Early Church and Scripture

[Jason]

I started reading a book called "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" by Richard Bauckham after Steve mentioned it on the air. The book is probably good but I doubt I'll finish it. It's such high brow biblical criticism that I think Richard wrote the book for his colleagues in the field and not the average Christian wanting to know more about the subject. However, it did inspire a question in me: How did the first and second century Christians view and handle the NT documents? Did they hold a similar opinion to modern Christians where each word and phrase is picked apart or were they treated more as letters from a friend and general instruction? Though I may be in serious error here, the way the scriptures are handled by preachers/theologians sure seems unnatural since only a book of spells or magic potions would normally be studied/parsed in such a way. I sometimes wonder if that's what Paul or James or Matthew had in mind though I'm embarrassingly unsophisticated on the subject. In the early church,were the NT writings read and expounded upon as "infallible words of God?"

I realize there was a great deal of scholarly debate about words and phrases in the late second century onward but I'm more interested in how the original audiences would have taken the writings as they circulated. Would they perhaps criticize the way we modern people study the same documents? Lest anyone think I'm being too liberal (theologically speaking) I will affirm that I view the scriptures as authoritative. My curiosity here lies in how the NT writings should be studied for application. I have an appreciation (though limited) for nuanced argumentation, but often when I listen to theologically trained people having a go at it, I shrink back in horror. I get the impression, in such instances, that it's really a debate about magic spells.

[SamIam]

Taken from A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, David W. Bercot, Editor, p. 601.

Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Clement of Rome (c.96) 1.17

Take up the epistle of the blessed apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gosple first began to be preached? Truly, he wrote to you under the inspiration of the Spirit. Cement of Rome (c.96) 1.18

These are from the letter 1 Cement, written to the Christians in Corinth about a.d. 96. Cleary Clement thought highly of both the O.T. Scriptures and the writings of Paul, and considered them worthy of study. Exactly how he handled them is a different question.

[darinhouston]

I tend to agree with you , Jason. I especially get this impression when hearing James White (and others) cling to their highly technical greek syntax arguments. To me, context and overal story is more important than perfect grammatical construction. It is more of a lawyerly approach to interpreting a legal document (I'm a lawyer) rather than understanding a letter sent from a friend. For starters, it assumes they used proper grammar, and also that we know perfectly the greek (or Hebrew) of the relevant time and locale (and personal usage). I have often wondered how something I've written to a friend (or on here) might be interpreted if it were picked apart as we often do with the Apostle's writings. None of the Gospels or Epistles or other writings seem to have been intended as "treatises" or "commentaries" parsed and edited for distribution and widespread interpretation beyond their intended audience. I'm curious if there has been academic treatment of this concept, as I consider it highly relevant to a proper understanding of Scriptures. Steve particularly treats these texts in a highly contextualized manner, and always seems to balance an interpretation against the whole of scripture. Others cling to what I see as a myopic view of semantic precision.

[RickC]

Hello,

'Not really chiming in now.
A couple, three, five links (Bauckham discusses the book) -

~ SWBTS Chapel, March 08 (I haven't seen it yet)
(can get audio or video)

~ WSC Nov 07 (about the canon and gnostic gospels - 2nd century stuff)
*NOTE - this link isn't working right now (will keep looking)

~ Bauckham and Crossley debate (on Unbelievable! program)

~ ETS Paper on Early Church Catechism & Evangelicalism (Parchment & Pen blog)
( I lost this in a recent computer crash - and found it again! - very informative )!


(Hi Jason) -
Something I do a lot is: read reviews @amazon.
Usually there are quite a lot of really good summaries.
They might be able to guide you to the "right chapters" or whatever, if that makes sense(?).

Take care!

[Jason]

For starters, it assumes they used proper grammar, and also that we know perfectly the greek (or Hebrew) of the relevant time and locale (and personal usage).

I've wondered that myself. If, to prove a particular theological point, we need to dig deep into the author's grammar then I think we're trying to prove too much. I'm not particularly bright yet I can understand the main themes in any given epistle simply by reading it. Even a terrible paraphrase like The Message can get the main points across to the reader. Again, I wonder how the early Church, once they lost the remaining apostles, handled the writings when a letter/gospel showed up at their assembly.

These are from the letter 1 Cement, written to the Christians in Corinth about a.d. 96. Cleary Clement thought highly of both the O.T. Scriptures and the writings of Paul, and considered them worthy of study. Exactly how he handled them is a different question.

But did clement believe Paul was inspired in the same way modern evangelicals use the word inspired? Or did he simply mean that Paul's instructions came from the Holy Spirit instead of his own imagination? It's hard to tell from that quotation.

(Hi Jason) -
Something I do a lot is: read reviews @amazon.
Usually there are quite a lot of really good summaries.
They might be able to guide you to the "right chapters" or whatever, if that makes sense(?).

Thanks for the links, Rick. I'll have to check those out. God bless.

[Apollos]

~ WSC Nov 07 (about the canon and gnostic gospels - 2nd century stuff)
*NOTE - this link isn't working right now (will keep looking)

It's working now - the link is on the right hand of the page. I heard it and found it very helpful - he pointed out a few things I hadn't noticed before, such as that the Gnostic Gospels tend to assume the existence of the canonical Gospels, and that they tend not to use the word 'God', since this term was open to confusion in their view.

[RickC]

Apollos -

Thanks for the 'tip' that the Bauckham lecture works now! I posted it on the forum not long after it happened. Steve G. replied thanking me for it. He had read Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

I heard it and found it very helpful - he pointed out a few things I hadn't noticed before, such as that the Gnostic Gospels tend to assume the existence of the canonical Gospels, and that they tend not to use the word 'God', since this term was open to confusion in their view.

I've heard modern-day Gnostics, such as Stephan Hoeller, claim that the Gnostic Gospels and other writings from the Nag Hammadi library were "very early." Hoeller, if I'm not mistaken, said the Gospel of Thomas was as old as the canonicals. Bauckham sufficiently proves this is incorrect, to my mind anyway.

On the Gnostics non-use of "God."
You probably know that they saw the "God" of the OT as the Demiurge, an inferior "half-creator" divinity to the highest god, which they sometimes called the "All" (and other things). I'll guess you know the Gnostics did not worship the Demiurge, and considered him to be the god of the Jews.

Anyways, thanks!

[Apollos]

Apollos -

Thanks for the 'tip' that the Bauckham lecture works now! I posted it on the forum not long after it happened. Steve G. replied thanking me for it. He had read Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

I heard it and found it very helpful - he pointed out a few things I hadn't noticed before, such as that the Gnostic Gospels tend to assume the existence of the canonical Gospels, and that they tend not to use the word 'God', since this term was open to confusion in their view.

I've heard modern-day Gnostics, such as Stephan Hoeller, claim that the Gnostic Gospels and other writings from the Nag Hammadi library were "very early." Hoeller, if I'm not mistaken, said the Gospel of Thomas was as old as the canonicals. Bauckham sufficiently proves this is incorrect, to my mind anyway.

On the Gnostics non-use of "God."
You probably know that they saw the "God" of the OT as the Demiurge, an inferior "half-creator" divinity to the highest god, which they sometimes called the "All" (and other things). I'll guess you know the Gnostics did not worship the Demiurge, and considered him to be the god of the Jews.

Anyways, thanks!

I really need to read that book, I've heard so much about it! I've read his Testimony of the Beloved Disciple, but I want to get round to reading all his works.

That's the point Bauckham makes - he says that 'God' to them was the Father, but that the demiurge was called 'God' falsely by the Jews, so that they tended not to use the word of the Father in order to avoid confusion. Makes sense to me.

[mikew]

We won't likely find good information on how the people treated the NT writings in the first two centuries. There are too few writings from that era. If we found any sort of paradigm for interpreting scriptures, it may come from the approaches of various cultures within the Roman Empire when such people examined wisdom writings.

In general it seems that the early writers on Christianity had the same trouble understanding and interpreting scriptures as we do today but lacked the tools and access to info that we now have.

For us to use scripture today it should be noted that believers will gain some wisdom impressed through devotional reading of the scripture. Yet, the best wisdom should be found by understanding the flow and context of the letters to see how Paul and others applied their theological perspective to the situations.

So on one hand we may have a spiritual insight triggered by one verse out of context. But for greater accuracy to apply to more people, we should have the deeper study.




/