Interpretation of the NT, part deux

Chapter 5: Greeks and Christians 

Edwin Hatch saw the importance of studying the Greek context of Christianity, though he focused on the “developed” Christianity of the mid-2nd century. The advances he made into knowledge about the second century were followed by studies in the historical situation of the first century. One avenue that provides insight into first century Christianity is archaeological inscriptions, some of which were in tombs. William Ramsay is the most notable scholar in this field and is credited with finding the “Jesus fish” in a funerary inscription for Abercius, a second century bishop. Many of these symbols were first thought to be part of a mystery cult but were later understood to be Christian symbols.

Ramsay was influenced by Tubingen, being skeptical of Luke, but his research led him to discover that Luke was very accurate regarding the titles he gave to officials in different locations, which is a difficult task in any age. He also developed an alternative to Tubingen’s view on Galatians, finding that these Christians were not inhabitants of “ethnic” Galatia but the province of Galatia, possibly solving why Paul did not mention the Jerusalem council.

Grenfell and Hunt’s discovery of many papyri at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt was another revolutionary find for historical backgrounds. This discovery included many Greek documents known to exist but not found. Also, it led to the discovery that NT Greek was not the same as classical Greek, but Koine Greek, the simple, common simplification of Greek.

Such discoveries led to various theories about Christian dependence on Jewish and Hellenistic ideas. Scholars like Bultmann saw many parallels between early Christian thought early pagan thought, but research has shown that there is no evidence of any church, Jewish or Gentile, to have based their teachings on anything but the Old Testament.

Chapter 6: Re-Enter Theology 

While 19th century theology doubted the teaching of Jesus (focusing, rather, on Paul), 20th century theology turned to the person of Jesus. Albert Schweitzer, after intense study of NT scholarship to that point, produced The Quest for the Historical Jesus in 1906, which was basically a summary of the works on the life of Jesus. Leaning on Weiss’ view that the kingdom of God was apocalyptic, Schweitzer proposed that Jesus thought he was the revelation that fulfilled God’s purposes. Jesus, however, misunderstood himself and died a failure. Schweitzer saw Jesus as a self-appointed Son of Man who valiantly sought to change the course of history but was crushed as a result of his own efforts. Though greatly mistaken, he taught us that the teaching of Jesus cannot be separated from the person of Jesus, nor could the apocalyptic essence be separated from its 1st century context.

Rudolph Bultmann was one of the most influential scholars of the 20th century. Two characteristics of Bultmann stood him above the rest: his extensive knowledge of Greek literature and his passionate concern for theology and its relevancy. Specifically, Bultmann’s concern was for the Kerygma, the preaching of the gospel of Christ, and its relation to historical events (or lack thereof). His mark on theology was his attempt to “demythologize” the Bible. Unlike some scholars, Bultmann believed that something did happen historically, setting in force the gospel. In fact, he rejected the idea of reducing God to an “object” or proposition one can analyze. However, what happened is shrouded in “myth” that had to be removed. Bultmann’s existentialist thoughts, like Baur’s Hegelian philosophy, guided his application of the gospel and led to his conclusion that, while one cannot be sure of the historical event, he can understand the historical event that becomes significant.

Chapter 7: The Gospel Behind the Gospels 

As Old Testament scholars examined the origin of the Hebrew Scriptures, New Testament scholars asked questions about the origins of the New Testament writings, such as “What sources did Mark use: written or oral?” Karl Ludwig Schmidt made a notable start, but his work was not totally original, for he owed much to Gunkel’s famous proposition of the Gospels’ Sitz im Leben. About the same time Dibelius published a similar work, as did Bultmann later. These three are considered the “founders” of form-criticism, the study of the history of literary forms in the Gospels. The work of form critics like these men is valuable, providing insight into the types of literature in the Bible, but it is dangerous because it tends to over-systemetize the literature (Dibelius and Bultmann both constructed different “types” of Jesus-sayings).

Form criticism has a negative element that presupposes the unreliability of the text. For example, Wrede’s The Messianic Secret argued that the community created the tradition and not vice-versa. Britain did not receive form criticism well, having opponents like Vincent Taylor. C. H. Dodd is one of the most noteworthy form critics, proposing that the earliest tradition was kerygma (preaching/news) followed by didache (teaching) given to converts. When form critics noted that the Gospel authors were actually authors, redaction criticism was born. Men like Farrar, Bornkamm, and Conzelmann sought to learn why the author changed certain details.

The 1950s saw a reaction to form criticism in the rise of the “New” quest for the historical Jesus. Kasemann said that the four gospels are testimony that the early church was concerned about the Jesus “according to the flesh.” Bornkamm followed by publishing Jesus of Nazareth, having much to say about the historical Jesus, yet hindered by his own belief in Heidegger’s existential philosophy.

Chapter 8: Salvation is of the Jews 

John Lightfoot was a 17th century scholar who saw the importance of rabbinical studies and its influence on New Testament scholarship. In 1883, Edersheim, a converted Jew, published his Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, which was quite influential even in the eyes of Schweitzer. However, Edersheim’s one weakness was his disregard for chronology. This task was taken up by Strack and Billerbeck with great success.

A huge advance in biblical interpretation was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls revealed, among other things, how diverse ancient Judaism was. Some believed the Dead Sea Scrolls disproved Christianity because of their similarities while others believed they reveal that the linguistic and philosophic boundaries between Greek and Hebrew was not as rigid as formerly supposed. Though this continued to be debated, the scrolls revealed that the influence on John’s gospel was not necessarily Hellenistic but actually much more Semitic. Much of the debate between these two points assumes that “Hebrew thought” and “Greek thought” lived in vacuums.

From this standpoint scholars have been led to question the use of linguistics in studies. To proceed in this field, one must define what “kind” of Greek thought is meant: Attic, Classical, or Koine. Further, one must not assume that translation from one language to another is impossible. James Barr bravely contributed to New Testament scholarship by critiquing such works as TDNT by suggesting one must not confuse grammar, lexicography, and theology and that a word’s etymology is a good starting point for studies but can hardly be a guide. He further recommended that scholars not be too hung up by the words themselves but understand that, “Theological thinking is done primarily in the phrase and the sentence, not in the word” (p. 355).

Chapter 9: History and Theology 

One notable development in the last half of the 20th century was in background studies which revealed, among other things, that 1st century Judaism was Hellenistic Judaism (though some Jews objected, they did so in Hellenistic style), as well as quite diverse, and that neither “Jewish” nor “Greek” thought should inherently indicate poor theology. This period saw the rise of the so-called “Third Quest” for the historical Jesus. The “first quest” was marked by skepticism, inability to know what actually happened, and “demythologizing” the text. The “New Quest” took a more positive approach, believing that the Synoptics contain something to be known about Jesus, though it still distanced itself historically from the 1st century. The “Third Quest,” promoted by scholars like Brandon, Meyer, Harvey, Borg, and Sanders, seeks to place the Jesus of the New Testament in His 1st century Jewish context.

Pauline study in the 20th century focused on four questions presented by Schweitzer and largely addressed by Kasemann and Sanders: history (“Where does Jesus fit in the shift from Judaism to Gentile Christianity?”), theology (“What is Paul’s focus?”), exegesis (“How does one handle Galatians in light of Romans or vice-versa?”), and Paul himself (“Is he right sometimes and wrong at other times?”). According to Schweitzer and Bultmann, Paul’s focus was eschatology. Davies argued that Paul was simply a Pharisaic rabbi who believed the Messiah had come while Schoeps saw Paul was a corrupted, Hellenistic Jew who was actually an enemy, pitting the Law against Christianity. Sanders’ famous work on Paul and Palestinian Judaism changed the direction of New Testament scholarship (on a similar yet larger scale than J. A. T. Robinson’s The Priority of John. However, while both these works and many others opened doors in New Testament scholarship, much is yet to be explored.