Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity

Rating:
Summary: So, they lied to me in Sunday School!
Review: For the pensive and discerning reader, struggling through Professor Dunn's compact and rich text can be as significant an event, as reading Luther's "Introduction to Romans" turned out to be for Wesley. Certainly for those of us who attended traditional, conservative and orthodox Christian seminaries, this text can be an eye-opener. Similarly, for the laity whose spiritual guides graduated from such seminaries, this book can be liberating.

Contrary to what many of us learned in seminary (and others have simply assumed through denominational hubris), Dr. Dunn goes to great lengths to demonstrate -- from the canon of the New Testament, itself -- that there is no historically-mandated, one, proper way to be a Christian. Bishops and Church Councils may declare what they wish to declare, but often those declarations are simply not supported by the experience of the earliest Christians, as recorded in the New Testament. In one, bold move Professor Dunn minimizes both the teaching magisterium of Rome, and the most confrontive claims of the Protestant traditions.

Quoting extensively from Scripture, Professor Dunn demonstrates that: (1) there was not one expression of the Gospel, but several within the earliest Christian communities; (2) the confessional formulae and their settings for proclamation varied; (3) that the concept and structure of ministry varied widely among the earliest Christians; (4) that the structure and practice of worship was not unified; (5) that different Christian communities experienced the Spirit of the living God in different ways; and (6) that while all of the early Christian communities were unified by centering their lives and proclamations around the risen Christ, all of the early Christian communities did not understand the risen Christ in the same way. In short, Professor Dunn shows us that the earliest Christians were unified in their devotion to the risen Christ, but greatly diverse in the way that they experienced his presence among them, and told his story to the world.

Living in an era when denominational antagonisms are too often glossed over by a thin veneer of polite ecumenicity, reading Professor Dunn's book can be a humbling experience. Buy two copies of this book: one for yourself, and one for your least favorite, pompous member of the clergy

Rating:
Summary: How diverse was too diverse in the early Church?
Review: James Dunn has done a masterful job of portraying the range of beliefs within first century Christianity. The earliest Christians were not a monolithic group who had an official doctrinal statement such as those we find in today's denominations. However, the one central characteristic which gave unity to the term "Christian" was the belief in the continuity between the earthly Jesus of Nazareth and the exalted Christ who was raised from the dead.

In regards to first century Christianity, Dunn examines the different confessions used in reference to Jesus (Son of Man, Messiah, Lord, Son of God). He examines the various ways in which the Old Testament was used or not used. He also covers diversity in worship, sacraments, religious experience, and christology. All of these areas and others demonstrate Dunn's thesis - which is that there was a tremendous amount of diversity accepted within the New Testament churches.

He then examines different segments of Christianity - Jewish, Hellenistic, Apocalyptic, and Early catholic. Within each of these categories he reviews what the dividing line was between acceptability and heresy. For example, Jewish Christianity became heretical if it "persisted in clinging to a limited view of Jesus and his role". The Ebionites were an example of this. As mentioned earlier, the dividing line in each area was in how Jesus was perceived.

One area of disagreement I have with Dunn is in how he overstates his case in some ways by being too simplistic. For example, he seems to treat each New Testament book as if it were a complete summary of the beliefs of the writer of that particular book. This often gives a skewed perspective on things. We know this by examining Paul's letters. If we only had 1 Thessalonians, then we would have a much different perspective on Paul than we do by comparing all seven (or more) of his letters. In the same way, I don't think we can claim as much as Dunn does in regards to the writers of such books as Hebrews, James, Matthew, and others. However, this doesn't detract from the fact that this is a highly informative book which accomplishes its task of showing how diverse Christianity was in the first century.

Rating:
Summary: Great Book!
Review: James Dunn's book, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, is his endeavor to demonstrate the unity and diversity of first-century Christianity. He extends back into the New Testament to inquire whether we can speak of orthodoxy and heresy in early Christianity. He attempts to answer the question, "Was there a unifying strand in earliest Christianity which identifies it as Christian?" (page 6).

The book is divided into to main sections. In the first part, Dunn attempts to find the unifying strand in earliest Christianity, locating it in the " affirmation of the identity of the man Jesus with the risen Lord" (page 227). In this first part, Dunn examines the major kerygmata of the New Testament (of Jesus, Paul, Acts, John, Dunn seems to favor John), the primitive confessional formula (Dunn feels that early faith could be reduced to slogans), the role of tradition, the use of the Old Testament, the ideas of ministry, patterns of worship, sacraments, Spirit and experience, and Christology. Dunn shows a unity, Jesus, in each area he examined, while simultaneously illustrating the diversity of belief and practice.

In second part of the book investigates the diversity in early Christianity, with emphases on Jewish, Hellenistic, Apocalyptic Christianity, and Early Catholicism. Dunn shows that the center of unity here also exists in Jesus, "The unifying element was the unity between the historical Jesus and the exalted Christ" (page 369). He demonstrates that the early Christians accepted a wide range of beliefs and practices provided only that a connection to the human and exalted Jesus was established. This was all that orthodoxy embodied for early Christians, "there is no single normative form of Christianity in the first century" (page 373).

Dunn concludes the book with a chapter on "The Authority of the New Testament." Here he examines the diverse New Testament canon's role for Christians today. He makes a good suggestion that the canon limits the acceptable diversity of Christianity.

What first impressed me about this book was the breadth and at times depth of the material covered. Dunn has selected a wide range of topics to cover, it is a good collection of important issues with very good bibliographical references. Examples of sections that I found helpful are 16.1 "The role of tradition within Judaism," and 22 "Jewish Exegesis in the Time of Jesus," (page 82). These two sections contain good definitions and comparisons of Midrash, Halakah, Haggadah, Targum, and Pesher. The data presented in Section Two on the early sects was also excellent, I like the case for pre-gnostic thought existing in the first century.

In 9,"Jesus is the Son of Man," (page 35) Dunn argues that the Son of Man title grew out of a conviction of the early church, and was a distinctive theology in early Christianity. The expression also occurs in three Jewish apocalyptic works, Daniel, 2 Esdras, and 1 Enoch, although there it is applied to non-human or superhuman figures. The term also appears in some Qumran texts. There is much more debate on the titular use of Son of Man then Dunn gives credit. It's lack of use by Paul is may have been due to its awkwardness in Greek (it works better in Aramaic), and not necessarily a divergent Christology.

The title Son of God (page 45) is found in Dead Sea Scrolls, 4QDanA, and is mentioned by Dunn. The siglum 4Q246 also contains Son of the Most High. Dunn states that the title "came to full flower within the widening mission of Hellenistic Jewish Christianity." If this titles appear in the Qumran texts, wouldn't they have closer ties with Palestinian Jewish Christianity?

Dunn presents his arguments well, and I coincide with him on most issues and with his conclusion. It is one of the better books I have read in New Testament studies, I found all of it interesting. I still feel that in the end I have been short changed with Dunn's findings. Intuitively, I feel there should have been more unifying the early Christians. By claiming Jesus alone to be the unifying force is a not far removed from claiming all early Christians believed in Christ, and therefore shared a common name.