Customer Reviews

The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (After Jesus, Vol. 1)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Paul Barnett, After Jesus, Vol. 1, The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005).

Since the rise of modern biblical criticism, New Testament scholars have distinguished between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. Roughly speaking, the Jesus of history is a man whose message centered on either ethics or eschatology. By contrast, the Christ of faith is God incarnate, come to earth to offer atonement for human sins through his death and resurrection, and to establish a religious institution--the church--that would proclaim this "gospel" until the end of time. Although the Christ of faith contains the Jesus of history within himself, the Jesus of history stands in sharp contradiction to the Christ of faith. We might say that the Christ of faith is both/and, while the Jesus of history is either/or. The Christ of faith is both God and man, both savior and teacher. The Jesus of history, on the other hand, is either God or man, either savior or teacher. Or rather, since modern biblical criticism is skeptical of supernaturalism, we might say that the Jesus of history is only man and teacher.

A central problem of New Testament criticism is thus to explain how the Jesus of history became the Christ of faith. Because the New Testament paints a both/and portrait of Jesus Christ, modern biblical scholars attempt to scrape off the New Testament church's layers of Christ paint to find the original pencil drawing of Jesus that lies underneath them. Or, to use a different image, modern biblical scholars attempt to excavate beneath the living city of Christ's church to find its ancient, simple Jesus foundations. The assumption that guides this quest of the historical Jesus is a sharp division between Jesus and the church and that carries his memory.

What if this assumption is wrong, however? What if there is a fundamental continuity between history and faith, between Jesus and the Christian church? What if the New Testament portrait of Jesus Christ is both historical and faith-filled? In The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years, Paul Barnett argues that "the birth of Christianity and the birth of christology are inseparable, both as to time and essence. Christianity is christology. Certainly N[ew] T[estament] churches grew out of christological preaching and were characterized by christological worship. In time the texts of the NT would arise from christological conviction. Attempts to explain the rise of Christianity by sociological or psychological grounds are doomed to failure. Christ, or should we say christological conviction, was the engine that drove early Christianity."

Formerly the Anglican bishop of North Sydney, Australia, Paul Barnett is a teaching fellow at Regent College in Vancouver, BC, and at Moore Theological College in Sydney. He has written several books on the history of Jesus and Christianity, including Jesus and the Logic of History, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, and Is the New Testament Reliable? (which I have also reviewed). The Birth of Christianity is the first published volume in After Jesus, a trilogy on the history of early Christianity.

How does Barnett argue for his conclusion that "Christ, or should we say christological conviction, was the engine that drove early Christianity"? He establishes three critical "boundaries" regarding the beliefs of earliest Christianity: chronology, activity, and geography. Chronologically, Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents, with 1 Thessalonians being securely dated to A.D. 50, that is, approximately twenty years after the death (and resurrection) of Jesus. By this time, Paul himself had been a Christian for approximately 15 years. His letters evidence a "high" Christology. He describes Jesus as "Lord," "Christ," and "Son of God." He interprets Jesus' crucifixion as a saving event. And he argues for the historicity and theological necessity of Christ's resurrection from the dead. And yet, as Barnett points out, all these Christological elements in Paul's letters are traditional elements, that is, they predate Paul. This means that Paul did not invent the high Christology of early Christianity. He inherited it.

In terms of activity, the earliest Christians were missionaries. That is to say, they spoke the "good news" about Jesus Christ to others. That message consisted not only of Jesus' teachings, but also of reports about his actions--including his death and resurrection. Peter's speeches in the Book of Acts show remarkable similarities to the Gospels' presentation of Jesus' life, teachings, death, and resurrection--especially to the Gospel of Mark. There is, in other words, continuity between the spoken message of the apostles and the written records of the evangelists. The Gospels do not represent revolutions in thinking about who Jesus was and what he did. Rather, they are evolutions from the sermons of the apostles and early Christian missionaries. Luke says as much in the preface to his Gospel: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1.1-4).

Finally, in terms of geography, Barnett argues that between A.D. 30 and 50, assemblies of Jewish Christians were firmly established throughout Palestine and Syria-Cilicia. Paul had not yet begun to establish churches of Gentile believers in predominantly Gentile population centers. This means that the high Christology of early Christianity developed in a Jewish, not a pagan milieu--contrary to the so-called history of religions school of thought.

In sum, the high Christology of the New Testament is--at its foundations--early, apostolic, and recognizably Jewish. Paul's letters, as well as the other writings of the New Testament, both reflect and develop this Christology. They do not, however, invent it. Since very little--if any--time and space separate the preaching of the early church from the ministry of Jesus, it is not unreasonable to conclude that very little-if anything-separates the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith.

What do you think? Did Barnett title his book "The Birth of Christianity" because Crossan had already published a book under the same title? Yeah, that's what I think, too. Barnett deliberately picked the title as a rebuke and a response to Crossan.

After leaving the priesthood, Crossan has spent his life doing what he can to destroy Christianity. And yes, he is the one who helped found the Jesus Seminar. In his book he argues that Jesus was a hippie-Cynic with no intention of founding a religion.

Barnett pokes holes--lots of holes--in this thesis by investigating what can be gleaned about earliest Christianity.

The problem for Crossan is that the time between the death of Jesus, most likely in 33 AD, and the first Christian documents is a scant 20 years. That's not a lot of time for myths to form. Furthermore, huge numbers of people who knew Jesus would still be alive. Facts could still be easily checked.

Most scholars agree that Thessalonians is the earliest Christian text available, written about 50 AD.

Barnett points out that "In no other letter does Paul so often appeal to what the readers already know" (P 47). Paul reminds his readers of the traditions the apostles passed on. So by 50 AD, therefore, "There is an existent, clearly formulated theology" that was agreed upon by the Christians. It is so well known that Paul can call upon this knowledge.

And what were the common points the earliest Christians believed in? Paul calls Jesus the "Son of God" and "Lord" and "Christ" in Thessalonians. It is, furthermore, the same language he uses throughbout the span of time he wrote his letters.

The conclusion is unmistakable. Paul's "Christology must have been resolved by the late 40s before he commenced writing" (P 67). For one thing, Paul claims to have "received" his beliefs from other people. This indicates a common pool of knowledge. Knowledge which he also gleaned from a first source, since he is known to have visited Peter. It is to this "tradition" which Paul "received" that he refers to again and again in his letters.

Barnett goes into some depth with Galatians, Mark, and John. With John, he notes the many pointers to a pre-70 dating. Barnett mentions the primitive feel to the gospel and the "extensive and intricate details....The war of 66-70 cut a broad swathe through the cultural landscape so that life post-70 became less and less recognizable in contrast to life...before" (P 172).

This is a relatively short book, especially when compared to Crossan's. Yet it's clear, well written, and right on target.

Paul Barnett has written a lucid, meticulous account of the first 20 years after Jesus died, demolishing a few treasured myths about how much we know about those early years. With wide-ranging scholarship and relatively few (and uncontroversial) historical assumptions, Barnett scours the New Testament for clues on what the apostles and followers believed after Jesus' death and why they believed it. By paying attention to details often overlooked by skeptical scholars, Barnett establishes the following: 1) the Christian movement had a very 'high' Christology almost immediately after Jesus death, 2)contrary to what many scholars assume, the writings of Paul are studded with the teachings of Jesus as found in Q and contain too much information about Jesus' earthly life to support the theory that Paul invented a Cosmic Christ out of mid-air, 3)the Gospel of John was likely written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 because it refers in the present tense to structures and buildings which no longer existed after that date (and for other reasons), 4)Peter did not usurp the authority of James the Just, who did not preserve the 'real message' of an earthly Jewish rabbi but was fully orthodox about the identity of his brother, which seems to have come about as a result of seeing the risen Lord face to face, and 5) Acts is far from a piece of theological propaganda; it contains numerous historical and archeological details which have been impressively corroborated by secular historians of the time. By performing impressive mental gymnastics skeptics can always find a way to dismiss the most reasoned arguments, and in the case of the New Testament we find a movement which revered its Founder as Lord and Savior immediately after His death, spread the good news with fervor and turned the world upside-down. By far the best explanation of this stunning fact is the Resurrection of the Son of God.

Barnett makes a strong case for the "conservative" position that the essentials of the Christian message as we have come to know it were there from the very beginning, as against the "liberal" position that Christology developed over time. His book is succinct, well-written, and tightly argued; a necessary correction to the other books on the topic of very early Christianity.

I do have some reservations about his arguments, though. Not only does he rely on the Acts of the Apostles as containing eyewitness reports, he takes specific passages such as the speeches of Peter as being an accurate account of what Peter said. It seems more likely to me that the author of Acts shaped such passages according to his understanding of the gospel, which may have evolved since the time of Peter.

On another point, while it is true that Paul says he is transmitting the gospel he received, it is also true that Paul had serious conflicts with the leaders of the church based in Jerusalem. The issue seems to me not a black-and-white one, that either Paul made up his Christology or he is passing along exactly what was first preached by the apostles, but a grey area--how much did Paul adapt the gospel to the Hellenist culture?

Overall, a very good book though.

--Alan Zundel, the HeartAwake Center

An excellent review of the period of the Act of the Apostles, immediately following Christ's ascension, with a particular view to responding to the radical criticism of the Jesus Seminar. A very helpful book for any church library

I wanted to know what happened immediately post-crucifixion with those disciples and followers of Jesus. What took those earliest followers of Jesus, immediately following the resurrection, and put them on the path that produced the Christian church we see today. What did they do, how'd they do it, and where did they do it?

Unfortunately, I read Crossan's book first. It was a terribly long disappointment. Crossan never got to the point and buried the topic and me in minutiae. He never gave me any firm answers or clear and concise pictures of historical events.

Barnett, on the far other hand, writes concisely, logically, and provides connections and documentation to support his findings. Best of all, Barnett's book allowed me to lift above the details and see the story in a completely understandable light.

Amazingly, a shorter book by Barnett hits the bull's eye and gives me the information I'm seeking while a rolling explosion of methodology and diversion by Crossan never seemed to find the target.

Paul Barnett in his book offers a balanced view on the Bible and history of the early church. His arguments are convincing and taken from his analisis of evidences we have about the first twenty years after Calvary. Truly the Biblical text can defend itself.

This book is too technical for the general reader. You have to know all about Christianity to follow it. After 40 pages I had to give it up.