Week 2 - The Environment of Early Christianity

Week 2 – Chapter 2 of de Silva – “The Environment of Early Christianity” –

My initial criticism of de Silva’s decision to open his book with a discussion of the development of the canon of the New Testament is answered here. In Chapter 2, he delves into the historical background of the New Testament, commencing with Judaism of the “Intertestamental period.”

The pressures commenced with the conquest of Jerusalem and the taking of the Jews into captivity in Babylon around 587 B.C. until Cyrus of Persia allowed the Jews to return in 539 B.C. Disillusionment with the reality experienced when compared with the promise of Isaiah meant that the Temple became not only the focus of the Jewish cult observances but also the focus of disunity as well. And continued pressure from power centers outside of Judea – most significantly the pressure of Hellenism that arose with the conquests of Alexander the Great from 336-326 B.C. - resulted in numerous factions springing up within Judaism. De Silva notes that apocalyptic eschatology became widespread at this time and is reflected in many of the early Christian writings.

I would explain “apocalyptic eschatology” (off the top of my head) as the effect of the distress caused with the reality with which Jews of the time were faced, the loss of self-determination, the belief that the problems were caused by insufficient adherence to the Lord’s commandments, the belief that if the Torah was observed with sufficient correctness, that ultimately the Lord would help His followers overturn the evildoers and would reward the just. Some believed this would occur on this earth – a soldier-messiah who would free the Land of Israel and re-establish the reign of God on earth. Some believed the rewards would occur in the hereafter, in the spiritual realm.

It does appear that, regardless of the form the reaction took, the majority of Jewish thinkers concluded that the oppression of the Jews, the dominance of the Hellenistic culture and the Roman polity, was caused by insufficiency of adherence to Torah. God had made a covenant with the Jews, bringing them out of slavery in Egypt in the time of Moses, giving the Jews his commandments, and bringing them to the Promised Land. According to de Silva, there was another promise made by God, that he would establish King David and that his line would rule for all time. The apparent failure of these promises led to successive crises of belief and the creation of what we would call coping strategies.

De Silva notes that each of the Jewish factions had “firm convictions, rooted in centuries of experience. . .” (pg. 38) He defends many Jewish practices, noting that they were not mere petty legalism but the result of beliefs that correctly following the Law was necessary to regain God’s favour. He notes that, in the face of the dominance of alien cultures, there were three options – 1) assimilation to the dominant Gentile world (especially the dominant Hellenistic culture) in varying ways, 2) to fight for political independence and autonomy (which included the dream of the Messiah, although he says belief in the Messiah was not essential to this option), and 3) spiritual renewal and purification, which included renewed covenant loyalty through Torah, the belief in priestly messiahs, and so on.
In the opening paragraph of the chapter, de Silva notes at page 37:

The word that Jesus brought was a “word on target” for Jews in early-first-century
Israel. The challenges that Christ-followers faced as they sought to respond to the
gospel were challenges posed by the conflict between the call of God and the demands
(and opportunities) of the society and culture around them (and inside them!). The
apostles’ visions for their congregations took shape with reference to and in response to
the local settings in which Christians were called to witness to the one God and his Christ.

Now this paragraph is poses an interesting and challenging premise. One could say Jesus’s gospel, bringing the “good news” is spot on for all time, not just the 1st. century A.D. But there was a confluence of factors, including Jewish monotheism with its belief in the one God, operating on their behalf through history, Hellenistic culture, and Roman hegemony, as well as acute disillusionment with the world, expressed partly through Platonism and Neo-Platonism, that Jesus’s message would not have been accepted earlier and would not have been possible in the same way after destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. The conditions were just right at that moment in time, for a message such as Jesus’s to find fertile ground in Palestine and then to be spread around the Roman Empire and beyond in subsequent centuries.

On the other hand, one could say that Jesus’s message was not on target, in the sense that he was rejected by those with the political power and was executed by them in one of the most awful ways open to them. Probably those people thought at the time that the execution of Jesus would also be the end of his movement – just another rural would-be messiah, of whom there had been and would be a number in 1st. century Judea. It was the events after his crucifixion – his resurrection and appearances to the apostles after his death – that fueled a new courage and enthusiasm in them, to spread the Word of God throughout the nations.

Week 1 – Preface: The Perspective of this Introduction;
- Using the “Exegetical Skills” Sections;
- Chapter 1: The New Testament as Pastoral Response.

Prof. Zacharias’s first lecture on September 15, 2009, followed the text fairly closely, which felicitously allows one to both hear and read the most important points. Both Prof. Zacharias and Mr. De Silva emphasized in their opening words the contrast between a devotional reading of the Bible and its academic study, which emphasizes an understanding of the Bible in its historical context.

Firstly, Mr. De Silva emphasizes that he is taking a “text-centered” approach and thus his book is not an attempt to elucidate “early Church history,” “Christian origins” or “the Jesus of history.” Thus the focus is on the chapters of the New Testament as pastoral responses to challenges faced by the early Church fathers.

Secondly, he states that he will be devoting a substantial portion of the book to “interpretive strategies that represent the major trends in scholarly stud of the New Testament,” through one or more “Exegetical Skills” sections in every chapter. This is amplified in the next part of the book, “Using the “Exegetical Skill” Sections,” which contains a daunting Index of Exegitical Skills by order of their appearance and by area of focus.

Thirdly, De Silva states that the discussion of how the texts being studied contribute to ministry formation gives the book a “distinctive focus on the church” and “the work of ministry.” By this he means not only men and women who are actually engaged as pastors or who are envisaging becoming pastors but also “the general ministry of all Christians.” So the book is intended to be of use to any Christian engaged in the serious study of the New Testament, not those who are involved in professional ministries per se.

Chapter 1 commences with a discussion, as the chapter heading indicates, of the New Testament as a pastoral response. He notes that the composition of the New Testament was a two-stage process, in which, first, the individual texts were composed, and second, those which were to comprise the agreed canon were selected. He notes that the earliest followers of Jesus had the Jewish Scriptures (the Old Testament), but that both Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians had been reoriented by the creation of the Christian community. Thus they needed something more particular to their needs.

De Silva devotes relatively little space in Chapter 1 to the discussion of the creation of the Gospels and more to the determination, after the texts were written, of which ones would be considered part of the approved canon.

I don’t have a source off-hand but recall having read that the first followers of Jesus believed, in light of his words, that the Kingdom of God was imminent. Presumably if it had in fact come about in the first years after Christ’s death and resurrection, the compilations which became the Gospels would not have been necessary. But as time passed and the Kingdom was postponed, the early Church felt the necessity of having the words of Jesus and the apostles written down before all living memory faded. This is alluded to only in passing by De Silva.

De Silva discusses the methods used by prominent men of the early Church – like Eusebius and Origen – who sought establishment of the canon by seeking consensus, classifying the texts as “acknowledged” and “disputed.” But he also notes significantly, despite acknowledging these early Church leaders, that the process appears to have been at work at the grass-roots level among the Christian communities of the day. The criteria which became established were 1) apostolicity, 2) antiquity, and 3) catholicity. And he also notes that some of the very earliest Biblical codices in existence, from the 4th, 5th, and 6th. centuries do nevertheless leave out some material (e.g. Hebrews) later included and include other texts (e.g. Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas) which were later generally eliminated from the approved canon.

De Silva concludes that, while all texts included were inspired by God, there were also other inspired texts (such as the letters of Clement) which, because they did not adequately meet the above criteria, were not included in the New Testament.

Welcome to the Webworld!

Hi, All - or at least You Two! :-)

Having created the blog, I want to see how this looks now that I've added a pic.

This blog has been created as part of the course assignments for Danny Zacharias' course at Acadia Divinity College in the New Testament. I am excited to be taking the course by means of a "virtual seat," but feel to a certain extent I'm there on false pretenses. That is, I am studying at the graduate level, which I think is probably proper considering my academic background, but I have no, zero, zilch, nada background in Divinity studies. However, if I can outline some of my story, I do think my path of trial and error and discovery which has led me to this point may be of some interest. It will take some work to illuminate, however. Perhaps I might start by noting that I was the only child of two loving parents, who, however, came from different religious upbringings (my dad having been raised Roman Catholic and my mom Good Methodist :-)). For one reason and another, I never saw either of my parents attend church in my lifetime. Instead, I was sent on my own to the Presbyterian church which was within walking distance - but to which I had to make my way on my own on Sunday morning. I must say that this was not particularly conducive to my developing a strong sense of belonging in the traditional church environment - at least to that one. Perhaps it was a beneficial if perhaps unintended consequence that I have spent my entire life looking for the belief system that seemed the right one - hopefully the True one. :-)

Our first assignment, as I understand it, is to blog about our impressions of the first part of our text, David A. DeSilva's An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation - and perhaps also our first "virtual" class, which took place on Tuesday, September 15, 2009. I will provide that hopefully later today!