Today I had a friend send me a link to a post written on the blog of Oneness Pentecostal theologian Jason Dulle. It is titled “Arguing from Silence“. In this post Dulle addresses two arguments from silence that he still feels make a strong case for his views. (1) That Matthew 28:19 may not have originally said “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” because Justin Martyr does not reference this passage when arguing for “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” as an “appropriate baptismal formula”. (2) The the Father-Son distinction may not be based in an eternal relationship between two persons of the Trinity because the “Father-Son terminology is mysteriously absent from the OT”. Let us consider these two issues.
“The Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 28:19
Dulle writes,
“…in discussing whether Matthew 28:19 originally read “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” or “in my name,” some Trinitarian scholars argue that the latter is original. “In my name” does not appear in any extant manuscript, so what is there basis? One reason is Justin Martyr’s silence on the passage. In one of Justin’s work he was arguing for “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” as the appropriate baptismal formula, and yet he never once appealed to Matthew 28:19 for support as we would expect for him to have done if Matthew 28:19 originally read “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Since he did not, it stands to reason that Matthew 28:19 did not read “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” in Justin’s day (or at least in the manuscripts he had access to), but rather “in my name.” While this is an argument from silence, it is a strong argument nonetheless.”
There is a reason why Dulle preferences these statements by acknowledging that an “arguing from silence is a logical fallacy”. There is simply no textual evidence, at all, anywhere that “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” is not original. There is not a single manuscript that reads “in my name”.
The translation committee of the NET Bible places this footnote after Matthew 28:19:
Although some scholars have denied that the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission was a part of the original text of Matthew, there is no ms support for their contention. 1
While it may be peculiar that Justin Martyr did not reference Matthew 28:19 it says very little about the MSS history of The Gospel of Matthew.
Another very early Christian document, The Didache, in 7:1 reads, “Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in living water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” I am well aware that there are some who either date this part of the Didache as later than the rest of the document or who argue that the words have been changed, but it must be noted that these arguments are from silence, like that of Dulle. Even if it is a bit later, which some of the second half may very well be, it is likely that the baptismal formula of The Didache is dependent upon The Gospel of Matthew.
I find it interesting that Bart D. Ehrman–one who is well known for joyfully pointing out textual variants that may cause some problems for orthodox Christianity–gives special attention in his book Misquoting Jesus 2 to the fact that the phrase “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one” are not original in 1 John 5:7 yet he doesn’t appear willing to go as far as Dulle does by attacking a unanimous reading of Matthew 28:19. Nor does he join in with those who argue that the words “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” are not part of The Didache (though he does think that the second part of The Didache is not drawn from an “earlier source” and therefore is not as old as the first part). 3
Why would Dulle even suggest that the phase “in my name” could be the original reading of Matthew 28:19? There is a commission of sorts in the long ending of The Gospel of Mark that includes the words “in my name” (16:17), but while we are discussing textual criticism we should note that it is fairly unanimous that vv. 9-20 were not a part of the original text. In Luke 24:47 there is a statement that “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name”, referring to Jesus. It may be somewhat fair to attach this to Acts 2:38 which says “Repent, and be baptized in the name of the Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins” since it was likely the same author who wrote both texts. But all this proves is that there was a Lukan emphasis on the “name of Jesus” that is not necessarily canonical nor necessary for church practice nor a commentary on Matthew 28:19. I cannot recall a Johannine equivalent to these texts.
So what do we have left at this point? We have a historical, doctrinal reference supporting baptism “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” in Matthew-Didache and we have a historical, doctrinal reference supporting “in the name of Jesus Christ” from Luke-Acts. It is likely that both are legitimate baptismal “formulas” with historical roots in the early church. Those who baptized “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” knew this was the God revealed through Jesus Christ. Those who baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” knew this was into the God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The proto-orthodox Trinitarian position may not have been as fully developed as the later councils would develop it in the face of several different doctrinal challenges, but it is there and the wording of Matthew 28:19 is proof. This is one reason I assume Dulle wants to cast doubt on this matter.
(Update: Read Nick Norelli’s interaction with Ehrman on the authenticity on Matthew 28:19 here.)
Father-Son Terminology in the Old Testament
Let us hear from Dulle again:
“Trinitarians argue that God is eternally Father and eternally Son—two distinct persons in a triune Godhead. I observe from the Biblical data, however, that the Father-Son terminology is mysteriously absent from the OT (“father” appears a handful of times, but is used in a different sense than we find in the NT, and is never used to describe God’s relationship to another divine person; “son” is only used prophetically a few times in the OT, referring to the future Messiah, not a preexistent divine person), beginning to appear only in the NT. Why is this? If God is eternally Father and eternally Son, we would expect to read about the Son in the OT, or expect to see dialogues between Father and Son as we see in the NT. And yet we don’t.”
First of all it should be noted that there is Father-Son terminology in the Old Testament. In Psalm 2:7 the Father tells the Son, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” (ESV, NASB) or “You are my Son; This very day I have become your Father” (a looser translation in the NET, NIV). This passage is about the Davidic king, it is fully fulfilled in the Messiah, Jesus.
Second, do we not expect the incarnation of the Son of God to further expound ideas that were only seedlings in the OT? Since when do we limit NT revelation to the OT? The Oneness position doesn’t do this either in that it at least acknowledges that the incarnation is something new about God.
Third, as Larry Hurtado’s scholarship has shown, as well as a reading through some of the DSS, there was an inter-testament development regarding the monotheistic nature of God. There are even some who argue that the Jews of OT times did not have as strict a monotheism as modern Jews do. Nevertheless, Christianity was not the first to see there as some sort of go-between being for God and the world. Christianity is not the first to develop some sort of Logos doctrine or personification of wisdom that was understood to be the same, yet distinct from God. I will let others more familiar to this subject speak to it if they wish, but I think my simple response is that Dulle’s argument from silence is too unwilling to acknowledge that there is a lot leading toward NT Christology and Trinitarianism. It was not developed in a vacuum.
As Oneness scholars come I appreciate Dulle. On the other hand, it is these types of arguments that make you wonder why someone would need to take such a shot in the dark to defend one’s position. Unfortunately for Oneness adherents this occurs all too often.
_____________________________________
[1] NET Notes, Mt. 28:19
[2] Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (pp. 81-82).
[3] See Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (p. 413) and The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader (p. 313, 315).
As I have wrestled with questions related to the relationship between human free will and the sovereignty of God the concept that made the most sense to me is “Middle Knowledge Calvinism” (see Craig Blomberg’s article “Middle Knowledge” here). There are many smaller details that I will need to think through over time, but as a big-picture theory it makes the most sense. I have been educated in both a strong Arminian perspective as well as a strong Calvinist perspective. Usually I come away with the sense that both sides have to explain away certain parts of the canonical testimony. I have not felt that way about the middle knowledge position.
For those unfamiliar with middle knowledge let me provide you with a paragraph from the aforementioned article by Blomberg:
Simply put, middle knowledge affirms, with classic Arminianism, that God’s predestining activity is based on his foreknowledge of what all humans would do in all possible situations that they could find themselves in. But it also observes that God’s omniscience is so great that it is not limited just to what all actually created being would do but to what all possibly created beings would do in all possible situations. Because God creates only a finite number of persons between the beginning of the universe and Christ’s return, his sovereign choice is preserved, because he must choose to create some beings and not others. Thus, with classic Calvinism, his sovereign, elective freedom is preserved.
In other words, along with Arminians I can affirm that God does not elect on the basis of some arbitrary game of soteriological duck-duck-goose. Along with Calvinist I can affirm that God is sovereign is determining who will be saved since God knows all things, including all possible humans and all possible decisions made by all possible humans in all possible worlds. Also, along with Calvinist I can disagree with Arminians who understand foreknowledge to be a reference to God electing whom He knows will choose salvation as if humans are ever so free from sin as to choose God (contra Romans 3:10-18).
The almighty acronym of many Calvinist is “TULIP”:
T – Total Depravity
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints
Let us examine how Middle Knowledge Calvinism compares with classic Calvinism as we work our way through the TULIP.
Total Depravity: Middle Knowledge Calvinism affirms total depravity. As I read through the aforementioned Romans 3:10-18 it becomes obvious that the Arminian suggestion that there are some humans that actually can choose God contra those who are just too selfish and too evil does not seem to line up, at least with Pauline thought.
On the other hand, in Romans 7:14-25 it is equally true that although we cannot seek God there is something within us that cries out for God. There is a desire to do good, to do the law of God, but we cannot actually do it. In the Middle Knowledge Calvinist paradigm God can know what every individual would choose if the choice could be made. In other words, God can see what every humans that has ever existed would do in a sort of recreated Eden where the question of a free salvation through Christ is offered. Some may choose this reversal fruit. Others may remain in rebellion against God.
Since only God knows what all people would do if we could do it only God has the power to send the Spirit to those people to make sure that they have the faith to come to God through Christ. This is a sovereign act of God, but it is not an arbitrary one. Equally, it does not side with Arminianism suggesting that there are actually people who by their own desire freely “choose’ God.
Unconditional Election: This may appear to be the place where Middle Knowledge Calvinist and classic Calvinist part ways. I did write in that last paragraph that God does not make arbitrary decisions and that God makes His choice on the basis of not only foreknowledge, but Middle Knowledge of all possible people, times, place, and decisions in all possible worlds. But does this make it a conditional election?
Some may say that it does, I do not. The Calvinist understanding of election derives from the Pauline understanding that humans can do nothing to earn salvation. Humans can do nothing. This does not mean that God cannot see past our inability to do. God can see what the heart might desire if the person could respond in his/her own strength.
Therefore, although election is not arbitrary it can be unconditional if we understand that it is not conditioned on anything that the Apostle Paul or the Reformer John Calvin would have seen as merit behavior. If someone thinks that this is conditional because God sees the heart we will just have to agree to disagree. I feel that at this point we must move to TALIP with the U being replaced by an “A” for arbitrary!
Limited Atonement: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever should believe on him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).” “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).” These passages are not very friendly to classic Calvinism. It is simply bad exegesis to suggest that the “world” of John 3:16 is the “world of the elect”, especially since the “world” in Johannine thought is the exact opposite.
Yet we know the atonement must have some limitations, otherwise we do not have Arminianism, we have universalism! Let us make this really simply. The best way to maintain balance while letting the entire canon have a voice is this: (1) the atonement is unlimited in scope and availability; it was sufficient enough for the salvation of all people, everywhere, at all times, but (2) it has limited application, namely to the elect.
The benefits of the atonement are accessed by/in/through faith alone. This does not mean that the atonement was limited in power. It means it is limited in application. Therefore, the Middle Knowledge Calvinist position affirms the limited atonement position by stating that God has only applied the atoning work of Christ to those whom we have already discussed as being elected by God.
Irresistible Grace: For those whom God has chosen on the basis of His Middle Knowledge there will be no avoiding the grace of God. This is not “Divine rape” as some have so crudely said. This is simply God seeing those who would be saved if they could choose salvation and God determines to save. In other words, God is not the gods of the pagans. God does not change His mind about those who He intends to save based on whether or not they have a bad day or do the right things. God is sovereign and God will see the elect through to the end. Those whom God chooses cannot resist this grace.
Perseverance of the Saints: I think I already said in gist what I am going to say here. Those whom God chooses will make it all the way to the end. Classic Calvinism sees this as being because God arbitrarily elected people and therefore those people cannot fail. Middle Knowledge Calvinism agrees to some extend, except the arbitrary part. Both agree that the elect will be saved and that nothing can prevent that.
So yes, I think Middle Knowledge Calvinism can use the TULIP acronym, though there is no reason to feel too dependent upon doing so unless you have some people that need to be convinced you are not a closet Arminian!
I read through the Manhattan Declaration this evening. It is a document of ”4,000 + words; six pages” discussing a Christian response to three prominent social issues: (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) the dignity of marriage as a conjugal union of husband and wife, and (3) the rights of conscious a religious liberty. This is the summary introduction to the document:
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
- the sanctity of human life
- the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
- the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Justin Taylor wrote earlier today about this document that, “It was drafted by Chuck Colson, Robert P. George, and Timothy George. Signers of the statement include J.I. Packer, Tim Keller, Albert Mohler, and over 100 others.” In support of the statement he wrote, ” It’s a careful, thoughtful statement, worthy of study and acceptance.” As of the writing of this post it appears that many are in agreement since the website states “4194 signatures in support”.
There are many who disagree with Taylor. The post is currently closed to comments, but several wrote responses beforehand. Some were upset that Protestants would align with Catholics and Orthodox. One commenter understood this as a blurring of the line between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox that undermines the gospel. Another states that this is a “call to war, with condemnation rather than compassion” in regards to homosexuals. There was even one who wondered why there was not a statement about Islam.
T.C. Robinson added his own post on the matter asking why these topics were not address:
1. A document to eliminate world hunger?
2. A document to provide water for those who can’t even afford a clean cup?
3. A document to treat and prevent certain curable diseases that millions die from daily?
I have a few thoughts of my own to add. First, I think that the issues being discussed are worthwhile issues. It should be noted that this document talks about the sanctity of human life as it addresses not only abortion but also genocide, innocent victims of war, sex trafficking, racial oppression and discrimination, and the spread of HIV/AIDS amongst other items. We must be careful to avoid plugging our ears as soon as we hear people discussion abortion simply because we are a bit worn out by the whole debate. It is still an issue worth discussing as are these other humans rights issues that were mentioned.
Second, the section on marriage being between a man and a woman was not a frontal attack on homosexuals. At least I did not read it as such. The writers were quick to note that promiscuity is the root problem and that many Christian leaders have failed to model Christian marital relationships. It has made us look like hypocrites.
On the other hand, we have the right to ask the question, “What does ‘marriage’ mean if we expand the definition?” It is one thing to prevent homosexuals from having some basic rights like shared insurance or hospital visitation rights. It is a whole different subject to redefine what is by definition a union of a man and a woman. I did not read this declaration as attacking homosexuals, although it stood firm that those who signed do not see homosexuality as a favorable lifestyle.
Third, I am a bit confused by the discussion of religious liberty. I am all for religious liberty, but I am not sure why this would be one of the three subjects given this much attention. Is it because Wal-Mart says “Happy Holidays”? If that is the problem go to Target. I saw “Merry Christmas” signs there!
Now that I have said that I must say I agree with T.C. Robinson. Why address these issues while leaving out others? Are these issues of utmost importance? If homosexuals can get “married” is this as terrible as the fact that thousands across this world do not have clean drinking water? I find this a bit confusing.
Equally, I disagree with my Reformed friends that we cannot be unified with Catholics and Orthodox on various matters. We are unified with both about the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Chalcedonian Creed. It is silly to think that if we agree with Catholics and Orthodox we are somehow denying the Protestant Reformation! C’mon, for one thing the Protestant Reformation has nothing to do with the Eastern Orthodox church! But maybe I don’t really understand the whole debate since I am something like what T.C. called as Pente-Baptist.
It is odd though that we would choose several moral-social issues over those doctrinal, confessional issues that we agree upon such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the authority of the Scriptures, and so forth. These types of social-moral issues can be agreed upon with Buddhist, Confucians, Marxist, Mormons, and Muslims. Why make a big deal that three Christian groups with as much in common as in contrast agree about some social issues?
Anyways, I promise not to close the comments if anyone has thoughts on this matter. Everything that can be said may have already been said. I just thought I’d weigh in as well.
Read the entire Manhattan Declaration here.
For those who may be interested JohnDave and I will be uploading pdf versions of papers we have written that you can download. Those will be available at the Essays/Papers page: http://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/essayspapers/
I want to say a few brief words about the end of the ‘Introduction’ chapter in Nicholas Perrin’s Thomas: The Other Gospel (see my a-tad-too-lengthy post on the rest of the chapter here). First, according to Perrin, “the most pressing question” is how the Coptic Gospel of Thomas relates to the canonical gospels. 1 It was assumed early on that Thomas was simply a dependent distortion of the synoptics. This was until James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester.
Robinson noted that Thomas was a “sayings source” like the hypothetical Q (logoi sophon = sayings of the wise). Koester argued that this “sayings source” was free of all the extra narrative baggage of the synoptics and therefore was likely an earlier, purer, more original set of sayings from the historical Jesus. 2
This is part of what Perrin sets out to address in his book. To challenge these presuppositions about Thomas Perrin must wrestle with the writings of three prominent, contemporary Thomas scholars: (1) Stephen Patterson who carries along the “Koester-Robinson thesis”, (2) Elaine Pagels, and (3) April DeConick.
In my next post I will summarize Perrin’s interaction with Patterson.
_________________________________________
[1] Nicholas Perrin. Thomas: The Other Gospel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. 13.
[2] Ibid.
Brian and I met yesterday at Albina Press to catch up and talk some theology. One thing we touched on was the importance of the church fathers, and how they are a safe guideline to understanding the Scriptures. As I was working on some translations in Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek workbook, I came across a beautiful passage that I did not recognize. I looked up where it came from found it is from 1 Clement, one of the earliest church fathers. Here is the passage and translation:
1 Clement 49:6 – evn avga,ph| prosela,beto h`ma/j o` despo,thj\ dia. th.n avga,phn( h]n e;scen pro.j h`ma/j( to. ai-ma auvtou/ e;dwken u`pe.r h`mw/n VIhsou/j Cristo.j o` Ku,rioj h1mw/n evn qelh,mati Qeou/( kai. th.n sa,rka u`pe.r th/j sarko.j h`mw/n kai. th.n yuch.n u`pe.r tw/n yucw/n h`mw/n)
In love the master received us: on account of the love, which Jesus Christ our Lord had for us, his blood he gave on our behalf in the will of God, and his flesh on behalf of our flesh, and and his life on behalf of our lives.
Whatever the genre of this verse, it makes the point that Christ stands in solidarity with humanity and came to redeem the human person in his or her entirety—and this comes from the love Christ had for us.
As one concerned with right practice as well as right doctrine, I was reading through a work by Douglas Burton-Christie and came across a couple of paragraphs (one partial and one full), which has to do with hermeneutics among the Desert Fathers and Mothers (and is somewhat related to Brian’s post on meaning here). Burton-Christie opens with the theory of interpretation, described in this way:
The author’s intention and meaning of the text cease to coincide, and “[t]he text’s career escapes the finite horizon lived by its author. What the text means now matters more than what the author meant when he wrote it.”57 Thus a text, especially a powerfully evocative text, has the capacity continually to mean more, to overflow in an excess or surplus of meaning. A text never simply “means” one thing but continues to unfold new possibilities of meaning. (Douglas Burton-Christie, The Word in the Desert: Scripture and the Quest for Holiness in Early Christian Monasticism [New York: Oxford University Press, 1993], 20)
In other words, a written text can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and the meaning can go beyond the author’s intended meaning—although I would argue that it does not conflict with what the author intended but that is another discussion. For the Desert Fathers and Mothers, their hermeneutic results in a specific outcome, namely right living:
How and where these possibilities of meaning endured is one of the most interesting facets of the desert hermeneutic. Because there was so much emphasis in the desert on practice, on living with integrity, the monks interpreted Scripture primarily by putting it into practice. In the desert, Scripture’s surplus of meaning endured not in the form of commentaries or homilies but in acts and gestures, in the lives of holiness transformed by dialogue with Scripture. The sacred texts continued to mean more not only to those who read or encountered the texts but also to those encountering the holy ones who had come to embody the texts. The holy person became a new text and a new object of interpretation.58 (Ibid.)
One cannot neglect the ability of Scripture to transform the reader and hearer as Scripture continues to speak to people across all times and of all ethnicities.
[To read a little bit about one of the most prominent Desert Fathers, go here.]
______
57 Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory, 30.[Back]
58 . . . (“The Model of the Text: Meaningful Action Considered as a Text,” in Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, 207-8).[Back]
For those who are at ETS this year make sure to meet the following professors. Some of these sessions are over already, but I thought I’d include everyone.
Kevin Chen (adjunct), Psalm 90 as a Prayer for ‘Eternal Life’ (Tuesday, November 17th, 11:00-11:40am at the Sheraton Salon 825, 8th Floor)
Gerry Breshears, Did the Father Pour Out His Wrath Upon the Son? (Wednesday, November 18th, 9:20-10:00am at Sheraton Rythms 3, 2nd Floor)
John E. Johnson, Is Apostolic Leadership the Key to the Missional Church? Assessing the APEPT Model of Michal Frost and Alen Hirsch (Wednesday, November 18th, 10:00-10:50am at J.W. Marriot/Conde/Frontenac, 3rd Floor)
Gerry Breshears moderating “Evangelicals and Gender” (Thursday, November 19th, 8:30-11:40am at Sheraton Waterbury Ballroom, 2nd Floor)
William Mounce (adjunct), Can the ESV and the TNIV Coexist in the Same Universe? (Friday, November 20th, 10:50-11:30am at Sheraton Grand Couteau, 5th Floor)
James De Young moderating “Interpretating Apocalyptic Symbolism in Matthew’s Gospel” (Friday, November 20th, 9:10am-12:20pm at J.W. Marriot/Rosalie/St. Claude, 3rd Floor)
Gerry Breshears moderating “Evangelicals and Gender” (Friday, November 20th, 9:10am-12:20pm at Sheraton Grand Ballroom D, 5th Floor)
My classmate James “Jimmy” Dutton has been pondering lately on how God can be weak (here). In that post, he leaves the thought hanging in the air:
3. A friend whom I attend seminary with, during a conversation a few weeks ago, said that “God is weak.” It is powerful, and disturbing language. I’m just going to leave it there, because the ideas behind why he said “God is weak” would take a long time to write and I have a paper to work on so…in light of theodicy, suffering, and the cross…reflect on what it means when my fellow seminarian says, “God is weak.”
In his most recent post, he goes further with his insights, beginning with
It is a difficult concept, to be sure.
and ending with
What is weak to us, exhibits true power.
The meat is sandwiched between those two statements, and you will have to read the entire recent post (link below) because any of my commentary on it could not do it justice: it is beautifully put, and engages with and challenges anyone who claims to know God.
Entire recent post here.
Does anyone know where I can find a source (web or print) that would include one or more of the following?
1. A list of parallels between The Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics?
2. A list of parallels between The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of John?
3. A list of parallels between The Gospel of Thomas and the Pauline corpus?
I would like to hear a few people’s opinions. What do you think matters the most, the meaning of a biblical document in its canonical context or the meaning of a biblical document in its socio-historical context? Is it more important that the unified compilation of various documents with apostolic authority or apostolic tradition, under the supra-authorial oversight of the Holy Spirit be given the most attention or the intent under the author as the Holy Spirit inspired the author for the particular topic that needed to be dealt with at that time.
Let me put this in concrete terms. Does it matter if there is a First, Second, and Third Isaiah or do we focus on the canonical Isaiah? Do we focus on 1 Corinthians in relation to the church in Corinth in the first century or to its place in Pauline theology and then New Testament and biblical theology in general?
Any thoughts?
There is an article on CNN.com discussing virtual churches. My former professor Doug Estes and his new book SimChurch are mentioned. Read it here: “Online churches draw believers, critics”.
I have just finished reading Nicholas Perrin’s article “Thomas: The Fifth Gospel” (JETS 49/1 [March 2006] 67-80) as well as the preface and Introduction chapter (one) in his book Thomas: The Other Gospel. Perrin is Assistant Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School. He completed his PhD at Marquette University and his dissertation evolved into Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron (SBL, 2002).
Perrin gives a few reasons for writing this newest book which I will be reviewing, chapter-by-chapter, here. First, he felt that “there needs to be a scholarly yet accessible treatment of what researchers have been saying lately about The Gospel of Thomas. Second, “in North American discussions there is an unsettling homogeneity within Thomas scholarship. Third, he wants to avoid the basic question asked of Thomas–”When was this gospel written?”–in favor of fresh angles that will challenge the monopoly view of many scholars that Thomas is a first century document, maybe even earlier than the Synoptic gospels. 1
In his introduction Nicholas Perrin gives a brief history of the discovery of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945 (also discovered was the Gospel of Judas).2 Then he proceeds to explain a bit about Thomas. It is a document that contains 114 sayings (logion) mostly attributed to Jesus. Since it is a “sayings” gospel there has been some comparisons to the hypothetical “Q” document. This has led to much speculation regarding the possibility that Thomas is earlier than the Synoptics and that the Synoptics developed tradition around those sayings that are found in a rawer form in Thomas.
Before the Coptic version of Thomas had been discovered there were a few Greek manuscripts that post-Nag Hammadi were recognized to correspond to Thomas. Those documents were found in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. The fragments are named after this location and include P. Oxy 1, 654, and 655.
P. Oxy 1 corresponds to Thomas 26-33 and 77a. P. Oxy 654 corresponds to 1-7. P. Oxy 655 corresponds to 24, 36-39. According to Perrin, “The Oxyrhynchus fragments are particularly useful in that they provide a terminus ad quem for the dating of The Gospel of Thomas: the first copy could not have been written any later than the first few decades of the third century (200-20 CE). 3
Hippolytus of Rome, Origen of Alexandria, and Eusebius of Caesarea all reference or refer to Thomas. Hippolytus wrote in the second or third decade of the third century. Origen wrote these words sometime around this same time. Eusebius claimed that this was one of the heretical writings circulating which means it was likely well accepted by some groups. 4
Since the sayings are supposed to be quotations of Jesus of Nazareth the document cannot be any earlier than 30 CE. “This leaves us with a rather broad window: c. 30 – c. 210 CE.” 5 There are many differing opinions on where Thomas originates along this timeline.
There is much debate over whether Thomas can be said to be reliant upon the Synoptics, the Synoptics upon Thomas, or two parallel traditions that are not interdependent. Also, there are some questions related to whether or not the 114 sayings were written at once or whether the sayings just kept collecting over time. If at once, when, by whom, and so forth? If over time what are the earlier sayings? How does this shape our understanding of early Christianity?
Most Thomas scholars agree that the provenance of Thomas was Edessa (modern Urfa, Turkey). Many think the original text was written in Greek (Perrin argues for Syriac). 6
Is Thomas a “sayings” document? Perrin argues, “It is not entirely accurate to call the Gospel of Thomas a ’sayings collection’. There are sayings, indeed, but alongside these are a number of miniature scenes and dialogues. 7
Also, there are many who suggest Thomas is Gnostic. Perrin disagrees. He writes,
While I agree that ‘Gnostic’ and ‘Gnosticism’ makes for a pretty unwieldy rug under which to sweep all those sects that are not ostensibly proto-orthodox, the term has its place, at least if defined accurately enough. All the same, I disagree with those who say that the Gospel of Thomas is Gnostic. To be sure, the sayings gospel shares many elements with purported Gnostic texts (elements of anti-Judaism, hatred of the body, secret knowledge, etc.), but there is no hint that Thomas’ Creator God is the same sadistic deity or pompous idiot that we meet in the Gnostic materials. Lacking these features, Thomas must be judged to be non-Gnostic. 8
So this is a bit of a sweeping summary of the groundwork laid down by Perrin. I will discuss the end of chapter one in my next post, but for now I will let this all too long post come to a much needed end!
______________________________
[1] Thomas: The Other Gospels, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. vii.
[2] Ibid. 1-2.
[3] Ibid. 8.
[4] Ibid. 8-9.
[5] Ibid. 9.
[6] Ibid. 12.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid. 13.
Rob Bowman issued a challenge to debate on the doctrine of the Trinity. I wonder who might take him up on the offer. The terms are set here.
(Looks like Nick Norelli beat me to it.)
Whenever I read a work by Bart D. Ehrman I find myself suddenly interested in textual criticism. Daniel B. Wallace in an article titled “Challenges in New Testament Criticism for the Twenty-First Century” (JETS 52/1 [March 2009] 79-100) credited Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why as reviving interest in this field of study. I can see why!
There are a few web resources that have brought this field of study back to the forefront of people’s minds once again as well. (1) The “Evangelical Textual Criticism” blog has made textual criticism a “bloggable” topic. (2) The Codex Sinaiticus being placed online for anyone and everyone to view (see here). (3) The Gospel of Judas website by National Geographic allows you to learn a lot about this document by viewing online as well as download high definition pdf documents of the codex.
According to Wallace in the aforementioned article (p. 91) there is an effort underway by the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) and the INTF “to take high-resolution digital photographs of all extant Greek NT MSSS and post the images on the Internet”. I wonder what this will do for the field of NT criticism and textual criticism. It will be interesting to see how this “democratizes” such a previously exclusive area of scholarship.
