Good article.

The ‘early high christology’ circle is probably best represented by Richard Bauckham (God Crucified; Didsbury Lectures), Markus Bockmuehl, and Larry Hurtado. Bauckham’s book is very straightforward and useful. The theologian frequently cited in this context is David Yeago, who pointed out the dogmatic implications of Phil 2’s use of Isa 45 in an early Pro Ecclesia essay. B Childs has a new book now published, The Church’s Guide to Reading Paul. The interest in ‘earthly Jesus’ or ‘exegetical Paul’ of Hays and NT Wright seeks to get at the matter from a different angle, though they may come to similar conclusions.

Quod erat demonstrandum.  Gotta love William Witt.

Dr. Seitz, I would also recommend Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, which Dr. Witt cites.  Most of the book is a long, hard slog through the evidence, but worthwhile as it set the stage for the ultimate conclusion that the Gospels are base of the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses.

I enjoyed and appreciated the piece partly for this in one of the first paragraphs:

Many of the orthodox seem under the impression that critical biblical scholarship is essentially unchristian, and always leads (or will inevitably lead) to heresy. Many revisionists endorse a kind of popularist uninformed version of biblical scholarship that amounts to little more than a philosophical prejudice that “miracles don’t happen” combined with a search for “gotcha” difficulties. In my opinion, both of these approaches represent a kind of naïve epistemological fundamentalism… A single difficulty is thought to uproot the entire faith, so “conservatives” launch an all out attack against any recognition of genuine diversity or plurality or development in the Scriptures as attacks on Christian faith…

At the risk of generating thread drift I dare suggest that one sometimes encounters comments from “orthodox Anglicans” that represent this “conservative” distrust of critical scholarship (including on this very website). If theological liberalism drives me crazy sometimes I have difficulties also with the excesses of theological conservatives. “Critical orthodoxy” is a fine way to steer between the Scylla of liberalism and the Charybdis of fundamentalism (apologies to Homer).

Agree with #5. I think the major problem in the church today is there is no via media with scripture. The two extremes are in conflict and the folks in the pew are confused by the whole thing. I believe form criticism is used to avoid the meaning of the text and is useless for most folks. Has anyone ever seen a book about high christology in the synoptic gospels?

What alot of electrons spilled on a screen over the comments of an atheist (and Episcopalian in good standing) on the Scriptures of the Christians.

He’s not an atheist, though I’d be happy enough to tag he a deist and be done with that. Regardless, though, it is worthwhile to have confidence in what scripture said at a little higher level than just “the church says we should”, if for no other reason than I think such confidence is possible.

Meanwhile, please permit me to add myself to the list of “Via Media” searchers. I did my sacred studies in a church school climate where textual criticism was taught as more or less fact. My faith certainly didn’t suffer for that. It bothers me a great deal that once-Anglicans abandon its theological outlook because they feel that a lack of dogmatization has let the extremes in. Dogma’s problem is, and always will be, that it really, really has to be right, and that its adherents are betting the farm on it being right. Sometimes one does have to bet the farm, and for starters I think we do need to dogmatize the core Nicene doctrines, as well as some tenets beyond that. But when one starts betting on the way scripture was written, one bets on speculation. And worse, one is tempted to construct one’s exegetical framework on the basis of its consequences, not its truth. It seems to me that there are a lot of liberals who are so exegetically because they need to be freed from a lot of scripture in order to permit them their moral system. But it also seems to me that there are a lot of exegetical hardliners who are so in order to deny the liberals the possibility of their conclusions. Overreaction is inevitable, and the consequence is a lot of talk about scripture that will not stand on its own. Leaving that kind of stuff about is dangerous to the faith of others, because if they conclude that the exegetical framework is shaky, they may well be driven into the camp of the opposition.

#4 ‘Eyewitnesses’ puts Bauckham back into the historical veracity issue and a model of ‘testimony’ with its own claim to historical truth telling. This is a different project than the one about early high Christology, which to my mind requires the ‘accordance with the scriptures’ logic at work in ‘God Crucified.’ I have a long review essay on this in the new issue of Nova et Vetera.  The problem with ‘eyewitness’ may be that the battlefield is one of modern evidentialism (fine for all that), but the issue to which Witt refers is a christological/dogmatic one. Here Yeago, God Crucified and other works are more relevant.

Thanks to Dr. Seitz (#2 & 9) for weighing in here with his helpful comments and suggestions for further reading for those interested in looking into the matter more deeply.  It’s great to see an OT scholar who keeps up with NT scholarhsip too.  Speaking as someone who specializes in the latter field, I especially commend the ground-breaking and solid work of Larry Hurtado, which I find convincing.

Thanks also to Rick (#5).  I heartily agree with you, brother.  As you know, I have the scars to prove that I’ve been contending for the validity of centrist biblical scholarship over at Stand Firm, where I’ve taken a LOT of flak from inerrantists who are deeply suspicious that “critical orthodoxy” is just a Trojan Horse within the orthodox camp and not to be trusted.

Let me here commend Dr. Witt for his fine summary of NT scholarship on the complex topic of Christology.  I’ll just pick one bone with him here.  I think it’s a mistake to claim as he does that Paul has “the highest” Christology in the NT.  I think it’s plain that John’s is even higher.  There really isn’t anything in Paul that can match the Prologue to John, with its magnificent declaration of the mystery of the Incarnation (although the Carmen Christi in Phil. 2:5-11 assumes something like it), or the kind of lofty statements about Jesus’ divinity we find in John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”).  The way I’d put it is that much that is IMPLICIT in Paul, or the Synoptics, is made EXPLICIT in John.

I particularly welcome Dr. Witt’s emphasis on the significance of the many places in the NT where OT passages that refer to “the LORD,” i.e., Yahweh, are applied to Jesus without the slightest reservation.  And as he rightly notes, this happens repeatedly in Acts, starting with Acts 2:21 (“And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved”), quoting the prophet Joel.  I’ll just add that since Paul cites the same text in Romans 10:13, and likewise takes it for granted that it applies to Jesus Christ, the fact that BOTH Luke and Paul use the same passage in the same way strongly suggests that they are drawing on a common tradition that predates them both.

And since I’ve just commended Dr. Seitz for keeping abreast of NT scholarship as a specialist in another field, let me do the same with regard to Dr. Witt.  It’s refreshing to see a systematic theologian, and one who teaches at an orthodox Anglican seminary, who likewise displays his familiarity with NT research and can summarize it fairly.  I’d be the first person to admit that he knows much more about NT studies than I know about systematic theology.

Well done, Bill.  Keep up the good work.  I agree with Rick.  It’s absolutely vital to the future of orthdox Anglicanism that a healthy kind of “critical orthodoxy” flourish among us.  And part of the challenge of keeping such a beleagued tradition alive is to engage in the sort of often distasteful apologetic work that Dr. Witt has done here, showing clearly that an extreme skeptic like D. C. Toedt simply has no reasonable basis for his ultra-skeptical claims.

David Handy, Ph.D.

Pb (#6),

Personally, I recommend a marvelously lucid book by the late, great Roman Catholic scholar, Raymond Brown, called “An Introduction to New Testament Christology” (Paulist Press, 1994), that Dr. Witt cites in his article.  I regard Fr. Brown as quite simply the pre-eminent expert on the subject.  The detailed exegetical work on the Synoptics that underlies the intro book is best seen in his justly famous works: “The Birth of the Messiah” and the two-volume sequel, “The Death of the Messiah.”  They are masterpieces of the exegetical craft in terms of a judicious use of historical criticism by someone fully committed to classical Christian orthodoxy of the Catholic sort.  But Fr. Brown also was one of the very few people who combined doing original research on a world class level with the very different gifts it takes to excel at communicating those results in a clear and compelling way to non-specialists.  He was superb at doing both.  And his splendid Introduction to NT Christology is genuinely an introduction to a very comple topic.  It doesn’t presume any background knowledge of the subject, yet resists oversimplifications at the same time.  True, it’s a little old now, so it doesn’t reflect the latest research, but it’s still the best place to begin to explore what sound, orthodox biblical scholars think about this crucial topic.

David Handy+

FWIW, I would not refer people to Ray Brown’s work on this issue. He lacks the ability to relate historical-evidentiary studies to older history of interpretation, the ‘literal sense’ as Augustine and others understood this, and his dissertation on sensus plenior shows a devout and godly RC striving mightily to relate his historical critical work to his traditional RC background. One can see the same neuralgia hovering around the PBC’s statements on biblical authority, which on the one hands wants sincerely to commend various ‘criticisms’ (once seen as ‘lutheran’) but also connect this to ‘the paschal mystery.’ As many argued, even the redoubtable RC scholar N Lohfink, there is a nature-grace problem here. Childs dogged Ray Brown for majoring in evidentialist protestant biblical concerns, and this is a path that my colleague Bauckham sought to avoid by appeal to testimony.

This was very interesting; thank you.

I didn’t comment on the original discussion that prompted this article, but I do think that D.C. has a point in at least this much:  if all one had to go on were a narrative of Jesus’ life and ministry, including the Resurrection and the post-Resurrection appearances (that is, if one were in the position of the apostles in the days following Easter) then I don’t believe that it is necessarily self-evident that one would conclude that Jesus is God.  William Witt shows, I think convincingly, that the apostles or their immediate successors did come to that conclusion very quickly; but I’m not convinced that it was a slam-dunk that they would reach that conclusion and not a “low” Christology of some kind.

Perhaps a visual presentation of YHWH=Adonai=Kyrios=LORD=Jesus would do the trick in making the ascription clear.  Works well enough in the KJV/RSV Old Testament and should in the passages discussed.

Dr. Seitz (#12),

I welcome your comments about Raymond Brown and why you wouldn’t second my recommendation that people like Pb above start their exploration of NT Christology with his introduction to the topic.  Let me just clarify that while I stand by my recommendation that his 1994 book is a great place to start, I would certainly agree that he doesn’t have the last word on the subject.  There are indeed important limitations to the historical critical method that call for other methods to be used in conjunction with it. 

But my point is that once historical questions have been asked, only historical answers will do.  And extreme skeptics like D. C. Toedt are often raising historical questions that require the kind of careful, scrupulously fair historical answers that Fr. Brown gave us.

One of the things that Dr. Witt and I share is an admiration for the pioneering work of the great orthodox Anglo-Catholic NT scholar Sir Edwyn Hoskyns, whose “The Riddle of the New Testament” is one of the classic contributions of an Anglican scholar to NT studies.  And practically at the start of that still valuable, if now quite dated, book, is the very striking and bold claim I’ll quote below.  It’s based on the historical nature of Christianity as a religion grounded in actual events that happened with regard to a specific person, Jesus, at a specific time and place and in a specific historical and cultural context.  Here is the strong claim that Hoskyns advanced back in the 1930s:

“In consequence, the Christian religion is not merely open to historical investigation, but demands it, and its piety depends upon it.  Inadequate of false reconstruction of the history of Jesus of Nazareth cuts at the heart of Christianity.”

Now actually, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that our faith “depends” upon proper historical reconstruction of “the historical Jesus.”  That would be to build upon quicksand instead of rock, because the data surviving from the ancient world is so limited, historical assessments are always open to revision, and because “we walk by faith and not by sight.”  Let me also hasten to add that the literary and theological dimensions of Holy Scripture are just as important as the historical dimension.  Indeed, as someone who is particularly interested in the literary artistry of biblical texts (especially Luke-Acts), I would quickly agree that one of Ray Brown’s weaknesses was that he concentrated so much on the historical issues involved in biblical interpretation that he never even attempted to learn the new literary methods that have increasingly come to the fore in recent biblical scholarship.  Nor did he give much attention to “reception history” (virkungsgeschichte), another field that is rapidly and properly gaining popularity and momentum.  But within his own self-imposed limitations, I think he was supremely masterful at what he did, and his work has enduring value. 

Not least, it has apologetic value, in disproving the kind of historical nonsense that D. C. Toedt was putting forth.

So, by way of contrast to #12, FWIW, I think the “PBC’s” (Pontifical Biblical Institute’s) 1964 statement on the historical value of the Gospels is still a valuable and commendably balanced statement.  I wish we Anglicans had something official that was half as good.

David Handy+

William Witt has given us an impressive review of NT scholarship, but his thesis — that immediately post-Pentecost the apostles preached only a kerygma, a limited summary of their beliefs, while preserving the complete didache in secrecy — seems unpersuasive. I’ve posted a detailed response on Dr. Witt’s own blog.

Dr. Seitz, as you know Christianity makes historical claims.  It claims that, as a historical fact, Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died and was buried.  It also claims as historical fact that Jesus was bodily resurrected on the third day.  The scriptures themselves say that there were eyewitnesses to these events and invites the readers of the time to ask these witnesses if they had doubts as to the historical claims made by the apostles.  If these historical claims fail then DC is right and Christianity fails.  You don’t have a high Christology or any Christology at all if these claims fail.  Paul himself acknowledges that fact when he says:

1 Corinthians 15:12-20 12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?  13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.  14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.  15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.  16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.  17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.  18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.  19 If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.  20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

That being the case I think Bauckham’s book is right on point and should be read.

#17—The point is now lost. At issue is the nature of the relationship between evidentialism as a modern category and the church’s dogmatic understanding of providence and time. To read any premodern account of the ‘earthly Jesus’ and his real life amongst us is to move resolutely by what often parades for ‘historicality’ in the modern world. Bauckham’s appeal to testimony is not an appeal to ‘what really happened’ (a la Lessing) but to what happened as testified: Christian historical belief requiring a doctrine of the Holy Spirit and Providence both. The trick is to bring the work of Eyewitness into calibration with God Crucified, and we now have a very good stable of writers attempting just that (Childs, Kavin Rowe, David Yeago, Robert Jenson and others).

(The following is the reply I posted to D.C.‘s further comment on my blog.)

D.C.,

I am not suggesting that immediately after Pentecost the disciples preached only a summary kerygma, while keeping a didache “secret” from public view.  Nor does Dodd suggest that.

The distinction between kerygma and didache is not between open and secret, but between “preaching” (which is addressed to outsiders) and “teaching” (which is the more detailed instruction intended for those who are already members).  Indeed, kerygma and didache are simply the Greek words for “preaching” and “teaching.” 

You write that “It’s very difficult to credit the much, much-later writings of Paul and the anonymous gospel authors as providing such support.”  There is nothing nefarious about Dodd’s claims. (The distinction between public preaching and instruction—as for catechumens—was a fairly standard feature of early catholic Christianity.  Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures are an example.) Dodd argued that the distinction between kerygma and didache is fairly clearly present in the NT documents (especially Paul), and he was simply trying to answer the question: what was the substance of this kerygma that Paul (and others) talked about?  Dodd believed that he had found the answer in the Acts sermons, for which he found close parallels in summary material in Paul and elsewhere, e.g., 1 Cor. 15: 1-8. 

Whether Dodd makes his case for the distinction is something that can only be tested by comparing what he wrote with the actual texts to which he refers. Certainly his claim for this distinction was fairly well accepted in subsequent NT scholarship. And he didn’t make the claim as an apologetic device to address issues in the development of christology.  It is simply one of those finds of biblical scholarship that would appear to shed light on other areas as well—including the questions you raised.

As for those “much later” writings of Paul, and the anonymous gospels, you’re missing the key point that I keep trying to drive home.  Acts is one of those later writings. Paul wrote before Acts, as did all of the writers of those anonymous gospels, except for John. The author of Acts was one of the writers of one of those gospels—and Acts has to be read as a sequel to Luke’s gospel.  The christology in Acts—including the sermons—has to be read in the light of Luke’s gospel.

So you’re misreading me to presume that I was saying that Luke in Acts was withholding “secret” knowledge.  To the contrary, as I (and many of the scholars I cited) argued, the sermons in Acts are short summaries of the material of which Luke’s gospel and Acts provide a more complete account.  If you want to find the full content of Luke’s christology, read the rest of Luke and Acts.  The sermons are certainly not complete summaries of everything the church believed, or even the actual sermons preached, and could not be.  After all, in terms of length, they measure from a few verses to a few paragraphs.

So it really does not matter whether or not Dodd is correct in his conviction that Luke was providing an accurate summary of the early preaching (kerygma) of the church.  The primary purpose of Luke’s inclusion of the sermons is a literary one—not simply to give a historical account of the rise of Christianity.  Luke’s inclusion of the sermons plays an essential place in articulating his own theological vision, and they are a short summary of everything he writes elsewhere.

As for 1 Thessalonians.  It does not include anything like a complete exposition of Paul’s christology. Paul speaks of God and Christ and the Holy Spirit without further elaboration, clearly assuming that his hearers know his meaning. Paul does indeed distinguish between Jesus and God.  Paul’s hearers would have understood the word “God” (theos) to refer to the Father, so to simply equate Jesus and God would have been to say that the Father and the Son were the identical same person—the later heresy of Sabellianism.

What Paul does do already in 1 Thessalonians is to regularly use the word “Lord” (kyrios) when referring to Jesus.  Paul’s regular terminology in 1 Thessalonians is “God the Father” and “the Lord Jesus Christ”—and these are used in parallel fashion. “God the Father” is exactly parallel to “the Lord Jesus Christ”—and both God (theos) and Lord (kyrios) are the LXX translations of the two key OT names for the one deity.  I made the point in my original article that NT usage distinguishes between a relative and an absolute use of kyrios—and the latter is clearly intended in 1 Thessalonians.  Interestingly, Paul refers to “the day of the Lord” in ch. 5:2, when he is speaking of the return of Christ.  But “day of the Lord” is, again, a citation from the OT (used numerous times, Is. 2:12, 13:6-9, 34:4, Jer. 46:10), which in its original context refers to the “day of Yahweh.”  So this seems to be another one of those instances in the NT when the writer quotes an OT passage that clearly refers to God and applies it to Jesus.