Questions concerning 'Did The First Christians Worship Jesus?' by James Dunn

[Paprika]

Here's the best statement I've seen: http://ntwrightpage.com/wright_jig.htm. He sees Jesus as acting as God, but I don't think he sees Jesus as ontologically identical. He has called Chalcedon "something of a confidence trick." This could be misleading out of context. I think he believes in what Chalcedon is trying to say, which is that Jesus is both human and the presence of God.

Let's see the wider context:

Chalcedon, I think, always smelled a bit like a confidence trick, celebrating in Tertullian-like fashion the absurdity of what is believed, and gave hostages to fortune which post-Enlightenment fortune has been using well. But the NT writers, by re-using the Jewish god-language in relation to Jesus and the Spirit manage to say everything that needs to be said, and to make it look, from one point of view at least, so natural, so obvious, so coherent with the nature of God and with the full humanity of Jesus that fortune receives no hostages at all. Ironically, the Jewish setting and meaning were either misunderstood or forgotten so soon within the early Church that the fathers struggled valiantly to express the truth, but with one hand, the biblical one, tied behind their backs. We now have crowning irony after a long tradition in which orthodox theology has been “playing away from home” expressing Christian truth in non-biblical patristic and subsequent formulations, we are now told that if we wish to go back and discover what the NT meant within its own universe of discourse—in other words, the world of Second Temple Judaism—it is we who are playing away from home. And let us not be put off by the sneer thatChalcedon, I think, always smelled a bit like a confidence trick, celebrating in Tertullian-like fashion the absurdity of what is believed, and gave hostages to fortune which post-Enlightenment fortune has been using well. But the NT writers, by re-using the Jewish god-language in relation to Jesus and the Spirit manage to say everything that needs to be said, and to make it look, from one point of view at least, so natural, so obvious, so coherent with the nature of God and with the full humanity of Jesus that fortune receives no hostages at all. Ironically, the Jewish setting and meaning were either misunderstood or forgotten so soon within the early Church that the fathers struggled valiantly to express the truth, but with one hand, the biblical one, tied behind their backs. We now have crowning irony after a long tradition in which orthodox theology has been “playing away from home” expressing Christian truth in non-biblical patristic and subsequent formulations, we are now told that if we wish to go back and discover what the NT meant within its own universe of discourse—in other words, the world of Second Temple Judaism—it is we who are playing away from home. And let us not be put off by the sneer that if these meanings were what God had intended us to have they would not have been forgotten for two thousand years. Those who stand in the Reformation tradition should remember what Luther said when people tried to pull that trick on him.

Myself, I think the very attitude that many Christians have towards the Chalcedonian is rather suspect: that the definition there is done, settled.

But that's not necessarily two natures with one hypostasis.

Right, he actually examines what the Scriptures says instead of the consensus of some men centuries later.

Everything I've seen by him speaks more of a functional than an ontological unity. I'm not a scholar, but from what I've read, this is typical of 20th and 21st Cent theology.

I don't see why there should be a necessary distinction between "functional" and "ontological", especially since for the Jews their YHWH wasn't known through abstract analysis of his ontological nature, but through His mighty acts.

[One Bad Pig]

Myself, I think the very attitude that many Christians have towards the Chalcedonian is rather suspect: that the definition there is done, settled.

Why should it be suspect? The topic was dividing the church. The council, with representatives from all over, examined the scriptures and earlier writings from the church, and proposed a consensus of belief, which was ratified by subsequent councils with representatives from all over.

Right, he actually examines what the Scriptures says instead of the consensus of some men centuries later.

So we should take the word of one person millennia later? That's how Protestants have gotten to hundreds of denominations and thousands of independent churches instead of a unified church; it's what happens when everyone decides they need to reinvent the wheel for themselves. Studying scripture is of course important, but it should be done in light of past understanding.

[Paprika]

Why should it be suspect? The topic was dividing the church. The council, with representatives from all over, examined the scriptures and earlier writings from the church, and proposed a consensus of belief, which was ratified by subsequent councils with representatives from all over.

I am talking about contemporary Christians. Why should we assume that the talk about the Trinity was basically settled by Chalcedon, with nothing or very little loose ends?

So we should take the word of one person millennia later?

That's not what I've claimed.

[hedrick]

So we should take the word of one person millennia later? That's how Protestants have gotten to hundreds of denominations and thousands of independent churches instead of a unified church; it's what happens when everyone decides they need to reinvent the wheel for themselves. Studying scripture is of course important, but it should be done in light of past understanding.

No, we shouldn't. At least in the confessional tradition, anyone is allowed to challenge the current understanding, on the basis of Scripture, but that's only the start of a discussion by the Church. In this particular case I think it's a lot more than Wright saying it. I think you'll find that something like his position would be agreed upon by most of the people in the current historical Jesus movement. So I'd say it's pretty widely accepted in mainline Protestantism.

I realize there are many different Christian groups. But there's no way one can avoid that fact. About all you can do is choose one whose methodology seems best. From my point of view I try to stick pretty near the mainstream of theological and Biblical scholarship based on broad enlightenment principles. Hence "the Church" for me (for the purposes of the previous paragraph, i.e. my theological community) means the mainline, plus those evangelicals (e.g. emergents) and Catholics that are part of the same scholarly community.

[Paprika]

No, we shouldn't. At least in the confessional tradition, anyone is allowed to challenge the current understanding, on the basis of Scripture, but that's only the start of a discussion by the Church. In this particular case I think it's a lot more than Wright saying it. I think you'll find that something like his position would be agreed upon by most of the people in the current historical Jesus movement. So I'd say it's pretty widely accepted in mainline Protestantism.

The historical Jesus movement has revealed 2 main things pertinent to this discussion:
1) "Son of God", a divine term in Christian use wasn't one for the Jews
2) The early Christians spoke of the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit as God in a different way from the formulation of Chalcedon.

It is thus very natural and important to critically examine the Chalcedonian formulation, comparing it with Scripture. The following questions arise easily: is it accurate? Does it miss anything important out? Is it coherent? Is there a better way of putting it?

[foudroyant]

Just read through bits of "Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and His Earliest Followers" by Christopher Tuckett.
After repeating some of Dunn's incorrect assertions about Christ not being the recipient of deomai/deeseis and latreuo on page 60 he writes:

Thus Dunn suggests that one should distinguish between 'worship' and 'veneration' so that, however, exalted a position Paul gives to Jesus, and, however, much it is one of 'veneration', it is perhaps still one step short of outright 'worship'. In this then perhaps Paul as a Jew stays within the boundaries of Jewish monotheistic faith, even granted the very exalted status he ascribes to Jesus.

[One Bad Pig]

I am talking about contemporary Christians. Why should we assume that the talk about the Trinity was basically settled by Chalcedon, with nothing or very little loose ends?

It wasn't. The Trinity was basically settled by the First Council of Ephesus, which ratified what had been settled at the First Council of Constantinople. Chalcedon had to do with Christology, not the Trinity. The formulation of Chalcedon asserted that Christ retained two natures, which did not settle the question of Christology; that took another couple Ecumenical Councils.

That's not what I've claimed.

You're implying that one modern man's interpretation of the scriptures trumps a council's worth of interpretation centuries ago.

[hedrick]

You're implying that one modern man's interpretation of the scriptures trumps a council's worth of interpretation centuries ago.

Yes. I think by the time Chalcedon met, and arguably even Nicea, the Church had intentionally jettisoned the Jewish background of the NT. I don't doubt that they made a good-faith attempt to understand Jesus using neo-platonic terminology (with adjustments, since no one thought that philosophy was fully adequate for describing the Gospel). But I don't think there's any reason for it to be controlling today. To understand classical theology I have to ignore the way I think about the world and consciously think of things from a metaphysical point of view that I would never consider using in real life. I think the original NT descriptions are better for us today than their restatements in 4th and 5th Cent terms, though I recognize the reasons many saw a need to do that restatement at the time.

I would definitely take Wright's description over Chalcedon. I think even in the 4th Cent they would have been better off to tell people that Greek philosophy wasn't the best vehicle for understanding Jesus, and look more carefully at just what son of God actually meant in 1st Cent Judaism. But the Church at that time was committed to lex orandi lex credendi, which effectively meant that popular piety trumped exegesis.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes. I think by the time Chalcedon met, and arguably even Nicea, the Church had intentionally jettisoned the Jewish background of the NT. I don't doubt that they made a good-faith attempt to understand Jesus using neo-platonic terminology (with adjustments, since no one thought that philosophy was fully adequate for describing the Gospel). But I don't think there's any reason for it to be controlling today. To understand classical theology I have to ignore the way I think about the world and consciously think of things from a metaphysical point of view that I would never consider using in real life. I think the original NT descriptions are better for us today than their restatements in 4th and 5th Cent terms, though I recognize the reasons many saw a need to do that restatement at the time.

The Church was not rejecting, but clarifying, NT descriptions in their restatements - and it was only natural to use the language that was available as far as was practicable. The tradition in which I grew up certainly did not view Chalcedon (or any other church council) as authoritative, but my subsequent reading of Chalcedon seems perfectly in line with what I was taught.

I would definitely take Wright's description over Chalcedon. I think even in the 4th Cent they would have been better off to tell people that Greek philosophy wasn't the best vehicle for understanding Jesus, and look more carefully at just what son of God actually meant in 1st Cent Judaism. But the Church at that time was committed to lex orandi lex credendi, which effectively meant that popular piety trumped exegesis.

We have to be careful about what we take to have been the meaning of 1st Century Judaism. First of all, it was hardly monolithic. Second, we have very little from the actual period in question. Later Judaism was inevitably colored by anti-Christian polemic. And popular piety did not necessarily trump exegesis; after all, Arianism spread because it was designed to appeal to the masses. In the fifth-sixth century, the Church split because the anti-Chalcedonian position was quite popular with the masses (particularly in Alexandria).