A High View of Scripture Part 5: Two Canon Lists

Returning to Allert's book A High View of Scripture, in chapter five he looks at two important fourth-century canon lists by Eusebius and Athanasius.

The fact that Eusebius could divided what are now our NT books into homologoumena (accepted) and antilegomena (disputed) categories in addition to his own doubts about the status of Revelation imply that the canon was still open and fluid at this point. Indeed, Eusebius refers to the "encovenanted" books as opposed to a canon of books.

On Athanasius' Festal Letter of 367, we have the first reference to the use of the term "canon" being used to describe a closed collection of writings. Athanasius does not have the three categories of Eusebius (homologoumena, antilegomena, notha) but he still knows of a third category of books (Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas) that are useful for instruction in godliness even if they are not part of the canon. If one takes Athanasius' Festal Letter and the Third Synod of Carthage in 397, then we have two instances from the East and West respectively that recognize what is now our canonical list of 27 books for the New Testament. Although these two lists have been influential on the wider church they were not unanimous. For instance, Revelation had a problem gaining canonical status in the East and Gregory of Nazianzus excluded from his list of canonical books. Didymus the Blind, who was appointed by Athanasius to be head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, regarded 2 Peter as a forgery. Amphilochius of Iconinum was a bishop in Asia Minor (d. after 394) and he rejected not only Revelation as "spurios" but also 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Allert cites Westcott who refers to no less than six different canon lists received in the Eastern churches. (I would add that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and the Didascalia as part of its canon and in the past the Armenian Orthodox Church has held various views about 3 Corinthians).

Allert concludes: "The assertion that these documents forced their way into the canon by virtue of their unique inspiration has little historical support ... The Christian faith did not grow in response to a book but as a response to God's interaction with the community of faith. The Bible must be viewed as a product of the community becasue tradition of the community provide the context in which Scripture was produced" (p. 145).

This is all interesting stuff. I think it worth pondering how many canons there are out there and which books are in each one, e.g. 66 books in the Protestant canon, 73 in the Catholic Canon, and 81 in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church's canon. Whose canon is the real canon and how do we know? I would want to say that it comes down to the "self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit" but I suspect that everyone will of course say that about their own canonical collection. Probably a better criteria is just to ask which books are accepted by the universal church.

A Forthcoming Paul Book

Above is the front cover for my forthcoming new book entitled: A Bird's-Eye View of Paul: The Man, his mission, and his message published by the excellent people at IVP. It should be available in a couple of months.

Michael Gorman has written a nice commendation:

"Michael Bird offers an insightful, readable, and serious (yet occasionally witty) introduction to Paul in conversation with the best scholarship on the apostle. It will be especially useful for those who think they know Paul well but have the courage to take a fresh look and have their assumptions challenged. Particularly important are Bird's discussions of justification and of the gospel itself. Let those who have ears to hear listen to what the Spirit--via Paul and Bird--is saying to the people of God in a world that seems increasingly similar to Paul's".

Update:

Here is a TOC as requested.

1. What is Paul?
2. A Funny Thing Happened on the Road to Damascus
3. The Stories behind the Story
4. Reading Somebody Else’s Mail
5. The Royal Announcement
6. The Crux of the Gospel
7. The Return of the King
8. One God, One Lord: Monotheism and the Messiah
9. Living a Life Worthy of the Gospel: The Ethics of Paul
10. Gospelizing 101: Paul’s Spirituality
11. Epilogue

Converting Muslims to Jesus with "Emotional Calvinism"

Over at CT, there is an excellent article on Jesus in Turkey which talks about the re-emergence of Christianity in Turkey since the 1960s. I loved this quote:

Ucal's congregation moved toward a charismatic, Vineyard-style form of Christianity. Meanwhile, Ucal served in the army for eight months and received training in ministry in the Philippines and South Korea. After that, Ucal decided to plant a different kind of church based on systematic theological teaching. While in South Korea, he had noticed the parallels between systematic theology and the disciplined Islamic lifestyle and mindset. He wondered if other Muslim-background Turks might respond to a more structured approach than the informal evangelicalism of which he was a part. Ucal found that his Muslim neighbors are attracted to systematic approaches to religious instruction, and are also easily touched emotionally. So Ucal began approaching them with an "emotional Calvinism."

Brief History of Jewish Christianity, Part Two: Peter and the Twelve (2.1.1.1)

This post is the first of three dealing with the subject of The Jerusalem and Galilean churches and the Jewish mission to Jews (2.1.1) under the larger topic of A Brief History of Jewish Christianity in Palestine and the Diaspora (2.1). The subjects of the posts will be Peter and the Twelve (2.1.1.1), James, the brother of Jesus (2.1.1.2) and Jesus’ other brothers (2.1.1.3)

Luke’s account of the early history of the Jewish believing community in Jerusalem contains a significant amount of ambiguity with respect to the development of the leadership structures of the community. Clearly at first the Twelve function as the center of the Jerusalem leadership with Peter as the chairperson and spokesman so to say. Their leadership can be seen in a number of passages in the first 12 chapters of Acts. Among them are:

(1) The fact that they felt it necessary to appoint a replacement for Judas (1:12-26)
(2) Peter’s Pentecost sermon (2:14-41)
(3) Peter and John’s arrest and appearance before the Sanhedrin (4:1-21)
(4) Annias and Sapphira episode (5:1-11)
(5) Arrest and jailing of apostles (NB: for Luke the “apostles and the “Twelve” are synonyms)(5:17-42)
(6) The Twelve’s appointment of the seven spirit-filled men for ministry (6:2-6)
(7) The apostles sending of Peter and John to Samaria (8:14-15)
(8) Peter and Cornelius’ conversion (10)
(9) Peter and James, the brother of John’s arrest (12)

Still as the narrative progresses through these chapters there are hints that the leadership is in process. First, mention is made of a wider group of leaders. We see this first in the reference in Acts 11:1 to the “Apostles and the brothers”; the later group not however a reference to the actual brothers of Jesus. Again in 11:22 a wider group (the “church at Jerusalem”) is said to have sent Barnabas to Anitoch. Also in chapter 11 the financial gift brought by Barnabas and Saul was given to the “elders”. This process seems to have ended by Acts 15 where James clearly has taken the preeminent role of leadership in the Jerusalem church; see also Acts 21:18. Note that Peter specifically signals him out in Acts 12:17 after his miraculous release from prison.

Second, if Peter is any indication of the function of the wider group of Twelve, then after they are said to have remained in Jerusalem subsequent to the onslaught of persecution (8:1), they appear to be involved in a wider missionary endeavor and marginal in the leadership structure in Jerusalem, although clearly not absent. Peter for example said to be travelling about the country (9:32) and was residing in Joppa in Acts 10. This observation of the missional function of the Twelve seems to confirm my suspicion that the Twelve’s appointment by Jesus had significant functional importance which although Matthew most explicitly emphasizes is clearly not absent in the other Gospels. Matthew’s unique introduction of the Twelve in contrast to Mark and Luke, suggests I think his understanding of the Twelve as having an emissary role. In Matthew’s view, and perhaps now confirmed historically in Acts’ portrait, the Twelve are called the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2) because they were sent by the Davidic King on the official duty of announcing the arrival of the Messianic Kingdom and dispensing the eschatological blessings of that kingdom.[1] Bauckham apparently concurs with this at least in part when he writes,

It seems likely that many members of the Twelve were no longer permanently resident in Jerusalem, as was certainly the case with Peter, while at least one had died (Acts 12:2), James stepped into the leadership gap. Any remaining members of the Twelve would have become members of the college of the elders with whom James presided over the church (Acts 21:18).[2]

While it is possible that some of the Twelve remained in Jerusalem as Bauckham’s last sentence suggests, it seems equally or even more likely to me that they had eventually all scattered on mission in fulfillment of their vocation. Furthermore, if Paul’s reference to the “division of apostolic labor” in Galatians 2:7-9 is correct (and there is no necessary reason to doubt its historical credibility), then it is conceivable that Peter and the Twelve’s primary mission field was the circumcised.

[1] Willitts 2007:119.
[2] Bauckham 2006:67.

Works Cited

Bauckham, Richard. 2006. James and the Jerusalem Community. In A History of Jewish Believers in Jesus: The First Five Centuries, ed. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik:55-95. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Willitts, Joel. 2007. Matthew's Messianic Shepherd-King: In Search of the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. BNZW. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Paul Helm Interview

Thanks to Guy Davies for interviewing my HTC colleague Paul Helm in his Blogging in the Name of the Lord series.

Aussie Anglican Blogs

Continuing our theme of Anglican-Thursday, here's some Aussie Anglican Blogs:
Martin Foord's Blog by Martin Foord
Reflections in Exile by Mark Baddeley
The Blogging Parson by Michael Jensen
Aaron Ghiloni by Aaron Ghiloni
Faith and Theology by the now famous Ben Myers

New Blog: Sydney Anglican Heretics

Given that I'm in an Anglophile state of mind today, I have to say that I would not have believed it unless I saw it with my own eyes, but there is a blog out there entitled: Sydney Anglican Heretics and the subtitle reads: "A blog dedicated to exposing, discussing and, we pray, undoing the silly and heretical teachings that are slipping, almost unnoticed (we notice!), into the Anglican Diocese of Sydney". Views on creation seem to be the main issue here. Sadly Michael Jensen and Mark Baddeley, both whom I have had the pleasure of meeting, come in for some very unnice treatment. Ironically, in many circles the Sydney Anglicans are usually labelled fundamentalists, so the designation of "heretic" is rather comical all things considered. But to Mike and Mark remember the words of Churchill: "A man with no enemies is a man with no convictions!"

Let My People Go!

"Let My People Go!"
A sermon preached at the Anglican parish of St. Boschlavich at Watership on Down in Falkirk, Ayrshire the first Sunday after advent.
Guest post by Michel Vogel, Ret'd Vicar of St. Boschlavich.

Dear brothers and sisters, many of you may take joy in reading over the story of the Exodus which is now delightfully retold in movies like The Ten Commandments or The Prince of Egypt. It is a story that we are all know and are familiar with. One of the most powerful moments in the Exodus story is when Moses says to Pharoah, "Let my people Go!" (Exod. 5.1). This short statement is both plea and demand. Moses pleads and yet also demands that Pharoah set the Hebrews free from their malevolent oppression. It is rather like going up to Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and saying, "In God's name stop all of these human rights abused!" To go up to a national ruler, one hardly known for his compassion and benevolence, and to make such a demand takes audacity, courage, bravery, not a little faith, and oodles of testicular fortitude. Moses did it, though not with a little reluctance, and he was remembered in Judaism as the leader of captives, the law-giver, a wise-man, and even as a role model King (see esp. Philo of Alexandria).

The exodus story can be reapplied in a number of ways. It is taken up again in the books of Isaiah and Hosea who predict a new exodus and a new day of liberation for God's exiled people. The Gospels, most notably Mark, take up the exodus theme via Isaiah and declare that this hoped for day of salvation has now come in and through Jesus. Jesus proclaimed that the day of exile was ending and God was again gathering together a renewed Israel, for a renewed covenant, through a new passover sacrifice.

In recent days the Exodus story has been interpreted in a more contemporary fashion in the Anglican communion. For instance, Anglican Priest and Theologian Marilyn McCord Adams interprets the story as the quinessential coming-out party for gays and lesbians wanting to be free from oppression and to embrace their true sexual identity. Her sermons are always interesting and she is a very learned philosopher. While I appreciate the depth of her compassion for societal outcasts, I have to confess that I do not find her application of the story all that compelling. I cannot for the life of me see how one can take the biblical teaching about homosexuality to be anything other than negative and restrictive. A better strategy might be to say that the God of the Old Testament is a wicked demi-god, Paul was a homophobic bigot so who cares what he thinks, the church fathers were just a bunch of backward African hicks (like modern African Anglican leaders) to whom we should only pay lip service too, let's hope that Jesus never actually said alot of the things he is reported to have said about marriage, adultery, celibacy, and divorce, and instead let's just run with the UN Millennium goals and UN charter on Human Rights. Truth be told, I have alot more respect for that upfront repudiaton of the biblical teaching about sexuality than I do of some of the pseudo-exegesis that tries to convince the converted that homosexuality is now officially kosher. Let me qualify that: (1) All human beings regardless of gender or sexual preference bear the image of God and have inherent worth and value; (2) God does not have a special loathing for the sins of homosexuality, in fact, homosexuality is mentioned as one possible sin of many in Paul's vice lists; (3) Violence against homosexuals because they are homosexuals is abhorrent to all - evangelicals, moderates, or liberals; (4) Everybody is invited to my church, gays, lesbians, transgendered persons, Liberal Democrats, and even Celtic Supporters, and come as you are, but no one is allowed to stay as you are, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and we all urgently need the transforming work of the Holy Spirit to conform them to the image of the Son of God.

But let me find another application of the exodus story for our contemporary circumstance and one that includes making use of Moses' phrase, "Let my people Go". Many of our North American cousins in the Dioceses of San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, and Fortworth have decided that they have had enough of the Amercian Episcopal Church (TEC) in both its theological revisionism and in its persecution of orthodox Christians. Of course the powers-that-be of the TEC are not all that keen for them to escape (I mean "leave") and will take rigorous legal action against these dioceses in order to remove their duely elected bishops and to force these dioceses and all of their parishes to remain within the TEC. Call me idealistic if you wish, but I believe in the principle of freedom of association as a basic human right. And if a diocese in its democratic processes chooses to leave an organization due to its theological abberation they should darn well be allowed to do so. Separating from an organization that has ceased to be in any historic sense Christian is of course an even better reason and one can hardly blame these dioceses for wanting to "come out and be separate" (2 Cor. 6.17). I think the Presiding Bishop of the TEC needs to be told, "Let my people go!" Give these people the freedom they want, that they deserve, and need. The orthodox Anglicans are praying for a new exodus, a new found freedom, and a new day of liberation. We should join in prayer with them and pray for our Anglican leaders like Rowan Williams and Peter Akinola too that they will be able to shepherd God's people in this hour of division and disunity.

More thoughts on ETS

I enjoyed reading Mike's musings about Evangelicalism and specifically ETS. I have a few thoughts I'd like to share about ETS in response to Mike's post.

First, personally I have no desire to expend energy toward pursuing any whole scale change of ETS. What's more do not I think it in any way advantageous nor good stewardship of time to put forth effort toward such a goal. ETS was born in North America as an "alternative" academic society and is not going to be turned into something with the atmosphere of say British evangelicalism; it is not in the organizations DNA. Too many influential constiutents continue to think in terms of "liberal versus conservative" and come from very narrow frames of reference and they will not go quietly. I remember when I met with someone before going to Cambrigde and they cautioned me to be careful about . . . well you know . . . the boogy man!

So one has to take ETS for what it is or chose not to, as Ken Schenk (see comment on Mike's recent post) has. Both Mike and I choose, at least for now, to continue to be members of ETS and it is fair to say that there are many members that would be considered "progressive evangelicals", but still find it useful to continue to participate. Mostly I'm sure for the continued relationships that the small venue provides. But I can't fault anyone for not being a member even if they have evangelical leanings. All three of my colleagues at North Park are strongly evangelical, but I am the only one who continues to be affiliated with ETS.

In addition, and on a more practical level, I realize more than ever that making time to attend the annual meetings of both ETS and SBL is very difficult with a family and course load. To participate in both takes a week of life --in a very busy time of the year I might add--and this is very difficult to give. Moreover, since it is important to me to be active in the larger guild of New Testament studies I will always choose to if need be to miss ETS.

Evangelicalism and North America

Ben Witherington offers up a prayer for the New Year in which he decries much of Religion, Politics, and Evangelicalism in North America.

Generally speaking I like America and Americans. I believe in Democracy, free-market economics (with Govt. intervention like universal health care), and if it wasn't for the USA, Australia would have been invaded by Japan with grim consequences. Americans are fairly generous people and very friendly. Generally speaking I also like American Evangelicals. I count them among my closest friends. Sadly, they have the best and worst of everything: Billy Graham and Pat Robertson! But there is one joke about American Evangelicals that I have heard in numerous places: "Many American Christians will find the afterlife disappointing when they discover that heaven is not any where as glorious as America!"

I think Americans in general and Evangelicals in particular need to appreciate their place in the global scheme of things. For American Evangelicals that means appreciating that Evangelicalism is not identitical with American Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism is a global movement. The reason I say this is because some guys write and talk as if Evangelicalism is "us" and "us" is North American Evangelicals. A friend of mine recently reviewed a book where the author kept equating Evangelicals with Evangelical Christians in North America. Where does Africa, China, South Korea, or South America fit in?

I have always been struck by the fact that the Evangelical Theological Society should really be called the "American Evangelical Theological Society" since its doctrinal statement, program, and constitution are all focused on the USA. Let me say that given its constituency and location that this is understandable and there is no hostility or suspicion towards foreigners at annual meetings. In my estimation less than 5% of members are from outside of the USA (but I need to double check). The question I have is does ETS want to be the theological society for Evangelicals in North America or the theological society for Evangelicals of the world? If the latter, then it requires making changes. Let me suggest a few: (1) It should consider holding its meetings occasionaly outside of the USA or else adopting an "international meeting" once every year or every two years much in the same way that SBL does. (2) It should appoint an international member to the executive committee in order to voice international concerns to the committee (I don't want the job!). (3) There should perhaps be program units allocated to international issues like Evangelism, Theology, and Social Justice in Africa and the like which would hopefully go on in leaps and bounds from there. (4) Perhaps one of the plenary speakers should always be from outside the USA which I'm glad to say has happened in recent years with Chris Wright and Paul Trebilco. (5) While inerrancy is the centre of the theological galaxy for Conservative Evangelicals in the USA given the Bible-Wars of the 20th century, this is simply not the case in the rest of world. Therefore, why make "inerrancy" the central issue? It might be better to adopt a broader and more comprehensive statement of faith like the UCCF statement or give a range confessonional options like the Anglican 39 Articles, the 1689 London Baptist Confession, the Westminster Confession, the Helvetic Confession, or the Baptist Faith and Message (1962 or 2000). This would make the statement of faith options representative of the diversity of global Evangelicalism rather than focus on one issue that has been prominent in North America.

I suspect that it is this narrow focus on the theological context of North America and the inordinate concern with inerrancy which is why Tyndale House in the UK sees its American counterpart in the Institute for Biblical Research rather than with ETS (but I may be wrong on that and there might be other reasons for it). Note, I'm not trying to attack inerrancy, but what I'm saying is that this has not been the hill to die on in most parts of the world and other traditions have ways of explicating biblical authority and veracity which are not tied to the grammar and conception of inerrancy. ETS can either try to indigenize itself in other parts of the world, remain parochially American and invite others to join in, or else modify its doctrinal statement, programming, and structure to reflect the international nature of the world wide movement that is Evangelicalism. Some might respond and say that with so few international members is there any point in making these changes? Well, it might be the nature of ETS which is why there are so few international members, and changes could facilitate the globalization of ETS. Finally, let me reiterate that this is not an exercise in American bashing, I'm not out to vanquish inerrancy either, I merely want to point out that Evangelicalism is bigger (much bigger) than North America and ETS as the flagship organization of Evangelical Biblical, Theological, Pastoral, and Missiological scholarship should try to reflect that.

Robert Jewett on Rom. 2.13-16

In several places I have advocated the Gentile Christian reading of Rom. 2.13-16. I was glad then to read Bob Jewett's comments on this section:

"The Most likely of these views from a rhetorical point of view is that Paul is here describing the status of converted Gentiles. Having assented that wrath is already evident among unconverted Gentiles (1:18-31) and that Jews are not exempt from God's impartial judgment (2:1-13), the audience consisting mainly of converted Gentiles would assume that their current situation is described in these verses which provide a preliminary form of Paul's strategy of touting Gentile conversion in order to provoke Jewish conversion through jealousy (11:11-14). The alleged contradiction between these verses and chap. 3 is removed if one takes the latter as claiming that all unconverted Gentiles and Jews have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that salvation is by grace alone for Jews as well as Gentiles.

The gar ('for') of v. 14 indicates an argumentative connection with the foregoing thesis concerning the impartial judgment of God in v. 11. It is significant that Paul refers here to the ethne ('Gentiles') without the article implying that some but not all Gentiles are in view. The expression ta me nomon echonta ('those that do not have the law') refers to the absence of the Jewish Torah within the cultural tradition of Gentiles, whereby the word phusis should be taken as qualifying their identity rather than behavior. It refers to Gentiles whose birthright lacked exposure to the Torah. Yet they do the 'deeds of the law,' a claim that in the experience of the Roman audience could only have referred to converted Gentiles" (pp. 213-14).

Goals for 2008

My goals for 2008 are:

1. Recover from 2007
2. Think about publishing something
3. Blog regularly enough that my posts aren't assumed to be Mike's

Goals for 2008

My goals for 2008 are:

1. Pray more (Book of Common Prayer in the Morning and extemporaneous at night).
2. Take my wife Naomi to ETS/SBL Boston.
3. Finish all of my scheduled publications on time.
- 6 books
- 2 journal articles
- 1 essay
4. Do less book reviews (they are so time consuming)
5. Call my mother more.
6. Write a course on the Epistle to the Hebrews
7. Read through the entire NT in Greek during my devotionals
8. Re-take a course on biblical Hebrew
9. Keep improving my German
10. Play and pray with my two daughters every day

The New Perspective on Paul (ca. 1976-2006)

I am going to make the announcement that we are now formally living in the post-New Perspective era of Pauline studies. For me the boundary markers in this era are:

1. The publication of Krister Stendahl's Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (1976).
2. Robert Jewett's Romans in the Hermeneia series (2006).

Stendahl's collection of essays got people thinking beyond the compendium of Christian doctrine view of Romans and posited salvation-history (= Jew and Gentile relations) as the ovearching purpose of the letter. This of course paved the way for Sanders' contribution that Judaism was not legalistic who in turn paved the way for Dunn and Wright to argue that the problem was principally nationalism, and they in turn gave over to works by Gager and Stowers and others who in some senses radicalized the issues even further.

Jewett's commentary is a fine piece of work and is the standard for Romans commentaries that follow (I have been told that he received the contract for the volume in 1972!). Jewett's commentary is brilliant for its attention to historical detail, background, socio-cultural factors of honour/shame, and even paying attention to demographics and architecture in ancient Rome. Nonetheless, Jewett still thinks of Romans as concerned with the "transforming gospel about God's righteousness" (p. 2) geared towards garnering support for Paul's mission to the Barbarians of Spain and in hope of healing fractured relations among the Roman Christians themselves. He rightly thinks of 15.7-13 as providing a "coda" for the entire letter (p. 887). Jewett thus makes Jew-Gentile issues central to the content of the letter, but at several points he deliberately departs from "New Perspective" readings. For example, on Romans 4.1-5 Jewett writes: "Yet the antithesis between Paul's view of Abraham and that of Jewish religionists in his period cited above is sharply delineated by the wording of 4:2, and it fails to do justice to the explicit references to boasting and justification by works by substituting a politically correct emphasis on God's mercy ... the preceding sections of Paul's argument show that all human beings have fallen short in the glory required for boasting and that a new basis for righteousness has been created through Christ, so that boasting in any human accomplishment has been excluded by divine action" (p. 310).

I think Jewett's commentary is a sign that we are now living in a post-New Perspective era where the best insights from the NPP have been taken on board by the majority of scholars and some of its less compelling features have been rejected. Several scholars like Brendan Byrne, A. Andrew Das, and myself have been saying similar things for the last few years, I think we are now formally "Beyond" (not necessarily "against" or "more deeper" into") the New Perspective.

Brief History of Jewish Christianity in Palestine and the Diaspora, Part One: Jewish Christian History in the New Testament Period (2.1)

I wish to sketch out a brief history of Jewish believers in Jesus and more specifically Jewish Christians, whom we had defined as those who are ethnically Jewish and maintain a Jewish lifestyle (see point 1 the question of definition in the earlier posts). But it will not be my intention to provide a detailed account of the history of the Jewish believers in Jesus. Instead I wish to make several points that I think are important that arise from our sources, in the first instance the New Testament.

J. Carleton Paget is quite right to state “In the beginning all Christianity was Jewish Christianity”.[1] And even at the earliest stage there is evidence in Luke’s account that there were diverse groupings of Jewish Jesus-believers in Jerusalem, based especially on cultural background. Luke refers to what appears to be two main groups with the terms “Hebrews” (NIV: "Hebraic Jews") and “Hellenists” (NIV: "Grecian Jews") (Acts 6:1). These terms refer to the language and culture of the Jews in question. Those who were so-called “Hellentists” were Diaspora Israelites who had migrated back to Palestine in order to be in the Land and near the Temple. Presumably they were motivated by the desire to more wholly live a Torah-observant lifestyle. Whereas the Hebrews were native born Judeans and Aramaic speakers.[2]

In the history of scholarship on early Christian history since Baur, these two groups have been assumed to be the earliest expression of the ideological divide within Christianity between those who believed in a Torah-free Gospel and those who didn’t, the Hellenists representing the former group and the Hebrews the latter. However, there is no foundation for this viewpoint as Bauckham and others[3] have pointed out and what’s more it is likely that the Hellenists were even more zealous for the Torah than the Hebrews.

It is not recognized enough that Saul of Tarsus was a “Hellentist” since he was a Diaspora Jew born in Tarsus and his first language was likely Greek. His Diaspora Jewish background likely provides the appropriate context for understanding his zeal for both the “traditions of fathers” (Gal 1:14) and for the persecution of the church (Phil 3:6). What’s more it is certainly the reason (either his, his parents or both) for his move to Jerusalem as a young man and perhaps also his study under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3).

The implication of this first observation is that even at the earliest stage, when the only form of Christianity was Jewish Christianity, diversity existed. Later of course the diversity took a pronounced turn when the mission to the Gentiles got underway. At that point a new theological divide arose. It should be recognized that at the earliest stage the diversity was primarily cultural and did not have negative consequences of the later theological division. The problems between the groups seemed to be related to practical "pastoral care" issues--care of widows, etc. Moreover, this latter division did not form along cultural lines, but was the result of a difference in the interpretation of Torah and its application or non-application to Gentiles, a difference which it seems transcended issues of culture creating division even among Hebrews. Presumably the same is true for the Hellentistic Jews, although little evidence is either way is extant, save the Apostle Paul. There is no positive evidence that supports the oft-made claim that the Hellenists were primarily responsible for the Gentile mission after being scattered as a result of persecution (see Acts 8:1).

[1] Carleton-Paget 1999:742.
[2] Bauckham 2006:63.
[3] Bauckham 2006; Hill 1992.

Works Cited

Bauckham, Richard. 2006. James and the Jerusalem Community. In A History of Jewish Believers in Jesus: The First Five Centuries, ed. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik:55-95. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Carleton-Paget, James. 1999. Jewish Christianity. In The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period, ed. William Horbury, W. D. Davies and John Sturdy, 3:731-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hill, Craig C. 1992. Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Merry Christmas!

From Joel and myself we wish all the readers of Euangelion a very merry and blessed Christmas. We hope that for you this Christmas will be a time of pondering, praising, and proclaiming the Saviour's advent (Lk. 2.16-20).

The Ultimate Christmas Presents

My ultimate Christmas presents would have to be:

Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism by Menahem Stern.
Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum by J.B. Frey
Corpus Papyrorum Iudaicarum by V. Tcerikover and A. Fuks.

Why are all the best books out of print or too expensive!!! Does anyone know where to find these books?

New Blogs 20

A couple of other notable blogs that I have to mention are:

Gervatoshav by Dave Miller which has been having a cracking good discussion on the meaning of Ioudaismos in antiquity. I recently had Chris Stanley over at my house and we had an excellent discussion on this subject as well. While I think that "Judean" is a good default translation in terms of tying the word to ethnicity, I do think that it could also be used in a more general religious sense and can be translated rightly as "Jew" at times.

In Light of the Gospel is a blog by James Grant that covers elements of interest to evangelicalism.

Another blog I've been meaning to point out for a long time is The Westminster Bookstore Blog.

A Response to my esteemed colleague and co-blogger

Thanks to Michael for his longer response to my question and for recognizing not only my professorship, but also my ordination (which by they way he doesn't actually recognize!, since he doesn't believe in ordination).

While I in principle have no problem calling the phenomenon Judeo-Christianity as he suggests, I just don’t see what difference it makes. How does it provide any more clarity and sidestep the same pitfalls of the term “Jewish Christianity”. What’s more, the term “Judeo-Christian” is already used as a synonym for “Jewish Christianity” in current discussions—see the recent book entitled The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature. I don’t think anything is gained by the term.

In addition, I have two further points in response to some of what Mike states. First we can all agree that the term "Jewish Christian/Christianity", and for that matter “Judeo-Christianity”, is a modern construct (not found in ancient literature) and is for many reasons an anachronistic designation for the reality of first-century Church (see Brant's comment below to my initial phrase "Jesus movement"). This is true not least for the decades of the middle to late first century when believers in Jesus were mostly of Jewish ethnicity on the one hand and Gentile God-Fears on the other who would have already been viewed as semi-Jewish. Therefore, we could define Jewish Christianity, and some have, as the Jewishness of early Christianity (see especially Daniélou's work).

Yet, since the time of Baur, Jewish Christianity has been variously defined and in the early days especially as the group who stood opposed to Paul's Gentile mission. This latter aspect for the most part has been jettisoned by recent scholarship, although some continue to propound it (e.g. David Sim). Nevertheless, what has essentially become the consensus is that the components of ethnicity and Jewish practice of certain kinds of believers in Jesus define Jewish Christian and not their perspective on Gentile Torah observance (see Mimouni). Of course on this question there was a wide spectrum of opinion.

Thus, in my view (and more on this in later posts) both Paul and his opponents (those who advocated Gentile conversion to Judaism), should be considered Jewish Christians—ethnically Jewish and practicing Torah (I am of the view that Paul didn’t cease his own halahakic observance in his mission to the Gentiles). On the law for Jews, Paul and the opponents seemed to have agreed. What distinguishes Paul’s type of Jewish Christianity, however, was not his view of the requirements for law observance on the part of Jews, but Gentile law observance. This issue was clearly a live question in the early church.

I prefer Skarsuane’s designation “Jewish believers in Jesus” to designate the ethnically Jewish believers in Jesus generally (including Jews who did and didn’t maintain a Jewish lifestyle) and “Jewish Christians” or Judeo-Christians as those who continue a Jewish lifestyle. See my discussion in an earlier post. Perhaps a further addition to Skarsaune's definition (and Mimouni's for that matter) may be to add that only were there differing Christologies among these groups, but also different perspectives on the status of Gentiles.

Second, I see no reason to wonder, as Mike does, who was more Jewish among the early Christian groups. What exact practices ethnic Jews who believed in Jesus preformed to my mind is not as important as observing who identified themselves (or were identified) as ethnically Jewish and were also recognized as such by particular Jewish communities at the time.

Jewish Christianity Definitions, Whence and Whither?

In response to a question from my buddy and co-blogger the Rev. Prof. Joel Willitts, I'm throwing up a few ideas as to why I don't like the term "Jewish Christianity".

First, at one level ALL Christianity in the first century, to some degree or other, is Jewish Christianity. Even those churches consisting mostly of Gentiles who do not generally observe the Torah still fall under the umbrella of Judaism as the parting of the ways is only in its germinal stages.
Second, and as we all know, defining the term "Jewish Christianity" is like nailing jelly to a wall given the nature of our sources (are Matthew and John Jewish Christian writings, if so, which is more Jewish?; is Gospel of the Nazoreans a rip off from Matthew?), the sociological issue of how to know if someone is in or out of the Jewish group, and pluriform views on adherence toTorah by ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles in the early church.
Third, Matt Jackson-McCabe writes: "If we designate 'Christ-believing Jews' those Christ-believing Jews who agree with Paul about the primary identity of Christ-believers and the central definition of the covenant community, then we may want to designate those who he opposes in Philippians and 'those from Jews' as Jewish Christ-believers. The latter expression would then indicate that their primary identity is Jewish; that is, they are most fundamentally faithful adherents to the Mosaic covenant. Their belief in Christ, then, functions within that sphere of identity. Our study indicates that there is so single way - or even two ways - of being a Christ-believer and Jewish in the first century. However Christ-believers understood the mission and work of Christ in relation to Israel and Gentiles varied significantly. There is enough variation among Christ-believing Jews that a single designation for them is misleading, particularly if that label's central function is to distinguish them from Paul or from the Pauline churches. Serious theological issues divided Paul from some other Christ-believers, but some times those on his own side would have been Jews and some times Gentiles and probably nearly always a mixture of the two" (pp. 77-78).
Fourth, I am not a fan of "Christian Judaism" since that sounds like Jewish Muslim or Liberal Evangelical. I think the title "Judeo-Christianity" is a better way of designating Christ-believing Jews who still find their identity (and therefore their praxis) as bound up with the Torah/Covenant while allowing for variation of how that worked itself out in reality.