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!
Christians Writing about Judaism (with Bias)
This past Monday, I gave my first oral presentation (my first assignment!) of my doctoral career at UCLA. For our class on “Jews, Gentiles, and Christians in the Roman World,” taught by Ra’anan Boustan, we first covered the historiography of how Christian writers have treated Judaism throughout the millennia. The major works that I presented on were George Foot Moore’s “Christian Writers on Judaism” (from Harvard Theological Review in 1921), a chapter out of E.P. Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism (“Tannaitic Literature,” pp. 33–59) and a hefty excerpt from Charlotte Klein’s Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology (pp. 1-66). Making my way through all that history of scholarship and planning a presentation on it was a beastly task. But the results were interesting, so I’d like to share it here with you all.
Part of the reason that this reading was so overwhelming, besides the overabundance of name after name, is because it was so negative. We read about one guy after another (yes, all men) who poorly interpreted Judaism. Moore begins his article with this statement: “Christian interest in Jewish literature has always been apologetic or polemic rather than historical.” That sets the tone for the whole reading. (To make a simplistic clarification, “apologetic” is defending that Christianity is true, while “polemic” is closer to a hateful attack on Judaism).
Moore first covers Christian writings on Judaism through the eighteenth century. In the early centuries of this period, Christian writers set up caricatures of Jewish apologists as straw-men that could easily be knocked down. After a few centuries, Jews and Christians both stepped up their game. Jewish authors challenged Christianity on the basis of Christian documents and doctrines. Christian authors used authoritative Jewish writings, such as the Targums and Midrash (going beyond merely the OT), to show that true Judaism actually verified the claims of Christianity. During this period, most Christian writers were polemical, though there were some exceptions that were merely apologetic.
In the nineteenth century, Christian scholars made an attempt to depict Judaism from an objective historical angle, though Moore believes they were unsuccessful. Judaism was viewed primarily through the lens of the New Testament. Judaism was addressed as the “background” of the New Testament. Many scholars worked on collecting parallels found in Jewish writings to the New Testament.
Ferdinand Weber stands out as one who represents another trend in Christian writing on Judaism. Weber sought to develop a systematic theology of Judaism, using the systems of Christian theology to depict historical Judaism. Within Weber and other authors of that time, we see a shift in thinking about Judaism. Now, the theology of Judaism is thought to be radically different (and inferior) from that of Christianity. The God of Judaism is far removed from humanity and inaccessible. Weber describes the “soteriology” of Judaism (a Christian term referring to the theology of salvation) as wholly legalistic. At the judgment, the Jew will stand before God with their transgressions on one side of the scale and their good works and acts of atonement on the other. Their works are what make them righteous, but their eternal salvation is uncertain according to Weber. If they do happen to lean on the righteous side, this leads to self-righteous pride in the faithful Jew.
Sanders and Klein pick up where Moore leaves off, showing that Moore made some headway in the study of Judaism, but ultimately his rallying cry for fair scholarship on Judaism was nullified. Klein notes that scholarship that perpetuates old biases is not malicious, hateful, or anti-Semitic (contrary to Nazi “pseudo-scholars”, like Kittel), but rather they show an ignorance of the sources and of their own bias. Sanders highlights the work of Billerbeck and Bultmann as nullifying the work of Moore. Billerbeck with his widely used parallels between rabbinic literature and the NT and Bultmann who added his supreme weight in NT studies to the Weber line of thinking about Judaism.
One of the key problems seen in this quick history of scholarship is that assumptions can become so deeply rooted as to go unquestioned and unsupported within scholarship. Even well-meaning and careful scholars fall prey to inherited harmful presuppositions.
Bias is a legacy that lasts generations in complicated and hidden ways. So, what do we do with our presuppositions? How do we approach historical documents? What sources do we use to talk about “normative Judaism”? Is there such a thing as normative Judaism?
These are all difficult questions, no doubt. And the track record of scholarship does not give us a heck of a lot of hope (though things have certainly gotten better since Sanders and Klein wrote in the seventies). But personally, I feel like we can make great progress by trying to be self-aware of our biases (what do we want the texts to say) and trying to be as honest as possible. I also think we can help things if we can just be a bit more sensitive to concerns that have been raised by others. For example, though this issue isn’t mentioned above, if you are going to use the term “conversion” for what happened to Paul, you should probably explain why and acknowledge the concerns raised by folks who think that’s an anachronistic or otherwise inappropriate term for Paul. I don’t think sensitive and self-aware scholarship is an impossibility!
-
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: