Film: "Birth of a New Religion"
Bartchy had his survey course, “History of Early Christians,” watch a section of a documentary film on Christianity to review. I thought I would share my own thoughts here. Part One of the film “Two Thousand Years: The History of Christianity” (1999), a section entitled “The Birth of a New Religion: 1st and 2nd Centuries,” gives a standard outline of the first two centuries of the movement later called Christianity. Interviewing many respected scholars, including Jim Charlesworth, N.T. Wright, Henry Chadwick, Paula Frederickson, and Elaine Pagels, the documentary does have its foundation in solid scholarship on the early Christian movement. The film briefly mentions the person of Jesus, while especially highlighting the event of the crucifixion and how this might have affected his followers. Though it is not thoroughly examined (and there is a humorous moment when Jim Charlesworth seems to represent the resurrected Christ), the resurrection is discussed as a defining moment for the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus’ disciples are surprised by both the crucifixion and resurrection, after which they reinterpret the meaning of Jesus’ messiahship. At this point, the documentary outlines the Book of Acts (particularly the issue of Gentile inclusion) in an uncritical manner, moves into the challenges of Roman suspicion of their movement and their subsequent martyrdom in the second century, while finally ending on the crisis of Gnosticism which is quashed by Irenaeus (who is depicted as the sole canonizer of the New Testament and the original author of orthodox Christian doctrine) [catch a free preview of the bit on Irenaeus here].
We can hardly blame the filmmakers for a simplistic presentation of facts that one finds in standard introductions to Christian origins. They cannot solve in 40 minutes all of the conundrums that have confounded New Testament scholars throughout modernity. In fact, there are several quite strong points that should be highlighted, especially comments from N.T. Wright on the influence of Paul within the early movement. In perhaps the strongest articulation of the content of this movement’s ideology, Wright acknowledges that Paul established a “counter empire, a rival empire, with little cells of people giving allegiance to Jesus rather than Caesar.” Wright notes that, while this counter empire is not quite like the Roman Empire, it is “sufficiently subversive to be dangerous.”
Elsewhere in the film, however, we have little discussion of the counter-cultural nature of the Jesus movement and hardly any mention of Jesus’ actual teachings themselves. Though Wright mentions that the new movement is a “new family” created by God, we have no explanation of how this idea challenges conventional understandings of the patriarchal family within the Greco-Roman world. Even with Wright’s comment that the Jesus followers are considered subversive and dangerous, we have no explanation of how this movement is subversive or why it would be considered dangerous.
Further, Jim Charlesworth’s necessary caution that the early Jesus followers are not “Christians” and did not have “churches” is muted by the narrator’s comment that by the end of the first century, “Christianity” is born–implying that a whole monolithic and organized religion already developed within decades. This is paired with the comments of Fr. Paul Lawlor, who suggests that eucharistic meals in the second century would have looked similar to what goes on in small parish churches today. The film has some strange shots in its take on second century Christianity. With mysterious music, images of catacombs, and three people in matching robes around a table, we have the picture of a strange secretive cult (perhaps bolstering certain Roman texts against the Christians cited in the film). Such moves in the documentary are overly simplistic and somewhat careless. In sum, the film does a decent job of surveying a few of the key issues at stake in the Jesus movement, but does a poor job of giving the viewer a reliable picture of “on the ground” social realities. This, however, is a broader symptom of surveys in Christian origins more generally.
Book Review: Christian Origins by Jonathan Knight
I would like to extend my gratitude to Abby at T&T Clark (see their blog) for sending along a fabulous (brand) new survey on the origins of Christianity. Jonathan Knight’s Christian Origins [publisher link - find the table of contents there] is a comprehensive introduction to the Jewish origins of Christianity, with an emphasis on the eschatological connection between Second Temple Judaism and the beginnings of the Jesus movement. The book is particularly relevant for my own interests because (1) I have just begun my doctoral program in Christian origins at UCLA and (2) I’m crazy about apocalyptic eschatology.
Knight’s work is quite ambitious. Within these pages, you find 31 mostly bite-sized chapters ranging topics as diverse as the sources of Second Temple Judaism, Diaspora Judaism, “Who Did Jesus Think He Was?”, Pauline soteriology and ethics, the “breach” between Christianity and Judaism, and the rise of Gnosticism. Knight covers both social and theological topics. He is sensitive to matters of scholarly nuance and introduces readers to important names and arguments within scholarship, while also keeping his prose accessible. Before going to far, we should note that Knight serves as a Research Fellow of the Katie Wheeler Trust and Visiting Fellow in New Testament and Christian Ministry at York St John University, UK. Knight is an ordained Anglican priest and has also written a book on Jesus. His preface notes that his next book will be on apocalypticism, “as if this has become a theme which I cannot evade” (xiii).
Knight attempts to dispossess the reader of the concept of an unambiguous “fixed” Christianity (or Judaism for that matter). He would like to take the reader back past the councils of the early church to the rich complexity of early Christianity. The book is divided into four parts, “From Judaism to Jesus,” “Jesus and His Mission,” “Paul and Christian Beginnings,” and “The Birth of Early Christianity.” The second part, especially the eleventh chapter on “An Approach to Jesus,” is a good primer on “historical Jesus” studies. To my enjoyment, Johannes Weiss receives a whole page and is not simply subsumed as a sentence or two under Schweitzer. Knight’s section on Paul does not survey the history of scholarship in the same way that he does for the historical Jesus, but it does reflect that scholarship. He surveys the writings of Paul (undisputed and disputed), gives a “whistlestop tour” of Pauline soteriology, highlights his eschatology, and considers his ethics.
Having just finished a presentation on the history of Christian writings on Judaism, I was happy to see Knight guide the reader through that difficult issue. For example, when speaking of Christianity’s possible inheritance of apocalyptic eschatology from Judaism, Knight rightly cautions,
In saying this, we must be careful to note the differences between ancient Judaism and modern Christianity and not to impose the younger understanding arbitrarily on older and quite different texts. This is to call for sensitivity in interpretation which allows the ancient texts to speak for themselves and not through a Christian matrix. Christian readers should recognize their natural bias in this respect. [58]
On mentioning E.P. Sanders’ “covenantal nomism,” Knight observes, “Sanders criticizes earlier scholarship on Judaism–particularly Christian scholarship–for its presentation of that relation as dominated by the perennial balance between sins and merits” (33). Knight could have tread a bit more carefully in his chapter on the “breach” between Judaism and Christianity. Even calling whatever “parting of the ways” that occured between the Jesus movement and its religious heritage a “breach” seems a bit harsh (?). Knight’s comment to start off the chapter uncharacteristically lacks some sensitivity to reader reaction: “The separation that occured was the result of reaction against the Christians by people of Jewish descent” (266). Out of context, this statement could be read as “blaming” the Jews for the separation and that is certainly thin ice. The content of the chapter, however, does cover key issues, including christological developments, the “twelfth benediction” of the Jamnian Academy and John 9, the polemic against the Pharisees in Matthew 23, Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, and so-called “Jewish Christianity” such as the Ebionites.
To give an idea of his comments on Jesus’ death and resurrection, Knight strongly dismisses the idea that Jesus did not actually die on the cross (148) and more gently suggests that we “need not doubt” statements regarding the empty tomb (155, cf. 260). Contrary to being an intentional apologetic, however, Knight’s agenda in discussing the resurrection of Jesus is in what Jesus’ early followers did with the event. Knight suggests that the empty tomb is an “ambiguous symbol” and that resurrection appearances are “apocalyptic visions in which a heavenly mediator appears to the disciples and communicates a revelation to them” (260).
The biggest oversight in the book from my perspective is its lack of addressing the issue of women in the church. Knight breezes past a comment that the first half of 1 Corinthians 11 is “controversial,” barely mentioning “a statement of the subordination of women to men” (181). In his endnote for this sentence, he does refer to work done by Morna Hooker and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. Curiously, in the next endnote, which is regarding spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12-14, he refers to Wayne Grudem’s work on prophecy in 1 Corinthians without explanation. Grudem’s work in this area is highly tilted in favor of the subordination of women. The missing engagement of women’s roles is felt particularly strongly in his chapter on “The Development of the Christian Ministry.” Within this chapter, Knight has the following statement under his treatment of “deacons”:
A whole passage in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 3.8-13) prescribes rules for their [deacons'] behaviour, including the behaviour of women deacons. The fact that the same epistle forbids women to teach or to have authority over men (1 Tim 2.12) is an indicator of the subordinate role of deacons in the communities addressed at that time. [291]
As far as I can see, this is the only statement on women in ministry in Knight’s book. I believe a book like this must address the patriarchal and androcentric nature of the surrounding society. Regarding gender roles in the family, Knight only casually mentions the household codes (191) and even then does not mention the role of husbands and wives. Within the book’s index, there are no entries for any of the following terms: women, female, gender, family, feminism, patriarchalism, or androcentrism. Knight nowhere mentions Paul’s key text (however one interprets it) in Galatians 3:28, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
The book uses endnotes rather than footnotes, and 100 pages of them at that. While I know Nick Norelli prefers the latter (he demotes his reviewed books one star out of five if they use endnotes!), endnotes do seem appropriate for a book aimed at a survey introducing newcomers to the field. The “Index of Names” is a misnomer, as it is an index of names and topics, where it would be helpful to have them separated.
Any oversights aside, I would highly recommend this book for use in a Christian origins or introductory New Testament course (though the latter should probably supplement Knight with a New Testament introduction proper). My two favorite things about this book are: (1) Knight’s integration of the study of apocalyptic eschatology into nearly all aspects of Christian origins and (2) Knight’s adroit descriptions of complex scholarly arguments in an accessible manner. My most significant caution about using the book would be the need to supplement Knight’s work with solid coverage of gender roles in Christian origins. The material is certainly appropriate for seminarians or other graduate students and may be challenging to undergraduates, but in a positive way. As noted, Knight is a Christian, but his purpose is not to coddle conservative evangelicals–far from it. His insistence on nuance and ambiguity may just make a fundamentalist student’s head explode. But maybe they could grow a new one. On the other end, I do not believe it is too confessional for a secular classroom. With that said, I wish everyone happy reading!
-
Elsewhere . . .- Blog titles beginning with "A" to "Z" on your reader Mark Goodacre
- Of making many books there is no end Chris Brady
- Free Online: The Liddell-Scott Jones Lexicon S and C
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? II agathos
- Steven J. Friesen and the Identity of Satan’s Throne in Pergamum alan
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? agathos
- Bloomsbury buys Continuum Mark Goodacre
- Imperial America Peter J. Leithart
- C.F.D. Moule on the Birth of the New Testament d. miller
- Responding to Kostenberger (with comparisons to Marshall) Jeremiah
-
As a member of RevGalBlogPals, I am committed to building a supportive online community for women clergy, women church professionals, and women in religious life.
Research assisted by: