plagiarism issue raised by Goodacre behind us. Peter Head, Sir Kirby Laing Senior lecturer in New Testament from Cambridge's response to the issue on Goodacre's blog might help in this regard....

First published photograph: Our earliest manuscript title for any gospel found? Simon Gathercole in NovT 54

Remember the days when some Bible critics claimed with almost absolute certainty that the titles of the gospels (e.g. "Gospel according to Matthew") were added very much later by the institutional church?
Novum Testamentum, one of the leading international journals devoted to the study of the New Testament, has just published an article by Simon Gathercole, Senior lecturer in New Testament at Cambridge University, with the title: "The Earliest Manuscript Title of Matthew's Gospel (BnF Suppl. gr. 1120 ii 3 / P4)".

I suppose it is an under statement to say that New Testament textual critics will / should study it very carefully.

Abstract

The flyleaf bearing the title of Matthew's gospel, found with the Luke fragments of P4 (henceforth P4), has been neglected in studies of P4 as well as in the Greek New Testament. This article publishes for  the first time a photograph of the flyleaf, and seeks to provide an accurate transcription of the often misspelled title. It also discusses the various factors impinging upon the date of the fragment, such as the Philo codex in which it was found and the apostrophe in the middle of Matthew's name. A date in the late second or  early third century makes best sense of the evidence, making this neglected flyleaf the earliest manuscript title of Matthew's gospel. 

Markus Vinzent's "questionable methodological assumptions and procedures" in Christ's Resurrection - James Carlton Paget's JSNT Review Article

There are two ways in which one can take Markus Vinzent's Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Meaning of the New Testament, says Cambridge's James Carlton Paget:

"(A)t one level it is about the reception of the idea of the resurrection in early Christian history, arguing a distinctive case, systematically and clearly. At another level ... it is a book about Marcion's apparently huge influence on the developing Christian church. The first argument is in a sense a supporting cog in the second, more significant one, which is built upon additional observations and so could survive without the former, even if that is not the way Vinzent seeks to present his case - for him the presence, disappearance and re-emergence of a resurrection-based soteriology can only be explained by reference to Marcion's growing influence" (my emphasis).

I was delighted to read Paget's twenty seven page review of Vinzent's book this morning in the latest edition of the JSNT (35) 1, pp 76-102. This was so, partly because I sat next to Paget a few months ago while he and Judith Lieu discussed the book at Cambridge's Senior New Testament Seminar (with the likes of Simon Gathercole, Richard Bauckham, Peter Head etc making contributions), but also, because I found corroboration on important points between his article and my review which I did for Theology (115 [2], 123-124).

Obviously aware of copy write regulations, I thought it worthwhile to quote just a few bits and pieces from Paget's article that might hopefully lead to further clarifications, and maybe fruitful discussions. I interpret as I go along, and please remember, it is only a foretaste of Paget's extensive review!

Dating New Testament and other texts

The specific dating of  New Testament and Patristic texts is very important for Vinzent's hypothesis to work. Texts like 1 Peter, Acts as well as Ignatius and Papias' writings, in which the resurrection is quite significant must be dated after Macion. If not, then Vinzent's hypothesis becomes unpersuasive. Paget writes:

"... it should be recognised that Vinzent's dating of these texts is controversial, and his case, to some extent, is dependent upon such datings - it will make a difference to Vinzent's case, for instance, if we hold Ignatius, contrary to his view, to be a pre-Marcionite writer, or Papias to have written in the earlier part of the second century ... The first would imply ... that the resurrection was a more important concept than Vinzent assumes it was, and Paul a possibly more significant source; and the second would obviously overturn Vinzent's view that Gospel texts associated with individual names did not exist before Marcion ... Vinzent's case is, in principle, as precarious as the one against which he might be thought to be battling. Indeed, without wishing to sound censorious, it is a problem with this book that too often the author does not show how controversial his views are and, consequently, does not give sufficient airing to the reasoning of those who would contradict his own reading of a text or another piece of evidence, at least in sufficiently full footnotes" (my emphasis). The latter was more or less what I also tried to underscore in my review.

Does Vinzent follow the textual evidence, or does he read his hypothesis into texts?

Put more precisely, is Vinzent reading his "pre-conceived Marcionite" ideas into texts, or are the texts themselves supplying convincing evidence for Vinzent's overall ideas? Paget writes:

"All theories are provisional and dependent upon a possibly narrow and unrepresentative set of texts. Such an observation is especially important when dealing with Vinzent's volume because he relies so heavily upon arguments from silence to prove a variety of points" (my emphasis). Is this in fact the case? Is Vinzent making use of circular arguments? On both accounts, Paget thinks that he does:

"... Vinzent's analysis of texts leads him to the view that Marcion is a key to understanding the development of the church in the middle to the later second century, and on the basis of that assumption he sets about reading texts. What I mean is that it is often precisely the assumption of the Marcionite centrality which guides the reading of sources".

But Paget is also cautious, adding: "I am not claiming that Vinzent has a mono-Marcionite view of the latter part of the second century, or that he reads texts exclusively as reactive", but, and crucially in my opinion, Paget argues that Vinzent's "... assumptions are key to the way he proceeds, and the risks of proceeding in such a way need to be considered in any assessment of his work" (my emphasis).

Paget then goes on to discuss in more detail several texts to illustrate his claims. This include discussions about Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 Clement, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, Samaritan Christianity etc. It is worthwhile to compare Paget and Vinzent's different interpretations! I was quite relieved to see that at least some of the concerns I raised about Vinzent's interpretations of 1 Peter, 1 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas in my review, is shared by Paget!

One central claim that Vinzent makes, is that after Marcion, there was a "resurrection-mania" in response to him reviving the doctrine. Is this claim persuasive? For a start, Paget shows that Vinzent's reference to Reinhart Staat as support for his hypothesis is incorrect. In fact, counter to Vinzent, Paget states that "Staat is clear that that is not the case, even as we move into the third and fourth centuries and he spends some time explaining why this was so". By referring to the likes of Justin, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch etc (mentioning significant issues overlooked by Vinzent), Paget suggests that it might be better to speak of an "increased and intense interest in the resurrection of the dead rather than Christ's resurrection, and that such a concern emerged for a variety of reasons" (my emphasis). For the latter, Paget refers to an old but very useful account of the subject by the well-known Dutch scholar from Utrecht, W.C. van Unnik (JEH 15:141-67).

Related to Vinzent's theory of a post-Marcion "resurrection-mania", is whether the resurrection becomes a theme in the second century primarily because of Marcion? Paget disagrees with Vinzent pointing out that there are in fact a number of texts that could be taken to demonstrate an interest in the resurrection, that do not mention Marcion, such as the Epistula Apostolorum, Kerygma Petrou and certain Gnostic texts. 

The Priority of Marcion's Gospel

I found Paget's critique of Vinzent' interpretation of Marcion's Gospel very persuasive, in part because of my own analysis of Tertullian's engagement with Marcion in my Durham dissertation. Probably the most devastating critique of Vinzent's theory that Marcion was the first to write a Gospel is discussed in footnote 47:

"... Vinzent bases his view that Marcion was the first to write a Gospel in part upon Tertullian ... where he asserts that Tertullian 'admits that Marcion accused 'upholders of Judaism' of having falsified his Gospel to make it fit to be combined with what Marcion regarded as the Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets', going on to argue that Tertullian proceeds to invent Marcion's argument by claiming that he had found a Gospel which he had mutilated". 

To this claim Paget responds that however one might assess this passage's reliability, Tertullian 

"never asserts that Marcion claimed the thesis Vinzent is arguing. In fact, the Latin clearly states that Marcion accused the 'upholders of Judaism' of having falsified Luke, not of having falsified his own Gospel. This is made plain in Evans's translation, which Vinzent quotes, but leaving out certain bits ... Given that Vinzent bases a lot on this passage ... his misreading of it is significant".

In Paget's conclusion, apart from a few nuanced observations, he asks the question: "But was Vinzent right?" His answer:

"I have tried to show that there are grounds for thinking that his revisionist views are based upon highly contentious conclusions, whose disputed character is dealt with in a sometimes misleading sweeping manner, and are dependent upon questionable methodological assumptions and procedures ... Few, I imagine, will be persuaded by this book ...". 

I want to reiterate that the above reflect only a few bits and pieces, highlighting some striking disagreements that Paget has with Vinzent's main ideas. There are much more meat to the bones and also several nuanced discussions in Paget's article. It is certainly worthwhile for those interested in resurrection in the second century to analyse Paget's article as well as Vinzent's book in more detail. Other reviews already published include M. Edwards, Church Times 2.12.2011; L. Wickham, TLS 6.1.2012 and F. Mulder, Theology 115 (2012) 123-124.

WHY did Barth and Bultmann's exegetical roads split?

Recently, an Oxford friend contacted me with the following request: “... do you know off-hand where to find Bultmann’s quote about how Jesus rose only in the faith (or preaching) of the disciples? I’m having a heck of a time tracking it down!”

Because my PhD is all about the resurrection, I was able to get the quote right away for my friend. As I read Bultmann’s famous paragraph once again (probably for the tenth time since 2006), it made me think back very fondly of the interactions between Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann between 1922-1966 which I analysed to some degree while studying in Durham, UK in 2008/9.

What struck me in particular this time around, was how the later Barth reacted against Bultmann’s demythologizing programme as well as his existential reading of Scripture in his famous article: “Rudolf Bultmann – An Attempt to Understand Him”. This parting of the ways between them, can be observed by their respective views about the resurrection. I quote snippets from Bultmann first and then from Barth’s reaction.

Bultmann: 

“Christ meats us in the preaching as one crucified and risen. He meets us in the word of preaching and nowhere else. The faith of Easter is just this – faith in the word of preaching ... The word of preaching confronts us as the word of God. It is not for us to question its credentials ... Faith and unbelief are never blind, arbitrary decisions. They offer us the alternative between accepting or rejecting that which alone can illuminate our understanding of ourselves ... If the event of Easter Day is in any sense an historical event additional to the event of the cross, it is nothing else than the rise of faith in the risen Lord, since it was this faith which led to the apostolic preaching. The resurrection itself is not an event of past history. All that historical criticism can establish is the fact that the first disciples came to believe in the resurrection ... But the historical problem is not of interest to Christian belief in the resurrection. For the historical event of the rise of the Easter faith mean for us what it meant for the first disciples – namely, the self-attestation of the risen Lord, the act of God in which the redemptive event of the cross is completed ... Through the word of preaching the cross and the resurrection are made present: the eschatological “now” is here, and the promise of Isa. 49. 8 is fulfilled ...” (Rudolf Bultmann, The New Testament and Mythology, [ed.], Hans-Werner Bartsch, [trans.], Reginald H. Fuller, Kerygma and Myth. A Theological Debate, Vol. 1 [London: SPCK, 1972]), 41-43.

Barth: 

“Surely, if we want to understand any given text, the provisional clue to its understanding must be sought from the text itself, and moreover from its spirit, content and aim. Surely we should be condemning our text to silence in advance if we approached it with such a criterion, alien alike to its spirit, content and aim. How can we decide even before we have read the text what it actually says, and what is only temporary imagery?.. Is not Bultmann’s very concept of myth, the infallible criterion which dominates his hermeneutics, quite alien to the New Testament?” (Karl Barth, “Rudolf Bultmann – An Attempt to Understand Him”, in Kerygma and Myth. A Theological Debate [ed.] by Hans-Werner Bartsch, [trans.] by Reginald H. Fuller [London: SPCK, 1972]), 108.

Barth: 

“Is the demythologized kerygma allowed to say anything about God’s having condescended to become this-worldly, objective and – horror of horrors! – datable? Apparently [for Bultmann] it is not allowed ... Nor can it admit that it originated in the concrete fact that the disciples saw with their own eyes, heard with their ears, touched with their hands, in space and time, not only the dereliction of the Word made flesh hanging on the cross, but also as the glory of the same Word made flesh risen from the dead ... Apparently the demythologized kerygma must remain silent about what caused faith ... Apparently the kerygma must suppress or even deny the fact that the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the total Christ event, is the event of our redemption, that it possessed an intrinsic significance of its own, and that only because it has that primary significance has it a derived significance here and now. Yet this event is the ground of our faith and of the kerygma, and faith and kerygma are only secondary to it and derivative from it” (Ibid., 109-10).

Over the past few years, I’ve been struck by how often some biblical scholars forget that there was an early and a later Barth. It seems that Barth’s later exegesis did become more historical compared to i.e. his Romans commentary. Did he go far enough though? Scholars remain divided on that.

Explosive stuff that evangelicals and liberals need to know about Gerd Luedemann - an extraodinary interview

It is probably fair to say that Prof Gerd Luedemann from Gottingen is currently the most controversial New Testament biblical scholar in Europe. He is famous for many things (i.e. being a member of the American Jesus Seminar with the likes of John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg), but the two issues he is best known for is without a doubt his i) 1994 monograph in which he rejected the testimony of the empty tomb in the canonical gospels as unhistorical, arguing that Peter and Paul had hallucinations of the risen Jesus; and ii) his 1999 "Letter to Jesus" in which he kissed Christianity goodbye.

Interview
I was privileged to have an interview with Prof Luedemann (and his wife!) while attending a major conference on the resurrection in Europe. Believing in the bodily resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation for the available testimony, it might seem strange to some that the discussion we had was highly significant to me. Why was it significant? Luedemann is quite outspoken about his personal journey, the people who influenced him, those he disagrees with, and what he thinks of "liberal churches". Make sure to read his reflections on Hans Conzelmann, Andreas Lindemann, Rudolf Bultmann, John Dominic Crossan, and Marcus Borg! I hope to publish an article on the life and scholarship of Prof Luedemann at some stage. I will therefore only mention a few excerpts from our discussion. Please keep two things in mind while reading: i) Professor Luedemann is German, which may account for the sentence structure of some responses; ii) What is reported here cannot and should not be interpreted in isolation from Prof Luedemann's published work.

Mulder: Prof Luedemann, you used to believe in the resurrection, but that changed. Which books and professors had a major impact on your new interpretations?

Luedemann: For my first New Testament course seminar, I had Hans Conzelman as teacher, with Andreas Lindemann [picture right] as his assistant ... I found their exegesis very convincing ... it was like a philosophical presupposition which I liked, for I was memorising Voltaire in French [at the time]. And then I remember I had my doubts. And then I remember I talked to Lindemann about this [Jesus' resurrection], and he said it did not happen. So what do you do? I can still "see" him [Lindemann], he was only three years older than me. He said whenever he is preaching the gospel, or whenever the gospel is preached, nothing is present from the past. So you don't worry about history. It's there in the act of preaching.

Mulder: In the kerygma [preaching] like Bultmann?

Luedemann: Yes, he was a Bultmann student. I was never convinced by that. The moment the preacher preaches, the Word of God is there. I think you need some foundation there, not only faith. So that is what Lindemann told me. I was not convinced.

Mulder: I was fascinated after reading your work, and also AJM Wedderburn, Marcus Borg, and John Dominic Crossan.

Luedemann: Borg and Crossan are invited to speak to Christians, and they get high honorariums.

Mulder: Borg especially?

Luedemann: O yes. And I don't know how they can do it ... when we come to discussing things, then I come to realise that they're not really believers. They're just fooling around.

Mulder: Are they therefore being unethical? That could be the implication?

Luedemann: Well, the churches probably expect them to be like that.

Mulder: But the church also know that they're not really honest?

Luedemann: Well, liberal churches are like that. Maybe it is self deception. But look who is going there? They despise evangelicals ... [those] churches want these people with the double talk. They need it.

Mulder: So tell us what happened between 1994 and 1999. In your 1994 book you put forward the view that Jesus' body decomposed in a tomb and that Peter and Paul experienced hallucinations of the risen Jesus. In the same work you maintained that one can remain a Christian despite this. You based this insight on your appreciation for the Marburg systematics theologian Wilhelm Herrmann [picture left] who separated faith and history from each other [Herrmann was Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Barth's dogmatics professor]. And then in 1999 in your "Letter to Jesus", you famously said you cannot be a Christian any longer. So please tell us more about your five year existential experience of being a Christian [between 1994 and 1999], and how it eventually panned out.



Luedemann: Well, in 1994 the quotation from Herrmann was from a book in which he says that we can live with the little we really believe and not with the much that we have to believe ... I had these ideas. I was however never able to make a system of it, because I did not believe it.

Mulder: So why did you say it then? Why did you say "yes" for Christianity in 1994 despite your historical findings?

Luedemann: Look, I was a professor in Theology. There had to be a synthesis.

Mulder: So you pretended?

Luedemann: No. You end up with that [synthesis]. The only thing I enjoyed in that book was the things I said about DF Strauss that the tomb is full. And I learnt that from Conzelman. I visited him a lot.

Mulder: Did Conzelman say that in public?

Luedemann: In private.

Mulder: So Conzelman in private said the tomb was not empty, but in his academic and public work he would not say that?

Luedemann: Or he was undecided. You see, I had a good relationship with Conzelman. He died in 1989. He was sick for three years. I went to him once a week, and asked him all sorts of questions. He talked to me about Martin Hengel from Tuebigen. He would say to Hengel: "The grave is full!".

Mulder: Conzelman would say that to Hengel?

Luedemann: He would say that to him. And I immediately said he is right about that.

Mulder: So when did you lose your faith?

Luedemann: I probably never had faith.

Later on we had a very interesting discussion about Martin Hengel. Surprisingly, Luedemann conceded that he has respect for Hengel's historical work, and that they communicated by email before his death. Hengel is relatively well known for arguing for the historicity of the empty tomb of Jesus. What an extraordinary discussion we had!

Why Germans recommend Gathercole, not Bultmann - a Münster experience!

          I had the privilege of giving a paper at the  Neutestamentliches Seminar of the Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität, Münster on July 4^th. In my paper I focussed on Willi Marxsen (former professor in Münster), N.T. Wright and the continued quest to make sense of Paul’s view of the future resurrection body. There was a lively discussion afterwards during which many interesting issues were raised. A big thank you to Professor Hermut Löhr, Professor Dietrich-Alex Koch (from Göttingen), Dr Sebastian Fuhrmann and all the other attendees for the valuable advice, and also those challenging questions raised by Prof Koch in particular! I had such fun engaging both Willi Marxsen and N.T. Wright’s very different approaches to the study of Jesus’ resurrection.

Afterwards, some of us had a lovely dinner at a traditional German restaurant. The discussion was, to say the least mind blowing! We spoke about people like Martin Hengel, Adolf Schlatter, Rudolf Bultmann, Karl Barth, Peter Stuhlmacher, Erich Gräßer, Walter Schmidtals, Klaus Berger to name a few.

A few interesting reflections:

Which British biblical scholars’ works are read in Germany? There are probably more but the only names I recall were that of C.K. Barrett, James D.G. Dunn, John Barclay, Francis Watson and Simon Gathercole. I was quite surprised, but very thankful that The Pre-existent Son, Simon Gathercole’s important 2006 monograph is "recommended" reading in Münster!

I asked one of the scholars whether Rudolf Bultmann’s dominance started to fade in Germany, and if so, when? He replied that it did fade and occurred in the 1970’s. We then spoke about the significance of Ernst Käsemann’s “bomb shell” in 1962 when he rejected his doktorvater (Bultmann)’s exegesis in public...

But why did Bultmann’s insights fade? One person replied that it was because Bultmann’s existentialism, which he got from Heidegger, took away the “surprise” of the biblical texts. The scholar went on to say that he does make reference to Bultmann’s form criticism in his classes, but only for its “heuristic value”. German scholarship has apparently moved “beyond” Bultmann’s form criticism. These reflections on Bultmann (by German scholars!) fascinated me tremendously, in part because a month or two ago, I read on Facebook of a South African New Testament scholar who still requires his B.A. students to read Bultmann’s History of the Synoptic Tradition. With respect, one wonders whether South African scholars will take note of the fact that some German scholars are recommending Simon Gathercole’s The Pre-existent Son, a work that attempts to deconstruct particular trajectories created by German form criticism.

As is fitting for a New Testament PhD student, I did visit the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung where I was pleasantly surprised to find Dr Christian Askeland, a Coptic textual-criticism guru who did his PhD at Cambridge, with Dr Peter William as his supervisor.

Herr, ich danke Ihnen, dass die Deutschen lesen Simon Gathercole Arbeit. Gott arbeitet auf mysteriöse Weise ...

Why the Adolf Schlatter Renaissance?

It is close to astonishing to witness the Renaissance in the study of the life and work of Adolf Schlatter (1852-1938). But why is he so significant? Why are people like James D.G. Dunn, Markus Bockmühl, Robert Morgan and many others referring so positively to him? Apart from his 439 published pieces, and Kittel's first volume of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament dedicated to him, Schlatter has, in the words of Robert Yarbrough "staying power". Yarbrough explains:

"Over thirty books by Schlatter still in print (more than any other theologian of his era) attest to the staying power of his scholarship.  His contribution was many-sided.  He was far ahead of his times in stressing the importance of Jewish backgrounds for understanding Jesus and the early church, an insight vindicated by discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and championed in Schlatter’s train today by the likes of Martin Hengel and Markus Bockmühl.  His arguments for the validity of theological concerns in critical exegesis,  rejected by liberalism of the day, retain importance and mark Schlatter as a forerunner to Barth.  Yet unlike (at least the early) Barth, Schlatter insisted on a Jesus of history, attested to by Scripture, as of equal importance with the saving Christ of faith.  Schlatter sided with Brunner in the latter’s tiff with Barth over natural theology (although he rejected neo-orthodoxy’s neo-Kantian doctrine of revelation); he feared that Bultmann’s proposals set the stage for a slide toward atheism.  In sum, Schlatter modelled an independence of thought and fidelity of Christian faith that are still suggestive in academy and church today. For those who understand Christian faith not only in academic but also in pastoral terms, Schlatter’s contribution may be gauged by the large number (and continuing heritage) of ministers and students he encouraged.  His somewhat fiery free spirit still inspires, as well: Tübingen’s first woman theological licentiate, Lydia Schmidt, pointed to Schlatter’s encouragement in learning and belief.  (Other professors at the time fought against women’s presence in the university.)  Paul Schneider, the first Christian minister to be martyred by the Nazis (Buchenwald, 1939), experienced his conversion from liberal to historic Christian convictions through interaction with Schlatter’s dogmatics, and in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s (1906-45) last working library the only other author so richly represented and consulted was Luther. Schlatter’s example of rigor in thought, creativity in formulation, courage in expression, and artlessness in practical service amply justify the apparent renaissance in Schlatter studies currently underway" (Robert Yarbrough, “Adolf Schlatter (1852-1938) as ein Lehrer der Kirche (a Teacher of the Church)”, Scripture Seminar, April 2004).

I am currently reading Adolf Schlatter's The History of the Christ. The Foundation of New Testament Theology (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, 1997), translated by Andreas J. Körstenberger.

As I'm working my way through it, I sense parallels with i.e. NT Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1996), and also Paul Barnett's Finding the Historical Christ (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2003).

I really like the way in which Schlatter takes serious the dominant liberal theories of his day and how he deconstructs them. His chapter on the resurrection is a good example. Remarkably close to Edward Schillebeeckx's view, Schlatter describes one theory for the Easter faith like this: 

"The disciples entered the Easter account in a mood oscillating between despair and hope, unable to give up their faith in view of Jesus' earlier words and deeds, and unable to retain it in view of his death; and from these waves of emotions visions emerged that ended all doubt, experiences of high value for the disciples although they were found merely in their own subjective realm" (377). 

After describing at some length the various narratives and resurrection reports, Schlatter states: 

"If the disciples had looked for the basis of their faith in Jesus to the internal movements of their soul, the church would have turned into a gathering of mystics who spent their time trying to produce within them the ecstatic condition by which the Christ would become visible also to them. The idea, however, that it was Christianity's calling to enhance its emotions to such a degree that it would culminate in a vision of Jesus wherein the assurance of salvation was rooted or completed is not interwoven with early Christian history. The disciples always and solely, by a sober use of the idea of truth, understood faith in such a way that what happened showed them what God was and did, so that the objectiveness of an accomplished fact would present the basis for their conviction and the goal for their will ... The Easter account did not create the effort in the disciples to retreat into their inner lives and to seek there the revelation of God that world history denied them. Conversely, their lives rather received its basis and its power from the event that came to them externally ... If the disciples' conviction of having seen Jesus once more subsequent to his death was derived from visionary states of being, the consequences of this process would have had to be revealed in the entire state of piety. As a result, we would have received in the place of Christianity a religion in which the individual elevated himself to God one way or another" (379).

Markus Vinzent, Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity ...: what does he argue and [why] does it matter?' Judith Lieu and James Carleton Paget from Cambridge

We had an engaging New Testament and Patristics joint seminar here in Cambridge on Tuesday (01/05/2012). Prof Judith Lieu and Dr James Carleton Paget lead the seminar with the title: 'Markus Vinzent, Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament (Ashgate, 2011): what does he argue and [why] does it matter?'

Both Prof Lieu and Dr Paget are commissioned to write review articles of the book for important journals. In the handout they made reference to three reviews already published. They are:

M. Edwars, Church Times 2.12.2011;

F. Mulder, Theology 115 (2012) 123-124;

L. Wickham, TLS 6.1.2012

Scholars who attended the seminar and took part in the Q & A afterwards included the likes of Prof Richard Bauckham, Prof Morna Hooker, Dr Peter Head, Dr Simon Gathercole and Dr Thomas Graumann to name a few.

I think it will be unfair to report on the contributions by Prof Lieu and Dr Paget given the commissioned review articles they are about to complete. What I will say though is that I was delighted that some of the concerns I raised in my Theology review was also raised by others during the Q & A afterwards....


For anyone interested in this particular work, I recommend reading it in conjunction with at least:


NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God pp. 451-528.
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitness (the whole work).


Keep your eyes open for Prof Lieu and Dr Paget's review articles!