Marquette University Professors on Continuity between Second Temple Judaism and Christianity

Last week in Dr. Barnes class we discussed the influence of Second Temple, especially apocalyptic, literature on Christian understanding of their religion. Dr. Barnes said that this intertestamental literature was very important to the early Church Fathers and studying it is important for work in Patristics. However, not all scholars think this way.

Here at Marquette University, there are a number of professors (Barnes, Golitzin, Dempsey, and Orlov) who do follow this supposition–that there are many continuities between Second Temple Judaism (specifically certain strands) and early Christianity.  As Christianity progresses, the similarities lessen for some doctrines, but the roots can be seen.

Scholars have not always thought this way.

The Old School of the History of Religions

In the German schools of historical/critical methodology, there arose a number of theories about the beliefs of the early Christians and how religion itself developed. The work of these theorists is known as the old School of the History of Religions (old because now there is a new).  They concluded that early Christianity belief about Christ was a “low” Christology–that early Christians believed that Jesus was a normal human being.  All this other talk of miracles, divinity, apocalypticism, etc. was all added later.

According to this school of thought, human beliefs regarding Deity started with primitive mythologies and archetypal dramas (“Ur dramas”). As a society progresses and more divisions of labor arise, their beliefs become more systematized and rationalized. They are verbalized and eventually written down. This is what we see, according to this theory, in Second Temple Judaism–the old myths are systematized, redacted, and written down.  Then when we arrive at Christianity, the traditions are appropriated to their own historical situation. The ancient Ur dramas are projected onto actual historical events and persons.  Jesus is just human, but then the Christians later heap on him all the mythology of the past.

An interesting note–according to this line of thinking, the gnostic works are supposed to give us an anachronistic window directly into the original Ur religious dramas without systematizing. The later “high” Christology of succeeding centuries borrows greatly from gnosticism. (See The Myth of the God Incarnate, John Hick, ed.)

The New School of the History of Religions

This school of thought became quite popular, but it didn’t really work for the study of Patristics. Their system didn’t really apply to Patristics, and those who study this field just really had no reason to buy into it.  A number of top scholars (Hurtado, Segal, Fossum) noted that what the German school had been working with to reconstruct their history was the writings of Rabbinic Judaism. It had become clear to them that the Rabbis greatly exaggerated the extent to which Judaism had been so systematized–and when it had become so. If you don’t accept the rabbinic interpretation of history, the story changes.

There arose a “new” school of the history of religions that described Judaism as not this monolithic system of beliefs, but as a very diverse array of sects and theologies. They saw much continuity between Christianity and some strands of Second Temple Judaism (not that which the rabbis described).

Out of the many divergent “Judaisms” there were some major strands, mainly:

Moses/Aaron and priests          vs.          Enoch/Watchers

        Exodus/covenants                                  Mysticism/revelation/ascent

        Order/purity                                            Ascension/revelation

        Evil is a choice                                         Evil came from a

                                                                        supernatural source

These categories represent Zadokite vs. Enochic Judaism. Judaism certainly wasn’t as orderly as the rabbis projected. The ideas found in early Christianity (NT, etc.) were not invented later, but were already present in Second Temple Judaism. For example, the Enoch texts present Enoch as becoming an angel, with later traditions having him become a second god.  Instead of starting with a low Christology, Christianity most likely started with a high. (See “Christianity: The Elegant Solution” by Alan Segal, Angelomorphic Christology, by Charles Gieschen, also Jarl Fossum and Jean Danielou).

Note: Dr. Barnes expressed the idea that many scholars now prefer to go to Dead Sea Scrolls to check the accuracy of biblical passages, as opposed to checking the Masoretic text.

The work of this school has been so revolutionary, that the theory of low Christology is no longer supported.

Question: Does this new theory mean that Christianity is not unique? Not necessarily. The Old Testament declares that by Adam, death and sin came into the world. The OT’s solution for removing sin and guilt is for the the high priest to make atonement every year. However, this is not a complete remedy–the full remedy is indefinitely deferred to some point in the future.  In the New Testament, the problem is finally solved–Jesus Christ provides an atonement that is eternal and covers all.

Next post: new apocalyptic notes.