Author: ppadmin

A popular writer of the early church dynamics, especially of the canonical process, Pagels focuses on Revelation, the apocalyptic vision of the end of the world.  She then introduces us to a wide range of other books of revolution written around the same time.  She attempts to show how these other ‘revelations’ were excluded from the canon while John’s book gained a prominent place in the bible.

Pagels sees Revelation as an account of how the Roman empire was seeking to destroy the early church; this is the first issue on which I would disagree with her.  There is little evidence of persecution in the early church’s story;  the conflict between Rome and the early church is a conflict of values and worship, life-style issues; Pagels sees the conflict between the state and the believers, and the conflict in the church between the attempts to produce orthodoxy and to combat Gnosticism.

Pagels sees the struggle between the empire and its coercive political pressure; the early church did not see this physical issue, but were very much aware of the pressures being put on them culturally.  Eg Pliny, governor in Asia, laments that the Asian economy is being seriously damaged by the Christians not being part of the economy (ie buying meat for temple sacrifices).  What I would see as the major confrontation is that of the economic and life-style variations creating serious tensions.  Other factors were soon to come, too (eg emperor worship), but the initial perspectives is one of economics, focused in theology.

Historians know almost nothing about the Jesus community of the two decades following the crucifixion, when Jesus’ followers regrouped and began to spread the story. During this time the apostle Paul joined the movement.  James Tabor reconstructs the origins of Christianity, pointing out the disagreements between James, Peter and Paul, over issues such as the meaning of Jesus’ message and whether converts needed to become Jews first.  Tabor’s book shows how Paul separated himself from Peter and James to introduce his own version of Christianity.  James, brother of Jesus, was made head of the new community of faith in Jerusalem.  The epistle attributed to James has well developed parallels to the message of Jesus:  ethical teachings, anointing the sick with oil, forgiveness with G-d through repentance and prayer: the most direct possible link to the Jewish teaching of Jesus himself. 

In a very helpful section Tabor summarizes Greek and Hebrew perspectives on death resurrection.  Also helpful is his pointing to the Jesus images given in the gospels.  Eg Matthew and Mark, Jewish faithfulness; Mark, no history of Jesus; John, the pre-existent ‘logos’; Paul, Greek categories and philosophical perspectives (cosmic deliverer). (See Geza Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus).  Tabor’s book provides a careful look at early church history and the struggle in leadership reflected especially in Acts and in the Pauline writings.

A book that invites the reader to provide both framework and content of faith.

Here is a fascinating study of the canonical process as a hermeneutical exercise in which the early church collected, preserved and theologically shaped the material that served as scripture; primary attention is given to the Pauline documents. 

Childs points to differing perceptions of ‘canon’.  Some see canon as the closed list of books officially accepted as authoritative and binding for religious practice and doctrine.  He holds to a broader definition, that seeks to relate the function of the documents to the life of the church.  ‘Canon’ is not only a listing but a description of a process (p 253), ‘the experience of the church in arriving at a writing’s conformation to a rule of faith’ (p 9).

Criteria for canonicity are apostolicity (eg Paul’s letters, by an apostle, become the model by which all expressions of faith were to be tested); catholicity (the ‘critically proven test of Alexandria was balanced by the inclusion of the Byzantine text used by the widest range of the great church’ (p 23); orthodoxy (not an abstract norm but closely related to worship). Childs pursues key areas for clarification of the canonization process (eg Wayne Meeks’ social context of Pauline theology, the apocalyptic shape of Paul’s theology).

Some theologians interpret Luke’s writings as an apology for Christianity addressed to a Roman magistrate, that ‘Jesus and his followers seek accommodation to the empire, to minimize the political elements in Christianity in order to show that Christianity is politically harmless’ (p 3).  Some maintain that Luke-Acts is not an apology for the church but an apology to Rome directed at Luke’s own community; that Luke aims to persuade his readers that the institution of the church and empire are complementary’ (p 4)  Seo challenges these perspectives, pointing to the clash of authority, between Jesus, and Jewish and Roman leaders; contrasting the perspectives of ‘benefactor’ and ‘saviour’ between the empire and Jesus (Augustus as a pseudo-saviour).

Luke 22:24-27 emphasizes Luke’s perspective that the emperor is not a true benefactor, but neglects altruistic benefaction; Jesus is characterized by ‘service-oriented benefactor’.  The emperor makes use of his military authority to obtain peace and security, but Jesus rejects violence.  Jesus’ salvation focuses especially on forgiveness of sins of tax collectors; by showing that the emperor’s salvation does not reach those outcasts, the emperor is seen as a pseudo-saviour.  ‘Luke portrays Jesus as the one who successfully achieves victory and peace through his correction of their wrong doing, not through the emperor’s authority or military power.

A wonderfully clear book on the nature of Jesus and the state.

Harrison probes two questions:  What is religion?  How do, and how should, different religions relate to each other, and presents a cogent answer to the first question.  A religion needs to have five ‘things’:  form of organization, overarching explanation of reality, an account of human predicaments, faith commitment, identification of values (p 39).  (One of his forms of religion is consumerism! P 68).

Harrison points out that religious boundaries may be soft or hard—or both; eg some forms of Judaism (Orthodox) have firmer boundaries than does the Sikh religion, while some Jewish forms (Reform) have softer boundaries.  When changes in a religion (syncretism) are advocated, Harrison suggests three criteria for what constitutes an improvement:  the new answer must appear to be more accurate, more consistent with information we have. The new answer must be genuinely helpful in the world in which we live. The new answer sustains and even expands upon some important part of the religion as previously held (p 92,93).

Harrison identifies several favourable syncretistic acts in the history of religion:  Christianity and the Celtic tradition, where each shaped the other; Buddhism and Taoism; ancient and medieval Islam and Greek philosophy.  Sometimes syncretism results in negative formulations: violence (the Roman empire and the early church), and today’s prosperity gospel (material self-interest) (p 132).  Two favourable examples of syncretism are Cobb and Whitehead (process theology), and Gandhi (whose syncretism is counter cultural and hence dangerous! p 205).  ‘Soft boundaries allow for the possibility of mutual commitment to a common project….  Working together we can be more creative…The universal mixing of religions is a good thing’ (p 235).