Sub Ratione Dei

The Resurrection - Geza Vermes

  Geza Vermes, The Resurrection, Penguin, (2008).

It probably doesn't help that this, evidently the fourth of a number of popular book written on the historical jesus is the first book of Vermes I have read. Based on the experience it may well not be the last.

In an enjoyable romp through evolution jewish tradition, second testament sources and the evidence of the early christians Vermes tries to make sense of how the development of the idea of Jesus' resurrection and the centrality of the doctrine in Christian thought. As regards historicity Vermes makes clear that "not even a credulous non-believer is likely to be persuaded by the various reports of the resurrection; they convince only the already converted" (p. 142). The Resurrection is a brief summary why Vermes believes this to be so.

The idea of resurrection, Vermes argues, while not unprecedented was a marginal belief in Jewish thought. Moreover, the treatment in the synoptic gospels do tend to have this unexpected character with a few prophecies inserted after the fact. In an interview on the book Vermes summarises the thesis

"Yet if you look at what Jesus actually said, then you get a different picture. If he did talk about the resurrection, he forgot to write it down; so it's more likely he didn't. And if he did, then why did his resurrection come as such a surprise to the apostles? No one said, 'Of course, Jesus said it would be like this' when his tomb was found to be empty; even Mary Magdalene assumed that someone must have moved the body. Nobody's reactions correspond to the expectation of a resurrection."

While it may be arguable, considered from a synoptic viewpoint that the resurrection was an interpolation after the fact the message of the texts themselves are not fatally damaged. Not so, the Pauline letters. It is Paul who forthrightly asserts that the whole of the divine salvific plan rests on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection (1 Cor 15: 12-18). Vermes then follows that view that Paul is to be considered the founder of Christianity. In his conclusion to his relatively brief survey of Paul he more or less says as much:

whereas the idea of resurrection lay at the periphery of the preaching of Jesus, based on the idea of the kingdom of God, St Paul turned it into the centrepiece of his mystical  and theological vision, which was soon to become quasi-identical with the essence of the Christian message (p. 130).

It is at this point that Vermes' argument began to irk me a little. For one, given the suggestion that Paul fundamentally changed the nature of the nascent Christian movement by making central what was once peripheral it seems remarkable to me that Vermes only spent 9 pages on Pauline Christianity. More importantly however, although Vermes was likely always likely to annoy some I have a suspicion Vermes has gone out of his way to be too nice. The issue is surely if is Paul that invents the theological significance of the resurrection the Christianity how is this to be explained? Is it a case of mass delusion or intentional deception on paul's part. Although most likely a controversial topic, particularly given the book's release over the Easter period it is surely integral to the topic at hand, namely how the idea of resurrection began as a marginal facet of Jewish tradition but was to become the cornerstone for Christian faith. Given that the Pauline letters mostly pre-date the gospels (if I remember my NT history correctly) this question is surely all the more important because there can be no doctrinal evolution from the synoptics to the Pauline letters.

In closing, Vermes covers the the possible ground for alternative explanations for the empty tomb. Here,  Vermes helps out some evangelical apologists by dismissing all alternatives as to why the tomb may have been empty. Of course, the other alternative - that Jesus died and corporeally rose from the dead - is likewise jettisoned.  So, what is one to make of the resurrection, a resurrection that Vermes all but states is (materially) non-historical?  In closing Vermes offers the "Jesus lives in the hearts of men" response which seems to me the ultimate cop-out as it is here presented but i'm probably going to put up a post on this aspect in the near future so I won't dwell on it here.

I am pretty sure that those who have studied biblical studies will find anything new here but for dabblers such as myself this is a succinct and engaging book. I read it in one sitting so it may be a good choice for the next long journey you have to take on public transport.  

Elsewhere ....

James Crossley on Vermes and A N Wilson

Review by Tracts for the Times

Targumen on the Vermes Article

Jacob and the Prodigal

Review of Kenneth E Bailey, Jacob & the Prodigal: How Jesus Retold Israel's Story, BRF, (2003).

Since Biblical Studies is not really my niche the prospect of a whole monograph on one biblical text, namely Luke 15, would not ordinarily be one I would relish. However, Kenneth Bailey who is Canon theologian of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, has in Jacob and the Prodigal an excellent and highly readable monograph. Although this particular edition is published by the Bible Reading Fellowship it was first published by IVP. It is therefore not surprising that the book begins with the prolegomena on the authenticity of scripture and oral tradition; it is not that the presentation that does take into account cultural differences in tradition-transmission is uninteresting but I did think it somewhat superfluous to the book itself. There are probably two ways one could read this book. The first as an academic monograph on the Prodigal story and its Old Testament antecedents. Bailey's central thesis is that one can see 51 points of convergence / divergence with the Old Testament character of Jacob. This leads Bailey to speculate on the reasons behind Jesus utilised this background and what it means for contemporary understandings of the context of Jesus' teaching - for those interested the Kruse Kronicle ran a series of posts on Bailey's thought, these can be found here. I'll be honest and say that at this level I was not wholly convinced but, as I say, I am not especially literate on the current state of biblical studies, others who are may find this more useful. However,the other level of reading the text, and the one I found engaging is as an academically respectable devotional commentary on the Lukan lost sheep, coin, son narratives. Here Bailey shows an excellent aptitude in setting context and highlighting the radical grace that the God-figure shows and, by extension, the radical grace of the gospel (Bailey shows that it is the father and not the son that is the central character in the narrative). In the course of doing so Bailey includes caveats on a whole host of ancillary subjects such as the feminine in the God-head, the nature of conversion, and the meaning of grace. I did not expect it but this is one of my picks for the best book read so far this year.

Circumventing the Atonement Wars

For certain sections of the British Christian scene the last couple of years have seen what one could term the “Atonement Wars”. The major battle of which is the often ugly spat occasioned by leading UK Evangelical Steve Chalke and Alan Mann's comments in his 2004 book The Lost Message of Jesus (there's some good overviews of the debate here).

These arguments over the correct formulation of atonement – nearly always reduced to the idea of Christ's substitutionary death, penal or otherwise, the seemingly endless, nasty and circular way mean, argues McKnight that this creates an “anti-gospel”; not just because of the attitudes of the interlocutors but more importantly the atonement does not seem to have any practical effect on the lives of Christians, a strange idea given that the (substitutionary) atonement is -we are told - the cornerstone of our faith.

McKnight writes

The bad news, the anti-gospel as it were, is that the claim Christians make for the atonement is not making enough difference in the real lives of enough Christians to show up in statistics as compelling truth of what the apostle Paul called the “truth of the gospel.” Does this new relationship with God really transform the individual? Does this work of Christ and the Spirit to forgive sins and empower Christians make them forgiving people or morally empowered people? Does the claim of the gospel extend to what can be observed in the concrete realities of those who claim to be its beneficiaries (p. 1).

Mcknight's answer to such questions is to suggest that individual Christians and, in turn, our churches are not moulded by the radical grace of atonement that comes from the live and death of Jesus. Were they to be so then our churches would be communities reconciling enemies as they reflect (however dimly) the grace and love of Jesus Christ or, as Mcknight beautifully puts it:

To be forgiven, to be atoned for, to be reconciled - synonymous expressions - is to be granted a mission to become a reciprocal performer of the same: to forgive, to work atonement, and to be an agent of reconciliation. Thus, atonement is not just something done to us and for us, it is something we participate in - in this world, in the here and now. It is not just something done, but something that is being done and something we do as we join God in the missio Dei (p. 30-31 - emphasis in original).

In one sense there is nothing groundbreaking in what McKnight says, for example, recently I read some of Pope John Paul VI's Lumen Gentium written over forty years ago, and much the same emphasis is there as well. However, it is not Catholic or mainline Protestant theology that have had the macabre fetish with the death of Christ to the exclusion of all else (eg, creation, incarnation, and most amazingly of all, resurrection); that mantle of course falls to popular evangelicalism (there is of course a more holistic atonement theology centred on the trinitarian life of God but, by and large, that is not the atonement preached from the pulpit; at least it wasn't in the churches I was raised in). I was going to title this review "On Pick 'N Mix Theology", but the title is a little unfair. There is however a both/and motif running throughout this book which plays itself out in the golf metaphor to which McKnight constantly refers. The gist is simple: try playing a round of golf with only one club and you might do some things well but you will not play a good round of golf. The same is true, argues McKnight, for theories of the atonement:

Some atonement theories are "one-club" theories that have to be adjusted each time one plays "the atonement game." This is unfortunate because we have a big bag of images in our Bible and we need to pull from the bag if we are to play out the fulsomeness of the redemptive work of God (p. xiii).

Consequently McKnight aims in A Community Called Atonement to present a holistic theology of the atonement that is not reduced to any one aspect which, viewed in abstraction from the whole, does disservice to all God in in Christ Jesus to make us one with God and give a foretaste of his reign. Moreover, in what is definitely the strength of the book, McKnight does all this in a way that while thorough does not require a degree in theology to fully grasp it; as such I will also most likely be writing a review for the local church newsletter. As one would expect from someone influenced by Anabaptism McKnight also does a great job in emphasising the corporate nature of atonement, hence the title. Together we seek as ecclesial communities to be a harbinger of the salvation that God in Christ wrought. Where I was a little disappointed - and I may be mistaken but this is an impression I have gathered from emerging writers that I have read in general - is that there was a distinct lack of a critical voice in much of the text. For example, I agree that there is at least an element of a penal motif in New Testament soteriology but, the question I ask and McKnight does not answer is why this is so forthright in evangelical thought and for an anabaptist as well, what are we to do with the idea of redemptive violence (even if this is trinitarian and hence not one of cosmic child abuse) this brings with it? About the Author Scot McKnight is the Karl A Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University, Chicago. He also blogs at Jesus Creed. Rating 3.5/5

 

 

Constantine's Canon

Review of David L Dungan, Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament, SCM, (2006). ISBN: 0334041058.

Constantine's Bible is at the same time a history of the development of scripture and of the canon. Of course, these two histories are normally seen to be identical; in other words, canon and scripture are synonyms. Early on Dungan explains something of his rationale for this separation of commonly entwined concepts:

We lose sight of something truly important if we use the term canon as a synonym for any and every conglomeration of scripture. In what follows, I will demonstrate that the legal imposition of a kanon (Latin: regula, a rule, regulation) upon Christian scripture along with a kanon of the correct summary of doctrine (the creed), and the enforcement of both with the full power of the Roman government, was a phenomenon unique to fourth - and fifth - century Christianity (p. 8).

In the first chapter "What a 'Canon' of Scripture is - and is not" Dungan elucidates the distinct concepts of scripture and canon by means of a study of the concepts in other religions. In his comparative religious study Dungan concludes that while a great many religions have the concept of scripture understood as as a set of "semidurable, semifluid, slowly evolving conglomeration of sacred texts ... in use by members of a religious tradition" over a prolonged period (p. 2). A canon however is different and is taken to be the resulting collection of texts "when someone seeks to impose a strict boundary around a smaller subset of writings or teachings" (p. 3). Chapters two through to offer historical overviews of the two trends in Christian history. In particular, Dungan locates the appeal to the canon as a legacy of Greek philosophy, especially the concern for accuracy that accompanied the Polis. With it there arose a concern for uniformity across the Christian Churches glimpses of which can be found in the New Testament emphasis on the proper construction of the ekklesia, as demonstrated in the Pastoral Epistles. In in the highlight of the book Dungan examines the tests of authenticity used in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History; which, quite apart from the role in plays in Dungan's argument is a superb read. While the debate over the content of holy scripture had died down in decades following Marcion's challenge the Christian church had a broadly agreed scripture, it did not however have a canon. This came under the directian of the emporer Constantine had he launched into the political and theological debates that raged throughout the Christian world. One of Constantine's early actions was to order from Eusebius 50 bibles to place in his new state-sponsored church building endeavour. The effect, says Dungan was to creat a Christian canon for the first time:

After Constantine's Bible had been produced, and in the tense atmosphere that followed the Council of Nicaea, what bishop would dare use a bible in his cathedral that differed in content from the ones used by the bishops in Constaninople? He would likely be informed upon and investigated. He could lose his office or worse! (p. 122.).

Hence from this point on, canon=law, where before the language of discussion concerning the authenticity of the New Testament documents had been made with vocabulary such as genuine, spurious, or disputed texts the language was now between canonical (legal) texts and non-canonical (illegal) ones. And, as my previous quotation of Dungan's made clear, the integrity of the church was damaged as a result.

Review of “ Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and his Earliest Followers ”

by Christopher Tuckett, Edinburgh University Press, (2001).

Tuckett's Christology and the New Testament is according to James Dunn's blurb on the back useful for the beginning theology or biblical studies student. I don't quite fit into the former but the latter is probably a fair description and as part of the target demographic would say that the book succeeds in its purpose.

Beginning with a brief outline of some of the Jewish background to key christological terms (eg. Son of God, Son of Man, Lord, Messiah) Tuckett goes on to present his synopsis of New Testament Christology in four sections:

i) the Pauline, the Deutero-Pauline Letters and the Book of Hebrews

ii) the Synoptic Gospels

iii) the Johannine Literature

iv) the likely argument of Q and an attempt to discern Jesus' own self-understanding.

Throughout Tuckett writes in an effective manner that allows `the lay reader' to grasp the wider academic debates and Tuckett makes a point throughout of highlighting issues of debate while stating his own opinion. In doing so one of the interesting points Tuckett makes is differentiating how terms used throughout the New Testament vary in their use by individual biblical authors. Overall, this is definitely recommended for the person wanting an introduction to Christology and the New Testament.

Buy from Amazon.co.uk
Buy from Amazon.com