Which texts are you citing for the “first uses” of this phrase?
No George, that’s not it. I am simply pointing out that although we can find in the first century elements of what would be used by Gnosticism in the second century, Gnosticism as you are using the term did not exist in the first century, and the kind of Gnostic interpretation of Paul’s words to which you’re appealing requires a background of developed Gnosticism which we know did not exist in the first century.
Correct. But we don’t need to call it Gnosticism. We don’t even need to call it proto-Gnosticism. We don’t need to use the term “Gnosticism” at all. When people talk about first century texts and start using the term “Gnosticism”, it’s invariably because they want to smuggle post-apostolic era Gnosticism into their interpretation. If they didn’t, there would be absolutely no reason to use the term “Gnosticism”. If you want to say it’s about evil spirits, say it’s about evil spirits; there’s no need to appeal to Gnosticism, unless you want to smuggle post-apostolic Gnostic beliefs into the text.
Pre-Gnostic. They weren’t proto-Gnostic until the second century, when Gnosticism started being developed. We don’t call the Pentateuch “proto-Christianity”, for the same reason.
No, I don’t see pre-Gnostic as any different to non-Gnostic. By definition, pre-Gnostic means non-Gnostic, since we’re talking about a time when Gnosticism didn’t exist. It’s best to describe them as pre-Gnostic precisely because it doesn’t identify them as Gnostic in the pre-Gnostic era, however much they may have been co-opted by Gnosticisms later. That’s why I used the Pentateuch as an example. The Pentateuch is both pre-Christian and non-Christian.
Hmm, I would think most people would consider the Pentateuch as part of the development of Christianity. Though Christianity split from Judaism in the New Testament, the Old Testament is still part of Christian scripture and theology. In what way do you mean it is non-Christian?
Yes. But it is not Christian literature. The Magna Carta is as much a part of the development of government in Australia as the Pentateuch is part of the development of Christianity, but the Magna Carta is not an Australian document.
It was written by non-Christians, to non-Christians, an a pre-Christian era. It was not written by Christians, or to Christians, or during the Christian era. It became part of the Christian canon, but it is not Christian literature. It is Hebrew literature, written by Hebrews to other Hebrews.
Would you say the Books of Enoch are Christian literature? The works of Aristotle? The speeches of Socrates?
No, but they aren’t considered God-inspired Scripture either. I think many Christians (at least on the more conservative side of theology) would say that Jesus and the NT was intended from the beginning, not “well, Judaism didn’t work, I guess we need to start a new religion”. In that sense, I would think they would say something like that while it was Hebrew literature, written by Hebrews to other Hebrews, they are also Christian literature written for Christians.
It is maybe a bit of semantics, and I’m not trying to make it an argument. I just know a lot of people who would find it odd to say that the Pentateuch was “non-Christian” and so I thought I’d ask.
Well that depends on who you ask, but I don’t see how that’s important in light of the issue at hand. You can’t deny the influence they had on Christianity. Justin Martyr enthusiastically represented men like Socrates as Christians, other early Christians imported neo-Platonism arguing it was pre-Christian Christianity, and Thomas Aquinas did his utmost to convince people that Aristotle’s writings were just another way of talking about Christianity.
So what’s your definition of Christian literature? Literature which at least some Christians believe is inspired? That’s a lot of literature, including some pagan Greek literature and some Jewish-pagan syncretic literature. Literature which influenced the development of Christianity? That list of works is even larger.
I call this replacement theology. The next step is white supremacy (and sometimes that’s not even the next step, it’s a step which has already been taken). There is nothing about the idea of Jesus being intended from the beginning, which necessitates taking the entire Old Testament and rebranding it as Christian literature.
I think anyone who can’t bring themselves to say the Pentateuch isn’t Christian literature, probably has unfortunate ideas about Jews. Historically, that has definitely been the case.
Until the parting of the ways, Christianity was a Jewish sect. It emerged from Jewish literature. During the first century it generated new literature which was distinctly Christian, though at this time Christianity was still a Jewish sect. However, it differentiated sharply between the new literature of Christianity and the original literature of its Jewish origins. We do not find the first century Christians referring to the Old Testament as Christian literature. From where I stand, Christian literature is by definition literature written by Christians, for Christians, within a Christian milieu.
I certainly wouldn’t deny the major influence, but that’s not the same thing as being part of Scripture. The Christian Bible includes both Old and New Testaments, not the works of Aristotle.
Well, I honestly didn’t see that one coming. But in actuality, the people who I know are actually the opposite.
Look, I’m not saying the Old Testament is not Hebrew, I’m saying that many people (I think I’d put myself in that camp, but don’t have a strong opinion) would say that the Old Testament is both Hebrew literature and Christian literature. Christianity grew out of Judaism and carried with it their literature. But surely you’ve seen how NT authors reinterpret some of the OT. I’m sure the early Church Fathers did as well. Certainly within Christianity I think the trend has been to take a Christocentric view of the OT (maybe too much at times), which again says to me that the OT is also Christian literature. It is part of the canon of authoritative Scripture from which Christian theologians work.
This gets back to me not having a clear understanding of what you consider to be Christian literature. Thus far you’ve identified literature as Christian if it had an effect on the development of Christianity. Are you now adding to that the qualification that it must be considered to be inspired by at least some Christians? In that case, in goes Enoch and a lot of other stuff. Remember some Christians believed that certain of the Greeks were literally Christians, including Socrates, so their writings were Christian literature.
I am trying to understand why. As I’ve mentioned a couple of times now, I need to understand your definition of “Christian literature”. Was the Old Testament Christian literature in the pre-Christian era?
Yes. They followed absolutely stock standard Second Temple Period Jewish hermeneutics when they did so. This was inevitable, firstly because they were themselves Jews and secondly because they were appealing to Jews. In most cases they used interpretations which already existed within Jewish literature. As if that wasn’t enough, Jesus and Paul also recycled various stories, parables, and phrases from Jewish and Greek literature and oral tradition.
I don’t think interpreting something as Christocentric makes it Christian literature. You can take a Christocentric view of the Lord of the Rings, but that doesn’t make it Christian literature even though Tolkein was a devout Catholic and his writing was indisputably influenced by his religious beliefs.
I believe you and I both know that there is no universally accepted canon within Christianity. If a piece of literature is Christian just because it’s in someone’s canon, that’s a very vague definition of “Christian literature”. It’s entirely subjective.
The point of recognizing the phrase “powers and principalities” as something pre-gnostic… and not simply non-gnostic is that ordinary thinkers didn’t have a reason to use such a phrase.
You yourself acknowledged the presence of “elements”. If you can’t give me a safe term for these elements, there is not much for us to talk about.
Since I’m not a Biblical Studies scholar, or have even taken a relevant course, I’m not going to say much other than personal belief here.
I, along with most Christians I would think, believe the Bible (the 66 books are common ground) is the authoritative literature of Christianity. That doesn’t mean other books aren’t Christian literature but I do think that means that the Pentateuch is considered Christian literature.
Now, it seems like you’re using a definition for “literature” that centers more on the author. If a Hebrew writes it, it’s Hebrew literature, if a Christian writes it, it’s Christian literature. I was thinking about it more in terms of use. Who uses this literature to derive their theological beliefs, who thinks this is sacred? That is why I would say the OT is both Jewish and Christian.
I think that’s all I’m going to say about it, I don’t want to get into a long discussion about something that was just a passing thought.
Then that’s an entirely subjective definition of “Christian literature”, which means Christian literature can be anything some Christians decide is Christian literature.
It would help me understand you if you answered my previous question; was the Old Testament Christian literature in the pre-Christian era?
Actually the author, audience, socio-cultural and historical context, and purpose.
No, because that implies you can’t be a Hebrew and a Christian. That’s obviously wrong, since most of the New Testament was written by authors who were both Hebrew and Christian.
Sorry, didn’t mean to skip that. I think that would be a decent way to say what I was thinking. Of course, Christianity wasn’t separate from Judaism before the NT. I think the Christian scriptures (and story) start with Genesis 1:1.
I agree with Jordan. The Old Testament is Christian literature – for a Christian. The Christian understands the Old Testament to be part of the written divine revelation. Indeed, the very fact that Christians call the Jewish Scriptures the “Old Testament” (where “Old” does not mean “entirely superseded” but something more like “preparatory”) indicates that they see the two bodies of literature, Jewish Scriptures and New Testament, as in thematic continuity. They see Jesus as already adumbrated in the Old Testament.
Jonathan Burke is taking the standard Biblical studies approach of understanding works in their original context. And this approach is legitimate to the extent that the original context of the Jewish Scriptures was not Christian. As far as we can tell, the authors did not consciously intend to be foreshadowing or laying the groundwork for Christian faith. They were writing for an Israelite (and later Jewish) audience, not for Christians. But from the traditional Christian point of view, the Jewish Scriptures point to a fulfillment in the life of Jesus and can only be fully understood in light of the New Testament. This would be the case for all mainstream Christians – Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, etc. Whether it is the case for all the breakaway sects, such as JWs and Christadelphians, I couldn’t with authority say, though the JW literature I have read treats the entire Bible (Old and New Testaments) as conveying a consistent Christian teaching.
In my own academic work, I read Genesis (and all the OT) as Israelite literature, not as Christian literature, because I was trying to get straight what it would have meant to pre-Christian readers. That is perfectly legitimate. But I was not reading the Hebrew Bible as a Christian theologian would. I was not reading it as part of the Christian Bible. Traditional Christianity has always believed that, whatever the value of studying the Hebrew Bible in its original context, such study is not sufficient for the purposes of Christian theology. The Christian theologian understands the two Testaments as one continuous revelation. Certainly the Christian theologian acknowledges differences in emphasis and focus as one moves from the Old Testament to the New, but does not see the two Testaments as teaching two radically different religions.
So the answer to the question, “Is the Old Testament a Christian work?” depends on one’s focus. If one is focused on “the original conscious intention of the Old Testament writers”, then no, the Old Testament is not a Christian book, but an Israelite / Jewish book (or, perhaps, library of books). But if one is focused on “what the Old Testament means within Christianity,” then yes, it is a Christian book, a major component of the Christian Holy Bible.
Ok thanks that helps me understand your view. I completely disagree, and in my experience that position is just a few steps from “Jews are evil and they smell bad”, because it’s a foundation stone of replacement theology, which produced centuries of systemic anti-Semitism by supposedly “orthodox” Christians.
I don’t know if it helps Jordan, but it makes no difference to me. As another example, I would say Latin texts written by Romans in the Roman imperial era, are Roman texts. They are not Italian texts, despite the fact that they were written by the ancestors of people who would become Italians, in a region which would become Italy, using a language which would become Italian.
As a Christian I believe the Old Testament is part of the deposit of authoritative literature defining the Christian faith. However, I don’t see the necessity to rebrand it Christian literature. It’s Hebrew literature, which Christians view as authoritative for Christians. I am strongly resistant to any efforts to erase the Jewish origins of Christianity, and take Hebrew literature away from the Jewish people.
Well, just to be clear, I am not in any way saying I agree with anti-Semitic positions. I just see it as a both/and and not an either/or when it comes to whether the OT is a Christian or Jewish text.
I don’t know if I would hold a supersessionist position or not, but I think your “few steps away” are really big steps. In my view, whether the New Covenant supersedes the Mosaic Covenant or not does not justify anti-Semitism in any way.
I agree with what you said, I just didn’t think I was “rebranding” it. I was just using it as shorthand for what you said “part of the deposit of authoritative literature defining the Christian faith”.