Critiquing: #078 — What did the apostles do after Acts? And Qs on the historicity of the New Testament

August 12, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Earliest Gospels — Divine Jesus — Apostolic Legends — Textual Criticism — New Testament Authorship

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	C	The episode addresses a range of historical and theological questions with moderate accuracy. Some claims, particularly regarding the earliest Christian beliefs and the hypothetical Q source, lack robust evidence and rely on speculative interpretations. The references to scholarly works are helpful but not always comprehensive enough to provide a clear and accurate picture of the historical events discussed.
Degree of Coherence	B-	The discussion is generally well-structured, following a logical progression from one topic to another. However, some arguments are presented in a manner that assumes prior knowledge from the audience, which may affect coherence for those unfamiliar with the subjects. The host’s interjections and the flow of questions help maintain a coherent narrative throughout the episode.
Absence of Fallacies	C	There are instances of logical fallacies, such as appeals to authority and hasty generalizations. For example, relying heavily on the opinions of specific scholars without addressing counter-arguments or broader scholarly consensus introduces bias. Additionally, the dismissal of alternative theories about early Christian beliefs and gospel authorship without thorough examination weakens the logical soundness of the discussion.
Degree of Evidence	C-	The episode cites various scholarly works and references some primary sources, but it lacks comprehensive evidence to substantiate many claims. The reliance on hypothetical sources like Q and speculative interpretations of early Christian texts limits the robustness of the evidence presented. Greater engagement with primary sources and a more critical evaluation of secondary sources would enhance the degree of evidence.
Degree of Testability	D	Many of the claims made in the episode, particularly those regarding the evolution of early Christian beliefs and the activities of the apostles after Acts, are difficult to test or verify. The lack of clear criteria for evaluating these historical claims and the reliance on speculative sources reduce the testability of the arguments. The episode would benefit from a more rigorous methodological approach to these historical questions.
Rational Confidence	C	The rational confidence in the arguments presented varies. While some claims are supported by scholarly references, the overall confidence is undermined by the speculative nature of some evidence and the logical fallacies present. Greater transparency in addressing uncertainties and counter-arguments would improve rational confidence. The discussion’s depth on certain topics helps but is not sufficient to fully bolster confidence in the conclusions.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Testability and Verification Concerns

“But the best evidence is actually in Paul’s letters themselves, where we see again and again the monotheism of the Jewish faith of the time expressed in things like the Shimha prayer.”

While referencing Paul’s letters, the episode does not provide a clear methodology to test these claims or verify the extent of early Christian monotheism’s evolution. This lack of testability undermines the strength of the argument. A more rigorous approach would involve delineating specific criteria for evaluating these claims and comparing them with other contemporary sources to provide a more balanced view.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument #1: Early Christian Beliefs about Jesus

1. Premise 1: Early Christians initially believed Jesus was solely a human messiah.
2. Premise 2: Over time, the belief evolved to include Jesus as divine.
3. Premise 3: This evolution is evident in the textual criticism of early and later gospels.
4. Hidden Premise: The hypothetical Q source and earliest gospels do not portray Jesus as divine.
5. Conclusion: Early Christian beliefs about Jesus evolved from seeing him as a human messiah to recognizing him as divine.

Counter-Argument:
The argument assumes a linear progression in the belief system of early Christians without adequately considering the diversity of early Christian communities and their varying theological perspectives. Additionally, the reliance on a hypothetical source like Q, which is not universally accepted or verifiable, weakens the argument. Furthermore, the presence of high Christology in Paul’s letters suggests that belief in Jesus’ divinity may have been more widespread and earlier than the argument posits. Scholars such as Larry Hurtado have argued that the worship of Jesus as divine was present very early in the Christian movement, challenging the notion of a gradual evolution in belief.

---

Argument #2: Authorship of 2 Peter

1. Premise 1: The letter of 2 Peter is stylistically different from 1 Peter.
2. Premise 2: 2 Peter likely used Jude and refers to Paul’s letters as scripture.
3. Premise 3: 2 Peter was not referred to until the time of Origen.
4. Hidden Premise: These factors make it unlikely that Simon Peter authored 2 Peter.
5. Conclusion: 2 Peter was probably not written by Simon Peter.

Counter-Argument:
While stylistic differences and the late reference to 2 Peter raise questions about its authorship, these factors alone do not conclusively disprove Petrine authorship. Ancient writing practices, including the use of secretaries and varying literary contexts, could account for stylistic differences. The early church’s acceptance of 2 Peter as canonical also warrants consideration, suggesting that early Christians found the content authoritative regardless of authorship uncertainties. Moreover, the argument does not fully address the possibility that the letter reflects genuine Petrine tradition mediated through a close associate or community associated with Peter, which could explain both the stylistic differences and the late attestation.

◉ Reimagining the Messiah

The Expectation of a Human Messiah and Its Influence on the Apostolic Spin of Jesus as a Spiritual Messiah

The expectation of a human Messiah played a pivotal role in shaping the early Christian narrative, particularly in the aftermath of Jesus’ unexpected death. This anticipation was deeply rooted in Jewish eschatological hopes and significantly influenced the apostles’ portrayal of Jesus as a spiritual Messiah. By exploring the socio-religious context of first-century Judaism, the apostles’ motivations, and the adaptability of messianic expectations, we can understand how this transformation made the Messianic fabrication more acceptable to contemporary Jews.

Jewish Messianic Expectations:
In the first century, Jews anticipated a human Messiah who would liberate them from Roman rule and restore the kingdom of Israel. This eschatological hope was not merely spiritual but also political and military, envisioning a descendant of David who would reclaim the throne and establish a just and sovereign state. Prophetic texts from the Hebrew Bible, such as those found in Isaiah and Jeremiah, were interpreted to support this vision. Consequently, any claim to messiahship was measured against these established expectations.

The Apostolic Challenge:
The unexpected crucifixion of Jesus posed a significant challenge to his followers. Crucifixion was a humiliating and cursed death, seemingly disqualifying Jesus from being the promised Davidic Messiah. Faced with this dilemma, the apostles needed to reinterpret Jesus’ life and death in a way that aligned with Jewish messianic hopes while addressing the stark reality of his execution.

Spiritualizing the Messiah:
The apostles responded by spiritualizing the concept of the Messiah. They reframed Jesus not as a political liberator but as a spiritual savior whose death and resurrection were part of a divine plan for humanity’s redemption. This reinterpretation allowed them to maintain Jesus’ messianic identity while circumventing the dissonance caused by his crucifixion. Paul’s epistles, for example, emphasize Jesus’ role in overcoming sin and death, rather than Roman oppression.

Palatability to Contemporary Jews:
By adapting the messianic narrative, the apostles made their message more palatable to Jews who were already familiar with the concept of a human Messiah. The notion of a suffering and resurrected Messiah was novel but not entirely alien; it could be integrated into existing theological frameworks. The apostles leveraged scriptural reinterpretation, such as presenting Jesus as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant, to support their claims. This approach provided continuity with Jewish traditions while introducing the transformative aspects of Jesus’ mission.

The Role of Propaganda:
The apostles’ spin on Jesus’ messianic identity can be seen as a form of religious propaganda, aimed at consolidating their movement and attracting followers. This strategic adaptation was necessary for the survival and growth of early Christianity. By emphasizing Jesus’ spiritual triumph and the promise of eternal life, they offered a compelling narrative that addressed both spiritual and existential concerns.

In conclusion, the expectation of a human Messiah was a crucial driver for the apostles in reinterpreting Jesus’ life and death. By portraying him as a spiritual Messiah, they created a narrative that was both theologically innovative and culturally resonant. This transformation made their message more acceptable to contemporary Jews, ensuring the continuity and expansion of the Christian faith. The adaptability of messianic expectations demonstrates the dynamic nature of religious belief and its capacity to evolve in response to historical events.

---

We warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Your insights and perspectives are valuable to this ongoing conversation.