[Oe List ...] 7/29/10, Spong: The Origins of the New Testament, Part XXXI: The General Epistles - James, I and II Peter and Ju

Thu Jul 29 11:37:46 CDT 2010

Print this Article 

Not a member?Subscribe now! 

Thursday July 29, 2010 

The Origins of the New Testament, Part XXXI
The General Epistles — James, I & II Peter and Jude

When we come near the end of the New Testament, we run into four small books that bear the names of well-known figures in the gospel tradition. They are James and I Peter, each of which consists of five chapters; then there is II Peter with three chapters and finally Jude with only one. James is, in many ways, a counterpoint to the main thrust of the New Testament, particularly to Paul, and was traditionally thought to be the work, not of James, the son of Zebedee, or even James, the son of Alphaeus, both of whom are on a biblical list of the twelve, but James, the brother of the Lord. That is a statement that sometimes startles people who have, usually unconsciously, bought into the idea that Mary was a "perpetual virgin" and thus could not have had any other children. Yet the facts are th at in Mark 6, the brothers of Jesus are named as James, Joses, Simon and Judas. Mark also says that Jesus had at least two sisters, though they are unnamed. James, the Lord's brother, also appears in Paul's letter to the Galatians as the head of Jerusalem's Christian community and as Paul's adversary. James is identified by Paul as one who is articulating and insisting on the point of view that says that the doorway to Christianity can only travel through Judaism with all its rules and with the acknowledgement of the centrality of the Torah. Paul countered this perspective in Galatians and with his whole ministry, which involved his attempt to carry out a mission to the Gentiles. At one point, James, the Lord's brother, seemed to have represented a strong option and to offer a viable aspect of what it meant to be Christian. The epistle of James seeks to present a later form of that early argument and it serves today to balance Paul's overwhelming theology of Grace. Mar tin Luther, clearly a direct theological descendant of Paul, called this epistle an "epistle of straw" and tried to have it expunged from the New Testament. Obviously, he failed! The epistle of James asserts that faith is insufficient without works; indeed, he says that without works faith is dead! 
Like the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistle of James is more a treatise or a sermon than it is a letter, but it does represent that earliest Jewish-Christian strand of pre-Pauline Christianity. In its 108 verses, it contains 60 imperative statements about how the gospel is to be lived. It has some echoes in it of the Sermon on the Mount and it is steeped in ethical prescriptions. For this epistle, "ethics" means the demands of the law or the Torah, while for Paul "ethics" means the fruit of the Spirit. Therein is set the battle lines for the oldest fight in Christian history. This epistle is generally dated in the last decade of the first century between 90 and100 and it would appear unlikely that James, the brother of Jesus, is its actual author. It is, however, fair to say that the argument of this book supports the point of view that James appears to have held, but we must face the fact that all we know abut James comes from Paul in Galatians or from Luke in the book of Acts. There are some references in John's gospel to the "brothers of Jesus," none of which are flattering. We have no reason to believe that any of these sources were objective. I find the epistle of James to be of value, but not of great value. It has, in fact, inspired charitable work among the poor and that is its major claim to belong in the New Testament.
The epistle I Peter was written probably late in the first century and in elegant Greek that Simon Peter, the fisherman from Galilee, could never have mastered. Its purpose was to encourage Christians undergoing persecution, probably in the region of the world that we today call Turkey. It purports to have been written from Rome at the time of the persecutions under Nero, when Peter was crucified, but according to undocumented tradition his crucifixion was upside down. This epistle has thus been used to buttress the Vatican's claims that Peter became the first bishop of Rome and thus the first Pope. This idea was then augmented with the words that Jesus supposedly said to Peter in Matthew's gospel that "upon this rock, (i.e., Peter instead of Peter's faith) I will build my church." It is arguments like these that are supposed to provide us with clear evidence that Jesus intended the Christian Church to be run from Rome. Of course, there have been other such claims in hist ory. Constantine thought the Christian Church should be run from Constantinople. The Mormons thought it should be run from Salt Lake City. The Religious Science movement thought it should be run from Boston. We ought never to confuse institutional power claims with the gospel.
There are, nonetheless, some noteworthy things in the epistle we call I Peter that merit mention. It seems to oppose the physicality of the bodily resurrection and to identify Jesus' resurrection with what later came to be called "the ascension," rather than with a resuscitated body. This would line the author of this book up with Paul and to place him in opposition to Luke where the resurrection is made to be quite physical. This fact causes me to date I Peter prior to Luke, or prior to the time when Luke's gospel gained ascendancy in the mid 90's.
It is also from I Peter that we get the phrase in the creed, "He descended into hell," a phrase that originally meant not the place of torment, but Gehenna, the abode of the dead. Peter suggests that, between the crucifixion and the resurrection, Jesus went and preached to "the souls in prison." This text was thus used to support the argument that Christianity developed, seeking to give access to salvation to those who lived before Christ, while still maintaining the authority to make exclusive claims for the ultimacy of this new faith system. Human sensitivity always seems to find a way to lessen the horror of hostile theological rules. Creeds that many seem to believe "dropped out of heaven fully formed" in fact reveal a remarkable ability to adapt to new realities and new sensitivities.
II Peter was probably the last written book to be included in the New Testament. It is generally dated in the first half of the second century, perhaps around 135-140 CE. Obviously, this book was not written by Peter. None of the author claims made for any of these books will stand up to any real scrutiny, a fact that has been known in Christian academic circles for at least two hundred years. II Peter actually quotes from the Epistle of Jude, which we know was not written until well after the turn of the first century. It also refers to Paul's letters as if they are not only bound together in a single volume, but also as if they are already regarded as "scripture" equal in authority to any other part of the sacred text. These attitudes once again reflect a point of view and indeed a practice that did not develop until the second century. In today's world II Peter is, I fear, little noticed and seldom quoted. That is probably what it deserves for, like some of the les ser prophets, it speaks almost not at all about the concerns of today's world.
Jude is the final of the non-Johannine general epistles. It too claims to be written by Jude or Judas, also one of the brothers of Jesus. There is no suggestion that the Judas, who is supposedly the traitor, is the author of this book, but it does open us to consider the meaning of the fact that, on some of the New Testament's lists of the twelve, there are two apostles named Judas, one of whom is thought of as good. Luke calls this good Judas simply the son of James (Luke 6:16) and lists him alongside Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve. John, who never gives us a list of the twelve, does, however, refer to one called Judas, who is "not Iscariot." (John 14:22). It is Mark's gospel, once again, that refers to a Judas who is the brother of Jesus. Tradition has tried to associate one of these figures with the Epistle of Jude. To identify any biblical character with the authorship of this book is by any measure a stretch. Jude is a late first century work written well pa st the life span of any of the New Testament characters, a fact revealed quite clearly in its text. 
The Epistle of Jude is a late treatise that reflects a time similar to that of the Pastorals. It assumes that Christianity is now a fully worked out, even codified faith system. It speaks of a Christianity that has been and can be articulated in a recognizable creedal form. It even refers to Christianity as "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." It seems to assume that Christianity dropped from heaven in a set of propositional beliefs, well buttressed with footnotes. Some "systematic theology" books today appear to believe that this is still true. The authors of these books talk of "the deposit of faith," which reminds me more of a cow patty than it does of a living relationship with God. This attitude is part of what has created the kind of religion in general or the kind of Christianity in particular that has fueled religious wars, religious persecutions, the Crusades, the Inquisition and the activity we call forced conversions. When I wrote my book, The Sins of Scripture, this text from Jude was one of what I called "the terrible texts of the Bible." It earned that designation by the fact that it has been used throughout history to justify a variety of life-killing prejudices: anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, homophobia and even the continued degradation of our environment. The book of Jude has, in my opinion, few saving graces, but one of them might be the Benediction with which the book closes (1:24, 25) that, in an adapted form, has entered the liturgies of many churches.
Not all parts of the Bible are equally holy. The General Epistles we have looked at in this column do not come close to some other parts of the New Testament in either integrity or power. They are, however, "in the book" and so, to complete our journey through the Bible, I include them. I urge you to read them once. It will not take more than ten minutes. Then you will have done it and you will never have to do it again, for, some parts of the Bible, once is enough. 

– John Shelby Spong

Question and Answer 
With John Shelby Spong

John, via the Internet, writes:
For some time now, I have been reading your weekly essays and I have read many of your books. Your understanding of the Bible and your insight into it are remarkable. I am challenged by your thoughts. However, I read a lot about what you no longer believe, but what do you believe? Regarding Jesus, I would like to see, in a page or less, what your basic belief really is. Do you believe in any of the basic doctrines that we have been taught since childhood?

Dear John,
The way you phrase your question is a familiar one that I have heard many times. I do not, however, believe I can answer it without unpacking it. It is a regular criticism made by fundamentalists and the issue is not that I have staked out a new position, but that it is not consistent with what they were taught and so they hear only the negativity. For example, I have written a 300-page book on the birth narratives of the New Testament (Born of a Woman) that reveals quite clearly that I do not believe that these stories of stars, angels, wise men, shepherds and virgin mothers are literal. Yes, I can say that in one page. The bulk of the book is, however, an analysis of what these stories meant, why they were formed, what their background sources were and what the message is that we must be prepared to hear in these stories. About 95% of this book is an attempt to say what the birth stories of Jesus are really about. Yet, I still hear people like you say to me "you don't believe in the Virgin Birth, but you never say what you do believe." I do not plead guilty to that charge. I believe that is an expression of something present in the threatened defensiveness of my would-be critic that he or she cannot admit. I want to say: "Just what part of my elaborate explanation are you incapable of grasping?"
The same thing is true about the resurrection. I have written a 350-page book (Resurrection: Myth or Reality) on what I think is behind the Easter narratives. I do not think these narratives have anything to do with a resuscitated physical body. When Fundamentalists cannot hear that, they only hear a challenge to their own limited belief system and so they experience it as negative. That is when I get a letter from them asking me to state in one page or less what "I do believe."
You ask specifically about Jesus. I respond that in my book, Jesus for the Non-Religious, I spelled out in intimate detail what I believe about Jesus and what the Jesus story is about. I went into the miracle stories, the differences in the gospel accounts and the role the Hebrew Scriptures played in the developing Jesus story and I concluded that book with the deepest affirmation of why I believe in Jesus and call him Lord that I know how to write. So when you request a statement about what I really believe about Jesus, I have to assume that you haven't, you can't or you won't hear what I have written.
The real problem with fundamentalism is that it narrows the brain to the only options that fundamentalists understand. When any discussion goes beyond those limits, they hear only negativity and so they begin to press for a more positive statement, i.e., one that confirms their childish Sunday school images.
So I do not think your question is really about me so much as it is an insight into where you are. I, therefore, cannot answer it in a way that would be satisfactory to you — so I cannot respond to it.
I recognize that this sounds harsh and that is not what I intend, but I have reached the point where I no longer desire to affirm ignorance as if it is a form of piety and I see no virtue in trying to respond to a question that reveals no ability on the part of the questioner to listen. 

– John Shelby Spong

Send your questions to support at johnshelbyspong.com 

Print this Article 

Not a member? Subscribe now! 

Thanks for joining our mailing list, elliestock at aol.com, for A New Christianity For A New World on 11/09/2008 
REMOVE me from this list | Add me to this list | Manage my e-mail settings | Contact Customer Service 
Copyright 2010 Everyday Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
4 Marshall Street, North Adams, MA 01247
Subject to our terms of service and privacy policy 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20100729/3da0436d/attachment-0001.html>