Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry - Blog

Where Does Christian Theology Come From?

8/11/2022

8/11/22
Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics: Volume 1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.

Chapter B1, “Holy Scripture the Only Source and Norm of Christian Doctrine for the Church Today”

Pieper rightly observes that God’s people have been around longer than the written word. Once God began to have his servants write down the Word, believers have always been bound to it. God completed his revelation by the end of the apostolic era. We expect the content of the Scriptures to guide us thoroughly.

This primacy of Scripture can be rejected in a number of ways, which Pieper details throughout the chapter.

1) It rejects Scripture when natural reason is the judge. Reason may work in two ways - interpreting data or creating data. reason used to understand God’s Word is essential. Setting reason up as an authority above Scripture is never appropriate. God’s Word may be impossible to grasp with our reason but it never contradicts reason.

2) Substituting Christian experience or similar factors for Scripture denies God’s Word.

3) Denying specific passages of Scripture in order to draw doctrine from “the whole bible” denies the Scripture. We need to be specific about the source of our doctrine.

4) Dependence on the Church, doctrinal decrees, and the like above Scripture denies God’s Word. Pieper speaks in detail about papal infallibility and about various standards of doctrinal proof based on historical record.

5) When we accept private revelations we deny the objective work of God revealed in Scripture.

6) Demands for “historical” interpretation of doctrine erodes Scriptural authority.

Ultimately we either trust God’s Word or we trust human opinion. The Church needs to trust God’s Word.

Becoming a (good) Theologian

8/10/2022

8/10/22
Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics: Volume 1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.

Chapter A21, “The Attainment of Theological Aptitude”

As he concludes the Prolegomena, Pieper introduces us to Martin Luther’s discussion of how to become a theologian. Luther’s guidance is well known as the pattern, oratio, meditatio, tentatio. First, we approach the Scripture ready to learn to trust it as God’s word. Therefore, we pray (oratio) that God would strip away our wit and wisdom, replacing it with his grace. we put no trust in our understanding but only in what the Lord has said. Next, we meditate (meditatio) on the Word of God. We read and re-read the words, silently and aloud, reflecting on what the Holy Spirit would say. We stick to the very words of God until we see and know them clearly. Finally, we endure testing (tentatio) which enables us to know the grace and consolation of God’s Word. This testing may come from our own doubts, our sinful attitudes, challenges from others, or even spiritual attack. As we are emptied of our own ability, consider God’s Word, and test it, we see again that it is the Holy Spirit who is able to work all things in life. This separates the true theologian from the one who is a theologian in name only.

Theological Systems and Methods

8/9/2022

8/9/22
Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics: Volume 1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.

Chapter A19, “Theology and System”

In this chapter Pieper asks whether theology is a “system.” This is a curious question since the discipline known to Pieper as “dogmatics” is more recently termed “systematics.” What is meant by “system”? If it is “an integrated, organized whole” it is a system. Biblical doctrine is a whole, both in source (called “formal principle”) and its implications or priorities (called “material principle”). Christian doctrine holds together as a whole, centered around justification by grace through faith in Christ. Denial of any part erodes the whole.

Pieper observes that the “modern” theologians use the term “system” to refer to a theology built on non-biblical speculation. This runs counter to traditional theology which draws doctrine from interpretation of particular Bible passages recognized as the “sedes doctrinae.” He reminds the reader that only the Bible is the source of doctrine, counter to modern theology which may be built on the conscience or experience. In this respect, modern theology attempts to pursue the discipline in the way an experimental scientist would, rather than someone in the related fields of history and literature. The very theologians who make claims for empirical studies reject the Scriptures, which serve as the source data for theology. Pieper points out that this same discussion happened at the time of Luther, who insisted on the Scripture as the source for all theology.

Finally, what of those who try to harmonize all the areas of biblical tension? They ultimately deny biblical doctrine as they must reject, for instance, the concept of the trinity or the unity of God. Pieper gives several examples of the implications of over-systematizing.

Chapter A20, “Theology and Method”

Pieper now turns his attention to the way theologians arrange the concepts they will discuss. There are two basic methods of arrangement, “synthetic” and “analytic.” In a synthetic arrangement the theologian moves from whole to parts, beginning with the doctrine of God then moving to men, salvation, etc. In the analytic arrangement the theologian moves from parts to whole, beginning normally with last things, eternal life, then moving to man, salvation, and the causes of salvation. Both arrangements have been used well by a variety of theologians. Both work well, as they are predicated on adherence to Scripture as the authority. Pieper contrasts this to the modern theologies which assert that adherence to Scripture leaves no place to begin or to develop theology. This did not seem to be a problem for theologians in the past. The only means of constructing a theology which Pieper sees as impossible is when it is constructed on religious experience or self-consciousness.

Pieper spends significant time in his discussion to document theologians who constructed their systems on Scripture, holding to purity. He speaks at length of C.F.W. Walther in the Missouri Synod, as well as Franz Delitzsch, multiple lay writers, and Adolf Hoeneke, who steadfastly defended an orthodoxy drawn from Scripture. Pieper also engages in a discussion of the charges of Calvinism made against the Missouri Synod. As Pieper describes it, biblical theology is poised to thrive in North America.

Theology as Definitive and Developmental

8/8/2022

8/8/22
Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics: Volume 1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.

Chapter A16, “Theology and Certainty”

Pieper returns to the idea of certainty and subjectivism. If, as was common in the modern theology of his time, a theologian was to attain subjective certainty, Pieper questions where that certainty could be found. Biblical doctrine asserts that we find assurance through Christ’s word. This is the way Luther also insisted we would find our assurance and comfort. Choosing to go beyond the Scripture leaves the modern theologian without a foundation of truth. The modern theologian depends on the Christian himself and his inner strength. Pieper views this as a futile pursuit, identifying it as not Christian, uncertain, and not scientific. He spends a good deal of time speaking to the uncertainty. In essence, when we are the mediator of our salvation by way of evaluating our inner state, we have no comfort outside of ourselves. Counter to this, Pieper describes a certainty which comes from relying on the promises of God, something that came from outside of ourselves. Further, the certainty we have is built on distinctive doctrine. Pieper points out that unionism in any form departs from the certainty based on pure Christian doctrine. We also find assurance through realization that God has spoken on many topics. There are very few “open questions” or “problems” in true theology. Finally, modern theology is not scientific, as it is based on individual opinion rather than on definitive truth. Pieper closes by asserting the certainty and confidence we can have based on historic doctrine.

Chapter A17, “Theology and Doctrinal Development”

Pieper observes that modern theology is very interested in doctrinal development. His view is that doctrine cannot develop because it was all provided to the Church by the apostles. Jesus and the apostles proclaimed that there was only one message of the Gospel and that it would not develop beyond what they said. Paul particularly in 1 Timothy 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:7-10 says that philosophical speculation was not safe doctrine. Those who promote doctrinal development cite examples in church history. However, the new doctrinal statements simply used new vocabulary and style to defend the apostolic doctrine. Likewise, the reformation actually defended old doctrine rather than promoting anything new. Pieper observes also that new doctrinal stands always manage to do violence to apostolic teaching. Therefore he reaches the conclusion that the correct stance of the Church is one of repristination, not of development.

Chapter A18, “Theology and Doctrinal Liberty”

Pieper begins this chapter with the observation that the Christian has been freed from his own will and bound to the will of Christ. In the same way, the theologian has been freed from his own speculation and bound to the Word of God. It is important, then, that the Christian theologian not bind himself again to human speculation. Pieper views this issue under two headings.

First, the Church has only one Teacher, Jesus. This is the testimony of Jesus, the apostles, and the historic Church. Yet in the name of academic and theological freedom some theologians want room for bondate to their own opinions. This is not in character for the Christian theologian.

Second, the Christian is exhorted to hear only preaching and teaching that is consistent with Scripture. Therefore, again, theological speculation in the name of academic freedom simply serves to divorce the theologian from his rightful task of analyzing and applying Scripture.

A note from this reviewer, the issue of academic freedom can now cut both ways. It may be valuable to claim academic freedom now in order to depart from what Pieper would consider the “modern” point of view.

What Does Theology Do?

8/5/2022

8/5/22
Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics: Volume 1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.

Chapter A13, “The Purpose of Christian Theology for Man”

In this very brief chapter Pieper discusses the purpose of theology. Christian theology has three purposes. First, it leads people to eternal safety. This is the main purpose of all Christian theology. Other goals such as spreading a culture are merely side-effects, and not always desirable ones. The main goal of creating eternal salvation happens through the secondary goal, creating and preserving faith in Christ, which alone leads to salvation. A third purpose of theology is to encourage believers in good works. While our good works will never save us, they are a positive influence on our world and are normally motivated by good theology.

Chapter A14, “The Means by Which Theology Accomplishes Its Purpose”

How does theology bring people to faith in Christ and lead them to salvation? It does so only through the means God has appointed, which Pieper identifies as the Gospel. We may be tempted to use all sorts of wisdom, compulsion, social pressure, and the like. Yet God gives us none of these means. Only the Gospel imparts God’s grace (2 Cor. 3:5; Acts 20:24).

Some suggest that theology accomplishes its purpose through ruling Church government. Yet the government of the Church exists only to serve the Gospel. It is the good news of Jesus and only that which brings faith and salvation.

Chapter A15, “Theology and Science”

Pieper observes that we must define the word “science” if we are going to describe the relationship between theology and science. If science is natural knowledge viewed systematically, theology is not a science. It is not observed in nature but in Scripture. If science means that which is higher knowledge than faith, theology is not a science. The theologian may be better read and more equipped to explain Christianity than the average believer, but this is not superior to faith. If science indicates certain knowledge as opposed to speculation, theology is a science. It deals with the certainties revealed in Scripture.

How do we develop this faith and certainty? Pieper is clear that it does not come from our ability to understand God’s Word, but from the Holy Spirit who works faith in us. Theology deals in certainties which we receive by faith. Theology proclaims that certainty. What is the role of apologetics? It may function to convince people of the weakness of their man-centered philosophies. But overall it is the proclamation of truth that wins the day.

Slicing the Pie of Theology into Chunks

8/4/2022

8/4/22
Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics: Volume 1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.

Chapter A11, “Divisions of Christian Doctrine”

Pieper here discusses three doctrinal issues, though he will postpone detailed discussion. First, he describes Law and Gospel, then Fundamental and Non-Fundamental Doctrines, then he will close with a discussion of open questions.

Law and Gospel are not popular as a framework for theological discussion. Pieper suggests this is because modern theologians have discarded the idea of the vicarious atonement, thus making the categories obsolete. Yet the Bible clearly calls all to obey God’s Law. Then, when we are unable to obey, God gives us his work of Gospel. Thus, the theologian must treat both correctly so we can know sin, good works, and our need for Christ.

Fundamental and Non-Fundamental doctrines arise next. Pieper makes it clear that all biblical doctrines are important. yet the fundamental doctrines must be held or there is no salvation. For instance, Christ’s atonement is a fundamental doctrine but Satan’s existence is not. All doctrine is important. But some is so important that to miss it is to perish. Pieper discusses how some fundamental doctrines may be of secondary importance as well, not usually destroying the Christian faith, but hindering it.

Pieper then turns to “open questions and theological problems.” He observes that these are truly few in number and that the Bible is patently unclear or silent. As an example he cites the problem of how some angels fell when they do not have a sinful nature. The Bible is silent on this issue. He also addresses the problem of God’s stated desire that none should perish and the fact that some do. Again the Bible leaves this open so we have no dogmatic answer.

Chapter A12, “The Church and Its Dogmas”

Pieper has already discussed the formation of dogmas. In this chapter he addresses two challenges he sees in the contemporary church. There are some who call for an “undogmatic” Christianity, one without creeds. Others admit creeds but call for new creeds and dogmas, since the old ones may no longer apply.

Pieper considers the definition of dogma. It is not sufficient that the Church, or at least some part of the Church, should demand it. He gives numerous examples of dogmatic stands which have no Scriptural backing. Dogma, rightly understood, comes from Scripture. The church does not determine truth, then, but the Bible does.

Dogmatic theology, systematics, is seen here as the root and source for all the branches of theology. Pieper discusses historical, exegetical, and practical theology, showing how in his reckoning each is dependent on biblical dogmatics. He then closes with a lengthy quote from C.F.W. Walther telling about how sermons need to be packed with doctrine, not simply illustrations or application from a passage of Scripture.

Theology as an Objective Discipline

8/3/2022

8/3/22
Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics: Volume 1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.

Chapter A10, “Theology as Doctrine”

Pieper has discussed theology in the subjective sense of the aptitude for teaching. now he discusses the objective sense of theology. What is this? theology in this objective sense is Scripture arranged by topic, or doctrine. Here the work of the theologian is to collate and explain what is in the Bible according to topic or concept. Counter to modern theology, the claims of the Bible govern our theology. Though in all times some have suggested going beyond the Bible and trusting enlightened human reason, this is not the pattern found in Scripture or in sound historical practice. To mediate theology by the opinion of the theologian is to overrule God. It is only through the powerful Word of God that we receive faith and life. Pieper details five elements in popular theology which detract from biblical faith.

1) Experience takes precedence over Scripture. This cannot be, as we need to understand our experience through Scripture.

2) Doctrine is based on faith or our consciousness of faith. This will fail because different people have different perceptions. Only God’s Word is reliable.

3) The new man, the regenerate, serves as the source of doctrine. This suggests that the new, regenerate, man is more spiritually capable than God.

4) The message of Scripture matters, not the words. But without words the message is unintelligible.

5) Christian doctrine is rightly a practice of history. Yet doctrine is not history and history is not doctrine. Pieper concludes that theology is rightly built only on the Word of God. Then and only then is it reliable and powerful to change and preserve life. The theologian therefore depends firmly on God’s Word.

August 2022 Newsletter!

8/2/2022

The August 2022 Newsletter is here!

What's the Point of Theology?

8/2/2022

8/2/22
Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics: Volume 1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.

Chapter A7, “Christian Religion and Christian Theology”

In this very brief segment, Pieper distinguishes between the religious knowledge typically held by “laity” (he does not use that term) and the theological knowledge normally held by theologians, pastors, and teachers. In essence, he says, they are the same, but the theologians go a bit farther in their study. Counter to some modernists, Pieper does not see a big distinction. Both the “religious” and the “theological” draw their learning and their authority from the Bible. Both use guides, though the theologian uses more exhaustive and scholarly guides. Pieper will hold the discussion of theology as a “science” or “system” until later.

Chapter A8, “Christian Theology”

At this point, Pieper defines “theology.” Unlike “religion” the etymology is quite clear. Yet the term has both an objective and subjective sense. Subjectively it is knowledge of God. Objectively it is specific doctrine of God. Though the term is not used in the Bible it follows perfectly naturally from biblical ideas. Pieper identifies four specific meanings of “theology.”

1) Knowledge of God needed by public ministers and congregations (1 Timothy 3:2, 5).

2) Knowledge of God needed to train public teachers (2 Timothy 2:2).

3) Knowledge of God all Christians have (John 3:16).

4) Study of specific concepts pertaining to Christianity.

Theology, rightly viewed, is subject to the Bible. It does not go farther than the Bible teaches, into scientific speculation.

In Pieper’s work the term “theology” will generally refer to knowledge needed for public ministry.

Chapter A9 “Theology as Aptitude”

Pieper outlines Scriptural ideas of the aptitude a theologian must have.

1) A spiritual aptitude - the theologian believes Jesus. 2 Corinthians 3:5-6; Ephesians 2:2; 1 Timothy 3:1ff; 2 Timothy 2:1ff; John 6:45

2) Willingness to take doctrine from the Bible only. 1 Timothy 6:3; John 17:20; 1 Peter 1:10-12; Ephesians 2:20; Jeremiah 23

3) Ready to teach all of Scripture. Acts 20:26-27; 1 Timothy 4:16

4) Able to refute false teachers. Titus 1:9-11; Titus 3:9; 2 Corinthians 10:3

It is necessary to teach truth and reject falsehood. Romans 16:17; Titus 1:9, 11; 2 John 10; 1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 2:17; 2 Timothy 4:14

5) Willingness to suffer for Christian doctrine. 2 Timothy 2:3, 9; 1 Corinthians 1:23; Matthew 24:9; Acts 9:16; Acts 26:21; 2 Timothy 2:12; 2 Timothy 2:1

Tolerance? Dissent? Reasons?

8/1/2022

8/1/22
Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics: Volume 1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.

Chapter A5 “The Cause of the Divisions Within Visible Christendom”

Pieper uses this term, “visible Christendom,” to refer to church organizations. Why are there divisions in the one Church? It is not surprising to see them in the non-Christian world, which would often try different ways of winning favor with God. But the Church which trusts in the message of saving faith based on Scripture should be unified. Yet there were factions even in the apostolic period, growing because people rejected God’s word. Pieper introduces in brief the ways some Christians have strayed.

First, Roman Catholics, in their insistence that the sense of Scripture is only made clear through the Roman church effectively denies Scripture alone.

Second, Reformed theology makes Scripture subject to rationalistic ideals. In doing so, they separate baptism and communion from their efficacy. This leaves them, logically, with only the non-mediated work of the Holy Spirit on hearts, which becomes as important as Scripture. Again, the rationalistic lens denies that Jesus died for all.

Arminians, on the other hand, do not reject the universality of the atonement but do reject God’s working by grace alone. This also rejects Scripture.

In the end it is only the Lutherans who will allow both universal grace and grace alone to stand, allowing the relationship to be a mystery.

Chapter A6, “Christianity the Absolute Religion”

Pieper identifies Christianity as “absolute.” It cannot be improved upon. Though there are areas where we might logically wish for more explanation, the Bible asserts (1 Corinthians 13:12) that our understanding is partial. Christianity is also not a system of morality. Of course there is a morality, but it is one which springs from faith. Why then is it “absolute” or “perfect”? Christianity gives a complete salvation, one which man does not have to work out on his own. If it does not have that feature, it is not Christian belief. Second, Christianity is based on God’s Word, not man’s. Pieper points out that the Bible, when allowed at face value, provides what we need, unlike the way we would assume it works given the views mediated by the modern “historical” critics. When we hold to Christ’s vicarious atonement and the infallibility of Scripture we find that the Christian faith is what we need.

It is significant that Pieper’s argument is based on the infallibility of Scripture, not on an argument dependent on an inerrant text transmission. He talks about how God’s Word, his message, never fails, even though we may not know the exact train of transmission which brought it from the writers to us.

How Many Religions Are There Actually?

7/29/2022

7/29/22
Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics: Volume 1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.

Chapter A3 “The Number of Religions in the World”

In essence, Pieper says, there are two religions in the world. There is that which seeks to be reconciled by man’s works and that which trusts in Jesus. In Matthew 28:19 Jesus gives his followers the command to disciple all nations. The gospel is seen as having exclusive claims and power. Compared to this our man-made philosophies desire to make all beliefs stand together.

Many define religion as having a common element of a personal relation between man and God. yet when viewed this way, the non-Christian religions approach God in fear, hoping for appeasement. This is a hopeless religion. A Christian, on the other hand, approaches God as a loving father, with the fear erased.

If religion is a common way of worship, we find Christian worship directed to God who has already shown grace. Again, there is no fear.

If religion is a striving for fulfillment, again Christianity is different. Fulfillment does not come through striving but through receiving.

Psychology also makes differentiations. The Christian has peace and confidence while others have fear and guilt.

Progressive theologians wish to remove a divine element from religion. To do this with Christianity effectively removes all that makes it distinct. It can be done with all religions dependent on works but not on that one which depends on faith.

Chapter A4 “The Sources of the Two Existing Religions”

After demonstrating that there are only two types of religion - human and divine - Pieper asks where the religions come from. The religion of the Law comes from human reason. Pieper enumerates three steps involved in the formation of this human religion. First, natural but fallen humans have some knowledge of divine requirement. Second, people have an evil orientation. They have broken God’s Law and are condemned. Finally, fallen man devises good works to purchase forgiveness. Pieper continues with biblical commentary on the situation.

The divine religion, on the other hand, is not oriented toward man’s works. We remain fallen and guilty but God has saved his people apart from their own works. Jesus paid the penalty for all our sin and removes the guilt and separation from God.

What of Christians who place some burden on moral good? Pieper mentions Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and synergism. His conclusion is that those practices should always have been rejected because they are ultimately man-made religions.

What Is Theology?

7/28/2022

7/28/22
Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics: Volume 1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.

This rather large volume is divided into some large sections and they are subdivided into numbered chapters. Because of the length and because I need to work through the book in a relatively short period of time, I’ll be posting a summary of the small numbered chapters but more frequently than I normally would on any one work. The copy I have is a Kindle book. It does not have actual page numbers.

Part A - Prolegomena: The Nature and Character of Theology

Chapter A1 “Our Position”

The Scripture alone is God’s infallible word. It alone is normative and the source of doctrine. This position has been disputed since about 1750 in Protestant theology. Modern Protestant theology is like Rome in assigning normative power elsewhere than Scripture.

Making our own opinion the judge is rebellion against God. Christ, the apostles, and Luther agreed that the Scripture was the norm, no matter what others might think.

Modern theology might rather trust a “Christian consciousness.” Meanwhile, conservative theology trusts that the Bible informs and norms our conscience. This biblical norm is a reality, as opposed to our attempts to seek the truth within ourselves.

The theologian needs to separate himself from his won opinions, seeking to find the Bible’s opinions. This act of being bound to Christ is freedom, as Jesus says in John 8:31-32.

The retreat from Scripture has led many to deny the vicarious atonement of Christ, which then strips the Christian message of its power and hope. It also leads to disunity of doctrine. The resulting chaos is only reversed by restoring the Bible as our foundation.

Chapter A2 “Religion in General”

What does “religion” mean? Pieper distinguishes between the “heathen” who view it as man’s effort to appease a deity and a Christian view that in Christ God is reconciled due to the substitutionary atonement. For this reason, historic Christianity has not allowed for man’s contribution to his own salvation. Salvation by faith and salvation by works are diametrically opposed to one another.

Theory Meets Practice

7/28/2022

7/28/22
Scholarly Reflections

Niebuhr, H. Richard. "Chapter Three: The Idea of a Theological School." The Purpose of the Church and Its Ministry. New York: Harper & Row, 1956, 95-134.

Niebuhr describes ministers as dealing with "pluralistic churches and a harried ministry" (Niebuhr 1956, 95) and schools as suffering from the same trials. The lack of definition in their purpose leads, in Niebuhr's opinion, to a counter-intuitive impression, that of institutional inertia. The habitual patterns of the institution tend to remain active, even if the institutional philosophy may have changed (Niebuhr 1956, 96). The lack of change in action may reflect a lack of certainty in overall goals.

Niebuhr notes that courses and even entirely new theological disciplines have been added to the curriculum in the first half of the 20th century. Yet they have not resulted in what he considers a coherent whole (Niebuhr 1956, 98). This tendency shows itself in antagonistic attitudes between departments or even between programs described as more "academic" in nature and those considered more "practical" (Niebuhr 1956, 101).

Niebuhr does find in his research that there are pockets of faculty and even occasionally whole schools which have found their mission in the search for essential Christian faith and practice (Niebuhr 1956, 102). Niebuhr briefly describes these renewals in various branches of study.

Niebuhr goes on to discuss "the theological school as intellectual center of the Church's life" (Niebuhr 1956, 107). The Christian intellect seeks to understand and implement love for God and for the neighbor. In its ideal form, the Christian theological intellect is driven by God's love in directions which reject all the self-serving interests we might have in other scientific pursuits (Niebuhr 1956, 109).

An adequate study of theology spills over into other churchly activities. It does not stay in theoretical realms only (Niebuhr 1956, 114). Niebuhr illustrates the impact theological studies may have on worship, preaching, and pastoral care, among other things.

Niebuhr discusses the concept of a school as a theological community in which students, teachers, and theological concepts interact. He distinguishes this from authoritarian indoctrination in which the concepts are imparted with minimal interaction, in a one-way process (Niebuhr 1956, 117). The living interaction of God with teacher and student alike is a critical element. Niebuhr emphasizes this personal engagement and investment at length. This engagement leads to a living dialog with the people and concepts present in the biblical literature (Niebuhr 1956, 122). Further, because the Church is in the secular world, it maintains communication and interaction with learning we would consider secular (Niebuhr 1956, 123). Niebuhr sees the interaction and dialog with the secular world as a critical part of the mission of Church and theological school.

The work of a theological school is, by nature, theoretical. It is centered on the intellectual process of discovery (Niebuhr 1956, 125). There is, however, a real issue of the practical work of the ministry. Niebuhr identifies this controversy as consisting of two different concepts of ministry. From an "intellectualist" point of view, action springs from understanding (Niebuhr 1956, 126). On the contrary, a "pragmatic" point of view sees training in practice to be more important than rationalization (Niebuhr 1956, 127). Niebuhr's view is that practice without reflection or reflection without resulting action will both prove futile. Adequate theological interaction brings the relationships among God, self, and the neighbor into clear view (Niebuhr 1956, 130).

What Is a Pastor's Role?

7/27/2022

7/27/22
Scholarly Reflections

Niebuhr, H. Richard. "Chapter Two: The Emerging New Conception of the Ministry." The Purpose of the Church and Its Ministry. New York: Harper & Row, 1956, 48-94.

Niebuhr identifies two functions of theological schools. Their primary purpose he sees as "the intellectual love of God and neighbor" (Niebuhr 1956, 49). The secondary purpose, and the one they normally pursue primarily, is to train ministers. Niebuhr considers this an unbalanced way for the schools to function, as both operations are essential. He also alleges a challenge in that the concept of the nature of the ministry has been changing, yet schools do not seem to be understanding the concept clearly (Niebuhr 1956, 50).

Niebuhr finds that the concept of what a minister does is in flux to a greater degree than, for instance, a lawyer or engineer (Niebuhr 1956, 52). The tasks which will be done and the expectations placed upon a minister are always changing, leading to considerable uncertainty in both prospective ministers and educational institutions (Niebuhr 1956, 52). This uncertainty may well be tied to the tendency of ministers to have difficulty defining how they will carry on ministry.

Niebuhr proceeds by analyzing a historic view of what the work of the ministry is, how one is called to ministry, where a minister obtains authority, and whom he serves (Niebuhr 1956, 58). Historically, ministers have been occupied in preaching, teaching, leading in worship and other work of the church, and administering sacraments. Generally Niebuhr finds that one of the functions has emerged as of primary importance, and the others end up serving the primary one. The functions, in Niebuhr's situation, are all proximate, while the goal remains enabling the Church to love God and to love and serve the neighbor (Niebuhr 1956, 63).

Likewise, an understanding of the call to ministry has always existed, but may have changed over time (Niebuhr 1956, 63). In Niebuhr's estimation, there are four elements of calling. The minister must be called to be a Christian, have an inner sense of God's appointment, have the call recognized by someone who will provide training, and then be accepted by a church or church body (Niebuhr 1956, 64). As with the function, so with the call. Different elements have received greater attention at different times and places (Niebuhr 1956, 65).

The authority of a pastor is a complicated matter. Historically it was fairly clear where a minister's authority was derived. Niebuhr considers it much less clear-cut after the Reformation and especially in modern history (Niebuhr 1956, 67). Though the biblical record gives examples of prophets receiving authority directly from God, in general we have recognized the authority of a minister, though divine, as having a close connection to the work of churchly authority (Niebuhr 1956, 68). As with the other categories, Niebuhr finds that at different times in history the locus of authority may change, whether the minister claims personal piety, an appointment of the Church, or accreditation by a personal life of study (Niebuhr 1956, 72).

The final question Niebuhr finds about the concept of ministry is that of "the people to whom the minsters are sent as servants" (Niebuhr 1956, 74). Is he sent to the Church or the world? This question influences not only actual contact with people, but also the organizational goals and the type of preaching and teaching in which the pastor engages.

Niebuhr describes a rise of a concept of minister as "pastoral director," though he seems slightly ambivalent about the actual term (Niebuhr 1956, 80). He describes the role as it may be llustrated in church architecture, when the office and conference room, or many conference rooms, become the focus of the building (Niebuhr 1956, 81). Niebuhr describes this as somewhat of a throwback to the role of first century bishops as opposed to pastors - they were overseers of one church and its role in the community (Niebuhr 1956, 82). Not only is the preaching important, but there is an increasing focus on counsel. Niebuhr observes that "reconciliation [with God] is not automatically productive of wisdom (Niebuhr 1956, 83).

Niebuhr closes the chapter with a lengthy summation on the importance of discernment for the minister to grasp his social context and the way his role is to be carried out.

Developing a True Purpose Statement

7/26/2022

7/26/22
Scholarly Reflections

Niebuhr, H. Richard. "Chapter One: The Church and Its Purpose." The Purpose of the Church and Its Ministry. New York: Harper & Row, 1956, 1-47.

In the mid 1950s, H. Richard Niebuhr served as the director of a project named The Study of Theological Education in the United States and Canada (Niebuhr 1956, xi). The work of this study involved visits to and interviews with approximately a hundred schools of theology which taught a broad cross-section of primarily Protestant pastors and theologians.

Niebuhr observes that any work of education occurs in a particular societal climate. It is impossible to adequately evaluate an educational enterprise without considering its society (Niebuhr 1956, 1). Theolgoical education, therefore, must always be considered in light of both short-range and long-range goals, aimed at a particular theological view of the world. The role of the Christian faith in the current culture is a matter of fundamental importance (Niebuhr 1956, 3). It is necessary to follow historic views and to identify how those views intersect with the contemporary world.

Niebuhr proposes that theological schools in the United States think of themselves as functioning within their particular denomination rather than describing themselves in terms of their doctrinal or theological context (Niebuhr 1956, 6). Further, since the schools represent a variety of orientations, Niebuhr thinks the trend has been toward individuality and self-support of schools. This in turn relies on a dependence on lay support and use of business practices to make support development effective (Niebuhr 1956, 7). What is curious to Niebuhr is that with all this diversity and distinction among groups, the schools, which are distinctively American in tone, rarely make their American church part of their description. Rather, they generally refer to a denomination if they reference anything (Niebuhr 1956, 9). He does note, additionally, that while the schools seem to have little in common, they are active in their disciplined study of Scripture. Niebuhr considers that the Fundamentalist schools ask more sophisticated questions than the liberal schools think they do and that the liberal schools look to Scripture more than the Fundamentalists think they do (Niebuhr 1956, 14). He also notes that within a study of Church history, the mephasis is on the whole of the Church. Similarly, studies of systematic theology tend to engage in theological questions which pertain to all of Christianity (Niebuhr 1956, 15).

Niebuhr notes that where there is "confusion and uncertainty in theological schools" (Niebuhr 1956, 17) it is often rooted in an inadequate definition of the Church. Theological schools and church bodies are perhaps better at describing the structure of an organization than the philosophical undergirdings. Niebuhr tentatively defines it as "the subjective pole of the objective rule of God" (Niebuhr 1956, 19). It adheres to and imitates the actual kingdom of God. The Church, then, draws attention to God, rather than to itself. It is a social reality and institution, but it is never merely that (Niebuhr 1956, 21). Niebuhr sees the Church in terms of "polarities." For instance, it is unity but a diverse group. It is one body but many congregations (Niebuhr 1956, 23ff).

While churches and schools may have any number of distinctive purpose statements, Niebuhr concludes, they have one underlying purpose. That he identifies "as the increase among men of the love of God and neighbor" (Niebuhr 1956, 31). This goal is compatible with, and even sums up, the seemingly conflicting mission statements which he summarizes. Niebuhr goes on to describe the many ways love of God and love of neighbor can be worked out as the ultimate goal of theological training. His description is of a decidedly counter-cultural conception of God, of neighbor, and of love itself.

Niebuhr's summary of the situation is that theological schools confuse proximate goals with ultimate goals (Niebuhr 1956, 39). This confusion may be manifested in confusing a denomination for all of Christianity, for instance, or a confusion which mistakes the work of God's kingdom for the work of God (Niebuhr 1956, 41). Niebuhr concludes that these confusions are deeply harmful to our understanding of Christianity and our ability to pursue adequate theological understanding which guides our life.

Authors Drawing on Sayings

7/21/2022

7/21/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Ten: Conclusions." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 278-284.

Young concludes based on his earlier chapters that it is probably that appeals to Jesus traditions in the Apostolic Fathers are primarily to materialls which were readily available in oral form (Young 2011, 278). Though some citations are likely of written sources, for the most part, the culture's emphasis on orality would make consultation of written sources largely unnecessary. This also suggests that the Q traditions may rightly be viewed as at least partially oral in nature (Young 2011, 280).

Young also concludes that, at least as used in the Apostolic Fathers, oral traditions tend to be conservative of information, stable in message but variable in wording, mnemonically sensitive, and targeted to ideas which are socially relevant (Young 2011, 281-282).

Young concludes with some questions which his research has brought up and which may serve to inspire further research (Young 2011, 283). These questions largely involve the usage of the canonical Gospels as compared to non-canonical traditions about Jesus. In oral cultures, a written text would still be used as oral/aural medium. We might wonder, then, to what extent the canonical writings were used and what distinguished their use from other sources of teaching. Young's work lays a foundatin and proposes some methods of study which could prove to be of lasting usefulness as we grapple with all these questions.

2 Clement and "Scripture"

7/20/2022

7/20/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Nine: 'Another Scripture says. . .': Jesus Tradition in 2 Clement." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 239-277.

Young notes that 2 Clement has many more sayings ascribed to Jesus than do the other Apostolic Fathers, with either nine or eleven. There is a corresponding multiplication of introductory formulas and possible sources (Young 2011, 239). This makes analysis more challenging.

In 2 Clement 2.4 the saying, "I did not come to call the upright, but sinners" is introduced as "another Scripture." With very little variation, Young finds this in allthe Synoptic Gospels, in Barnabas, and in Justin's 1st Apology (Young 2011, 240). Considering the introduction it seems clear to young that the author derived it from a written source, probably a canonical Gospel, though it may have existed in other places as well (Young 2011, 241).

2 Clement 3.2 describes Jesus as saying, "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will acknowledge before my Fahter" (Young 2011, 242). There are close parallels in Matthew 10 and Luke 12, and a partial parallel in Revelation 3:5. Young observes the parallels show differences in wording but not in meaning. Young observes that the agreement is greater with Matthew at a point where many scholars think Matthew redacted a traditional saying, thus suggesting that 2 Clement has borrowed from Matthew rather than an underlying tradition (Young 2011, 243).

2 Clement 4.2, 5 speaks of the need to actually practice righteousness so as to avoid being cast away by the Lord. Young finds partial parallels in a number of locations (Young 2011, 245). The possible sources of the ideas are not contiguous in nature, which suggests that we don't have the actual source which connected the ideas. The ideas are near each other in Matthew 7, but with different explanatory comments between them. This suggests that Matthew and 2 Clement used the same source but in different ways (Young 2011, 246).

2 Clement 5.2-4 describes a discussion between Jesus and Peter, in which Jesus tells the disciples to be sheep among wolves. Pter is uncomfortable with the possibility of being torn apart. Jesus points out that once dead there is no fear of further harm except at the hand of God (Young 2011, 248-249). Parts of the material are present, in Matthew 10, Luke 12, and Justin's Apology 19. However, 2 Clement contains a substantial segment which does not appear in any of the possible sources Young locates (Young 2011, 250). Young takes the material to have been found together as 2 Clement portrays it, but not as a literary unit in any sources known to us (Young 2011, 251).

2 Clement 6.1-2 speaks of not serving both God and riches. Parallels are in Matthew 6, Luke 16, and the ospel of Thomas 47 (Young 2011, 251). There are additional partial parallels to the latter portion of the quotation. Young considers that the parallels in Matthew 6 and Luke 16 are compelling in nature as such a large portion is present. However, he is unable to identify a source which would have likely provided the wording for Luke or Matthew (Young 2011, 253). The conditional structure, found in Matthew but not in Luke, suggests that 2 Clement drew on Matthew (Young 2011, 254).

2 Clement 8.5 describes the Lord advising faithfulness in small matters so as to be trusted in greater matters (Young 2011, 255). This has a clear parallel in Luke 16:10-12 and a partial parallel in Matthew 25:21, 23. Young considers the statement to be proverbial in nature, and that the version in Luke does not show any particular signs of Luke's redaction, so he hesitates to consider 2 Clement dependent on Luke. The material could easily have been derived from a source common to both (Young 2011, 255).

In 2 Clement 9.11 Jesus is quoted as saying, 'My brothers are those who do the will of my Father" (Young 2011, 257). Young finds paralles in all the Synoptics, in the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of Thomas, and in Clement of Alexandria. Much scholarship finds evidence of redaction in Matthew and Luke, with the influence suggesting 2 Clement presupposes those texts. However, Young holds out the possibility of dependence on a common source (Young 2011, 258). While the Synoptics mention a mother, 2 Clement does not. There is also no coupling of hearing and doing in 2 Clcment, found in the Synoptics.

2 Clement 12.2, 6 depicts the Lord describing the time for his kingdom to come as a time when a number of paradoxes occur (Young 2011, 261). Statements of this nature are never found in canonical material. There are, however, some similar statements Young finds in Clement of Alexandria and the Gospel of Thomas. Young considers the similarities to be slight enough that a literarly relationship is very unlikely. However, they may indicate a common source (Young 2011, 263). Young finds what he describes as "affinities" but not strong parallels. Young adduces another, similarly cryptic, statement from the Gospel of Thomas which speaks of trampling garments and shame, both ideas found in the passage of Clement of Alexandria (Young 2011, 264). There is some reason to think the Gospel of the Egyptians was a common source, but we don't have that text at present.

Finally, Young reviews 2 Clement 13.4, where "God says, 'It is no great accomplishment for you to love those who love you; it is great if you love your enemies and those who hate you'" (Young 2011, 266). Matthew and Luke provide close prallels to the command to "love your enemies." The wording in 2 Clement is more similar to that used in luke. Young entertains the possibility that a finished Gospel according ot Luke could be indicated, but Young does not think it conclusive (Young 2011, 268).

Overall, Young finds among the sayings he has analyzed, one shows no canonical parallel, while six do not compel Young to assume a canonical dependence (Young 2011, 270). The other statements are relatively proverbial and not likely to presuppose a written source (Young 2011, 272).

Young moves to a discussion of sources behind 2 Clement, having concluded that they are not necessarily canonical Gospels (Young 2011, 274). The introductory statement to 2.4 makes it clear that the source is written. The other references are not specific. However, Young notes that an introductory statement using the past tense εἶπεν frequently suggests oral tradition, while the present tense λέγει suggests something written (Young 2011, 275). The formulae in 2 Clement are not consistent in this way, whichleaves Young with an open question. It is possible that 2 Clement used oral sources for Jesus traditions, and it is possible that he did not (Young 2011, 276).

Where Did Jesus Say That?

7/19/2022

7/19/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Eight: Three Isolated Sayings from the Jesus Tradition." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 226-238.

In this chapter, Young reviews three isolated sayings attributed to Jesus, as opposed to his previous analysis of a cluster of statements or a chunk of liturgy. One significant challenge at this point is the fact that two of the sayings are rather proverbial. Young considers it unlikely that an author would consult a written source to deal wit ha proverb (Young 2011, 226).

Didache 9.5b is identical to Matthew 7:6. The first part of Didache 9.5 introduces it as something the Lord said. Young considers it more likely that both authors drew on an oral tradition than finding a literary relationship (Young 2011, 227).

Ignatius, in his Letter to the Smyrneans, 3.2a has Jesus telling his disciples to touch him and see that he is not a spirit. The same command in the same setting is recorded in Luke 24:39 (Young 2011, 229). Young notes that Jerome attributed Ignatius' source as the Gospel according to the Hebrews. However, Jerome made this assessment based on Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3.36.11, which denies knowing where the saying originated (Young 2011, 230). Young finds little evidence that Ignatius used Luke. Further, the use of terms is not very similar. Young concludes it is likely tht Luke and Ignatius depended on a common source (Young 2011, 231).

Finally, Young considers Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 7.2c, where the Lord is cited as saying, "For the spirit is willing but theflesh is weak." There is verbatim agreement with Mark 14:38 and Matthew 26:41 (Young 2011, 232). The context of the statement differs in Polycarp, suggesting that the source would havebeen lacking in context. However, Polycarp does have part of the context, which suggests to Young that there may have been a collection of sayings which were grouped together somehow (Young 2011, 234). The periodic structure and the aorist εἶπεν suggest an oral source to Young (Young 2011, 236).

Which Came First?

7/18/2022

7/18/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Seven: Liturgical Tradition in the Didache: The Lord's Prayer in Did. 8.2" Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 201-225.

Young considers the Didache, though derived from a number of sources, to represent the redactional work of one person, whom he will call the Didachist, performed in a relatively short period of time (Young 2011, 201). Two passages are specifically ascribed to Jesus: the prayer in 8.2, and another sying in 9.5. This chapter evaluates the Lord's Prayer tradition.

As he has done in the past, Young presents the Greek text, followed by a catalog of parallel statements, this time all from the Synoptic Gospels (Young 2011, 202-203). He then observes that the text is clearly much more similar to the version in Matthew than the one in Luke. It does not have the gaps found in Luke's version, and the language is more similar to Matthew's version (Young 2011, 203).

Young analyzes C.M. Tuckett's work, "The Synoptic Tradition in the Didache" as a definitive work of analysis (Young 2011, 204ff). Tuckett concluded that the type of redactional work he could identify in the similar passages in Matthew and the Didache point to the Didachist having access to Matthew in a finished state. He also concluded that the Didachist may well have had access to Luke (Young 2011, 205). However, Tuckett onsidered parts of Didache 16 to use traditions also used by Mark or Matthew, and not to have used Mark or Matthew themselves. He finds other passages which have parallels in all the Synoptic Gospels and which he takes to be derived from a version of Matthew's revisions of Mark. The picture of literary dependence is thus quite complicated (Young 2011, 208). Young provides a lengthy footnote detailing a growing body of thought which is open to the Didache influencing Matthew rather than Matthew influencing the Didache (Young 2011, 208-209).

The crux of the challenge is well summarized in this paragraph. "If one were to determine that the Didache antedates Matthew, this would necessitate rethinking several elements of Tuckett's argument. It would imply that the so-called 'Matthean redactional features' he identifies in the Didache originated not in MattR but in the editorial work or the sources of the Didachist. The presence of these features in Matthew might then be attributed either to Matthew's dependence on the Didache, or what is more likely, to Matthew's use of sources he held in common with the Didache, whether written or oral. One would also have to rethink how to account for the features in the Didache that in Tuckett's view show MattR of Mark (an important component of his argument). These could be viewed as examples of Matthew redacting Mark under the influence either of the Didache or of sources he held in common with the Didache, in which case the apparent objectivity provided by Tuckett's appeal to material in the Didache that originated in MattR of Mark would prove illusory" (Young 2011, 209). In short, then, Young finds the question of influence to remain open, and to be one which could have significant influence on the overall study of the Synoptics and the Apostolic Fathers.

Despite the apparent close relationship of the Didache and Matthew, Young does not consider the relationship to be one of literary dependence. There are no examples of passages in which the Didache seems to quote extensively from Matthew in ways distinctive to Matthew as opposed to other Synoptists (Young 2011, 210). There are clear similarities, however, Young explains that "the Didache and Matthew sound alike because they share a common idiom and a common tradition, as documents that arose out of a shared milieu" (Young 2011, 212). Young furthernotes that the shared material may well have been part of an oral tradition. He comments that the possibility of orality is not entertained by Tuckett or some ohters (Young 2011, 214).

young observes that the Lord's Prayer is introduced in Didache 8.2 "as the Lord commanded in his gospel" (Young 2011, 218). Opinion is divided whether to consider this "gospel" as the canonical written account or as a series of sayings about sin and salvation. In any case, Young recognizes that the prayer would likely have circulated orally and, based on the description in the Didache, likely took on a liturgical function (Young 2011, 230). An oral liturgical text which was widely known and used can easily explain the identity in ideas but the variation in exact wording between the versions of the prayer in Matthew and the Didache (Young 2011, 222). The textual variants other than the concluding doxology are very slight. Young's overall conclusion is that the prayer was a matter of known liturgy and was adopted independently by Matthew and the Didachist (Young 2011, 224).

Statements Together or Separately

7/15/2022

7/15/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Six: Seeking Consistency: Looking for Indicators of Orality in 1 Clement 46.76-8." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 176-200.

In this chapter, Young applies his theory of orality and literacy which he used in earlier chapters to the text of 1 Clement 46.7b-8 (Young 2011, 176). He begins by reproducing the passage, where the Lord is cited as saying personal destruction is better than making someone stumble. Parallels to the parts of the statement are then given (Young 2011, 176-177).

The saying in 1 Clement is divided into two parts - that of woe and the statement about a millstone. Young finds both of these elements within each of the Synoptic Gospels (Young 2011, 179). In Mark, the statements are separated by several chapters. The statement of woe is almost identical but the millstone statement is not. In Matthew, the statements are together, with the "woe" after the millstone, and the millstone statement is nearly identical to that of Mark, rather than 1 Clement (Young 2011, 180). Luke has a "woe" before the millstone saying, in close proximity. However, from a linguistic standpoint, the text in Luke is more similar to that in Matthew (Young 2011, 182).

Young continues by comparing the Synoptic parallels on a linguistic basis, presenting the Greek text and flagging verbal agreements (Young 2011, 183). He concludes that Matthew and Luke did not follow Mark in the "woe" saying. He further suggests the source contained a millstone saying, wince both Matthew and Luke used one there (Young 2011, 184). The identity of ideas and the variability in vocabulary used suggests an oral source to young (Young 2011, 186). Young extrapolates that the same oral tradition would have been used by Clement as by Matthew and Luke, and that the text of Matthew or Luke would not have been used in 1 Clement (Young 2011, 188-189).

Young's analysis next moves to consider whether evidence of redaction by the Synoptic authors can be found in 1 Clement 46.8. This could indicate a literary influence of the Gospels on Clement (Young 2011, 191). However, Young finds no compelling evidence for such redactional elements in the text.

Young concludes that the passage in 1 Clement 46.8, introduced by "remember the words of the Lord Jesus," represents a retelling of an oral tradition of a saying of Jesus (Young 2011, 196).

When an Author Says Jesus Said . . .

7/14/2022

7/14/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Five: The Explicit Appeal to Jesus Tradition in Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 2.3." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 151-175.

Young has previously considered Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 2.3 in brief, as it has some strong parallels to 1 Clement 13.2. Here, he presents the same sort of case, but with a focus only on the material in Polycarp. He begins with the passage in Greek (Young 2011, 151). There follows a series of cross-references to Synoptic source and non-canonical use of the ideas of each period (Young 2011, 152).

young considers the date of Polycarp's letter to be a critical issue, as dates around 117 and 135 have been suggested. Polycarp's letter Phil. 9.1-28 suggests Ignatius had been martyred very recently (Young 2011, 153). This favors the early date, while a theory of P.N. Harrison from 1936 suggests much of the letter was a later composition, closer to 135 (Young 2011, 154). Young considers Harrison's theory to rest on weak evidence. Young therefore proceeds with his analysis based on theletter belonging to the earlier time, around that of Ignatius' martyrdom, or approximately A.D. 107 (Young 2011, 158).

Young evaluates possible literary parallels to the text, observing that the parallels do not show convincing evidence for actual literary dependence (Young 2011, 159). While Young is fairly certain that Polycarp was familiar with 1 Clement, he is uncertain about actual dependence. Young is more convinced that Polycarp drew these statements from another source (Young 2011, 160). There are similarities to 1 Clement 13, but not a strong verbatim parallel (Young 2011, 161).

When the passage in Polycarp is compared to the canonical material, Young finds two of the statements with verbatim parallels, but one in Matthew 7:1 and the other in Luke 6:38. This suggests no conclusive influence of the Synoptic Gospels on Polycarp (Young 2011, 162). It makes more sense to assume, if Polycarp drew the material from somewhere, that it was not one of the written sources we have. The passage in Polycarp is artfully arranged in a memorable rhythm. Youngconsiders it fairly certain that there is a rhetorical mnemonic tactic in use (Young 2011, 166). He therefore considers it likely that Polycarp drew on an oral source, rather than a textual source. Young's conclusion is that the same oral source used in Luke 6 and 1 Clement 13 was used by Polycarp in Phil. 2.3 (Young 2011, 167). Young elaborates at length on the lack of a specific, verbatim source as he moves his case toward an oral traditional source. Yet in doing so, he tends to pull the reader firmly toward an oral tradition which depends on a verbatim quote of an otherwise undocumented oral tradition (Young 2011, 170).

Young sums up this chapter by reflecting that the method of composition probably used by Polycarp would use oral material, often selecting it rather than written material, and that use of sources would normally happen by memory (Young 2011, 173). The stable message would be drawn from somewhere, but there may be some level of verbal variation as the author re-works oral material. Young finds a focus on the main thrust of the message to be similar, whether in Matthew 5, Luke 6, or Polycarp Phil. 2 (Young 2011, 175).

Sayings of Jesus in 1 Clement

7/13/2022

7/13/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Four: Identifying Markers and Ways of Orality: The Explicit Appeal to Jesus Tradition in 1 Clement 13.1c-2." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 107-150.

Young takes up 1 Clement 13.1c-2 as material to assess his theory of dependence. There is a strong parallel in Poly. Phil. 23, which he will evaluate in chaper five. He begins by evaluating evidence of the 1 Clement text's dependence on written sources, such as the Synoptic Gospels (Young 2011, 107). Young begins with a Greek text of the passage from 1 Clement. The material is centered around seven statements, attributed to Jesus (Young 2011, 108-110). Young provides cross references to similar or identical statements in the Synoptic Gospels and elsewhere.

Because of the date of 1 Clement sometime between A.D. 70 and 100, it is very unlikely the parallels other than those in the Synoptic Gospels would have been available to Clement (Young 2011, 111). The Gospels, however, were written approximately at the same time as 1 Clement. Young therefore searches for signs of dependence (Young 2011, 112).

Young observes that the sayings in 1 Clement 13.2 do not have a direct, verbatim parallel in the Synoptic Gospels (Young 2011, 113). The ideas do have parallels, but the cluster of ideas is not found in any proximity or in a similar order in a Synoptic Gospel.

Young goes on to look for suggestions that Clement was influenced by material which may ahve been used in the redactional process, presumably by Matthew or Luke, depending on Mark. Again, young cannot find even a hint of the texts being strongly parallel the closest he can come is to note the ideas were relatively common in Judean thought (Young 2011, 116).

Young continues by considering possible parallels for the passage and what scholarship has said of the possible sources of those parallels. In other words, if the Synoptic Gospels seem to have depended on a Q-source, Young would like to explore the nature of that dependence (Young 2011, 120). The statements present in Mark are rather far apart. Those contained in Matthew and Luke are in passages often considered to be Q material, and in Luke all the parallels are in Luke 6:31, 36-38 (Young 2011, 121). This suggests to Young that Luke was here not drawing on Q, as there is material unique to Luke, but that he was using a block of material, probably from an oral source (Young 2011, 122). Young continues by describing the markers which suggest this. Much of the argument is based on the thesis that Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and Luke's Sermon on th ePlain are the same event adapted by the authors from a Q narrative (Young 2011, 123-127). Regardless, while Luke seems to know the cluster of ideas as a cluster, Matthew does not seem to do so.

Young describes the oral structure of the passage in detail (Young 2011, 137-138). He notes the qualities of euphony and balance which are clearly present. Oddly absent from his argument is the fact that, on its face, the material is presented as part of a sermon, which would presuppose a carefully ordered oral structure.

Young next moves back to his oraiginal discussion of the similarity between Luke 6:36-38 and 1 Clement 13.2. While he does not find a compelling case for a liteary dependence, he does consider the material to be significantly simlar (Young 2011, 140). Yet Young observes that the material serves a different purpose in 1 Clement than in Luke. Clement's use of the passive responses suggests that Clement is instructing Christians in how to live so as to receive good treatment by God, while in Luke the goal is to receive good treatment from humans (Young 2011, 143-144).

Young concludes that, although evidence for linguistic identity is lacking, this is normally the case in oral studies. Speakers often work on the level of ideas, not workds. For this reason, he takes the influence on 1 Clement 13.2 to be an oral source which also likely influenced the passage in Luke 6 (Young 2011, 146).

Evaluating Oral Sources for Sayings

7/12/2022

7/12/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Three: Method: Orality and Oral Tradition." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 70-106.

In this chapter Young describes the method he will use to apply recent developments in study of orality to the Jesus traditions referenced in the Apostolic Fathers (Young 2011, 70). Prior to that methodological discussion, he considers the possibility of identifying oral materials with certainty, then oral markers which may be sought out.

Young notes a difference in discourse between those conceived orally and later transcribed and those composed and written during composition (Young 2011, 71). This suggests that characteristics of orality and of literacy will be preserved, at least to some extent, in a way which can be identified.

The ancient Mediterranean world as Young observes, functioned largely as an oral society. It may be a matter of debate to what extent some baseline literacy was present, but there is little doubt that the normal use of written materials was either to store information or to read aloud for an audience, thus making written records into oral messages. young takes literary rates in the first century to be low, at perhaps 10-15%, and even lower, more like 3% in Israel (Young 2011, 74-75). He does back his argument up with a lengthy, discursive footnote (Young 2011, 75-76), which fails to capture the nuances necessary in evaluating exactly what would be considered as functional literacy. However, his desire, as he states it, is to emphasize "the high rate of orality" (Young 2011, 77). He goes on to describe the positive use of orality, "In this environment those who had not acquired the ability to read and write should not be thought of as deficient in literacy but as proficient in orality, while those who did acquire the skills of literacy should not be imagined to have lost their proficiency in orality in the process" (Young 2011, 78). "Written" documents were typically dictated. Reading, even to oneself, was normally done aloud. This describes a significant role of orality.

Young follows the foundational work of Parry and Lord in evaluating the actual function of oral elements in ancient compositions (Young 2011, 81). The formulaic nature of compositional elements will serve for young as identification marks. Young continues by citing the classification of oral markers as outlined by Walter Ong in Orality and Literacy (Young 2011, 83ff).

Comparative study does have some inherent limitations, as Young concedes. Not all of "the oral" fits into broad philosophical categories Young recognizes "many different ways of being oral" (Young 2011, 97). The statements of Jesus do not necessarily appear oral in the same way as Homeric traditions. Young specifically observes that the traditions of Jesus as used in the Apostolic Fathers were relatively close to their source in time and culture. As opposed to Homer, the Apostolic Fathers are no more than a few generations from the events described (Young 2011, 98). Very little transition has occurred in passing on the stories. There may have been first generation eyewitnesses for much of the time involved. Further, Young notes that the care shown to forms and content of liturgical and doctrinal material in early Christianity would preserve specific narratives in an uncorrupted form (Young 2011, 100).

Finally, Young affirms his commitment to take scribal work seriously, along with orality (Young 2011, 102). There is certainly a possibility that the Apostolic Fathers drew on documentary evidence for sayings of Jesus. This may include, for example, paraphrase of portions of canonical writings. "It is fairly ceratin that oral traditions of Jesus' sayings continued to co-exist with the written Gospels or other written collections of Jesus tradition well into the second half of the second century" (Young 2011, 104). The boundary between oral and written communication, then, remains quite blurry.

Scholarly Approaches to Sayings of Jesus

7/11/2022

7/11/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter Two: A Brief History of Scholarship on the Sources of Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 36-69.

In this chapter, Young surveys scholarly literature, mostly from the 20th century, related to Jesus traditions in the apostolic fathers. He primarily pursues what he considers "major works" (Young 2011, 37).

The pattern of scholarly inquiry shifted in 1905, "with the publication of The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, written by a Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology" (Young 2011, 39). This work suggested that the Apostolic Fathers used a corpus of traditional materials about the acts and sayings of Jesus, but did not use the canonical Gospels.

Works of Massaux and Koester in the 1950s continued to evaluate sources for sayings of Jesus (Young 2011, 42). Massaux preferred, when possible, to act with an assumption that the Fathers had drawn upon the canonical Gospels. He made assessments based on what he considered to be "literary contact," or a verbal concurrence (Young 2011, 44). In contrast to Massaux, Koester is generally approving of recognition of non-canoical sources (Young 2011, 45). He has a stronger tendency, according to Young, to assign sayings to oral tradition than did the Wxford Committee. Koester views the oral tradition as sufficiently forceful that no appeal to written sources was necessary in the patristic period (Young 2011, 46). Thus, Koester assumes the use of a written Gospel as what must be proven.

In 1985, Donald Hagner wrote an article further exploring the use of oral materials rather than the written Gospels (Young 2011, 48). In contrast to Koester, Hagner views the oral tradition as a relatively static and authoritative tradition, thus helpful in tracing what Jesus may have said (Young 2011, 51).

In 1987, Köhler, with knowledge of both Massaux and Koester, pursued a point of view which was accepting of redaction criticism as a positive tool but which recognized that a source could be put to use even without a specific citation or level of verbal similarity (Young 2011, 51). Young does note that Köhler does not go so far as to identify oral tradition as a source of sayings. This associates Köhler clearly with Massaux in terms of philosophy (Young 2011, 52).

Making refinemenets to Koester's method, Young reviews the work of C.M. Tuckett (1989) and Andrew Gregory (2003). While Tuckett accepted the influence of oral sources in principle, he recognized the caution needed in treating all sources fairly. It is possible that redaction and, even more so, oral influence may have invisible stages. Direction of influence is not always apparent, and it is plausible that multiple versions of a source document may have existed and have been used by different authors (Young 2011, 54). In general, Young observes while Tuckett uses Koester's methods, he ends up affirming Massaux's view that the Gospels were present and served as sourcedocuments for the apostolic fathers (Young 2011, 55).

In contrast to most scholarly work, Andrew Gregory asked whether Luke/Acts was an influence on other early Christian texts (Young 2011, 55). Gregory seeks a decisive way to identify whether a literary feature comes from a particular source and no other place. Young sees this as a very difficult standard to pursue (Young 2011, 56).

In 2005, Tuckett and Gregory edited a series of essays, The New Testament and the Apostolic Fahters, which serves as an homage to the Oxford Committee work of a hundred years earlier (Young 2011, 60). Young briefly surveys a number of articles which pertain directly to authors and topics he will discuss in later chapters.

Young concludes that if scholars have learned anything definitive, it is that the available sources for interaction of Apostolic Fathers and Jesus traditions are ambiguous by nature (Young 2011, 67). Clear evidence for concrete usage of specific texts is not forthcoming, though it seems clear that ideas and wording were shared at times among documents. Young can, however, conclude with some certainty that the canonical Mark and Luke do not seem to have been used directly by the Apostolic Fathers (Young 2011, 68).

Refining the Question - Study of Oral Statements

7/8/2022

7/8/22
Scholarly Reflections

Young, Stephen E. "Chapter One: Orality and the Study of Early Christianity." Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011, 1-35.

Young notes, and provides extensive bibliographical support for, patterns of scholarship pertaining to early Christianity, in which orality in and of itself, orality leading to literary form criticism, and a synthesis of orality and literary methods lead to the various writings we now possess (Young 2011, 1-3). At issue is the view, which Young would reject, that a literary mindset would serve as the default for authors in late antiquity. Rather, Young takes the best methods of interpretation to stem from a primarily oral mindset (Young 2011, 4).

A shift in New Testament interpretation based on our understanding of orality and literacy further warrants reconsideration of the mindset which preserved sayings of Jesus, as well as other matters of early Christian interest. Young continues with copious bibliographic footnotes pertaining to canonical and non-canonical literature (Young 2011, 6-8). Though much study has been done, Young considers there to be less work published relating to the sayings of Jesus as they appear in the Apostolic Fathers. He argues that, in the patristic works prior to 2 Clement, citations of Jesus tradition are based not on canonical sources but on sources common to both the canonical authors and the patristic authors (Young 2011, 9).

Though studies of orality as an influence on a work preserved in writing have necessary shortcomings, Young does consider that many of the challenges can be overcome when treated with care. One of the issues at hand is the method of inquiry. Oral tradition studies are nothing new. However, the decision to move away from oral studies leading to form criticism is a relatively recent idea (Young 2011, 11). Certain tenets of form criticism have been shown to be inconsistent with development of oral narratives. Young considers this to serve as a warning against too ready an acceptance of a form critical approach to oral material (Young 2011, 13). For his reason, Young seeks to develop a paradigm for study of Jesus traditions which interprets the oral process correctly (Young 2011, 14).

Youn describes in some detail the work of Gerhardsson, interpreting much of the early Christian development in terms of rabbinic practice (Young 2011, 15-16). While Gerhardsson raises some good points, Young finds his arguments weak in three areas. It is difficult to identify any hints at an apostolic body such as a collegium of rabbis who developed and guarded Christian teaching (Young 2011, 18-19). Second, though the Gospels are full of memorable actions and sayings, there is no evidence that, as Gerhardsson contends, Jesus made his disciples memorize his statements in detail (Young 2011, 19). Finally, Young considers the sophisticated nature of the material underlying the written texts to have required a greater level of verbal sophistication than Gerhardsson assigns to the disciples. The features of the narrative are, in Young's estimation, too literary in their structure to have been developed and preserved orally (Young 2011, 22).

Young's choice of parameters - the specific Jesus traditions and the limitation of the apostolic fathers - was made so as to reach into a time period when the New Testament writings were not necessarily recognized as the authoritative standard which would exclusively identify what Jesus said and did (Young 2011, 25). The materials he chooses are explicitly referred to by the Fathers as statements of Jesus.

Young finally specifies that his study is concerned with "oral Jesus tradition" (Young 2011, 3). He is careful to detail that the material comes from spoken communication with its soulrce in Jesus' words and deeds, and preserved through oral repetition.