Discerning “Liberalism” Today: Darrell Bock on The Bauer Thesis, Part 2

What follows is from Darrell Bock, “The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities” Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishing, ©2006.

In the first part of this treatment of Darrell Bock on “The Bauer Thesis,” I outlined several of Bauer’s important “methodological” contributions. Now I’d like to look at the “content” or substance of what he actually had to say. While Bock believes Bauer had made some methodological contributions, he is much less hopeful that Bauer actually said anything helpful:

Bauer’s Content: His Two Main Theses

Bauer had two main content ideas.

1. There were originally varieties of Christianities, not a fixed orthodoxy. Thus, in the beginning there were Christianities, existing side by side with no one option having a superior claim on apostolic roots. He claimed that hard evidence suggested this conclusion. In his regional survey especially at Edessa of ancient Syria (located now in modern Turkey) and Alexandria in Egypt, Bauer argued that what became known as heresy was the [Christian] faith’s original form. Other regions such as Asia Minor and Macedonia give evidence that such heretical views were at least a more prevalent minority than the church sources suggest. So Bauer’s key point is that orthodoxy is a construct of the later church. Between the fourth and sixth centuries a later orthodoxy was projected back into this earlier period. Bauer’s implication is that what Christianity has been and what it originally was are so different that we should rethink (or make over) the faith.

Now, at this point, you may say, “a later orthodoxy projected back into an earlier period! Why, that’s anachronism.” But as I’ve pointed out on a number of occasions, that’s precisely what Roman Catholicism has done: They say: “We think first of developed forms for which we need to find historical justification. The developed forms come first and the historical justification comes second.” And “theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.”

It’s really Roman Catholicism that “projects back” its “later orthodoxy” into an earlier period. So Bauer, in coming up with his “thesis,” had a very fine role model, in the Roman Catholic Church. What was David Waltz saying about what ALL liberals have ALWAYS believed?

Continuing with Bock:

2. What allowed for the development of orthodoxy was the Roman church’s successful control over other areas in the late second century. Thus, for example Rome threw its weight around in Corinth, even though Corinth had more diversity than orthodoxy. Eventually, Rome won across most of Christendom, so orthodoxy won. Bauer claimed that this victory distorted the earlier history, and subsequent writers, embracing his thesis, formed a new school with its push to reassess this history.

An Assessment of Bauer’s Content Theses
What have critics said about Bauer’s content theses? We start with the second claim.

Did Rome control? Is the orthodox church Rome’s work? Subsequent critique has discredited this thesis. In fact, the German church historian Hans-Dietrich Altendorf (1969, 64) described this feature of Bauer’s work as playing with the argument from silence so that the result was the “constructive fantasy of the author”. Later he spoke of an “elegantly worked-out fiction” to describe Bauer’s view of how Rome directed Corinth.

A closer look at Bauer’s argument helps us. If Rome is the center of orthodoxy, then Bauer must show two things: (1) that orthodoxy really did not exist elsewhere and (d) that Roman communication in 1 Clement (ca. AD 95) to Corinth was not merely an attempt to persuade but was a ruling imposed on Corinth. However, neither of these is the case [references omitted].

On the first point, we know that Antioch and Asia Minor were strongholds for what became orthodox views in this early period. Ephesus was an especially important center as well as Jerusalem, which Bauer completely ignored. There were several key, orthodox locales for the early church besides Rome. But perhaps Rome still threw her weight around.

Six further points argue against the Roman control thesis.

1. Norris notes that the idea of a city having a single bishop, which some consider integral to Roman power and claims, emerged first in Jerusalem and Syria, not Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp represent the evidence here from Syria, while James oversaw the church in Jerusalem very early on.

2. This same Ignatius can speak of a separation between competing groups that points to a sense of orthodoxy versus heresy. As just noted, Ignatius was not from Rome.

3. Some of the most important witnesses we have of “orthodox” materials come from books written for Asia Minor. This is the locale for the Johannine materials (John’s gospel, his three epistles, and Revelation). Many of Asia Minor’s communities received Paul’s letters. It was a vital center outside of Rome.

4. Marcion developed his system assuming the authority of certain works shared with orthodoxy, especially Luke and the Pauline epistles.

5. The earliest liturgical texts we possess come from Syria.

6. Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan about a Christian community in Bythnia [an area in the northern part of modern Turkey] that worshipped Jesus, a practice that reflects orthodox belief there.

So early expressions of orthodoxy were not as geographically isolated as Bauer argued. [That is, orthodoxy was evident all throughout the church]. As Turner noted in his critique of Bauer’s ideas, Asia Minor as a region is “less promising” for Bauer’s views than Edessa or Alexandria, which Turner had just finished critiquing at this point in his lecture. After surveying Asia Minor, Turner stated, “nothing here supports the more daring features of Bauer’s reconstruction”

The failure of the idea that Rome was prevalent in influence is important. If Rome did not drive the move to define orthodoxy more precisely in this earliest period, then the sense of orthodoxy may have been more widely distributed than Bauer argued. This may well explain orthodoxy’s “success.” It may be that it was widely distributed because of the nature of its roots, but more on that later.

That there was much contact from other churches with Rome is not surprising, because it was the culture’s dominant city, but this falls far short of ecclesiastical control. In fact, Turner notes occasions when Polycarp and Polycrates opposed efforts by Rome to step into their affairs. In his major study of Rome in the first two centuries, Lampe explained an element of Orthodoxy’s success there. It was simply the majority belief among the many options; it was more attractive to the masses. So one of Bauer’s two content pillars is made of sand (Bock, 50-52).

David Waltz has got it precisely backwards. It is Bauer who posited a strong Roman church that could “enforce orthodoxy”; later scholarship has debunked that notion. Bauer needs a strong and assertive Rome. But Rome was not strong during this period. And Lampe, whose work confirmed a looser authority structure in the Roman church during this period, has helped to kick away one of two pillars of “The Bauer Thesis”.

David Waltz’s refrain has been … that Lampe, and so many other liberal revisionists”, have offered us little more than dubious theories filled with gaping holes… Darrell Bock, for one, thinks Lampe has been on the corrective side, filling in some of the gaping holes.

This is going to be my last response to David Waltz at Beggars All. My hope is to continue to flesh out my response to him at my Reformation500 blog, where I hope to continue to respond to his charges, and to include an in-depth treatment of Lampe’s work, and also to respond to some of the other works to which David referred. In coming weeks, Lord willing, I hope to pick up where I left off with the topic of “Apostolic Succession,” and I want to jump into the Carl Trueman fray.

A Different Perspective on Trueman & Romanism

Food for thought: Carl Trueman & A Need For A Contemporary Polemic Against Romanism.

Discerning “Liberalism” Today: Darrell Bock on The Bauer Thesis, Part 1

Not sure if you can read the fine print in the book cover on the right, but one of the names that features prominently there is “Walter Bauer”. Bauer was the scholar most responsible for producing the English version of the Greek Lexicon that’s probably THE definitive work on Koine Greek, the dialect of the ancient Greek language that the New Testament was written in.

Bauer has his name attached to another project as well, and this one is somewhat more controversial. “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity” (1934) has probably set the pace for what “liberal” biblical scholars have believed over the last 50 years. Names like Rudolph Bultmann, Helmut Koester, James Dunn, and Bart Ehrman have all attached themselves to this “thesis” in one way or another. Of course it has been challenged as well.
In a comment thread below, David Waltz dropped a couple of comments along these lines:

Does John realize that a number of the scholars that he cites in his posts believe that it is impossible to speak of 'a church', but rather, that one must speak of 'churches'? …

You make it sound as if there are no 'gaps' in the historical record and that a unified theory exists among NT scholars as to the precise nature and theology of the early church/churches...I don't buy it John, I am just too well read on this issue to do so.

What he’s talking about here is “The Bauer Thesis,” or the notion that there were multiple competing Christianities that sort of “fought it out” during the second century. Bauer posited that what became known as “orthodoxy” was sort of “muscled-through” by Rome, at the expense of some of the other sort of “gnostic” versions of Christianity, all of which competed on equal terms. We have also heard this endless refrain from David Waltz:

… that Lampe, and so many other liberal revisionists”, have offered us little more than dubious theories filled with gaping holes…

David has not just repeated this notion in many different variations from his own blog, but in that a range of mindless followers of his are parroting this too.

What follows is from Darrell Bock, “The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities” Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishing, ©2006:

Walter Bauer’s Theory on Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity
Bauer’s theory is the base for current material. If there is any doubt, listen to comments from some of these works.

Helmut Koester taught as professor of New Testament at Harvard University. He is the figure most responsible for promoting Bauer’s ideas in recent decades. He was aware that Bauer’s ideas needed refinement but still lauded the work. He wrote in 1965, “Walter Bauer … demonstrated convincingly in a brilliant monograph of 1934 that Christian groups labeled heretical actually predominated in the first two or three centuries, both geographically and theologically. Recent discoveries, especially those at Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt, have made it even clearer that Bauer was essentially right and that a thorough and extensive revaluation of early Christian history is called for” (Koester 1965, 114).

Elaine Pagels (1979, xxxi) says, “Bauer recognized that the early Christian movement was itself far more diverse than orthodox sources chose to indicate.” She then goes on to mention but dismiss substantive criticism of Bauer: “Certainly Bauer’s suggestion that, in certain Christian groups, those later called ‘heretics’ formed the majority, goes beyond the gnostics’ own claims: They typically characterized themselves as ‘the few’ in relation to ‘the many’ (hoi polloi). But Bauer … opened up new ways of thinking about Gnosticism.”

Pagels’s remarks are accurate, but let’s consider what she says. In effect, she says that although the evidence from the voices of the unheard does not agree with Bauer, he still has opened up new ways of thinking about these groups. It is almost as if history be damned; what counts are the new ideas.

Bart Ehrman (2003, 172–80) also offers praise. Ehrman says of Bauer (1877–1960), “His most controversial and influential work was a study of theological conflicts in the early church. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (1934) was arguably the most important book on the history of early Christianity to appear in the twentieth century” (p. 173). Ehrman summarizes the assessment of Bauer this way:

Specific details of Bauer’s demonstration were immediately seen as problematic. Bauer was charged, with good reason, with attacking orthodox sources with inquisitorial zeal and exploiting to a nearly absurd extent the argument from silence. Moreover, in terms of his specific claims, each of the regions that he examined has been subjected to further scrutiny, not always to the advantage of his conclusions. Probably most scholars today think that Bauer underestimated the extent of proto-orthodoxy [Ehrman’s term for orthodoxy in the early period] and overestimated the influence of the Roman church on the course of the conflicts (p. 176, emphasis and bracketed explanation added).

This summary is exceedingly fair to the post-Bauer discussion, but it raises a serious question. If the two central Bauerian positions are flawed, why does his overall thesis stand? When does this schizophrenic handling of historical evidence lead to a conclusion that Bauer had it wrong?

Assessing Bauer’s Theory
His Contributions in Terms of Method
What are we to make of this schizophrenic handling of Bauer’s work? On the one hand, this work has been epoch-making with regard to method. Bauer’s study has reconfigured how historians talk about the historical evidence from this period. Bauer’s appeal to listen to both sides of the historical material and to consider how the alternative views expressed their own beliefs was a much-needed word. Nag Hammadi discoveries reinforced this point.

Two methodological emphases of Bauer have stood the test.

1. In their desire to refute these views, the church fathers overstated their own case and sometimes were inaccurate about what was taking place, especially when it came to treating all heresies as coming from a singular root, whether it was back to Simon Magus or calling most of these movements Gnostic (Wisse 1971; Beyschlag 1974). Scholarly consensus exists on this point (Harrington 1980). [Emphasis added by JB]

This observation about the fathers should not be exaggerated. A check of Irenaeus against the sources of views he challenged reveals that he described those views accurately. Many of the details of views noted in other fathers also stand corroborated. The implications are important. The new and secret gospels, now paraded as fresh discoveries, were in fact well-known centuries ago. What the blurbs and endorsements claim is new and exciting information is not so fresh after all.

Nonetheless, Bauer’s questioning produced a more careful assessment of the fathers. His call to view the sources from the church fathers in light of their polemics and to listen to proponents from both sides describe and present their views was a necessary historical corrective. [Emphasis added by JB]

2. The examination of evidence by geographical region was an important insight. Ideas move across time and space in different directions at different speeds. Sometimes they reflect a variety of cultural factors, with some of those factors being unique to a given region. [Emphasis added by JB]

These lasting observations make Bauer’s work significant. However, one must distinguish Bauer’s method from his thesis. The content and value of Bauer’s claims are not synonymous with his methodological breakthroughs (pgs. 46-49).

I want to just take a break here and note Bock’s treatment of “The Bauer Thesis”. I had originally intended to give a kind of overview of what “Liberal Biblical Theology” has held to over the last couple of centuries, but I thought that would just be a bit too much information. (If anyone wants to go into this brief history, please let me know. But this is the foundation of a lot of what we are seeing today.) “The Bauer Thesis” is highly representative of what “liberal biblical scholars” believe today. This is what “liberal biblical scholars” “presuppose” in their work.

But David Waltz has made comments such as those I’ve reproduced above, and further, he’s lumped Lampe in with “Bauer, Dunn, Ehrman, and so many other liberal revisionists” who “have offered us little more than dubious theories filled with gaping holes…”

But I have a question or two for David. At this point, is Bock “inconsistent” to suggest that Bauer, that pillar of “liberal” theology, has provided anything useful at all, much less “a necessary historical corrective”? If so, why, and if not, why not?

Can you imagine that some church fathers “overstated their case”? That some of them “may have been inaccurate about what was taking place” in their own eras?

In his point 2, can you imagine that it was “an important insight” to know that certain “ideas” might move across regions “at different speeds”? Ideas such as “the monoepiscopacy”? You know, catching on in one place at one time, but not catching on at another place for another 50 or 100 years?

So can you imagine that when Lampe is pointing some of these things out, he’s not being a “revisionist” but rather, is providing a “corrective”?

I’ve got a detailed treatment of Lampe’s work in the works, which shows he is not to be simply lumped with the “dubious theories,” and in fact, is more of the “corrective”. And I’ll hope to share that, Lord willing, in a future post. Next time, I’ll follow up with part 2 of Bock’s treatment of The Bauer Thesis.

"Another thing needful"

Carl Trueman explains the need for a "thoughtful, learned Protestant response" to post Vatican II Roman Catholicism, and why Evangelicalism has yet to provide one:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/04/another-thing-needful.php

No Logical Necessity of Inconsistency

David Waltz keeps saying that it is inconsistent for any of us (especially John Bugay) who believe in inerrancy and that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles, 2 Timothy being the last before his execution by Nero in 67 AD, to use Peter Lampe's historical post- canonical/post-apostles evidence that Rome did not have a mono-episcopate bishop until after the middle of the second century.

John Bugay did the research and is presenting the evidence from Peter Lampe (click under Peter Lampe in the side bar of categories) in many articles lately.

David bases this on saying that Lampe has three presuppositions that are the foundation for his belief that Rome did not have a mono-episcopacy bishop.
For the sake of argument, I will take these 3 points as David sees them, although it seems it could be argued that there are other presuppositions that are earlier in the thinking of Lampe. These don’t seem to be real pre-suppositions, but rather deductions based on other presuppositions.

See David Waltz’s article here where he outlines Lampe’s 3 presuppositions:


The three presuppositions are:
1. Paul did not write the Pastorals. Lampe’s first presupposition: the Pastorals were not written by Paul, and were composed at a much a later date

2. The writer of Revelation does not mention elders or bishops for the local churches in chapters 1-3, but emphasizes the "earlier", charismatic gift of prophesy. (but he does mention 24 elders in heaven in Revelation chapters 4, 5, 7, and alludes to this by the twelve gates (12 tribes of Israel) and twelve foundation stones(12 apostles) in chapter 21 - is this symbolic of the saints of OT and NT ? ie, 12 tribes of Israel (OT) and 12 apostles (NT) ? Is this a symbol of the Universal, invisible Church? This shows the Reformers were not so off in emphasizing the Universal, invisible Church, of the elect among all the nations, while not neglecting the visible church on earth.) Lampe says Revelation emphasizes only the charismatic office of “prophesy”, assuming a later date for Revelation. Lampe’s second presupposition: the original Christian ministry consisted of "charismatic offices".

3. Lampe’s third presupposition: the "Catholic" concept of the ministry did not have apostolic warrant, and was an evolutionary development that took place at different times in different geographical areas, with the churches at Rome being one of the last regions to fully endorse the "Catholic" development.

I would like to show that agreeing with a form of no. 3 does not necessarily depend on agreeing with no. 1 or no. 2, but especially no. 1. (for the sake of space and time, I am putting no. 2 about the book of Revelation aside for now; it does not directly affect the charge that David is making, in my opinion.

David calls no. 1, Lampe’s first presupposition. But there is evidence of a presupposition even deeper than that. First, Lampe is assuming and demanding that the travel details of the Pastorals must be fitting into the travel and prison details of the book of Acts.

Since we believe that Paul was released from prison in Acts 28, went on to make other missionary travels, wrote 1 Timothy and Titus then, and then was arrested again and then executed by Nero around 67 AD; then John’s (and our support for this) using Lampe’s historical details to bolster the case for a plurality of elders as the original biblical church government (Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5-7; I Peter 5:1-5) is not inconsistent, for the historical details of the plurality of elders vs. the mono-espicopate issues do not depend on rejection of Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.

David Waltz claims that using Lampe for the history of the church in Rome is inconsistent; because Lampe does not believe in inerrancy. However, it seems Lampe’s deeper presupposition than than is specifically that he assumes that the Pastoral epistles must fit into the end of the book of Acts, when Paul is in prison under house arrest for 2 years somewhere from 60-62 AD. We know this because of internal historical markers that are well documented and beyond the scope of this post. Since the information in the Pastorals and Romans 16 does not fit into Acts, and creates a contradiction, Lampe assumes that what follows is that these are real historical contradictions to the text and therefore not inerrant.

But, Lampe does not seem to understand or believe that Paul was released from prison in AD 62; Luke wrote Acts then while Paul was still in prison there, hence the abrupt ending; and went on to further missionary journeys and was arrested again in 67 AD and executed then under Nero.

See several good commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles that discuss these issues:

1. George Knight,The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary) Eerdmans, 1992.
2. William Hendrickson, Thessalonians, Timothy and Titus, New Testament Commentary. Baker, 1957.
3. J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Thornapple, Baker, 1963.
4. Donald Guthrie. The Pastoral Epistles. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Inter-varsity, 1957, 1984.
5. Philip Towner. The Letters to Timothy And Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament, 2006).
6. William D. Mounce — Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary, 2000).

They all agree with the conservative traditional scenario that Paul was released from prison after Acts 28, and wrote I Timothy and Titus later and then was arrested again, and wrote 2 Timothy right before his execution by Nero around 67 AD.

Here is a longer quote that David Waltz provided me with from Lampe in some email exchanges: (David also provided this more fuller quote earlier in his arguments against John.)

"The Pastoral letters presuppose Aquila and Prisca still to be in Ephesus (2 Tim. 4:19) while Paul is already in Rome. This is one of the historical inconsistencies found in the Pastorals.

For example, when Paul moved from Ephesus to Macedonia, by no means did Timothy remain behind in Ephesus, as 1 Tim. 1:3 supposes: Acts 19:22; 20:1-4; 2 Cor. 1:1; Rom. 16:21. In 2 Tim. 1:16-18; 4:13, 16ff., 20, the author attempts to place himself in the situation of Acts 28:16-31 and in the previous journey, whose purpose was the collection (Acts 20:2f., 5ff., 15ff.). But at least during the sojourn at Corinth, Timothy is present (Acts 20:4; Rom. 16:21), so that for Timothy, who is the recipient of the letter, the information "Erastus remained in Corinth" in 2 Timothy 4:20 is superfluous. In no way did Trophimus remain "ill at Miletus" (2 Tim. 4:20); rather, he accompanied Paul heartily to Jerusalem (Acts 21:29; 20:4)." (Lampe, From Paul To Valentinus, pp. 158, 159)

To which I responded with embedded comments into Lampe’s quote. My words are in blue.

"The Pastoral letters presuppose Aquila and Prisca still to be in Ephesus (2 Tim. 4:19) while Paul is already in Rome. This is one of the historical inconsistencies found in the Pastorals.
But there is no necessary inconsistency here, on the face of it. Paul is writing from Rome and 2 Timothy is written in 67 AD, much later than Romans in 57 AD, so it is no problem that Aquila and Prisca went back to Ephesus from Rome (Romans 16:3).

For example, when Paul moved from Ephesus to Macedonia, by no means did Timothy remain behind in Ephesus, as 1 Tim. 1:3 supposes: Acts 19:22; 20:1-4; (see? Lampe is trying to fit it into Acts – don’t you see that? That is my main point.) 2 Cor. 1:1; Rom. 16:21. In 2 Tim. 1:16-18; 4:13, 16ff., 20, the author attempts to place himself in the situation of Acts 28:16-31 (see? he is assuming this; and again trying to fit the Pastorals into the Acts Roman imprisonment) and in the previous journey, whose purpose was the collection (Acts 20:2f., 5ff., 15ff.) (again, depending on Acts details) . But at least during the sojourn at Corinth, Timothy is present (Acts 20:4; Again Acts details Rom. 16:21), so that for Timothy, who is the recipient of the letter, the information "Erastus remained in Corinth" in 2 Timothy 4:20 is superfluous. In no way did Trophimus remain "ill at Miletus" (2 Tim. 4:20); rather, he accompanied Paul heartily to Jerusalem (Acts 21:29; 20:4). (see again! ? Attempts to harmonize with the Acts scenario) " (Lampe, From Paul To Valentinus, pp. 158, 159)

David wrote:
“Anyway, one of these days it seems I need to address Lampe's musings, for to date, I am not aware of any solid critique of his bold claims.”

Can’t you see [David !] that these arguments do not have a necessary logical demand that his arguments against the Bible (Pastorals written by Paul in 67 AD; inerrancy, etc.) are the same as against the early post canonical period ( 71 AD – 150 AD ?) of Roman church polity (plurality of elders, mono-episcopacy) ?


So, John’s using Lampe’s historical details of the early church in Rome does not demand that those arguments are inconsistent or being based on other arguments against Pauline authorship of the Pastorals or against the inerrancy of Scripture. It is not inconsistent for Protestants to use Lampe’s historical post-canonical, archeological evidence, but at the same time, reject his rejection of inerrancy and his rejection of Paul as the author of the pastoral epistles.

A form of that 3rd presupposition, is based on the Bible verses of “elders in every church/city” (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) and the other pertinent passages on the work of elders being “shepherding the flock” and “able to teach”, and “overseeing the flock” (see below), and I Clement, Hermas, and that Ignatius leaves out the bishop in his letter to the Romans; ) and maintain inerrancy and not be inconsistent in using Lampe’s other historical information on the early church. The development from a plurality of elders for each church (Acts 14:23 – very early – for Galatia; and Titus 1:5-7; I Clement, Hermas) to the mono-episcopate (Ignatius and beyond) does not depend on Lampe’s first two presuppositions.

As John Bugay noted in his excellent article,
"This Bridge should be Illuminated" the extended quote from Lampe is mostly based on I Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, and so does not depend on rejecting Paul as the author of the Pastoral Epistles.

Lampe based his arguments on I Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas. This is, in my opinion, the best of John’s posts in this subject matter, because of the evidence Lampe brings from I Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas. I would add that Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17, 28; I Peter 5:1-5, and Titus 1:5-7 all confirm that the Biblical and historical record show that the original church government/polity was a plurality of elders (presbuteroi) for each church.

David Waltz calls Lampe’s belief that he does not believe that Paul wrote the pastoral epistles as his first presupposition. Yet, it seems that the reasons for Lampe’s belief that Paul did not write them is because he assumes that the historical and travel information must fit with the sequence of historical events in the book of Acts.

Luther: If women wear themselves out in childbearing, let them go on bearing children till they die

Note: Are you visiting this link because of  How We Teach Our Kids That Women Are Liars hosted by Role Reboot? Please see the addendum below. 


Here's an obscure Luther quote from a discussion board:

I was wondering if someone could help me with this - I know things like this have been rehashed ad nauseum here, but I need some clarification on something....someone on facebook is posting quotes from Martin Luther, and basically trashing him - can someone please tell me what he meant by these quotes, and if they are taken out of context or not? ...any help is appreciated!!(she said she is getting these from "The Complete Works of Martin Luther"). MARTIN LUTHER ... Works 20.84 on WOMEN: “Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing, it does not matter; let them go on bearing children TILL THEY DIE, that is what they are there for.”

Documentation
If the person using this quote is getting it from "The Complete Works of Martin Luther," she's getting it from an out-of-print German source from the 1800's, and then translating to English. I find that to be unlikely. Rather, the quote was taken from a web page of probably third or fourth hand information. The quote is fairly popular on-line, often being published in books as well (see here and here).  The exact way the quote is cited above can be found in this book. Older Roman Catholic polemical works cite it. Hartmann Grisar states,

With those who complain of the sufferings of the mother in pregnancy and childbirth he is very angry, and, in one sermon, goes so far as to say : "Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing, that is of no consequence; let them go on bearing children till they die, that is what they are there for [Erl. ed., 16 2 , p. 538]."

Jacques Maritain states,

It is curious to note that a base contempt for womanhood is the normal price of this war against Christian virginity. 'The work and word of God tell us clearly that women must be used for marriage or prostitution (Weim., XII, 94, 20-22 [1523].) 'If woman get tired and die of bearing, there is no harm in that; let them die, so long as they bear; they are made for that.' (Erl., 20, 84; Weim., X, p. II, 301, 13, Sermon on Marriage, 1522.) And I quote only what can be transcribed. [Three Reformers (London: Sheed and Ward, 1947), 184].

In fairness to Roman Catholicism, the quote is cited by non-Roman Catholics as well. "Works 20:84" is a reference to Dr. Martin Luther's sämmtliche Werke (The Erlangen edition of Luther's Works). The quote can also be found in WA 10 (2): 301.

The quote can be found in English. It's from a treatise on marriage entitled The Estate of Marriage (1522), located in LW 45:45.

Historical Context
Marriage in the sixteenth century was regulated by a confusing papal jurisdiction, influenced by such writings like The Summa de Casibus Conscientiae. That work listed eighteen impediments to marriage. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge likewise outlines many of the complicated rules of marriage (see vol. VII: 200-203). As the Reformation took away the influence of the Roman church, the rules surrounding marriage needed to be addressed.

Luther had earlier discussed man-made rules surrounding marriage in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church [LW 36:97]. The prevailing marriage rules lead to a number of abuses, like secret marriages, and confusing legal entanglements. Luther's solution to the papal mess of marriage rules? Evaluate them, toss out a number of them, and try to come up with a simpler and better system regulated in most part by the state.

Context
Luther begins this treatise by making three points. First, God made men and women, and each should honor the other as creation of God. Second, he discusses the blessing of "be fruitful and multiply," and how God has built this desire into mankind.

In the third part of the sermon he considers how to live a Christian and godly life in the estate of marriage. First Luther explains how poorly marriage and woman were viewed in his day."There are many pagan books which treat of nothing but the depravity of womankind and the unhappiness of the estate of marriage, such that some have thought that even if Wisdom itself were a woman one should not marry" (LW 45:35). "So they concluded that woman is a necessary evil, and that no household can be without such an evil. These are the words of blind heathen, who are ignorant of the fact that man and woman are God’s creation. They blaspheme his work, as if man and woman just came into being spontaneously!" (LW 45:36). "In order that we may not proceed as blindly, but rather conduct ourselves in a Christian manner, hold fast first of all to this, that man and woman are the work of God. Keep a tight rein on your heart and your lips; do not criticize his work, or call that evil which he himself has called good. He knows better than you yourself what is good and to your benefit, as he says in Genesis 1 [2:18], “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” There you see that he calls the woman good, a helper. If you deem it otherwise, it is certainly your own fault, you neither understand nor believe God’s word and work. See, with this statement of God one stops the mouths of all those who criticize and censure marriage" (LW 45:37).

Luther states, "I say these things in order that we may learn how honorable a thing it is to live in that estate which God has ordained" (LW 45:41). He contrasts this with: "Conversely, we learn how wretched is the spiritual estate of monks and nuns by its very nature, for it lacks the word and pleasure of God. All its works, conduct, and sufferings are un-Christian, vain, and pernicious, so that Christ even says to their warning in Matthew 15[:9], “In vain do they worship me according to the commandments of men” (LW 45:41). Luther then launches into a discussion of the impossibility of celibacy for most people. He states,

Many think they can evade marriage by having their fling [auss bubenn] for a time, and then becoming righteous. My dear fellow, if one in a thousand succeeds in this, that would be doing very well. He who intends to lead a chaste life had better begin early, and attain it not with but without fornication, either by the grace of God or through marriage. We see only too well how they make out every day. It might well be called plunging into immorality rather than growing to maturity. It is the devil who has brought this about, and coined such damnable sayings as, “One has to play the fool at least once”; or, “He who does it not in his youth does it in his old age”; or, “A young saint, an old devil.” Such are the sentiments of the poet Terence and other pagans. This is heathenish; they speak like heathens, yea, like devils.

It is certainly a fact that he who refuses to marry must fall into immorality. How could it be otherwise, since God has created man and woman to produce seed and to multiply? Why should one not forestall immorality by means of marriage? For if special grace does not exempt a person, his nature must and will compel him to produce seed and to multiply. If this does not occur within marriage, how else can it occur except in fornication or secret sins? But, they say, suppose I am neither married nor immoral, and force myself to remain continent? Do you not hear that restraint is impossible without the special grace? For God’s word does not admit of restraint; neither does it lie when it says, “Be fruitful and multiply” [Gen. 1:28]. You can neither escape nor restrain yourself from being fruitful and multiplying; it is God’s ordinance and takes its course.

Physicians are not amiss when they say: If this natural function is forcibly restrained it necessarily strikes into the flesh and blood and becomes a poison, whence the body becomes unhealthy, enervated, sweaty, and foul-smelling. That which should have issued in fruitfulness and propagation has to be absorbed within the body itself. Unless there is terrific hunger or immense labor or the supreme grace, the body cannot take it; it necessarily becomes unhealthy and sickly. Hence, we see how weak and sickly barren women are. Those who are fruitful, however, are healthier, cleanlier, and happier. And even if they bear themselves weary—or ultimately bear themselves out—that does not hurt. Let them bear themselves out. This is the purpose for which they exist. It is better to have a brief life with good health than a long life in ill health.

But the greatest good in married life, that which makes all suffering and labor worth while, is that God grants offspring and commands that they be brought up to worship and serve him. In all the world this is the noblest and most precious work, because to God there can be nothing dearer than the salvation of souls. Now since we are all duty bound to suffer death, if need be, that we might bring a single soul to God, you can see how rich the estate of marriage is in good works. God has entrusted to its bosom souls begotten of its own body, on whom it can lavish all manner of Christian works. Most certainly father and mother are apostles, bishops, and priests to their children, for it is they who make them acquainted with the gospel. In short, there is no greater or nobler authority on earth than that of parents over their children, for this authority is both spiritual and temporal. Whoever teaches the gospel to another is truly his apostle and bishop. Mitre and staff and great estates indeed produce idols, but teaching the gospel produces apostles and bishops. See therefore how good and great is God’s work and ordinance![LW 45:44-45]

Conclusion
In context, the quote says something quite different than what Grisar and Maritian suggest. One can chastise Luther for his archaic medieval medical view that those who are chaste are sickly, while those who are married and producing children are healthy, but to make Luther into a woman-hater or that Luther didn't take pain in child bearing seriously is simply absurd, and not supported by the context.


Addendum 05/25/16: For Role Reboot, Life Off Script
This blog entry receives a lot of traffic from this link: How We Teach Our Kids That Women Are Liars hosted by a website named Role Reboot. In a 2013 article, they state:

Is it really surprising to anyone that a Santorum staffer said, in the run up to the last election, that women shouldn’t be President because it’s against God’s will? What about the “news commentator” who thinks women shouldn’t be allowed to vote? The Senate candidate who thinks rape is a gift from God? Or the Senator and presidential aspirant who thinks it’s just another form of conception? Or the doctor who thinks women deserve to die for having abortions? How about the nominee for lieutenant governor of Virginia who thinks fetal birth defects are punishment for parents’ (read: mothers’) sins? If women die bearing children, so what, that’s what we’re here for.  

Notice that the last link is to this blog entry. While I sympathize with the intent of their article to demonstrate a cumulative negative attitude towards women, the points I presented in this entry were missed.

First, my entry sought to demonstrate Roman Catholic historians Hartmann Grisar and Jacques Maritain were being unfair to Luther. Grisar said Luther's comment was "very angry" and directed to those who "complain" about women suffering. Maritain intimates that Luther had "a base contempt for womanhood" in his "war against Christian virginity." These characterizations are not supported by Luther's context.

 Second, I did criticize Luther for his holding of an archaic medieval medical view. Luther's comment that it doesn't matter if women "grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing," and that "they should "go on bearing children till they die," is the direct result of this view and served as a polemical argument against the Roman church of his day. In his view, he believed that women who do not bear children become "unhealthy and sickly." Those who do bear children are "healthier, cleanlier, and happier." Luther states, "It is better to have a brief life with good health than a long life in ill health." This view was a direct argument against the practice of celibacy.

Third, the treatise from Luther from which this controversy arises is actually a sharp polemic against clerical celibacy as instituted by the Roman Catholic Church. Luther goes on at lengths noting how against God and nature forced celibacy is. Rather, the divine ideal for men and women is marriage and procreation. The very treatise that some may think shows animus or contempt towards women is the same treatise arguing that a religious institution was wrong to suppress male and female sexuality. In regard to the time period it was written in, it was a radical attack against an institution that oppressed both men and women. In the same treatise, Luther speaks against the established religiosity of his day that believed in “the depravity of womankind” and that women were “a necessary evil.” He refers to those who believe this as blind, ignorant, and blasphemers.

Fourth, these religious institutions did not stop with denigrating women, it also saw religious celibacy as a means of being more Holy and closer to God. Luther attacks such an ideal by arguing it is rather marriage and family that is ordained by God, not celibacy. Yes, Luther held an archaic medieval view of health that chaste people were unhealthy, but in the context of his argumentation, his point is that God’s purpose was for men and women to be together, to have sex, and to have children. His comment was part of a long argument ultimately against the Roman Church. Luther argued sexuality and children are the normal means of life, we exist to procreate. Women exist to procreate. A healthy real God-pleasing life is procreation, not celibacy, even if while procreating it ultimately causes death.

Also in the same article, Role Reboot uses an undocumented Luther quote:

“Women were made either to be wives or prostitutes.” — Martin Luther

I've done a thorough treatment of this quote which can be found here: Luther: Women were made either to be wives or prostitutes. The point from Luther in this quote is that biologically, people are typically designed with the desire to procreate. In fact, "God's work and Word" prove this, and this desire can either be carried out in a God pleasing way (marriage) of a non-God pleasing way (fornication). Then in a hyperbolic argument, Luther suggests those who argue for celibacy might as well argue that women should be strangled or banished in order to maintain a celibate life because the desire for sex is so strong. This would be the only way to avoid un-chastity.

There is a reason why commentaries are so thick

I expect that very few of the folks who read Beggars All have read or will read all or even most of the exchange between me and David Waltz on the topic of Peter Lampe. There’s just too much detail, and I’m going to provide more here and in what follows. There is no other way to address the charges that David Waltz has been making, than to go into rigorous detail about the things we are talking about.

There is always a right way to go about doing something, and there is a “quick and easy” way to do something. I tried to mention this the other day, and this notion was mocked and dismissed. For example, let’s begin with one example from his recent “rant”:

JB: In any discussion of “church history,” you have to understand, as Turretin says,

Thus this day the Romanists (although they are anything but the true church of Christ) still boast of their having alone the name of church and do not blush to display the standard of that which they oppose. In this manner, hiding themselves under the specious title of the antiquity and infallibility of the Catholic church, they think they can, as with one blow, beat down and settle the controversy waged against them concerning the various most destructive errors introduced into the heavenly doctrine (Turretin, Vol 3 pg 2).

DW: What has the above quote to do about what the 'early church' believed, and what I have written on this matter—can you spell 'red-herring'?

This is not a “red herring”. This is a description of the method being employed. And David Waltz seems to have learned the method well. What Turretin is saying is that Rome does not – it did not in the time of the Reformation, and it does not do so now – respond directly to charges. They side-step an examination of these charges by claiming “authority”. Turretin then goes on to say that it is the way of the Reformed to patiently work through each doctrine, doctrine by doctrine, and be certain we’re understanding it from Scripture. In that way, we know what is true and what is false “authority”. There are, after all, “most destructive errors [having been] introduced into the heavenly doctrine.”

The arts of our opponents impose upon us the necessity of this disputation that we may distinguish the real face of the church from its counterfeit; nor suffer ourselves to be deceived by those specious and splendid names (destitute of truth) which they are accustomed to repeat with perpetual crowing and great clamor, that they may be considered the sole heirs … (Turretin, vol 3, pg 2).

What’s involved from our side, Turretin says, is “the way of discussion and examination of doctrine.” To be sure, this is “long, uncertain, and dangerous,” and the way of our opponents is “quick and easy,” one might say. But this is the nature of the dispute which our opponents “impose upon us.”

* * *

And so David Waltz has shown up with three “quick and easy” reasons why we should reject the historical analysis of Peter Lampe. And I have dismissed Waltz because not only is his “argument” not an argument, but what he has repeating over these last months is more akin to slur and innuendo. At such times, as recently, when he adds information, he adds very little genuine, substantial information; he merely restates his original charges more slowly; he repeats them in bold and adds color, as a way of providing weight to the non-substance of what he is saying.

His “non-argument” has taken two forms. Here is the earlier form:

Lampe holds that Paul did not write the Pastoral epistles.

Therefore, Peter Lampe is a “Liberal”.

Anyone who adopts the writings of “Liberal” writers is inconsistent.

After it was pointed out (among other things) that Ratzinger, himself once widely acknowledged as “a Liberal”, continues to incorporate liberal methodologies (even as pope) into his biblical theology, then the “argument” changed (knowingly or unknowingly) to something like this, its more recent form:

Peter Lampe holds that Paul did not write the Pastoral epistles.

Holding this is a “liberal presupposition” (of the kind that ALL Liberals have ALWAYS HELD).

This “liberal presupposition” affects the outcome of his work.

Therefore, Lampe’s work is not to be trusted as accurately reflecting the historical situation in the early church.

On this second matter, even if this were true, Waltz gets it wrong. But on both matters, he has equivocated on two important terms, and those terms are “liberal” and “presupposition.”

In all discussions of religion, it is vitally important to define one’s terms up front, and then to remain consistent throughout. Given that this is a blog, and not a scholarly research paper, I may have been lax with definitions. That doesn’t mean that I’ve not been consistent with my own definitions. For example, I’ve written at length about the current state of New Testament scholarship, and I’ve talked about what “conservatives” believe, what “liberals” believe, and how there has been a confluence of method. And further, I’ve noted that this confluence of method enabled both liberals and conservatives to largely (though not completely) agree on the factual content of very many things. To repeat myself on this, there are the things that most scholars, conservative or liberal, have come to accept as historical facts. They may differ a bit on the dates of things – the dating of these things is certainly unknown, but of the events themselves and the general order these events occurred is relatively agreed upon.

This is why every introduction to the New Testament discusses dates of authorship of the New Testament books. Now, keep in mind, there is a great confluence here, too. David Waltz cites James White to me (from memory, not from actual citation, which he is too lazy to go back and find), and tells me I should listen to what James White says about what EVERY liberal believes about the Scriptures.

In the old days, for example, some German liberal scholars believed that the Gospel of John had been written in the late second century. They believed that right up to the time that a fragment from a manuscript of John was found, that dated from the year 125 AD.

You might say, the history and the archaeology forced them into a more “conservative” understanding of the historical facts. This is the nature of the “confluence” I’ve been talking about.

There was a time, too, when the “Pastoral Epistles,” the letters of Paul to Titus, were thought to have been written around 150 AD. But here, too, there is a confluence of understanding (no such early fragment has been found regarding Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus). Yet, as Craig Blomberg reviews Philip Towner’s commentary on these letters, he notes that “Towner rejects the unproven theory of non-Pauline authorship and ably [highlights] the individual distinctive of each letter.”

And again, there is a confluence here; late dating is being squeezed into an earlier and earlier understanding of these letters. New Testament scholars such as Towner and L.T. Johnson (a “liberal” Roman Catholic!) have, in their commentaries, have gone to great lengths to document sound reasons why authentic Pauline authorship should not be rejected, in spite of the fact, as Towner says, “it is not possible to prove the authenticity” of these letters.

However, the difference is minimal between “not proving” and yet “rendering highly probable” that Paul wrote these letters. And in doing so, Towner, especially, goes to great lengths to make the case, including detailed histories of the cities and churches (Ephesus and Crete) to which Timothy and Titus have been dispatched, the destinations to which these letters were addressed, have been found in dispute. We’ve seen David Waltz’s oft-repeated charge:

Lampe’s first presupposition: the Pastorals were not written by Paul, and were composed at a much a later date

The Pastoral letters presuppose Aquila and Prisca still to be in Ephesus (2 Tim 4:19) while Paul is already in Rome. This is one of the historical inconsistencies found in the Pastorals…

For example, when Paul moved from Ephesus to Macedonia, by no means did Timothy remain behind in Ephesus, as 1 Tim 1:3 supposes: Acts 19:22; 20:1-4; 2 Cor 1:1; Rom 16:21…

How did the author come to the mistake regarding Aquila and Prisca?…

Conclusion: In a search for appropriate names to create a literary fiction based in Ephesus, the prominent names of Aquila and Prisca could not miss falling into the hands of the deutero-Pauline author. (Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 2003, pp. 158, 159.)

What’s the context, first, of Lampe’s use of these statements, and second, what's the context of Waltz’s [contextless] contention that these statements, pretty much alone, should form the basis of the rejection of Lampe’s other conclusions?

It will seem mundane at places, and that’s why I’ve avoided going too much into detail. But the details are there, and I am familiar with them, and so I feel comfortable to simply reject Waltz’s charges out-of-hand. But in the same manner that Rome, with its all-encompassing bombast asked for the detailed critique rejecting Roman authority that Turretin provided in his day, that Keith Mathison decided was necessary to provide a detailed rejection of Roman claims in his own defense of his work on Sola Scriptura, David Waltz is, in his simplistic and taunting way, asking for the analysis which I hope [Lord willing] to produce in the coming days.

Who are the wolves? And how do you know?

At the opening of his “History of the Development of Doctrine,” Jaroslav Pelikan wrote:

Upon closer examination, however, the problem of tradition and history is seen to be more complex. Even the most doctrinaire traditionalist must be concerned with such questions as the authenticity of works ascribed to an ecclesiastical writer or of decrees attributed to a council; he must trace the origin and transmission of quotations that appear in the documents of the church; he must investigate the social setting of his texts, to understand the very meaning of the words. All of these are historical assignments, some of them with far more subtle implications than the need of simply checking dates or verifying texts (8).

This is Jaroslav Pelikan, the Lutheran scholar who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy before he died some years ago, saying “test everything, hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess 5:21). But he goes beyond that: he’s saying things that I’ve been saying for years: You can’t trust every church father that you read. Test them. Not everything is what it appears to be.

The word for the day is “discernment”. Don’t be gullible. Think before you believe something. Think before you commit. Watch out for those who knowingly or unknowingly pass along deceits and yes, watch out for forgeries. There are deceitful people out there.

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.

The threat is not “out there”. The threat that Paul is speaking about is within and among the “overseers”.

So, we catch Marcion; we catch the Carpocratians, we catch the Valentinians. Whew. The threat’s over.

Or is it? Is the threat “on the inside”? Could it be? “Fierce wolves will arise from among you overseers”. They will draw away disciples. And maybe write doctrines, which get mistaken for “infallible”.

“Ever seeing but never perceiving...”

In the arcane mind of David Waltz, my most recent post qualifies as a “rant”.

Among my other offenses:

It took John less than 20 hours to type up a response (LINK ) to my March 31st post (LINK). IMHO, John should really think about taking a bit more time digesting and reflecting upon the material that he critiques...

John has failed to give us his definitive definition of the term "liberal" which he has used in a good number of contexts; and second, John described Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as, "a full-blown pantheist", but never really tells us exactly what he means by this (instead, he provides a few quotes out of context, and then gives Michael Horton's highly debatable definition)...

Yet another prime example of John's penchant for double-standards, he isolates Rome’s presuppositions, and asks us to start without these; but then, he refuses to isolate HIS presuppositions, and Dr. Lampe's presuppositions, and start without these...

I’ll say in response to this, other than David having called Lampe a “liberal,” (and having loosely associated him with Harnack), David himself doesn’t state what Lampe’s “presuppositions” are. Assigning “guilt-by-association” is not the same thing as stating what someone’s presupposition is. As I’ve said, he is more than welcome to point these out so that I may then reject them, but no such thing is forthcoming. And I intend to look at David’s actual [and quite fluffy] objections in a forthcoming blog post.

Here is yet another example of where John has failed to give us a definition: exactly what does John mean by the early church?

Um, ok. It is really the New Testament church, and the couple hundred years after that.

Does John realize that a number of the scholars that he cites in his posts believe that it is impossible to speak of 'a church', but rather, that one must speak of 'churches'?

I’ll address this when I speak of “The Bauer Thesis”. Needless to say, I assume an “early orthodoxy,” I’ve written extensively about an “early orthodoxy,” and I’ve assumed that David Waltz also believed that such a thing existed, and so, what’s the dispute? I for one do take the New Testament at its word; I’m a member of a PCA church, whose views of church and Scripture are not hard to find.

That’s to be contrasted, by the way, with David Waltz, who has not, that I am aware of, made a positive articulation of his own faith (contrary to the title of his blog). Since he is going to characterize me, I’ll return the favor. I have seen David around for a long time, and other than that he was born in to a Jehovah’s Witness home, landed in Roman Catholicism for a while, then rejected it, I’d say it’s pretty hard to find a positive statement as to what he actually does believe.

He certainly makes no bones about the fact that he has 15,000 books, and he has a lot of leisure time to read them. But I would suggest, pending the presentation of some evidence to the contrary, that he is a lost soul and this complaint from Paul (echoing God’s complaint about Israel) is very appropriate:

“The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your ancestors when he said through Isaiah the prophet:

“‘Go to this people and say,
“You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’

Instead of sitting back and lobbing bombs – unsubstantiated bombs – why don’t you come out of the shadows and tell us who you are and what you actually believe?

JB: The effort to “understand what they knew and when they knew it” is an effort to exclude all presuppositions about what the early church believed. It is an effort [emphasis supplied] to create a “presupposition-less” understanding of what the early church believed.

DW: I sincerely believe that John is either being grossly naive here, or dishonest with us—it is impossible to approach what the 'early church' believed without presuppositions.

JB: Now, to be sure, nature abhors a vacuum, and trying to create a “presupposition-less” understanding, is to try to create a kind of vacuum.

DW: Finally some sound thoughts John's from pen.

Why did you even bother pulling this out to comment on? It’s not like I’m trying to pull a fast one on anyone.

DW: First, it is certainly not a presupposition-less world that we are dealing with; and second, John has yet to interact with 'conservative' Anglican and Catholic scholars who defend the conception of the 'early church' he cited above.

Again, I didn’t say it was a presupposition-less world; only that I am making the effort to understand that world as it was, without the lens of presuppositions.

Second, Roger Beckwith, whom I’ve cited at length, is a “conservative Anglican scholar” … who defends the conception of the “early church” which I either did, or didn’t, cite above, according to which version of David you believe.

John, have you lost your mind...can you prove to me what you think the 'early church' believed?

Can I prove to you what I think? Probably not.

And perhaps more importantly, do you honestly believe that the Reformed paradigm is devoid of significant development?

That’s no real secret around here.

JB: The thing that I am most trying to do is to provide a positive picture of what the world was like in the days of the early church. Lampe is not the only writer I’ve cited. I’ve been citing from F.F. Bruce and Roger Beckwith - not liberals at all, to be sure - and many others as well. I do this because, when you try to understand what the church, as a whole really believed (in various places and at various times), you first have to understand the world as it existed in those times and places. What it was really like.

DW: You are limiting yourself here; try reading Aland, Barker, Dunn, Hanson, Kümmel, Küng, Segal, and then get back to me.

And you’re the one calling me inconsistent? How, precisely, do the writings of these individuals fit into your paradigm of understanding? Do you inconsistently embrace them? Do you reject them? If so, why? And if you reject them, then why do you care if I have read them or not? Or are you just a name-dropper?

You make it sound as if there are no 'gaps' in the historical record and that a unified theory exists among NT scholars as to the precise nature and theology of the early church/churches...I don't buy it John, I am just too well read on this issue to do so.

Right, right, you know it all. Ever seeing, but never perceiving … and before you call that a smear, why don’t you make a positive articulation of your own faith, so that we can have some idea of what it is that you do know and perceive and believe?

But nobody ever said there was a “unified theory among NT scholars as to the precise nature and theology of the early church”. Of course there are gaps. But what I am on record as having said is that now that conservative scholars like Darrell Bock and Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger are investigating that time period of the late first century and early second century church, I have great hope about the work they will produce on this topic. I’m firmly convinced that as these individuals write more and more about the early church, Protestants will have a very clear picture of precisely why the Reformers were fully justified to reject Rome’s claims of authority.

DW: Once again, false and misleading; I do not, nor have I said, that their work is flawed in exactly the same way; your putting, “Lampe and Von Harnack both believe the Pastorals were not written by Paul. Therefore, their work is flawed in exactly the same way.”, in quotation marks and ascribing it to my pen is dishonest, and misleading. Further, it sure sounds like you are trying to smear Dr. Harnack!!! (Ooops...I forgot, it is OK for you to smear...)

Let me quote your own words back to you: “Enter Dr. Peter Lampe and John Bugay: A careful reading of Dr. Lampe demonstrates that he sides with Dr. Aland and the modern higher critical school [and that would be Von Harnack] in accepting the following presuppositions…” A school into which you lumped both Von Harnack and Aland.

I have gone on record as maintaining that John is being inconsistent, and none of my continuing research into this important issue suggests otherwise.

Right David. I’m sure that your continuing research into this important issue is of eternal value and consequence. “Take my word on it.”

Presuppositions

Since this is going to be such a dry topic, I thought I’d begin with a little bit of humor.




As you watch this video, note that there is some confusion on the part of one of the actors. The tall guy knows something the other guy doesn’t know:

“Who’s on first”
“What’s on second”
“Idunno’s on third”

Bud Abbott, the tall guy, knows that these are the names of the players who are actually playing the field. Costello doesn’t know these are the names, and that’s where the confusion comes in. What’s humorous in this is the equivocation that’s rampant here, but not being reported.

In a way, David Waltz is playing Costello to my Abbott. Except, I’ve always laid all my cards (and definitions) on the table. He said in his most recent post:

John (and others), continues to ignore the fact that presuppositions have serious implications concerning one's assessment of raw data that can legitimately be interpreted in more than one sense, and there is no question in my mind that this is especially true when one attempts to determine the form/type of ministry that Jesus' apostles had intended/instructed to be functioning after their departure into heaven. And further, it is one's view of the Christian ministry which constitutes one of the preeminent factors in determining the very nature of the Church founded by Jesus and His apostles.

David muddles things, and he does so pretty badly. I do not “ignore the fact that presuppositions have serious implications.” There are presuppositions all over the place. Some people try to slip in presuppositions without us knowing it. That’s where these folks find me so frustrating. I isolate Rome’s presuppositions, and I say, “let’s start without these.” That’s the main thing I try to do.

David is not even talking about the right set of presuppositions.

My goal all along, and I’ve stated this many times, is “to understand what [the early church] knew, and when they knew it.” Direct question for David Waltz: Have you ever seen this in any of my blog posts?

The effort to “understand what they knew and when they knew it” is an effort to exclude all presuppositions about what the early church believed. It is an effort to create a “presupposition-less” understanding of what the early church believed. Now, to be sure, nature abhors a vacuum, and trying to create a “presupposition-less” understanding, is to try to create a kind of vacuum.

If the early church truly believed certain things, I want to understand what those were. But if they did not believe things, then to suggest that they did, in any way, would be equally wrong. And as I’ve stated many times, it is necessary to exclude one particular, pernicious modern-day Roman belief as a presupposition of what the early church believed:

God the Father passed His authority on to Jesus (cf. Matthew 28:18), Who passed it on to the apostles (cf. Luke 10:16 and Matthew 28:19), who passed it on to their successors.

This is not something that the early church believed. And if you think they did, in this presupposition-less world, it is up to you to show where they believed it.

This statement is a conception of authority that Roman Catholics today believe, and at every occasion, they try to say, “It was this way with the early church, too, they just didn’t know it.” Now, that is the unstated presupposition that Roman Catholics, especially the Called to Communion sort, try to impress upon us. They just simply assume that’s the case.

In any discussion of “church history,” you have to understand, as Turretin says,

Thus this day the Romanists (although they are anything but the true church of Christ) still boast of their having alone the name of church and do not blush to display the standard of that which they oppose. In this manner, hiding themselves under the specious title of the antiquity and infallibility of the Catholic church, they think they can, as with one blow, beat down and settle the controversy waged against them concerning the various most destructive errors introduced into the heavenly doctrine (Turretin, Vol 3 pg 2).

And what is “the controversy waged against them”? In Turretin’s day, it was the Protestant Reformation. And what did the Reformation say? It said, repeatedly, “Roman authority is not God-given authority.” “Roman authority is not God-given authority.”

I ask them to show where this authority came from; the most that I get in response is a variation of the “authority” quote above. They can’t prove it from the records. Instead, they have to come up with nonsensical explanations such as, “they believed it ‘implicitly,’ they just didn’t know it. It took ‘further reflection’. What did Newman say? “No doctrine is articulated until it is opposed.” That’s just a nonsensical way to look at things, and it did not in any way correspond with the historical facts on the ground.

If you look at the actual historical events, you’ll see raw power struggles and a Roman authority that was determined to assert itself at every turn.

The thing that I am most trying to do is to provide a positive picture of what the world was like in the days of the early church. Lampe is not the only writer I’ve cited. I’ve been citing from F.F. Bruce and Roger Beckwith - not liberals at all, to be sure - and many others as well. I do this because, when you try to understand what the church, as a whole really believed (in various places and at various times), you first have to understand the world as it existed in those times and places. What it was really like.

Lampe is one of those historians who genuinely succeeds in reconstructing that ancient world, its ancient beliefs. To do so, he has done actual historical work – “historical-critical” work. These historians (Bruce and Beckwith and Lampe and others) go to those places, and cite not just religious documents, but all documents – they check the archaeology for what the land structure was like, what the topography was like. Where the rich people lived, where the poor people lived. Where they worshiped. What they worshipped. The kinds of building structures they worshipped in. The kinds of authority structures that were existent in the ancient world. Where these folks died and were buried.

And they create a picture of that ancient world that is more complete, more complex in all of its interactions, than anything else that any writer in the 12th or 15th or 17th or 19th centuries can imagine. They don’t take a video camera back there, but the work that is produced is probably as close as we will come to that ideal.

Into this mix, David Waltz wants to inject the illegitimate method of “smear by association” and suggest that “Lampe’s presuppositions caused him to misunderstand that world.” And in an effort to try to somehow to “prove” this, Waltz, in his most recent post, takes a long selection from the writings of the most well-known of the German liberals, Adolph von Harnack, and says, “Lampe and Von Harnack both believe the Pastorals were not written by Paul. Therefore, their work is flawed in exactly the same way.” Here is his “analysis”:

Enter Dr. Peter Lampe and John Bugay: A careful reading of Dr. Lampe demonstrates that he sides with Dr. Aland and the modern higher critical school in accepting the following presuppositions: first, the Pastorals were not written by Paul, and were composed at a much a later date; second, the original Christian ministry consisted of "charismatic offices"; third the "Catholic" concept of the ministry did not have apostolic warrant, and was an evolutionary development that took place at different times in different geographical areas, with the churches at Rome being one of the last regions to fully endorse the "Catholic" development. John accepts the last of these presuppositions, seemingly ignoring the fact that it is built upon the foundation of the other presuppositions, which John rejects. I have gone on record as maintaining that John is being inconsistent, and none of my continuing research into this important issue suggests otherwise.

“Take my word for it,” he says. This is the sum total of David Waltz’s analysis.

He doesn’t prove that Lampe has these presuppositions. He doesn’t describe how and why these alleged presuppositions exist within Lampe’s work. He doesn’t describe the historical situation and say, “this begins here, that begins there”. David Waltz simply makes some loose assumptions, he declares “guilt by association,” and then he wants to go and take a nap or something.

This is not an analysis. It is a smear tactic. Pure and simple.

If Waltz ever wanted me to take him seriously, he would have dived into Peter Lampe’s work and show, not some kind of implied “guilt-by-association,” but rather, thought-by-thought, how Lampe’s portrayal of historical facts somehow becomes corrupted.

But Waltz does not do that. He is not capable of doing such a thing.

Bud Abbot isolates on the fact that “‘Who’ is the name of the player on first, and ‘What’ is the name of the player on second, and ‘Idunno’ is the name of the player on third,” and in doing so, he is able to keep his story straight, in the face of a confused sidekick who equivocates without even knowing that’s the source of his own confusion.

A Closer Look at David Waltz’s Objections

In comments below, David Waltz, noting that he “Could not sleep, so I jumped online and checked in on my blog and BA [‘Beggars All’]” said:

You accuse me of being "simplistic", and yet, in a number of the threads at Articuli Fidei where I have delineated the “methods” and “presuppositions” of liberal scholarship, you have been noticeably absent, and have failed to supply a conservative critique of the liberal paradigm.

Elsewhere, he had said, “perhaps John will give some thought to Garry Williams' reservations...”

And so, yes, in a recent blog post, I commented on his objection that a conservative Presbyterian had called Eamon Duffy a “revisionist historian,” and I had commented on David’s failure to suggest precisely how “Duffy’s work on the English Reformation intersects with what he has written about the early papacy” was a good reason to characterize his objection as “simplistic”.

But if he is inclined to suggest that his other materials offer more substance, well, that’s questionable too. For example, this post of his seems to contain and summarize his strongest objections to, and remedies for, the work of Peter Lampe. In this thread, which gets posted around the internet by some of David’s followers and fans who seem to be less thoughtful and sophisticated even than he is, which he seems to proclaim as his “magnum opus” against Lampe, I want to summarize his “objections,” just to show how absolutely “fluffy” they are.

After providing a series of links to my various blog posts responding to him (and which I have supplemented here), here, unvarnished, is his devastating criticism:

I do not believe that John has adequately addressed the most pressing issue—which I have mentioned on more than one occasion—here it is again:

The premise/presuppostion [sic] that archeology and secular history must take precedence over Biblical historicity.

This is the method that is foundational for Lampe (and so many other liberal scholars), and he applies it not only to Biblical historicity, but also to the history provided in the writings of early “Catholic” bishops and authors.

Look again at that most pressing issue: “The premise/presuppostion [sic] that archeology and secular history must take precedence over Biblical historicity." And that Lampe (and so many other liberal scholars) apply this method “also to the history provided in the writings of early “Catholic” bishops and authors.”

For gosh sakes, I hate to bring this up, but the Bible is history. And “archaeology and secular history” do not take precedence over “Biblical historicity” – these things confirm and provide a backdrop for “Biblical historicity.”

What in the world is David actually saying here? I grant that “Liberal Scholarship” has relied on the methodology of “historical criticism” (which incorporates – gasp – “archaeology and secular history) to challenge the Bible – Old Testament, New Testament, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the missionary journeys of the Apostles, the letters of Paul and the other New Testament writers.

Yes, using the tools of “historical criticism” – yes, “Liberal Scholarship” has provided the very Revelation of God [to which I hold most dearly] with the most intimate rectal exam that any school of thought or body of literature has ever undergone in the history of the human race.

But in doing so, two things have happened (and I have noted this repeatedly):

1. The facts and historicity of the Bible, especially the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, have been confirmed as true, in and by “archaeology and secular history,” to a degree that far exceeds virtually any other body of knowledge that we can point to, and

2. In the process of #1, “Liberal Scholarship” has beaten itself upon the Rock of Truth in such a way that it can no longer protest against the factuality of the Bible, Life of Christ, etc. Such things are now well-established facts. And thus, “Liberal Scholarship” has been reduced to one thing, and that is, to a denial of the supernatural character of the Bible.

And so, from a factual point of view, especially with respect to the New Testament, there are very few unresolved questions about persons, dates, places, events, etc. “Liberal Scholarship” and “Conservative Scholarship” largely have come to a consensus on these things (there are some outliers, but I am speaking of a vast majority). The one key difference is an allowance for the Supernatural or not. Conservatives embrace the supernatural, and take it for what it says it is; Liberals seek to explain it away.

And thus, when in Acts 2, for example, when Peter says, “Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know …” – there is not much question between Conservatives and Liberals as to what Jesus said and what these folks are reported to know. There is not much disagreement about what “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it” means. Conservatives and Liberals, having both adopted methods of “historical criticism,” largely agree on the events that Peter was talking about.

Does everybody get this so far? Does anybody have any questions?

Representative links on the topic of Biblical Interpretation

The role and misuse of Authority

Biblical Interpretation 1

Biblical Interpretation 2

Ratzinger Part 1

Ratzinger Part 2

How does an infallible Magisterium cause such quandaries for itself?

I intend to get back to David Waltz vs. Peter Lampe, Lord willing, I really I do, but I ran across this opportunity to provoke the kind of cognitive dissonance that only “The Catholic Champion” could deny without a thought, with just a wave of his mighty hand.

“Da Champ” has decided to comment on my recent blogpost, Vatican II vs Trent on “Holy Orders”. I had posted this from Kilmartin:

In Trent’s Decree on Holy Orders, Canon 6 states that there is in the Church “a hierarchy instituted by divine ordination, which consists of bishops, presbyters and ministers.” While this teaching conforms to the idea of existence of such offices from the beginning of the Church, it does not harmonize with the historical facts. The Second Vatican Council’s Lumen Gentium [28] offers a more realistic view based on a more secure historical consciousness and exegesis of Scripture. Here we read “Thus the divinely instituted ecclesiastical ministry is exercised in different degrees by those who even from ancient times (ab antiquo) have been called bishops, priests, and deacons.” Hence in no way does Vatican II affirm that the priesthood was instituted at the Last Supper in the sense understood by Trent (pg 378).

Da poor Champ, he doesn’t like Kilmartin. He says:

Unfortunately the Church hierarchy has been rather lax in formally condemning individual theologians who have dissenting opinions, who then publish them all over the internet to be consumed by those seeking information on a particular theological subject. … Further down in the article Kilmartin also attacks the scholastic definition given by the Church at Trent concerning Transubstantiation.

Lord willing, I’ll get to that, too, Champ. Meanwhile, in discussing this work yesterday with Raymond, it came up that Vatican II had caused all kinds of problems for understanding Vatican I. I was recalling a work I had read some time ago: Michael J. Buckley, S.J., “Papal Primacy and the Episcopate: towards a relational understanding,” New York: Crossroad Herder, © 1998, from the “Ut Unum Sint” series. I’m wondering if Buckley is one of Da Champ’s favorites? Ratzinger certainly likes him. From the Acknowledgements:

As this book goes to press, its author should pause over the gratitude he owes to others, a debt he would gladly pay:

To Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for his gracious invitation to participate in the symposium sponsored by the Congregation on the “primacy of the successor of Peter”;

To Archbishop Tarcissio Bertone, S.D.B., secretary to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for his unfailing kindness and facilitation of the symposium in innumerable details;

To my colleagues in the department of theology at Boston College for their discussion of an earlier draft of the monograph that is now this small book;

To Joseph Komonochak, Peter Hunnermann, and Clifford Kossel, S.J., for their review of the several drafts of the document and their suggestions for its betterment.

To the members of the doctoral seminar at Boston College on primacy and episcopate for the analysis, interpretation, and arguments that occupied many hours of the Wednesday afternoons of the fall of 1996;

To Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., and Michael Himes for their insightful and collaborative direction of this doctrinal seminar that provided the context in which this book was written;

And above all, to my two generous research assistants, Joseph Curran and Brian Hughes, for their hours of scholarly digging in libraries together with their unflagging, competent help in the completion of this work.

I’m sure you’re asking yourself, “what, pray tell, is the fruit of this love-fest?”

Certainly you recognize some of the names. Ratzinger, Sullivan, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Yes, we’re all one big happy family.

Here’s what Buckley has said, what Ratzinger asked for, was improved upon by the colleagues at Boston College, and completed with the generous, unflagging, competent help of the research assistants.

The development from Pastor aeternus to Lumen Gentium, from speaking of the bishops as the episcopate to speaking of the bishops as “a college...or a college of bishops” (collegium ... seu corpus episcoporum), is far more considerable than a simple semantic shift. “Episcopate” is somewhat more abstract than “college of bishops,” and it fails to express the dynamic relationship of the bishops among themselves… (pg 77).

Just wait until you’ve got to take into account a millennium’s-worth of Orthodox (and Oriental) bishops who have been slighted.

By no means is that the only problem which the college of bishops initially poses. Lumen Gentium, no. 22, did not include in its description of the Episcopal college the local churches of which the bishops were shepherds and representatives. If one fails to place this section within the context of Lumen Gentium no. 23, one would have an understanding of the college of bishops without the simultaneous and explicit recognition of the communion of churches, indeed, without mention of local churches at all. The perspective would remain that of a universalist ecclesiology, and the college of bishops would read as if it were primarily a governing board of the whole Church (80).

Then there are the vital relationship between the bishop and the local church within which he is to represent the leadership and the sanctifying presence of Christ (81) … and the Apostolic Tradition which insists that the bishop is to be chosen by all of the people and that this selection is to be approved by the assembled [local] bishops and elders (86). Buckley writes, in summary:

Two questions arise in this context. Whether the present settlement actually detracts from the full vigor of the episcopate and whether papal restoration of ancient legislation on the selection of bishops and their stability within their sees could contribute significantly to the strengthening of the episcopate and the local churches today. Could the apostolic See further effectively its responsibilities simply by restoring what has been taken [or, what the papacy has usurped for itself] over the centuries? This would be to retrieve in a very different way that papal leadership whose bent was the strength and freedom of the local church. Neither problem is an easy one to resolve, but both merit serious study and each touches upon both components of this essay (94).

So, Champ, it appears that not only has the divinely instituted hierarchy “been rather lax in formally condemning individual theologians who have dissenting opinions,” in “stopping those modernists who recreate history to deny the definitive teachings of the Catholic Church,” of squelching those with “modernist opinions who contradict her at every turn.” It appears as if they are inviting them to write these things.

But Champ, I’ll make this easy for you. I’ll give you an exit, one that preserves the integrity of both hierarchy and theologians: blame it on the research assistants.