Liberal Phil Jenkins reviews Tom Holland's DOMINION in Christianity Today, spending zero time on its central thesis about the poor, talking instead about what he wants to talk about, which is classic Phil Jenkins

Oh look! A deer!

Tom Holland's DOMINION: HOW THE CHRISTIAN REVOLUTION REMADE THE WORLD is reviewed here by Phil Jenkins:

In Holland’s view, the teachings of Jesus constituted an ethical revolution that would gradually transform human consciousness, to the extent that we today find it hard to imagine credible alternative systems. ... Christianity mattered because it taught respect (or even veneration) for the poor and the oppressed. That implied the historically unprecedented exaltation of humility, forgiveness, and love.

A proper examination of the thesis would discuss the extent to which the antecedents of Jesus' teaching in Judaism as well as Jesus' personal historical circumstances do or do not explain it, but you won't get that from Phil Jenkins.

The ethical revolution of the good news preached to the poor (Matthew 11:5, Luke 4:18, Luke 7:22) is itself part of a long backstory which gradually transformed Judaism as its society degenerated and came to manipulate and oppress its own people. The rise of the prophets as social critics cannot be understood apart from Israel's mistreatment of the poor. Jesus comes on the scene as a prophet himself at the end of this long period of cultural degeneration, the poor bastard child of parents who could not afford the required lamb offering for him (Leviticus 12:1ff.).

[T]hey brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

-- Luke 2:22ff.

The cleansing of the Temple's "thieves" (Matthew 21, Mark 11, Luke 19), the warnings against wealth (Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 18), the favoritism for the have-nots (Matthew 5, Luke 6, Luke 14, Luke 16), the transvaluation of poverty as a good in the call to discipleship (Luke 14:33), and the woes pronounced against the haves (Luke 1, Luke 6, Luke 12, Matthew 23) cannot be understood apart from his personal experience, let alone from the cultural history.

The basis of culture is in the cult, and Jesus attacked it. Jesus is a revolutionary in that he found in the Temple cult the central means by which the poor were oppressed, but he was a religious, not a political, revolutionary, and specifically an eschatological revolutionary. That he expected apocalyptic judgment on this system by the Son of Man and his armies and its replacement with a heavenly Temple, a Jerusalem descending from above, shows this.

It is also what repulses interpreters, who would rather talk about, and make it about, anything else.   

You'd think an historian searching for very early Christian evidence of gender equality would know about Galatians 3 and I Corinthians 7, but you'd be wrong

Am I missing anything by way of obvious sources? Put another way, without Romans 16 above all, and a couple of other comparable lists of “Say hello to” greetings in other letters, would any later scholar dared have portrayed very early Christianity in the gender-equal way that modern scholars suggest? Think how easily something like Romans 16 might have dropped out of the transmission history of that document, if an early scribe had decided it was just personal stuff, and not worth preserving. If that had occurred, just what would we know or think about gender roles in early Christianity then? 


 

 

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

-- Galatians 3:28

For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.

 

-- I Corinthians 7:4

Phil Jenkins never tells you the crackpot solution of Ellen G. White to "The Great Disappointment"

Namely, The Investigative Judgment, a doctrine wholly derived from "a charismatic prophetic leader" and not found anywhere in Scripture, here:

"The Adventists grew out of the millenarian fervor that swept the United States in the 1840s. In 1844, William Miller warned of the Christ’s imminent return and the world’s destruction. In fact, he did so twice, and the double failure provoked what is termed the Great Disappoint­ment. A rem­nant of Millerites then reconstructed their movement under the visionary leadership of New England–born Ellen G. White."

Seventh-day Adventism is a failed apocalyptic cult, not unlike Christianity itself.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. By their fruit ye shall know them. "Does a spring pour forth from the same opening fresh water and brackish?" -- James 3:11

Phil Jenkins should know better, but practices a form of political correctness all too characteristic of the contemporary academic community by not addressing Seventh-day Adventism's raison d'être. Too prickly no doubt for The Christian Century, and for his career. So much for thinking critically, living faithfully.

The religion of Ben Carson does no real harm in the world, except insofar as its adherents are occasionally no better than your average criminal, which Jenkins does mention. Thank God for small favors, I suppose.

But Adventism is still nuts.

Once more Phil Jenkins stumbles into the truth: that Jesus was a prophet to the Jews, not the Gentiles

Here:

Did the living Jesus recorded in the New Testament believe that his mission extended to gentiles? None of the four canonical Gospels explicitly declare that he recognized any duty beyond the frontiers of Judaism, which is remarkable when we recall that all four were written at a time when the Jesus movement had opened its doors to non-Jews.

----------------------------------------

Jenkins cites evidence, but not of the starkest sort which explicitly forbids the Gentile mission:

"Into the way of the Gentiles do not go . . .."

-- Matthew 10:5

Liberal Bishop John A. T. Robinson in 1976 famously put the composition of most of the New Testament before 70 A.D. for the failure to even hint at the destruction of the temple, which would mean that the absence of a Gentile mission sensibility in the gospels isn't an oddity but a marker equal in significance for an earlier dating of the gospel sources. That said, the tyranny of the Passion narrative in the Synoptics speaks to the intrusion of an editorial impulse from the later period which must not be quickly discounted, nor naively accepted (e.g. from the supplied ending to Mark, Mark 16:15: "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature").

   

When doubting the resurrection got you fined, imprisoned and dead

From Phil Jenkins, here:

'Between about 1690 and 1740, the British Isles were home to several quite brilliant scholars and thinkers who applied critical scholarship to the Bible and Christian tradition generally. I stress “British Isles” because some were Irish or Scottish as well as English. We know them collectively as the Deists. Major figures included John Toland, Thomas Woolston, Thomas Chubb, Anthony Collins, and Matthew Tindal. Their assault on orthodoxy was many sided, but they ranged widely over both the Old and New Testaments. ...

'It was in the early eighteenth century that there came into existence a culture with the critical tools and the relative freedom to examine this question, and the Resurrection soon came under attack.

'In England, this was a central issue in the pamphlet wars known as the Deist Controversy (c.1725-35). Woolston wrote (1727-29) an attempted demolition of the literal Resurrection, together with most of the Miracle stories. The resulting legal reaction led to Woolston dying in prison . . ..'

From the Wikipedia entry, here:

The Discourses, 30,000 copies of which were said to have been sold, were six in number, the first appearing in 1727, the next five 1728-1729, with two Defences in 1729 1730. For these publications he was tried before Chief Justice Raymond in 1729. Found guilty of blasphemy, Woolston was sentenced (28 November) to pay a fine of £25 for each of the first four Discourses, with imprisonment till paid, and also to a year's imprisonment and to give security, for his good behaviour during life. He failed to find this security, and remained in confinement until his death.

Historian Phil Jenkins discovers that Christianity is the grandmother of Bolshevism

Here and imbedded links (he hasn't really yet thought through it):

"Engels had something like a love for the early Christians, and he imagines talking to them as fellow-sufferers who came from exactly the [same] kind of setting."

Attacked in the comments at one point, he responds:

". . . the early Christian movement was very diverse in its theologies. By the way, one common explanation for the ebionites was that they were the remnants of the original Jewish followers of Jesus, including the bulk of the Jerusalem church, who never accepted Paul's innovations."

Keep it up Phil! You are on the right track! Too bad you didn't train in philology . . . it wouldn't have taken you this long to figure out that Pauline Christianity is a double-edged sword leaving us with two forms of materialism which now war for our imaginations, even though you'll probably become bored and get side-tracked away from this also.

Jewish Christians renounced the material, as did Jesus, believing the kingdom of God was coming down to earth from God, right quick like, as they say in the holler. Paul's Gospel by contrast baptized entrepreneurialism and made free-enterprise and Judaism safe for the world. Hence the tithers of today, and the spread of the congregation on the synagogue model.

Historians would be better engaged figuring out what went wrong there with Paul. Albert Schweitzer figured out what went wrong with Jesus.

Phil Jenkins says some silly things about the Gospel of Mark

Here:

It’s obvious to assume that Mark, a skilled and thoughtful writer, did not mean to end the book thus, and that an original ending has been lost. But that is where the story gets puzzling. If we assume the standard theory of the composition of the gospels, then Mark wrote about 70. Perhaps a quarter century afterwards, his book was used by both Matthew and Luke, who incorporated virtually his whole text, and it is clear that neither author knew any other or fuller ending. If an ending was lost, it vanished very early indeed, if it was ever written. At least by the second century, various editors added their own conclusions to satisfy what they felt to be the gaping hole at the end of Mark, and one survives in the KJV as Mark 16.8-20. ...

If it really was meant to end at 16:8, Mark may be the greatest anti-Christian, anti-Jesus movement, tract ever written. It could scarcely have been so highly regarded as it was, still less accepted as the basis of other traditions. ...

It’s very likely indeed that the next scene would have been something very much like John 21, with a Resurrection appearance (a) to Peter (b) in Galilee. If the ending of Mark’s gospel actually did exist and then was lost, this is presumably just what it would have looked like. (Rudolf Bultmann was one famous scholar who argued this).

-------------------------------

First of all, Mark is not a "skilled" writer. His Greek is everywhere clumsy, as John C. Meagher noted long ago, may he rest in peace. The almost laughable uses of kai, euthus, and gar represent just three examples well known to students of Mark's style, if it can be dignified as style. Mark has some facility with Greek as a second language, and evidently is using it to communicate to a special audience of similarly situated individuals, perhaps in Rome.

Matthew and Luke "incorporated virtually his whole text", but not in the verbatim manner this suggests. Those authors frequently change details of Mark's content, and improve upon his Greek significantly. This means they are correcting Mark as much as they are using him.

The absence of a proper ending which then fails to show up in Matthew and Luke indeed shows the early absence of the ending, but it is also another reason why Matthew and Luke felt the need to write their own compositions. They believed Mark to be inadequate, and inadequate on a number of levels. Luke especially shares this attitude about the inadequacy of the previous accounts with which he is familiar, and presumably "John" would not have written his account subsequent to the Synoptics if he thought they were adequate, else he had not departed from them so radically.

The use of Mark as architecture for composition by Matthew and Luke pays respect to Mark, it is granted, but was Mark really "so highly regarded"? The dearth of early manuscript evidence for Mark speaks against it. A highly regarded gospel would be copied more often from the beginning, and more copies would survive from that time than do.

Finally, the suggestion that what we have at the end of John, as hinted at by the Gospel of Peter, constitutes what is missing from Mark is plausible. However, students of the Fourth Gospel know that John is not a unity either. The prologue, the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the final chapter all look like additions, which means that the narrative ending we are looking for in Mark has its basis only in material which is itself mainly the phenomenon of later editorial activity, some of which was not canonized. Not firm ground to stand on.

For Most Protestants, It's Mary's Perpetual Virginity Which Is The Problem

Philip Jenkins, here, who notes the Feast of the Nativity of Mary on September 8th:

As recently as 1950, Pope Pius XII stated that “we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” ... [F]or most Protestants (and some Catholics), the ideas I am describing – the whole Marian lore – is so bizarre, so outré, so sentimental, and so blatantly superstitious that it just does not belong within the proper study of Christianity. If anything, it’s actively anti-Christian. Even scholars prepared to wrestle with the intricacies of Gnostic cosmic mythology throw up their hands at what they consider a farrago of medieval nonsense. ... [T]hat response is profoundly mistaken. If we don’t understand devotion to Mary, together with such specifics as the Assumption, we are missing a very large portion of the Christian experience throughout history. It’s not “just medieval,” any more than it is a trivial or superstitious accretion.

---------------------------------------------------------

That's right. The perpetual virginity of Mary is no more outrageous than the virgin birth of Christ, except that for Protestants it conflicts with the evidence that Jesus had brothers during his lifetime. To them the Romanists engage in special pleading when they say that the plain sense of these texts isn't the plain sense and should be understood in the light of the much later "apocryphal" evidence which maintained Mary's perpetual virginity and that his "brothers" must have been only his nephews or cousins.

More to the point, however, missed by most commentators, is that Jesus' rejection of normal family relationships is paramount in the Synoptic narratives mentioning his brothers and mother, and is rooted in his apocalyptic worldview of an imminent end of the world. Being tied down by a wife and children or a mother and a father and siblings, or a job or possessions or the cares of this life generally, all will hold you back and keep you from escaping from the wrath which is to come, and come soon. To repent is to turn your back on all this. The historical development is that when this Apocalypse he preached failed to materialize, this part of the teaching was transformed into an idealization of celibacy and virginity.

Mary Of Magdala, Just One Of The Many Problems Of The Fourth Gospel

Philip Jenkins correctly warns about taking "John" too seriously when it comes to Mary of Magdala, here:

Instead, we have to remember that virtually everything we hear about the special relationship between Jesus and the Magdalene comes from one scene in one gospel, and should be understood as the literary creation of that one author. Perhaps the author of John's Gospel just found the Resurrection meeting scene so wonderful that he could not resist writing it, even if he had to bury the other material he must have known, including Mary's seven demons. Sometimes, an artist just has to create, and never mind the consequences. Over many centuries, that outlying story became the standard popular vision of the Resurrection.

The case is similar with things like being born again, foot-washing and realized eschatology.