THE BIRTH OF CHRISTIANITY:
THE FIRST TWENTY
YEARS
by
Paul Barnett
Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Paper, 230 pages
ISBN 0-8028-2781-0
Paul
Barnett methodically slogs through the letters of Paul and the Acts of the
Apostles to support his theory that christology Jesus as the Son of God did not
arise in the decades after the crucifixion, but arose during Jesus lifetime
and was an important part of the early church.
To do so, he attempts to close the gap in the written record from the
death of Jesus in 33 A.D. to the first written records approximately twenty
years later. He dates Paul s conversion
on the road to
The critical point to establish
is whether Paul invented his christology or derived it from others.
Barnett argues christology was
formed by believers before Paul. A
significant consideration in this argument is that Christianity was first only
a branch of the Jewish faith, confined to Jews; and when the apostles announced
Jesus as the Messiah, they provoked the wrath of the Temple hierarchy, which
hoped to stamp out the followers of Jesus.
Paul, before his conversion, was specifically bound to do this. Acting for the high priest and Sanhedrin, he
entered the houses of believers, dragged out men and women, and handed them
over to prison. At their trials, he
accused them, instigated their floggings, and voted for their execution. In Paul s view, it was his religious duty to
eliminate claims of a false messiah. His
efforts were so successful that the followers of Jesus largely fled
The dispersion of Jews from this
persecution, and ultimately the travels and teachings of a converted Paul, led
the way for the early faith to take root outside the Jewish community. In
Barnett traces how Paul s letters that Jesus is the Christ the Messiah are based on the earliest teachings of the disciples; and how his letters seek to persuade members of the early church to strengthen their faith as centered on Christ, and oppose the efforts of others who sought to make it Torah-centered.
The proclamation of Jesus as Christ was not just a concern of the Jewish hierarchy but also the Romans who became alarmed that a King of the Jews would undermine Roman authority and power.
For the 20-30 year gap in the written record, Barnett posits that Paul s letters as well as the Acts were based on a well-established earlier record. There probably was also a significant oral tradition inasmuch as 80% of Jesus teachings are in a poetic form designed for more ease of recall, employing alliteration, paronomasia, assonance, parallelism, and rhyme not to mention parables. However, Jews of that era also took notes on wax tablets, and it was the practice of disciples in other Jewish sects to write down the sayings of their teachers. Barnett also argues that references to Paul s letters of handing over the traditions of Jesus mean they were physically handed over in written form. This probably occurred in a relationship of great trust, with the caretaker entrusted with the tablets and their sacred meaning. Similarly, in Luke s gospel, Luke (a companion of Paul) speaks of narratives being handed over to him from those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. And synagogues of the time where the church first took root were text-based. Due to efforts to stamp out the new religion, there was also a practical need for the teachings to be written down to avoid the loss of Jesus word if followers were killed.
Barnett s driving point about christology is that those who portray Jesus only as a moral instructor and reformer do not address the totality of the evidence. Perhaps the most material piece of an early belief in christology is the disciples assertion of the resurrection and ascension.
Frankly,
however, the debate over Jesus christology seems less important than what
happened to his teachings, and what Barnett does not address directly, but
rather seems to do so implicitly (and
maybe inadvertently), is the shift in the underlying philosophy from the time
of Jesus to the rise of his brother James as a leader of the early church. In 36 CE, three years after the crucifixion,
James is second in seniority to Peter.
When Peter fled
Matthew
5:19: . . . whoever relaxes one of the
least of these commandments . . . shall be . . . least in the kingdom, but he
who . . . does them . . . shall be called great in the kingdom.
James 2:10 Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of them all.
In short, an original measuring stick of moral principals became a stick in James view to punish the guilty, and a principle of forgiveness thus became a punishment with no mercy:
Luke 6:37
forgive and you will be forgiven.
James 2:13
For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs
over judgment.
Further, the idea that one cannot serve God and money became the strict view that a friend of the world is the enemy of God:
Luke
16:13 No one can serve two masters; for
either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the
one and despise the other. You cannot
serve God and mammon.
James
4:4 Do you not know that friendship with
the world is enmity with God? Therefore
whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
And consider, below, how praise for those pure in heart became an admonition that sinners better beware:
Matthew
5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for
they shall see God.
James 4:8 Cleanse your hands you sinners and purify your hearts, you men of double mind.
Similary, the positive nature of treasures in heaven as espoused by Jesus becomes, under James, the negative image of rot:
Matthew
6:20 Lay up for yourselves treasures in
heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes.
James
5:2 Your riches have rotted and your
garments are moth eaten.
Although Barnett does not discuss these differences, he does take up the issue of Q (abbreviated from Quelle, German for source ). Q is material in Matthew and Luke but not Mark and consists largely of sayings of Jesus. It predicts the resurrection but does not describe its actual occurrence. Barnett agrees that the case for Q remains quite strong. He does not say so, but it is consistent with his theory that the followers of Jesus early on wrote down his teachings, perhaps on wax tablets, and quite possibly before he was crucified, which explains the lack of reference to his actual resurrection.
What Barnett objects to is the use of Q for an agenda that Jesus was only an ethical reformist; and to exclude christology to a later time, a later distortion. Early in the book he criticizes the argument of J.D. Corrson that the early church emphasized life issues (e.g., justice) rather than the death movement intertwined in the crucifixion and resurrection.
Barnett s rejection of Q for these purposes is a part of a central problem in Christianity as it developed that Jesus as the Son of God is more important than his teachings. The fact that he came to save us is easy enough, for we have much that needs saving. But the concept that he was sacrificed for our sins seems pagan in origin, if not derived from the Old Testament where Abraham is willing to sacrifice his own son to appease a terrible God. But how, really, does the crucifixion save us? What seems lost in all this is that his ideas of love, acceptance, and forgiveness remain radical today 2,000 years after he first taught them. For who among us loves our enemies? Who turns the other cheek? Who refuses to throw the first stone despite our own faults? Who welcomes the prodigal son back home? What is more commonly taught is that the Kingdom of God is not a life in the present, here and now, but an afterlife held out as a reward for moral behavior. Our only too human faults, so difficult to rise above, left us unready to live his teachings then and unready now. It is easier to say that while he came to save us, he died because our natural human flaws our sins resulted in his death; although someday, if followed, his teachings might save us yet.
#