In my opinion, Antonio Piñero is one of the most competent, honest and erudite liberal New Testament scholars that I've ever read. I have great respect for Professor Piñero's scholarship.
However, like most liberal scholars, sadly Piñero misuses the criteria of authenticity in order to deny High-Christological traditions about Jesus (i.e. that Jesus didn't considered himself to be the Son of God in any literally divine sense).
In this case, the misuses in question consists in IGNORING that a given tradition passes the criteria of authenticity PLUS assuming that the mere presence of high-Christological elements in a tradition proves its falsehood.
However, like most liberal scholars, sadly Piñero misuses the criteria of authenticity in order to deny High-Christological traditions about Jesus (i.e. that Jesus didn't considered himself to be the Son of God in any literally divine sense).
In this case, the misuses in question consists in IGNORING that a given tradition passes the criteria of authenticity PLUS assuming that the mere presence of high-Christological elements in a tradition proves its falsehood.
Before providing the evidence for my contention, you have to keep in mind that liberal scholarship on the Historical Jesus works under the influence of this major criterion:
If a tradition about Jesus supports the distinctively Christian, high Christological (divine) view of Jesus, then it must be considered non-historical, the product of a later Christian invention, even if such tradition passes positively the criteria of authenticity.
The evidence that I'm going to provide is a telling and fine example of the working of this criterion.
EVIDENCE
You'll remember that, as I argued in this post, some of Jesus' sayings imply his exclusivistic self-perception regarding salvation and as the only or exclusive Son of God.
In his interesting blog "Cristianismo e Historia" published in Spanish (all the translations to English in this post are my own), Antonio Piñero addresses one of these sayings, in particular Mattew 11: 27: "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
What are Piñero's objections to the authenticity of this saying?
He says:
In first place, this is a passage which is very similar to the theology of the Fourth Gospel, so at a first glance it is extremely suspect: Such theology is very late; it is developed around 60-70 years after Jesus' death. Therefore, it is highly improbable that that it can be attributed to the Historical Jesus. According to the opinion of most interpreters, it is an invention, after the death of the master, by the primitive community which (through the lips of a Christian prophet who spoke in the name of Jesus) put such words in the lips of Jesus when he still lived on Earth.
Pilñero then proceds to quote several scholars, including Geza Vermes, who agree with his opinion.
Keep in mind that Piñero's argument is essentially that the saying in question is NOT authentic. But what evidence support such conclusion? None, only the assumption that being similar to the Fourth Gospel, it cannot be authentic.
But most important is the evidence which Piñero failed to mention.
But most important is the evidence which Piñero failed to mention.
Let's see that evidence:
1-Piñero doesn't mention that the saying in question is a Q saying, and hence is very early. Therefore, it passes positively the criterion of date (Cf. Luke 10: 22). As consequence, it refutes Piñero's claim that it reflects a "very late" theology.
The high-Christological theological elements about Jesus are already present in "Q". (By the way, if this early Q saying is "very similar" to the theology of the Gospel of John, then one could argue that the theology of John was, basically, Jesus' own). Piñero's argument cuts both ways!.
2-Piñero doesn't mention either that the saying also passes positively the criterion of dissimilarity. It is unlikely that the Church invented this saying because it says that the Son is unknowable—"no one knows the Son except the Father" (what would exclude Jesus' own followers from knowing him), but for the Church we can know the Son. Therefore, it is dissimilar to the early Church's belief that the Son can be known by human beings.
3-Piñero doesn't mention that, as Joachim Jeremias showed, the saying goes back to an Aramaic original, which passes positively the criterion of authenticity known as "Semitisms" (i.e. traces in the narrative of Aramaic or Hebrew linguistic forms), and hence it is likely to be authentic. (See discussion in The Prayers of Jesus, by Joachim Jeremias, pp. 45-46).
3-Piñero doesn't mention that, as Joachim Jeremias showed, the saying goes back to an Aramaic original, which passes positively the criterion of authenticity known as "Semitisms" (i.e. traces in the narrative of Aramaic or Hebrew linguistic forms), and hence it is likely to be authentic. (See discussion in The Prayers of Jesus, by Joachim Jeremias, pp. 45-46).
As seen, the saying in question passes positively THREE criteria of authenticity and therefore, on purely historical grounds, is very likely to be authentic. This is very good historical evidence for Jesus' self-perception as the only Son of God. In words of Reginald H. Fuller, Jesus "was certainly conscious of an unique Sonship to which he was privileged to admit others" (The Foundations of New Testament Christology, p. 115)
But note carefully that Piñero's view that such saying is "very similar" to the theology of the Gospel of John suffices to conclude, against all of the above positive evidence, that such saying is NOT authentic! And this despite that the saying passes positively THREE criteria of historical authenticity!
Note that not even the "benefit of doubt" is given to this tradition. NO. The saying, having high-Christological elements, cannot be authentic. Period. To the hell with the criteria of authenticity!!!!!!
This evidence shows clearly and irrefutably that, for liberal scholars like Piñero, the criteria of authenticity are irrelevant when they support a high-Christological view of Jesus. The mere presence of a high-Christological theology suffices to conclude that a given Jesus' tradition was an invention, regardless of the contrary, positive historical evidence for the tradition.
Again (I'm being intentionally redundant!): It is crucial to understand that liberal scholarship works under the assumption that any tradition in which Jesus is seen as divine is an invention of the Chruch and has to be false and non-historical. Positive historical evidence for such tradition is irrelevant and doesn't count.
The liberal, anti-Christian assumption against high-Christology OVERRIDES any contrary, positive historical evidence for high-Christological traditions.
The liberal, anti-Christian assumption against high-Christology OVERRIDES any contrary, positive historical evidence for high-Christological traditions.
As I argued in another post, this reminds me of the position of "skeptics" of parapsychology: negative evidence in psi experiments count against psi. But positive evidence is irrelevant, insufficient (because "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence") and has to be explained away with any conceivable speculation about the researchers' incompetence or credulity, undetected or unknown experimental flaws, magician's tricks which were bypassed by the researchers' controls and so forth.
Clearly, what is operative here is not an unbiased reading of the evidence, but an extremely biased approach to the evidence which fully guarantees that a certain position (in the case of Jesus, the high-Christological traditions; in the case of parapsychology, the true paranormal elements) is false, unreliable and cannot be accepted.
In another post, I've discussed another example of Piñero's misuse (actually, an egregious omission) of the criteria of authenticity on behalf of anti-Christian assumptions.
In summary, the evidence discussed in this post support my contention that liberal scholarship works with this assumption: If a tradition about Jesus supports the distinctively Christian, high Christological (divine) view of Jesus, then it is non-historical and was the product of a later Christian invention, even if such tradition passes positively the criteria of authenticity.
I'll provide more solid evidence of liberal scholars' misuses of the criteria of authenticity in future posts.
0 comments:
Post a Comment