.jpg)
Because Christ lived many centuries ago, the only sources available to us are written documents. It is to these documents that we now turn.
We possess nothing written by Christ Himself. What we do have, however, are thirteen letters that claim to have been written by Paul, the most prominent of the early Christian teachers. By the end of the second century, these letters were accepted without hesitation as genuine by writers scattered across the Roman world — from Gaul to Egypt to Carthage. One of them, I Corinthians, is explicitly quoted as Paul’s at the very beginning of the second century in a surviving letter from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth. This strong external evidence is matched by equally compelling internal evidence. The case is so solid that at least four of these letters — those to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians — have been accepted as authentic in every age by all scholars, even by some who strongly disagree with Paul’s theology. These critics may believe that Paul misunderstood his Master, but they do not doubt that he wrote these letters. I have explained this evidence in detail in my commentaries on these epistles, and in another book I have given strong reasons for accepting the Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians as genuine as well.
In this present series of posts, I will quote from the New Testament only where the text is accepted with confidence by all leading critical editors. As a result, our conclusions will not be affected by variations among ancient manuscripts.
The letters of Paul, preserved in this way, are of enormous value for our investigation. They place us in direct contact with the great Apostle himself and open a window into both his understanding of Christ and his own intellectual and moral life. We are immediately struck by his sharp intelligence, balanced judgment, and high moral character. Paul presents himself as a witness worthy of respect and trust. From his letters, we can reconstruct with complete confidence the view of Christ held by what was probably the most capable of His contemporaneous followers.
Alongside Paul’s letters, we can examine other very ancient documents that were clearly not written by him or shaped by his influence, and which therefore offer independent testimony. These include four memoirs that claim to recount the life and death of Christ, as well as a narrative describing the founding of the earliest Christian churches — a work unanimously attributed by tradition, and supported by internal evidence, to the author of the Third Gospel. All of these writings are anonymous in the sense that they do not name their authors in the text. Yet from the second century onward, all early Christian writers consistently attributed the First and Fourth Gospels to apostles, and the Second and Third Gospels and the Book of Acts to known companions of apostles. This testimony is especially clear in Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, chapters 8–11.
This traditional attribution was accepted with complete confidence by early Christian writers throughout the world beginning in the second century. Their unanimity shows that these documents were already ancient at that time. The fact that these four accounts — and no others — were universally recognized as authoritative and, in some sense, official, and that the same authors’ names were attached to them everywhere without dispute, highlights their unique standing in early Christian literature. In addition, the New Testament contains other epistles and a remarkable prophetic work.
Each of these documents differs sharply from Paul’s letters in both language and patterns of thought. Even the Fourth Gospel, which comes closest to Paul’s theology at a fundamental level, lacks the defining features of Paul’s thinking — such as justification by faith and union with Christ in His death and resurrection. The First Gospel differs even more widely, not only from Paul’s writings but also from the Fourth Gospel, both in style and in conceptual framework. What this means is that the New Testament presents us with a chorus of independent voices bearing witness to the teaching and claims of Christ. This diversity is of immense importance. It allows us to identify and set aside elements that are distinctly Pauline, and thus to move from the gospel as Paul preached it to the teaching of Christ Himself. Beneath their surface differences, the striking agreement among these witnesses convinces us that what they share — and what sets them apart from earlier and contemporary teachings — originated with the Founder of Christianity. In this way, the Christian documents bring us into direct contact with Christ.
Also valuable for comparison and contrast are the many other sacred writings of the ancient world.
The evidence we possess points clearly to the proper method of theological research. We must begin by carefully and consecutively studying Paul’s letters in order to follow his line of thought and understand the ideas he sought to communicate. As we do this, we must organize those ideas logically so that we can reconstruct his view of Christ and the Gospel. This reconstruction will prove to be both clear and systematic. Such a study places us firmly within the mental world of one of Christ’s most prominent early followers.
Next, the Gospel and First Epistle of John — closely connected and clearly written by the same author — demand similar treatment. In these writings, we encounter a different presentation of Christ and the Gospel. We must compare this with Paul’s theology and seek out what they hold in common. There is, in my judgment, decisive evidence that these documents were written by a close and beloved associate of Jesus. If this is true, then the portrait of Christ they present carries authority equal to that of Paul’s letters. Even if this were not so, the argument of this work would still stand. For the Fourth Gospel undeniably offers independent testimony that powerfully confirms Paul’s teaching about Christ and the Gospel.
A third distinct theological perspective appears in the First Gospel and the Epistle of James — documents linked not by traditional authorship, but by shared ways of thinking. The remaining New Testament writings will be addressed in the same manner, insofar as they are relevant to the argument.
At times, we will compare Christ’s teaching with that of earlier teachers from His own people. Their language often sheds light on the language of the New Testament. In the Old Testament, we will find early forms of doctrines later developed more fully in the Gospel. In many areas, careful comparison and contrast between the Old and New Testaments will prove especially illuminating.
This approach to research is thoroughly scientific and philosophical. It rests ultimately on observed facts and aligns with sound principles of human certainty regarding events we have not personally witnessed. It uses established facts as pathways toward broader truths. In its initial stages, this work will be grammatical and historical. We will seek to understand the meanings of words that, according to solid historical evidence, were written by Paul or his contemporaries. In this way, we will reconstruct his actual thoughts about Christ and the Gospel. By comparing these with the writings of others, we will strive to reach the authentic teaching of Christ. We will encounter important factual claims and test them using historical evidence. Christ’s moral teaching will be judged by the moral sense — the supreme judge present in every human heart. My further plan is then to examine the full scope of Christ’s teaching, which will be tested by its effects on human life and character.
This main line of investigation draws upon several additional fields of knowledge. I have already mentioned textual criticism. Even more important are the grammar and vocabulary of the New Testament, since crucial theological ideas are often conveyed through a grammatical form or a single word. The same holds true for the Old Testament. This reconstruction therefore requires engagement with ancient languages and the science of language itself. We will also draw upon the science of thought and, at times, the history of nations. As we have already seen, even disciplines such as geology and chemistry contribute to this highest domain of human knowledge.
A true understanding of theology — that is, a thoughtful grasp of the great unseen Reality that works toward righteousness — can no more be gained solely from modern theological books than a real knowledge of botany can be gained solely from books about plants. In both cases, a full understanding requires direct engagement with the facts on which the discipline rests. For theology, this means careful, sustained study of the Christian documents, along with attentive observation of the natural world, social life, and the inner life of the human person. Everything related to human experience teaches us, directly or indirectly, something about the unseen realities underlying all life. At the same time, observed facts are useful only insofar as we interpret their deeper meaning as expressions of broader principles. Our ability to discern that meaning is the true measure of our knowledge. In that effort, we gladly accept the help of other observers, as preserved in theological books.
This post is based upon Lecture VI from J. A. Beet's book Through Christ to God: A Study in Scientific Theology (1893). The original text may be found at the Internet Archive here: Through Christ to God.
No comments:
Post a Comment