‘Christology’ is a subject widely discussed by academic historians and Christian theologians around the world. In Malaysia, it has recently gained traction among Muslims.
Local university and religious groups have been organising seminars on Christology. However, instead of actual experts and scholars on the subject, these seminars are taught by people with dubious background.
To give some ideas of what actual discussion on Christology is like, I have contacted a friend who is a scholar on the topic to interview him.
Andrew Loke is currently Research Assistant Professor at the University of Hong Kong. He was previously a medical doctor before becoming a scholar. Andrew obtained his PhD from King’s College London and has published two academic works on Christology. The first one was based on his doctoral dissertation entitled ‘A Kryptic Model of the Incarnation,’ published by Routledge in 2014. His second work on the subject is a historical study entitled ‘The Origin of Divine Christology,’ published by Cambridge University Press just a few months ago.
Southeast Asian Theologies (SAT): Andrew, what actually is ‘Christology’?
Andrew: Christology is the doctrine and the study of Jesus Christ---who he is, what he has done.
SAT: You have studied the origin of the doctrine of Jesus Christ as a historical research in the way historians engage with their subject. What makes this approach different from the usual “this or that Holy Book says so, therefore it is true”?
Andrew: A number of Holy Books mention Jesus Christ. Some of the things they say about Jesus are similar, but some are contradictory. To adjudicate the debate concerning the contradictory statements, one should not simply assume that what this or that Holy Book say must be true, since this would beg the question. Rather, given that the origin of Christology is a phenomenon of history, it can be studied using the methods of critical historical enquiry.
This would involve an examination of the beliefs of the earliest Christians which are reflected in their writings, and a consideration of factors such as the religious, social and cultural background of the earliest Christians, their understanding of sacred texts, their religious experiences, their interactions with surrounding cultures and the challenges that they faced. As Jesus and the earliest Christians are Jews in the first century Roman-era, historians on Christology have to research into their specific historical context, and not on other sources from a different era and background.
SAT: You mentioned in your work that there are a number of different views concerning the origination of the claim that Jesus is divine. Please tell us what is your take on each of them. The first view says that “divine Christology” (i.e. the doctrine that Jesus was divine) began towards the end of the first century, around the time when the Gospel of John was written.
Andrew: This view is contradicted by the evidences found in the letters by apostle Paul, which were written in the middle of the first century, and which reflected the beliefs of Christians which were already well-established even earlier.
As shown in Chapter 2 of my book ‘The Origin of Divine Christology’, Paul affirms the doctrine that Jesus was ‘truly divine’, that is Jesus and the Father are both within the being of YHWH. This conclusion is shown by evidences of worship practices and spiritual expressions expressed towards Christ which are found in Paul’s letters, and by texts such as Philippians 2:6-11, 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Romans 11:36, taken together. These are all written in the middle of the first century, which reflect beliefs that have been established and accepted earlier. Therefore, the doctrine that Jesus was truly divine did not begin near the end of the first century, but much earlier.
SAT: The second view acknowledges the divine Christology was already established by middle of first century, but attributes this as a result of influences by Greek and other ancient mythology.
Andrew: This view has been widely rejected by historical-critical scholars. Based on historical evidences of the time, the devout Jews during the Roman-era were very, very strict in their religious belief about reserving worship only for one God the Creator (see Romans 1:18-25). Hence, it is unlikely that those devout Jews, such as the earliest Christian leaders, would be opened to Greek or pagan influences to distort their religion.
Even if some of these Jewish Christians did accommodate under pagan influences, there would have been strong objections from the more conservative Jewish Christians concerning the worship of Christ, just as they raised objections against innovation that is considered distorting their religion (as seen in the objection against Jews and non-Jews eating together in Galatians 2:11-12). Instead they were in widespread agreement about the status of Christ, as shown in Chapter 5 of my book.
Moreover, many scholars have observed that acclaiming and invoking Jesus as ‘Lord’ was done in Aramaic-speaking Jewish Christian circles, as indicated by the Aramaic invocation formula ‘maranatha’, preserved by Paul in 1 Corinthians 16:22. Furthermore, the references to Jesus as ‘Lord’ in Paul’s letters frequently involve allusions to Old Testament passages (e.g. Philippians 2:9-11, 1 Corinthians 8:6) and appropriation of biblical phrasing (e.g. Romans 10:9-13). These confirm that the early use of the title ‘Lord’ in Christian circles derived from Jewish religious vocabulary and not from Greek or pagan sources.
SAT: What about the view that says, it was apostle Paul who introduced the idea that Jesus is divine, and thus distorted the actual Jesus?
Andrew: This is another view which has been widely rejected by historians. Paul was not so influential that he could have invented Christianity. Before his active missionary work, there were already groups of Christians across the region. For example, a large group already existed in Rome even before Paul visited the place.
The earliest centre of Christianity was the twelve apostles in Jerusalem. Paul himself consulted and sought guidance from the Christian leaders in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-2; Acts 9:26-28, 15:2). The historian Richard Bauckham in his book ‘Jesus: A Very Short Introduction’ published by Oxford University Press, summarizes in this way: “What was common to the whole Christian movement derived from Jerusalem, not from Paul, and Paul himself derived the central message he preached from the Jerusalem apostles.”
SAT: And the third view says that the perception that Jesus is divine was widely accepted by a sizeable group of people shortly after Jesus’ death.
Andrew: This view is well-established by the historical evidences, which indicate that Jesus was already regarded as truly divine by the earliest Christian church in Jerusalem led by the twelve apostles. As explained in ‘The Origin of Divine Christology’, Jesus was regarded as truly divine in earliest Christianity because its leaders thought that God demanded them to do so through the following way: a sizeable group of them perceived that Jesus claimed and showed himself to be truly divine, and they thought that God vindicated this claim by raising Jesus from the dead.
SAT: Are not the four gospels in the Bible corrupted? If they are, then they are not reliable historical sources on Jesus.
Andrew: Many scholars have pointed out that the view that the four gospels in the Bible are corrupted and unreliable historical sources on Jesus is based on widespread misconceptions, see http://ehrmanproject.com.
In any case, regardless of whether the four gospels are corrupted or not, we still need to explain how did the earliest Christians come to regard Jesus as truly divine. If Jesus did not claim and show himself to be truly divine and rise from the dead, this would not have happened; the earliest Christian leaders who were devout ancient monotheistic Jews would have regarded Jesus as merely a teacher or a prophet, but not as truly divine.
SAT: Thank you for taking time to share your expertise on Christology. This short interview would help to give a glimpse of what actually the topic is about. If addressed by people from dubious background and without actual academic research work done on the subject, we will only end up with confusion and having wrong ideas over Christology.
Local university and religious groups have been organising seminars on Christology. However, instead of actual experts and scholars on the subject, these seminars are taught by people with dubious background.
To give some ideas of what actual discussion on Christology is like, I have contacted a friend who is a scholar on the topic to interview him.
Andrew Loke is currently Research Assistant Professor at the University of Hong Kong. He was previously a medical doctor before becoming a scholar. Andrew obtained his PhD from King’s College London and has published two academic works on Christology. The first one was based on his doctoral dissertation entitled ‘A Kryptic Model of the Incarnation,’ published by Routledge in 2014. His second work on the subject is a historical study entitled ‘The Origin of Divine Christology,’ published by Cambridge University Press just a few months ago.
Southeast Asian Theologies (SAT): Andrew, what actually is ‘Christology’?
Andrew: Christology is the doctrine and the study of Jesus Christ---who he is, what he has done.
SAT: You have studied the origin of the doctrine of Jesus Christ as a historical research in the way historians engage with their subject. What makes this approach different from the usual “this or that Holy Book says so, therefore it is true”?
Andrew: A number of Holy Books mention Jesus Christ. Some of the things they say about Jesus are similar, but some are contradictory. To adjudicate the debate concerning the contradictory statements, one should not simply assume that what this or that Holy Book say must be true, since this would beg the question. Rather, given that the origin of Christology is a phenomenon of history, it can be studied using the methods of critical historical enquiry.
This would involve an examination of the beliefs of the earliest Christians which are reflected in their writings, and a consideration of factors such as the religious, social and cultural background of the earliest Christians, their understanding of sacred texts, their religious experiences, their interactions with surrounding cultures and the challenges that they faced. As Jesus and the earliest Christians are Jews in the first century Roman-era, historians on Christology have to research into their specific historical context, and not on other sources from a different era and background.
SAT: You mentioned in your work that there are a number of different views concerning the origination of the claim that Jesus is divine. Please tell us what is your take on each of them. The first view says that “divine Christology” (i.e. the doctrine that Jesus was divine) began towards the end of the first century, around the time when the Gospel of John was written.
Andrew: This view is contradicted by the evidences found in the letters by apostle Paul, which were written in the middle of the first century, and which reflected the beliefs of Christians which were already well-established even earlier.
As shown in Chapter 2 of my book ‘The Origin of Divine Christology’, Paul affirms the doctrine that Jesus was ‘truly divine’, that is Jesus and the Father are both within the being of YHWH. This conclusion is shown by evidences of worship practices and spiritual expressions expressed towards Christ which are found in Paul’s letters, and by texts such as Philippians 2:6-11, 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Romans 11:36, taken together. These are all written in the middle of the first century, which reflect beliefs that have been established and accepted earlier. Therefore, the doctrine that Jesus was truly divine did not begin near the end of the first century, but much earlier.
SAT: The second view acknowledges the divine Christology was already established by middle of first century, but attributes this as a result of influences by Greek and other ancient mythology.
Andrew: This view has been widely rejected by historical-critical scholars. Based on historical evidences of the time, the devout Jews during the Roman-era were very, very strict in their religious belief about reserving worship only for one God the Creator (see Romans 1:18-25). Hence, it is unlikely that those devout Jews, such as the earliest Christian leaders, would be opened to Greek or pagan influences to distort their religion.
Even if some of these Jewish Christians did accommodate under pagan influences, there would have been strong objections from the more conservative Jewish Christians concerning the worship of Christ, just as they raised objections against innovation that is considered distorting their religion (as seen in the objection against Jews and non-Jews eating together in Galatians 2:11-12). Instead they were in widespread agreement about the status of Christ, as shown in Chapter 5 of my book.
Moreover, many scholars have observed that acclaiming and invoking Jesus as ‘Lord’ was done in Aramaic-speaking Jewish Christian circles, as indicated by the Aramaic invocation formula ‘maranatha’, preserved by Paul in 1 Corinthians 16:22. Furthermore, the references to Jesus as ‘Lord’ in Paul’s letters frequently involve allusions to Old Testament passages (e.g. Philippians 2:9-11, 1 Corinthians 8:6) and appropriation of biblical phrasing (e.g. Romans 10:9-13). These confirm that the early use of the title ‘Lord’ in Christian circles derived from Jewish religious vocabulary and not from Greek or pagan sources.
SAT: What about the view that says, it was apostle Paul who introduced the idea that Jesus is divine, and thus distorted the actual Jesus?
Andrew: This is another view which has been widely rejected by historians. Paul was not so influential that he could have invented Christianity. Before his active missionary work, there were already groups of Christians across the region. For example, a large group already existed in Rome even before Paul visited the place.
The earliest centre of Christianity was the twelve apostles in Jerusalem. Paul himself consulted and sought guidance from the Christian leaders in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-2; Acts 9:26-28, 15:2). The historian Richard Bauckham in his book ‘Jesus: A Very Short Introduction’ published by Oxford University Press, summarizes in this way: “What was common to the whole Christian movement derived from Jerusalem, not from Paul, and Paul himself derived the central message he preached from the Jerusalem apostles.”
SAT: And the third view says that the perception that Jesus is divine was widely accepted by a sizeable group of people shortly after Jesus’ death.
Andrew: This view is well-established by the historical evidences, which indicate that Jesus was already regarded as truly divine by the earliest Christian church in Jerusalem led by the twelve apostles. As explained in ‘The Origin of Divine Christology’, Jesus was regarded as truly divine in earliest Christianity because its leaders thought that God demanded them to do so through the following way: a sizeable group of them perceived that Jesus claimed and showed himself to be truly divine, and they thought that God vindicated this claim by raising Jesus from the dead.
SAT: Are not the four gospels in the Bible corrupted? If they are, then they are not reliable historical sources on Jesus.
Andrew: Many scholars have pointed out that the view that the four gospels in the Bible are corrupted and unreliable historical sources on Jesus is based on widespread misconceptions, see http://ehrmanproject.com.
In any case, regardless of whether the four gospels are corrupted or not, we still need to explain how did the earliest Christians come to regard Jesus as truly divine. If Jesus did not claim and show himself to be truly divine and rise from the dead, this would not have happened; the earliest Christian leaders who were devout ancient monotheistic Jews would have regarded Jesus as merely a teacher or a prophet, but not as truly divine.
SAT: Thank you for taking time to share your expertise on Christology. This short interview would help to give a glimpse of what actually the topic is about. If addressed by people from dubious background and without actual academic research work done on the subject, we will only end up with confusion and having wrong ideas over Christology.
No comments:
Post a Comment