Chapter 1 Critiqued:
- Earl Doherty wrote: “This preliminary dip into the early Christian view of the Son presents a picture which scholars have long found perplexing. The epistles cast Jesus in an exclusively mythological and spiritual role, while ignoring the fact or identity of his supposed incarnation, the man who career on earth presumably started it all. Here is how one scholar has put it (Herman Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus, p. 3): “No one who examines the Gospels, and then reads the epistles of Paul can escape the impression that he is moving in two entirely different spheres….When Paul writes of Jesus as the Christ, historical and human traits appear to be obscure, and Christ appears to have significance only as a transcendent divine being” (TJP:18-19).
- Now, in context, this is what Herman Ridderbos wrote: “The theme retains its significance because no one who examines the gospels, especially the synoptic gospels, and then reads the epistles of Paul, can escape the impression that he is moving in two entirely different spheres. The difference has a special relation to the position which the person of Jesus Christ takes in both groups of New Testament writings. The gospels portray Jesus as the preacher of the kingdom of heaven; a person who walked on the hills of Galilee, and gave his commandments in the sermon on the mount. They depict a Jesus who was moved by the fate of distressed sinners; a person who ate with both Pharisees and publicans; a man who suffered, died, and penetrated into the deepest depths of human existence. However, when Paul writes of Jesus, as the Christ, all such historical and human traits appear to be obscure and Christ appears to have significance only as a transcendent divine being. It is true that he (Jesus) enters the fullness of time and descends to earth to take part in the conflict against superhuman powers, and therefore permits himself to be nailed to the cross, and given over to death, but in all this he remains the pre-existent, eternal Son of God” (PJOGCPPC:3-4).
- In terms of what Herman Ridderbos really thinks about Paul and the historical Jesus:
- “Again and again even in the most exalted Christological statements such as Philippians 2:6-8, Romans 15:3, 2 Corinthians 8:9, Galatians 4:4, there clearly comes to the fore the historical picture of Jesus in his earthly wanderings and humiliation, a knowledge of the tradition concerning Jesus, appears as one of the essential presuppositions of Paul’s gospel proclamation” (PJOGCPPC:51-52).
- “In summary, with respect to the sources of Paul’s preaching of Christ, the direct data of the New Testament points before everything else to the revelation which Paul received from the risen, exalted Christ, and to the tradition received from the early Christian church. This does not deny but rather presupposes that his preaching bears the stamp of his own personality, spiritual gifts, and theological powers. Nevertheless, in spite of all these personal, penetrating, and unique characteristics, and even a one-sided emphasis, Paul is, in the most absolute sense of the word, aware that he is a legitimate proclaimer of the historical Jesus Christ, and that he is in full harmony with his fellow apostles, and is also in a direct continuous relationship with the Old Testament revelation. Moreover, Paul passionately opposes any falsification of the gospel, and appeals to the leading of the Spirit of Christ in support of his conception of the wisdom of God” (PJOGCPPC:62).
- Doherty wrote: “Since the epistle writers themselves give us no hint that they are ‘interpreting’ a human man, are not scholars guilty of ‘reading into’ the documents things they wish to see there, rather than what the documents actually say?” (TJP:22).
- As the reader will discover further down in this critique, the epistle writers do provide details that inform the reader that they are in fact writing about an actual human man.
- It is also ironic that Doherty accuses New Testament scholars of reading their own views back into the epistles since Doherty does the very same thing, as will become evident further along in this critique.
|
|
