Category: Nicholas Perrin
Wednesdays with Wright: Reading Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: Nicholas Perrin
Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays (eds) (2011). Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
This is the fourth part of a series Brian LePort and I are tackling out of this book, which is based off the most recent Wheaton Conference. Scroll to the bottom of this entry and you will be provided with links to previous posts that cover previous chapters and moreover a schedule for future entries.
Nicholas Perrin, “Jesus’ Eschatology and Kingdom Ethics: Ever the Twain Shall Meet.”
Nicholas Perrin’s starts his discussion on Wright’s JVG by first talking about the work The Gospel and the Land by W.D. Davies. In this book, Davies examines the relationship between the land and the Kingdom of God through the lens of Gunther Bornkamm and George B. Caird. As I’m sure many of you know, the work of Bornkamm, to Caird, is as antithetical as Ken Ham’s views on Genesis to Francis Collins’. So, as Perrin says, they are “diametrically opposed thinkers”, “though not internally inconsistent.”
If you aren’t familiar with the work of Caird and Bornkamm, you’ll need a little background in order to understand Perrin’s critique of Wright. Bornkamm’s Jesus is neither “politically laden nor apocalyptically oriented.” For Bornkamm, Jesus wasn’t concerned with the political side of things in the first century milieu. Primarily, according to Bornkamm, Jesus was a wisdom teacher, a sage, your personal ethicist challenging you to change your wrong ways. Thus, the challenge posed by Jesus was a personal one, not a national one. To juxtapose Bornkamm, Caird’s Jesus was the hands in the dirt, rough middle easterner, apocalyptic prophet that has come to pronounce judgment on Israel as a whole for their corrupt aspirations. For Bornkamm, Jesus’ ethic was a personal one. While for Caird, Jesus’ ethic was a sociopolitical one.
Promises
After setting the stage, Perrin discusses “The promise of Wright and Wright’s Jesus.”:
- “Tom’s groundbreaking Methodology.” N.T. Wright’s methodology was thoroughly groundbreaking for the times. The Jesus Seminar when Wright wrote NTPG and JVG were the hot trend of the days. Their methodology was a minimalistic one, but promised accurate results. The unfortunate problem with their employed methodology was that “Jesus” wasn’t really Jesus. He was a middle-eastern man in which we pretty much knew nothing about. Wright on the other hand argues “Instead of examining one piece at a time without reference to their potential interconnectedness, why not get all the pieces on the table, see what fits, and then decide what the box top must have looked like?” Perrin likes Wright’s historical methodology so much that “the critical methodology employed in Jesus and the Victory of God seems to be almost as important as—if not more important than—its critical results.
- The second great contribution is “Jesus as a reader of Israel’s Scriptures.” Though I won’t expound upon this in much detail, Wright’s doing this settled Jesus as a man of the times. So, breaking off from the Bultmannian tradition where Jesus was a type of proto-Marcionite who transcended the Judaism of his days, to the contrary for Wright, Jesus was an actual thoroughbred Jew.
- The third promising point of Wright’s work stated by Perrin is Jesus’ identification with Israel and its royal Messiah. Israel, not as the state of Israel, “but rather the entire historical trajectory leading up to, including and climaxing his ministry.” And “Jesus was claiming to be both the embodiment and fulfillment of storied Israel.” Tied in with this, is Tom’s argument of exile and restoration, and that Jesus is the one who is bringing this restoration from exile (though not in the way expected) as Israel for Israel.
Issue with Wright’s Jesus in JVG
Resuming from where we began in this post: There has been a stressing pull between the eschatalogical ethic of Bornkamm’s Jesus and Caird’s Jesus. Primarily, Wright, in JVG finds himself in the trajectory of Caird’s Jesus who’s raison d’etre was to bring sociopolitical change. Though Perrin agrees with this, he furthermore argues that Jesus didn’t just focus on this, but also focused on the personal change of individuals amongst the body of Israel (MK. 10:17-22).
What’s interesting about Perrin’s criticism of Wright’s work in JVG, is that it’s exactly that. It is a critique of Wright’s work in JVG. He shows that in his later works, Wright actually does espouse a Jesus who wasn’t just sociopolitically minded, but also personally-minded.
Wright’s Response
In a very familial tone, Wright fully accepts Nick’s criticism in relation to JVG. Wright says: “I have been so used to seeing Jesus’ commands and warnings being reduced to the rather trivial moral challenges faced by young people in comfortable Western homes that I was determined, if I could, to draw out the much larger picture. Start with the big picture and you’ll get the details eventually. Start with the details and you may never know where you are on the map.” And “there was clearly plenty of ordinary, boring old sin going on too, and Jesus named and shamed it.”
Conclusion
For me this chapter was “alright.” I enjoyed the cordial discussion. I also agreed with Perrin on his criticism of Wright. But, unfortunately I found Perrin’s speaking style hard to follow. Which later made it even more impossible to understand while reading. Of course this is a personal gripe I have with Perrin, and may only effect me, not others. All in all, it was a good read and I recommend it; this is especially so if you want to grasp general themes in Wright’s work before tackling the beast itself.
———–
Schedule for this series:
06/01: Marianne Meye Thompson, “Jesus and the Victory of God Meets the Gospel of John” (Brian LePort)
06/08: Richard B. Hays, “Knowing Jesus: Story, History, and the Question of Truth” (Daniel James Levy)
06/22: Nicholas Perrin, “Jesus’ Eschatology and Kingdom Ethics: Ever the Twain Shall Meet” (Daniel James Levy)
06/29: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies in the Life of the Church?” (Brian LePort)
07/06: Edith M. Humphrey, “Glimpsing the Glory: Paul’s Gospel, Righteousness, and the Beautiful Feet of N.T. Wright” (Daniel James Levy)
07/13: Jeremy S. Begbie, “The Shape of Things to Come? Wright Amidst Emerging Ecclesiologies” (Brian LePort)
07/20: Markus Bockmuehl, “Did St. Paul Go to Heaven When He Died? (Daniel James Levy)
07/27: Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation? The State of the Union with Christ in St. Paul and Protestant Soteriology” (Brian LePort)
08/03: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Pauline Studies in the Life of the Church?” (Daniel James Levy)
John the Baptist in the Gospel of Thomas
This is a continuation of my series on John the Baptist (see here).
Since the Gospel of Thomas is a sort of “sayings” document (though I think recent work on this gospel by people like Nicholas Perrin display more organization than previously thought) it is no surprise that our mention of John the Baptist seems a bit detached. He is mentioned in logion 46 which reads:
Jesus said, “Among those born of women, from Adam until John the Baptist, there is no one so superior to John the Baptist that his eyes should not be lowered (before him). Yet I have said, whichever one of you comes to be a child will be acquainted with the kingdom and will become superior to John.” (trans. Thomas O. Lambdin)
Most translators have struggled with the final part of the first sentence. Lambdin’s rendering suggest that there should be shame in John’s presence (a lowering of the eyes). Layton agrees (here). Stephen Patterson and Marvin Meyer prefer “averted” which has the same connotation (here). Whatever translation is closest doesn’t determine the meaning. It is straightforward in attributing greatness to John.
The second half of the saying echoes what we have read in the canonical gospels. Again, it carries the connotation that if someone is “least in the kingdom” they are greater than John but it merges it with Jesus’ sayings about becoming a child to enter the kingdom.
What I did find interesting is the content of logion 47. In 47a it says, “A master cannot mount two horses or bend two bows. And a slave cannot serve two masters, otherwise the slave will honor the one and offend the other.” As we have observed the juxtaposition between Jesus and John throughout the Synoptics, the Fourth Gospel, and the Book of Acts it is interesting that either-or, serve one and not the other, language is used. Could Thomas be continuing in the tradition of exalting Jesus over John?
In 47b we read, “Nobody drinks aged wine and immediately wants to drink young wine. Young wine is not poured into old wineskins, or they might break, and aged wine is not poured into a new wineskin, or it might spoil. An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, since it would create a tear.” Again, we have either/or language and even “old” and “new”. Is Thomas continuing to juxtapose the ministry of Jesus and the ministry of John?
I am no Thomas scholar but considering the progressive distinction between Jesus and John that we have discussed it would seem that the author/compiler of Thomas put these two logion next to each other for a reason!
Nicholas Perrin on the Gospel of Thomas
Although I originally intended to blog through Thomas: The Other Gospel by Nicholas Perrin it became evident that I did not have the time to do so. Nevertheless, I did finish the book so I will write my short summary review here.
Thomas: The Other Gospel is a fantastic introduction to Thomasine scholarship. In the first half of the book he gives attention to what other scholars have been saying about Thomas which includes special attention to the views of Stephen J. Patterson, Elaine Pagels, and April D. DeConick. Perrin explains why he agrees and disagrees with these scholars at various points.
This is an important section to read if one has any interest in Thomas scholarship. It will introduce the reader to people who need to be read to go further in this area of study. Equally, it will help you better understand by Perrin stands out from the rest of the crowd when it comes to Thomas.
In the second half of the book Perrin presents his own thesis. First, he begins with an argument that although we have a Coptic manuscript and pieces of Greek manuscripts for Thomas it is most likely it was originally written in Syriac. For those such as myself who are unfamiliar with Coptic and Syriac he does a fair job of helping make this subject easy to understand.
Second, he does a bit of historiography showing how the debate regarding apostolic succession could have led to the composition of Thomas in Edessa.
Finally, he examines the Christology of Thomas in juxtaposition to the canonical gospels.
This book did a fine job peaking my interest in Thomas as well as other writers, especially DeConick, who take positions other than his own. Hopefully it will lead to a few responses from other scholars so that we can continue to make sense of this odd, step-child of a gospel.
To purchase from Amazon.com go here.
To read my interaction with this work see the following parts: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Thomas: The Other Gospel by Nicholas Perrin [5]
In my last post I surveyed Nicholas Perrin’s interaction with the proposals of Stephen J. Patterson. This time I will be surveying his interaction with the proposals of Elaine Pagels in chapter two.
Pagels understands Thomas to represent the “kind of faith that can be found within one’s self”. 1 The church suppressed this type of literature in favor for writings such as The Gospel of John that move Jesus into an exclusive place where he is worshiped as God, rather than our model as one of us who knows of his own divine spark. 2 In fact, Pagels argues that John was written as a response to the theology of Thomas. 3
There are some interesting proposals put forth by Pagels. If John was written against Thomas then Thomas is a first century document. If Thomas is a first century document (at least in some redacted form) then it gives us a peak at early, early Christianity. If this is a version of early Christianity we must ask, from the perspective of a historian, whether or not it is viable to suggest that the Thomas community might represent a legitimate, early Christianity community that was closely connected, somehow, to the historical Jesus.
In response, Perrin affirms Pagels emphasis that “Thomasine Christianity is fundamentally an interiorized religion, one that clear identifies self-knowledge with salvation.” 4 Second, Pagels interest in Thomas’ “protology” (beginnings, which is also another connection with John [see 1:1-1:18]) is something worth following up on. Third, Pagels is right to ask why “Thomas” is the patron disciple of this gospel. 5
Perrin challenges Pagels on several points, most related to the suggestion that John eventually had a monopoly on early Christian theology:
(1) Pagels reconstruction of history makes “Christianity-as-we-know-it…a historical accident involving an isolated and misguided figure we call John than it does to anything that may have gone on in the first century” since Pagels understands John as being the gospel that church accepted wrongly and used as a lens to reinterpret the earlier three gospels. 6
(2) Although Pagels doesn’t see how the Christology of the Fourth Gospel could match up with the Synoptics, the early church “while quit aware of differences between the gospels, did not seem to be quite so bothered”. 7
(3) The high Christology of John can be found in Paul, the Book of Hebrews, and even the Synoptic Gospels! 8
(4) The early church didn’t determine doctrine because of John, especially since Matthew was the gospel of choice if there was one. 9
(5) Any attempts to deduct the gospel message down to John alone was challenged by Bishop Iranaeus when the Valentinians tried this very thing! 10
My next post will focus upon Perrin’s inter-textual reasons for challenging Pagel’s hypothesis that John was written as a polemic against Thomas.
___________________________________________
[1] Nicholas Perrin. Thomas: The Other Gospel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. 38.
[2] Ibid. 39.
[3] Ibid. 39-42.
[4] Ibid. 42.
[5] Ibid. 42-43.
[6] Ibid. 43.
[7] Ibid. 44.
[8] Ibid. 44-45.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
Thomas: The Other Gospel by Nicholas Perrin [4]
Now I have entered the part of Perrin’s book where he begins to interact with other Thomas scholars. As I noted last time the three scholars toward which Perrin gives the most attention are Stephen J. Patterson, Elaine Pagels, and April DeConick. The chapter I will be posting on here (“The Thomas community on the move”) is the chapter on Patterson.
Stephen J. Patterson is the professor of New Testament at Eden Theological Seminary in St. Louis, MO. It is his suggestion that the author of Thomas was not dependent upon the canonical gospels. Therefore, the Thomas community has its own, independent origins. 1
Patterson argues that the order of the sayings in Thomas do not parallel the Synoptics, therefore it is odd to see Thomas as the production of someone who was copying from the Synoptics. 2 Where it appears that the author of Thomas has adopted Lukan or Marcan language it is suggested this crept in at a later stage of the document’s development. 3 Therefore, it may be best to call the Thomas tradition “autonomous” rather than “independent” since at some point it was rubbed on by the Synoptics. 4
For reasons given in the book Patterson dates the original Thomas as early as AD 70. 5 It was the product of a Christian community that was itinerant, cut its family ties, and lived a life of poverty and begging. It “prioritized” the “presence of the living Jesus” over “Jewish rituals and disciplines”. “Finally, it was a community open to women–well, sort of. The bad news, as the last logion in the collection tells us, is that women had to ‘become like men’ first (Gos. Thom. 114).” 6
Perrin responds with the following points of agreement:
(1) He agrees that the Thomas community was an ascetic group.
(2) Thomas‘ eschatology is actualized.
(3) Thomasine Christianity and Syrian Christianity are rightly compared by Patterson. 7
Perrin brings forth the following critiques:
(1) He doesn’t agree with Patterson’s reasoning for his argument that there is no dependence on the Synoptics since there are Mattheanisms and Lucanisms. 8
(2) Patterson makes the same mistake at James Robinson by “playing fast and loose with the categories of form and genre”. Therefore, Perrin disagrees that this document is a mere “sayings” document that was compiled without much of an agenda therefore leading us back closer to the real, historical Jesus. 9
(3) Although ascetic, it does not look like other models of asceticism in early Christianity. It goes further than the Synoptic tradition in its emphasis on poverty. It ignores that the Jesus Movement came forth from the movement of John the Baptist which had rites and rituals early on. 10
The conclusions reached by Perrin are fourfold:
(1) The order of the sayings does need some explanation if one is going to argue that Thomas depends on the Synoptics.
(2) Thomas Christianity was ascetic.
(3) Thomasine eschatology was realized eschatology (more like The Gospel of John than the Synoptics).
(4) There “are certain semblances between Thomas Christianity and early Syriac Christianity. 11
______________________________________________
[1] Nicholas Perrin. Thomas: The Other Gospel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. 20-21.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid. 23.
[4] Ibid. 24.
[5] Ibid. 25.
[6] Ibid. 26.
[7] Ibid. 28-29.
[8] Ibid. 29.
[9] Ibid. 31.
[10] Ibid. 34-35.
[11] Ibid. 36.
Thomas: The Other Gospel by Nicholas Perrin [3]
I want to say a few brief words about the end of the ‘Introduction’ chapter in Nicholas Perrin’s Thomas: The Other Gospel (see my a-tad-too-lengthy post on the rest of the chapter here). First, according to Perrin, “the most pressing question” is how the Coptic Gospel of Thomas relates to the canonical gospels. 1 It was assumed early on that Thomas was simply a dependent distortion of the synoptics. This was until James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester.
Robinson noted that Thomas was a “sayings source” like the hypothetical Q (logoi sophon = sayings of the wise). Koester argued that this “sayings source” was free of all the extra narrative baggage of the synoptics and therefore was likely an earlier, purer, more original set of sayings from the historical Jesus. 2
This is part of what Perrin sets out to address in his book. To challenge these presuppositions about Thomas Perrin must wrestle with the writings of three prominent, contemporary Thomas scholars: (1) Stephen Patterson who carries along the “Koester-Robinson thesis”, (2) Elaine Pagels, and (3) April DeConick.
In my next post I will summarize Perrin’s interaction with Patterson.
_________________________________________
[1] Nicholas Perrin. Thomas: The Other Gospel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. 13.
[2] Ibid.
Thomas: The Other Gospel by Nicholas Perrin [2]
I have just finished reading Nicholas Perrin’s article “Thomas: The Fifth Gospel” (JETS 49/1 [March 2006] 67-80) as well as the preface and Introduction chapter (one) in his book Thomas: The Other Gospel. Perrin is Assistant Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School. He completed his PhD at Marquette University and his dissertation evolved into Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron (SBL, 2002).
Perrin gives a few reasons for writing this newest book which I will be reviewing, chapter-by-chapter, here. First, he felt that “there needs to be a scholarly yet accessible treatment of what researchers have been saying lately about The Gospel of Thomas. Second, “in North American discussions there is an unsettling homogeneity within Thomas scholarship. Third, he wants to avoid the basic question asked of Thomas–”When was this gospel written?”–in favor of fresh angles that will challenge the monopoly view of many scholars that Thomas is a first century document, maybe even earlier than the Synoptic gospels. 1
In his introduction Nicholas Perrin gives a brief history of the discovery of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945 (also discovered was the Gospel of Judas).2 Then he proceeds to explain a bit about Thomas. It is a document that contains 114 sayings (logion) mostly attributed to Jesus. Since it is a “sayings” gospel there has been some comparisons to the hypothetical “Q” document. This has led to much speculation regarding the possibility that Thomas is earlier than the Synoptics and that the Synoptics developed tradition around those sayings that are found in a rawer form in Thomas.
Before the Coptic version of Thomas had been discovered there were a few Greek manuscripts that post-Nag Hammadi were recognized to correspond to Thomas. Those documents were found in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. The fragments are named after this location and include P. Oxy 1, 654, and 655.
P. Oxy 1 corresponds to Thomas 26-33 and 77a. P. Oxy 654 corresponds to 1-7. P. Oxy 655 corresponds to 24, 36-39. According to Perrin, “The Oxyrhynchus fragments are particularly useful in that they provide a terminus ad quem for the dating of The Gospel of Thomas: the first copy could not have been written any later than the first few decades of the third century (200-20 CE). 3
Hippolytus of Rome, Origen of Alexandria, and Eusebius of Caesarea all reference or refer to Thomas. Hippolytus wrote in the second or third decade of the third century. Origen wrote these words sometime around this same time. Eusebius claimed that this was one of the heretical writings circulating which means it was likely well accepted by some groups. 4
Since the sayings are supposed to be quotations of Jesus of Nazareth the document cannot be any earlier than 30 CE. “This leaves us with a rather broad window: c. 30 – c. 210 CE.” 5 There are many differing opinions on where Thomas originates along this timeline.
There is much debate over whether Thomas can be said to be reliant upon the Synoptics, the Synoptics upon Thomas, or two parallel traditions that are not interdependent. Also, there are some questions related to whether or not the 114 sayings were written at once or whether the sayings just kept collecting over time. If at once, when, by whom, and so forth? If over time what are the earlier sayings? How does this shape our understanding of early Christianity?
Most Thomas scholars agree that the provenance of Thomas was Edessa (modern Urfa, Turkey). Many think the original text was written in Greek (Perrin argues for Syriac). 6
Is Thomas a “sayings” document? Perrin argues, “It is not entirely accurate to call the Gospel of Thomas a ‘sayings collection’. There are sayings, indeed, but alongside these are a number of miniature scenes and dialogues. 7
Also, there are many who suggest Thomas is Gnostic. Perrin disagrees. He writes,
While I agree that ‘Gnostic’ and ‘Gnosticism’ makes for a pretty unwieldy rug under which to sweep all those sects that are not ostensibly proto-orthodox, the term has its place, at least if defined accurately enough. All the same, I disagree with those who say that the Gospel of Thomas is Gnostic. To be sure, the sayings gospel shares many elements with purported Gnostic texts (elements of anti-Judaism, hatred of the body, secret knowledge, etc.), but there is no hint that Thomas’ Creator God is the same sadistic deity or pompous idiot that we meet in the Gnostic materials. Lacking these features, Thomas must be judged to be non-Gnostic. 8
So this is a bit of a sweeping summary of the groundwork laid down by Perrin. I will discuss the end of chapter one in my next post, but for now I will let this all too long post come to a much needed end!
______________________________
[1] Thomas: The Other Gospels, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. vii.
[2] Ibid. 1-2.
[3] Ibid. 8.
[4] Ibid. 8-9.
[5] Ibid. 9.
[6] Ibid. 12.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid. 13.
Thomas: The Other Gospel by Nicholas Perrin [1]
There are a few areas that I intend to focus on blogging about over the next few months: (1) John R. Levison’s book Filled with the Spirit (see here). (2) The Gospel of Mark (see here and here). (3) The forthcoming Advent Season, especially since my local church assembly, Imago Dei, has been a catalyst for the ‘Advent Conspiracy’ movement (see here and here). (4) Finally, non-canonical documents, especially gospels (see here). I wrote this paragraph if for nothing else but to remind myself to stay focused on discussions I have already started.
One of those areas, #4, will include The Gospel of Thomas which I will be writing a term paper on in early December. In preparation, at the nudging of Mike’s book review on Nicholas Perrin’s Thomas: The Other Gospel (see here) I will probably be giving a fair amount of attention to this book and Thomas about which it was written.
Anyways, this may very well be useless information but for those who are wondering if this blog is worth visiting, at least to read what I write (I am not sure about what JohnDave has up his sleeve), you now have something upon which you can base your decision!
