Guest guest Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Dear All, Jesus the Christ said that: " Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill " . (Matthew 5:17) In 'Jesus and Judaism' we concluded with the following: (p.153) t is evident that 'the earliest [Christian] community in no sense felt themselves to be a new religion, distinct from Judaism'...[T]hey saw themselves simply as fulfilled Judaism, the beginning of eschatological Israel...Indeed we may put the point more strongly:...the earliest Christians were not simply Jews, but in fact continued to be quite orthodox Jews. ...[T]his is the group with whom Christianity proper all began. Only their belief in Jesus as Messiah and risen...mark them out as different from the majority of their fellow Jews. None of the other great Christian distinctives that come to expression in and through Paul are present... If we now shift our glance from the beginning of Christianity forward 150 years or so into the second century and beyond, it at once becomes evident that the situation has significantly altered: Jewish Christianity, far from being the only form of Christianity, is now beginning to be classified as unorthodox and heretical. [8] Dunn's analysis was in fact already recognized and accepted by liberal Christian scholars in Germany in the 1800s, most notably F.C. Baur. As Maccoby notes, " Nineteenth-century New Testament scholarship, on the whole, recognized these facts and gave them due weight. It has been left to twentieth-century scholarship, concerned for the devastating effect of this recognition on the conventional Christian belief, to obfuscate the matter. " [9] The Brother of Jesus (And the Lost Teachings of Christianity) Chapter 8, pg. 153. Notes: [8] Dunn, 'Unity and Diversity', 239. [9] Maccoby, 'The Mythmaker', 127. Here now, is The Legacy of F.C. Baur. Enjoy, violet The Legacy of F.C. Baur (p.154) It was in 1831 that F.C. Baur put forth the revolutionary hypothesis we have already examined that the supposedly united early Christian community was actually more like two clashing political parties, and that the two patron saints of the Christian church--Peter and Paul--were more akin to feuding cousins than brothers in the faith. Baur was a remarkable man in many ways. A world-class scholar of undisputed integrity, and adept in many fields, he was legendary for his workaholism. In his office every morning by 4 A.M., by the end of his life, Baur had an average literary output equivalent to a five-hundred-page book every year for forty years! What Baur shall be most remembered for, despite some glaring flaws in his work, is that he was the first New Testament scholar to recognize " the forest for the trees " --the first to see the larger picture of the first-century historical reality of Christian origins. Baur's proposal--first formally put forward in the article " The Christ Party in the Corinthian Church " --was the opening volley of a revolution in our understandings of Christian origins. But we can recognize today that Baur's theories, while basically accurate, were also biased to a large extent by a deep-rooted anti-Semitism that pervades his thought. Though Baur recognized the thoroughgoing Jewishness of James and the apostles, he, too, believed it to be a consequence of " re-Judaization. " Though conservative Christian scholars roundly attacked him for his " liberal " views, in hindsight Baur was still a traditional Pauline Christian who believed that Jesus came to found a new religion superior to Judaism. One of Baur's most vocal critics in recent times was the esteemed New Testament scholar Johannes Munck. In his acclaimed work, 'Paul and the Salvation of Mankind', Munck succinctly summarizes Baur's theory and points out the inherent weakness in it: Baur's view of the development of early Christianity stresses the party contrast between the primitive Church and Paul. He makes the apostles and the whole Church stand on Jewish ground throughout, apart from their belief in the crucified Jesus as the coming Messiah. Everything about Jesus that was the expression of a new religion was either forgotten or completely disregarded in the apostles' memory. When Paul rediscovers the universalism and freedom that Jesus represented, it puts him out of line with the primitive Church, which refuses to approve his message. [10] (p.155) Munck then states what he believes to be the basic problem inherent in Baur's theory: t is quite incredible that Jesus' disciples, who were those nearest to him during the whole of his ministry, learnt and retained nothing of his life and teaching, but continued to have a Jewish point of view--apart, of course, from their belief that the crucified Jesus was identical with the coming Messiah. This quote could just as well have come from Maccoby's own hand. When bedfellows as odd as Munck and Maccoby agree on a point as salient as this one, we know we're on to something. Munck simply could not bring himself to believe that the disciples would have retained their traditional Jewish beliefs after being " enlightened " by Jesus, and this is why he rejected Baur's thesis. For his part, Baur was ahead of his time in insisting on the Jewishness of the Jerusalem church and the disharmony of the early church as a whole. What sets him apart from most of today's third-quest scholars is that he assigned the disciples' adherence to the Law to backsliding. But this is where Baur made his only real mistake. As all the evidence we have examined has shown us, the apostles' ongoing adherence to Jewish faith and practice was most emphatically 'not' a case of " re-Judaization. " As Maccoby starkly makes clear, the disciples had simply 'never abandoned' their Jewish beliefs and practices. And the reason--a reason that slaps us modern-day Christians right across the face--is that 'Jesus' had not abandoned those beliefs and practices. Another component of Baur's theory that has remained influential is the idea that it was in the give-and-take (what scholars technically call " dialectic, " following the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel) of the friction and struggles between the Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian churches that a new religion--Christianity as we know it today--emerged. Evangelical commentator Timothy George provides one of the best summaries I have come across of Baur's thinking on the dialectical origins of Christianity: Baur proposed that the history of early Christianity could be read in terms of the polar opposition between two rival factions. One, led by Paul and Apollos, emphasized the Christian mission to the Gentiles; the other, gathered around Peter and James, stressed the priority of the Jerusalem church and the continuing validity of the Jewish law for Christian believers...According to this view, the Pauline party continued to become more and more radical in its break with Judaism until it was ultimately absorbed into Gnosticism. The Petrine party, on the other hand, became more and more narrow, gradually evolving into such Jewish-Christian sectarian groups as the Ebionites. Eventually a synthesis between the Pauline and Petrine extremes was achieved in the emergence of " early Catholicism. " [11] Hegels' influence on Baur is obvious. Hegel understood all of history to proceed " dialectically " : in the struggle between a " thesis " and an " antithesis, " a new " synthesis " occurred. In the case of the early church, it was in the struggle between Jerusalem-based Jewish Christianity and Pauline-based Gentile Christianity that the synthesis of Catholic Christianity emerged. It is possible to see this theory played out in the pages of the New Testament. The Jewish Christian " thesis " is represented in the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation; the Pauline corpus represents the " antithesis " ; and the conciliatory Acts represents the earliest synthesis of the two poles. Baur used as primary evidence of this struggle the arguments Paul makes against his opponents in Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Philippians--opponents who would clearly seem to be strict Jewish Christians who want to " Judaize " Paul's Gentile converts. In Philippians, Paul writes bitterly of them: " Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh! For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Jesus Christ and have no confidence in the flesh " (3:1-2). This is one of Paul's classic pieces of vitriol against those who claim that circumcision is necessary for salvation. In Galatians, Paul is furious with the believers in Galatia for being deceived by these " Judaizers " : " You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?...Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? " (3:1-3). In 2 Corinthians, Paul similarly rails against the Corinthian Christians for their gullibility: I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning, your thoughts will be led astray...For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed...or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough. I think that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. (11:3-5) Just who these " super apostles " are who have been " deceiving " the believers in Corinth is another of the greatly debated questions in New Testament scholarship. Paul goes on to mysteriously describe them as " false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness " (1 Cor. 11:13-15). It is these words that caused Baur to come to the conclusion that these " super apostles " were none other than the original apostles. One can see why Baur would think so. Ever since Baur first put forth his disturbing theory, all kinds of exegetical [biblical interpretations] and hermeneutical gymnastics [interpretational maneuverings] have been performed to conclude otherwise, but Baur's main thesis remains sound. In the 1800s, Baur's theories were vociferously attacked as heresy. It is no exaggeration to say that he was one of the first victims of the modern academic inquisition. The two leading disciples of the " old master of Tubingen, " Eduard Zeller and Albert Schwegler (both brilliant scholars in their own right), were driven out of teaching because of their views. Unfortunately, truth often comes at a perilous price. As Jesus taught, prophets are without honor in their own time. Baur can also be justifiably criticized for portraying too simplistically a bipolar rivalry between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, an issue that scholars today realize was much more complex than a simple two-party battle. As we have seen, there were many competing factions within the early church, falling along a continuum from conservative " Judaizers " to liberal Hellenistic Christians. James Dunn has summarized how some early attempts were made in the late nineteenth century to amend Baur's theory: Early on [baur's theory] was qualified by the recognition that his portrayal of early Christianity in terms of a confrontation between two monolithic blocks was too much of an oversimplification. The Jewish Christians could not be lumped together as a single group opposed to Paul. " Strict or extreme Judaizers " were to be distinguished from " moderate Jewish Christians, " and while the former could be linked to Jerusalem, Peter was to be distinguished from them, with the question whether James should be reckoned a Judaizer a subject for some debate. [12] (p.158) This, then, became a generally accepted alternative to Baur's theory. Dunn goes on to explain that over a century later scholars were still attempting to avoid the implications of the original Tubingen theory by positing other possibilities for the identity of Paul's opponents: Baur's basic claim, that the opposition to Paul during his mission should be designated as " Judaizers, " Jewish Christians who insisted that Paul's Gentile converts must be circumcised and become Jews, was widely accepted, and indeed became axiomatic in most of the discussions of the next hundred years... This broad consensus has received two major challenges in the twentieth century...W. Lutgert saw Paul's chief opponents at Corinth as spiritual enthusiasts, an early type of gnostic libertines...and saw them also alongside the [Judaizers] as a second front in Galatians. And W. Schmithals pushed the case further by arguing that in Galatians there are no judaizers in view at all, only Jewish Gnostic Christians, with similar claims for Corinthians and Philippians... J. Munck developed the reaction against Baur and the Tubingen school on another front by arguing that there was no judaizing party in Jerusalem and by rejecting the " pan-Judaizer " hypothesis...Paul's letters were addressed to different situations with different opponents....The judaizing opponents in Galatians are 'Gentile' Christians keen to adopt the practices of the Law...the compulsion to " Judaize " did not come from Jewish Christianity, which was concerned only for its mission within Israel, but was a 'Gentile' Christian " heresy. " (italics mine) 'Gentile' Christians 'keen' to adopt the practices of the Law? Gentile 'men' keen to be circumcised? The illogic of all this is rather obvious. While one could assert that the fervor with which many people even today embrace the religion they convert to could show that Gentiles might have been willing and even eager to fulfill all the requirements of the Law, including circumcision, there is evidence to reject this hypothesis. As we have noted, there were many " God-fearers, " Gentiles who adopted the Jewish faith, but they were only expected to adhere to the minimal Noahide laws (the regulations stipulated in the Apostolic Decree). In fact, it was the unworkability of requiring adherence to the Law for Gentiles that fueled Paul's mission. (p.159) Although Munck's theories gained much attention from scholars eager to dismiss the Tubingen theory, in hindsight it is quite obvious that Munck's is a last-gasp effort to avoid the increasingly obvious--but for many, unpalatable--facts that Baur first saw almost two centuries ago. Many others have attempted in the past 175 years to offer viable alternatives to Baur's description of an early church fraught with discord, but the alternatives all falter on the balance beam of common sense. Simply put, we know that Paul faced opposition. That opposition was, in fact, the impetus for the writing of almost all of his letters. Now, if we look at the situation objectively--just based on a commonsense approach to these basic facts--who else could these opponents possibly have been other than 'Jewish' Christians, and not just any Jewish Christians, but the apostolic leadership itself? At the time that Paul wrote, 'less than twenty years' after the crucifixion, there simply would not have been enough time for " heresies, " such as the Gnosticism that Munck and others proposed, to have permeated the widespread Christian communities. Munck's hypothesis, that Paul's opponents were 'Gentile' Christians who were enthusiastic for the Law, strains credibility. Even if, for argument's sake, there 'were' such a thing as Gnostic or Gentile " Judaizers " early on, such novel groups would certainly not have been able to exert any great influence on the communities established by Paul and his missionary companions. And certainly such fledgling heretical groups would not yet have the logistical capability or the necessary authority (which can only come with time or with one's close relationship to the founders) to be sending missionaries to far-flung parts of the empire to convert the established Gentile churches to Jewish practice (especially if, as the theory goes, they themselves were not Jewish). And, last but certainly not least, Paul would surely not refer to them as 'apostles', as he does in 2 Corinthians. Simply put, Who else but the apostles themselves would have had the motive, the ability, and, most importantly, the 'authority' (already in the years circa 45-50) to send emissaries to so many far-flung Gentile communities--including Antioch, Corinth, Philippi, and Galatia--to preach adherence to the Law? That it could have been anyone other than the apostles defies all logic. No one other than Jesus' own apostles would possess the authority to influence these new Christians on such an important matter, especially when it was a matter in such serious disagreement with the highest authority in the Gentile churches--Paul himself. (p.160) No one other than the apostles would dare take on Paul. And not only challenge Paul, but win! F.C. Baur was indeed on the right track. He saw the " matching shorelines, " but couldn't quite make all the pieces fit since he lacked the proper supporting mechanism, just as Alfred Wegener in his theory of continental drift lacked the supporting evidence of seafloor spreading, which wasn't discovered until later. The most damaging criticism of Baur, in fact, is not that he oversimplified the division in the early church or that he erroneously believed that the Jewish Christians were " backsliders, " but rather that his theory as a whole is anti-Semitic insofar as it understands Christianity to be the superior replacement for an inferior Judaism. What has often been little understood is the extent to which he perpetuated an ancient tradition of Christian supersessionism (i.e., that Christianity supersedes Judaism). How this latent anti-Semitism detracts from Baur's theory is revealed quite well in an article in the 'Dictionary of Paul and His Letters', which highlights the all-too-common belief (perpetuated by Baur) that Christianity is a universal religion that God intended to be a superior replacement for the outmoded particularistic religion of Judaism: Paul is seen too much as an isolated apostle who alone truly understands the universalism and freedom that Jesus represented. Apparently in the memory of the other leading apostles this has either been forgotten, misunderstood or compromised. A misleading contrast informed Baur's and many of his followers' theology--they posited an absolute opposition between particularism [Judaism] and universalism [Christianity];...from this perspective Paul was seen as a lone contender for the universalism of the gospel in contrast to the primitive church, whose leaders were in varying degrees tribalistic or particularistic in their ongoing commitment to Judaism. [13] Both in spite of and because of this serious shortcoming of the Tubingen theory, a revival of Baur's theories is occurring under the influence of the third-quest school of thought, especially in the writings of extremely liberal Christian scholars, such as Michael Goulder and Gerd Ludemann, and controversial Jewish scholars, such as Robert Eisenman and Hyam Maccoby. (p.161) Even mainstream Christian scholars, such as James Dunn and Bruce Chilton, and conservative scholars, such as Craig A. Evans, are opening the door to a new acceptance of Baur's theories, but in a revised form that more accurately reflects the complexity and diversity of early Christianity. Dunn, however, warns against falling into the trap that caught Baur: There was no polar opposition between two monolithic camps. In line with his emphasis on the wide but continuous spectrum of belief in the early church, Dunn says, " I go along with the older F.C. Baur theses at least to the extent that emerging catholicism was a catholic synthesis of several strands and tendencies (and factions) within earliest Christianity. " [14] This leaves us still facing the vital question, Amid all of the variety of early Christian belief, what was the original " orthodoxy " ? What was the nature of the originating source from which all of these " strands and tendencies " first divided, and then later re-coalesced to produce a " catholic synthesis " ? The Brother of Jesus (And the Lost Teachings of Christianity) Chapter 8, pg. 154-161 Jeffrey J. Butz Inner Traditions - Rochester, Vermont ISBN 1-59477-043-3 Notes: [10] This and the following excerpt are from Johannes Munck, 'Paul and the Salvation of Mankind' (London: SCM Press, 1959), 70-71. [11] Timothy George, 'Galatians'. The New American Commentary Vol.30. (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 51-52. [12] This and the following excerpt are from R.J. Coggins and J.L. Houlden, eds., 'A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation', s.v. " Judaizers, " by James D.G. Dunn (Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1990), 370-71. [13] Hawthorne and Martin, eds., 'Dictionary of Paul and His Letters', s.v. " Judaizers, " by W.S. Campbell, 513. [14] Dunn, 'Unity and Diversity', xxix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.