You are on page 1of 11

A CATHOLIC GOSPEL: REFLECTIONS ON

"EARLY CATHOLICISM IN THE


NEW TESTAMENT
"Early Catholicism" in the New Testament is one of the most recent of

the exegetical hot potatoes.1 The term itself "early catholicism" is hardly

new, going hack at least as far as Ferdinand Christian Eaur of the last
century. It occurred again in the works of one of Baurs student, Albrecht
Ritsehl, whose negative evaluation of the phenomenon became part of the
Ritschlian heritage of contemporary exegesis and systematics among prot-

estant scholars.2 The notion played an important role in the HarnaclcSohm'

debate and appears still later in Rudolf Bultmanns Theology of the Nen:
Te:talent-n:.'I However, its recent vogue is due to the publications of German

evangelical exegetes such as Philipp Vielhauer in his programmatic 1950-51

1 For pertinent literature in addition to that specically cited below, see John Knox,
The Early Church mad the Coming of the Great Chnrch (New York: Ahingdon Press,
1555} : H. Schlier, Die Ordnung der Kirche nach den Pastoralhriefen," Die Zeit tier
Kirche: Exepetisclte Anfsdtse and Fortrdpe [Freihurg isn Breisgau, 1955}, pp. 1291*; H. Conaelmsnn, Heidenchristeatum," EGG 3 ed. III (1959) Col. 123-141: E.
Schweiaer, Church Order in the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology No. 33
(London: SCM Press. 1961}; L. Goppelt, "The Existence of the Church in History
Acoording to Apostolic and Early Catholic Thought," Current Issues in New Testanrent Interpretation, Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper, ed. by W. Iassen and G. F.
Snyder (New York: Harper and Row, 1962}, pp. 193-209; W. Bauer, Rechtplanbigeelt
unit Keteerei in: dltesten Christentnns, Zweite, durchgesehene Auage mit einem
Nachtrag voa G. Strecker (Thingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 19153} : S. Neill, The interpretation of the New Testament 1361-1961 (Londonfnford, 19154}, pp. 1153-1159, 186-190;
John H. Elliott, I"The New Testament is Catholic: A Reevaluation of Sola Scripture,"
Una Sancta 23;] [1966) 343; [3. Clark: Chapmann, Jr., "Ernst Kisemann, Hermann
Diem. and the New Testament Canon," Journal of the American Academy of Religion
363'] (March 1951) 3-12.
I For an incisive reeeit analysis of Ritschls methodology and his inuence upon
contemporary protestant thought consult Philip Hefner, Faith and the Pita-lilies of
History, A Theological Study Based on the Works of Albrecht Ritschl (Makers of
Modern Theology, ed. by I. Pelikan: New York: Harper and Row, 1966}. 1Witl't his
critique of Ritschl's aniological principle and its perpetuation in the existential tradition of much contemporary exegetical and systematic literature, Hefner opens the door
to a reevaluation of the hermeneutical presuppositions and method of historical
criticism.

3 See R. Sohm, Wesen and Ursprnnp des Katholisirmns (Leipzig, Iii-'09; 2d ed."
1912} ; A. von Harnaclc. Entstehnny and Entraicklanp tier Kirchnnertassnnp and ties
Kirchenrechts in (ten ewei ersten Jahrlznnderten (Leipzig, 1910}. For an excellent
review of the discussion, including other participants, cf. O. Linton, Dos Problem der
Urtirclte in der neneren Forschnnp [Uppsala, 1932).
* Translated from the German by K. Grebe]. 2 1it"ols. Hoodoo: SCH Press, 1952).

213

214

THE Csrnoctc BtsLtcsL Queerse

[VoL 31

essay, "On the Paulinisnt' of elects,"ll Willi Marxsen in his brief study, Der
Prhkotholfsismus fro Noreen Testament (1953). and especially Ernst
Kasentann whose several pertinent essays are contained in volumes I and II
of his collected essays, Eregetische Versurhe and Besienungen. These

studies have lacen paralleled by, or have incited the spirited reaction of,
Roman Catholic scholars such as Karl Hermann Schelkle, Franz Mussoer,
and Hans Kt'ing'.l
With the sobriquet "'earlg,r catholic" are identied Christian documents
antedating the emergence of the Great or Catholic Church ca. 1% All.
which show traces of, or tendencies in the direction of, the following: the
organisation of the Church according to hierarchical in contrast to charis-

matic ministry; the development of the monarchical episcopate; an objectication of the proclamation and an emphasis upon a strictlyr formulated rule
of faith; a stress upon "orthodoxy or sound doctrine in opposition to
false teaching; moraliaation of the faith and conception of the gospel as new

law ; an understanding of faith in objective rather than subjective, in static


rather than dynamic, terms, as der once creditor in contrast to des qua
credftm'; a development of the principle of apostolic succession and trans-

mitted authority; a distinction between laitv and clergy; a conception of an


authoritative interpretation of the scriptures; a trend toward sacramentalr
ism"; the formulation of a natural theology"; a concern for ecclesiastical
unity and consolidation; and an interest in the collecting of the apostolic
writings.

The NT documents which have been seen to include some or an;r of these

emphases, such as Luke-Acts, parts of Mt, the Pastorals, Eph, Jude and
1 "Zorn Paulinismus' der Aposhelgeschichte, Evangelist! Theolooie I'll (1950351),
1.15. Translated by W. C. Robinson, Jr. and V. P. Fumisch in Studies in Lukerdcts,
Essays presented in Honor of Pool Schubert, ed. by L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn
(NashvillefNew York: Abiugdon Press. 19545), pp. 33-50.
3 Biblirrlte Studies Nr. 21 [Neultirchen Kreis Moers: Neulcirchen Verlag, 1953),
39-54.
W; Eseoetisrlue Persurhe nod Besennngen (Gottingen: Vandenhoeclt und Rupreeht,
Vl. I, 1960; Vol. II, 1954].
3 "Spitepostolische Briefe ale frhlratholisches Zeugttis," Nearestomeaniche Artf.rtse fir Professor Joseph Sehmid sum Ft]. Gehrtstog, hrsg. J. Blintler, 0. Russ,
F. Hussner {Regent-org, Pustet), pp. 225-232.
F " Evangeiiuru' und Mitte des Evangeliums: Ein Beitrag our Kontroverstheologie,"
Grist in Welt. Festgobe fir Kori Rainer, Vol. I. Schriftleitung H. Vorgrimsrder
[Freiburm Herder, 1964}, pp. 492-514; Frfihltatholizismusf' TT3 63 (1959} ELIE;
Frhkatholisismusf' LTK, 2d rev. ed._. VI, 39f.
1" Structures of the Church, Translated from the German by S. Attanasio {New
York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1964), pp. 151-1159. "Der Frltltatttolizismus, in:
Neuen Testammt als lrontroverstheologisches Problem," TD 142 (19152} 335-412.

1969]

Snosraa Connonrcartons

215

2 Pt. are considered to be the product and representatives of early catholic

thought. Such documents are all considered of late date, ranging somewhere

between the eighth decade of the rst century and the third to fth decade
of the second century. This is the period in which the delay of the parousia
caused the Christian community to rethink and retorrnulate the good news

in view of the likely duration of the Church. In view of the growing gap of
time and over against the mounting emergence of diverse teaching and
practice, the Church was forced to collect and preserve the traditions handed
on by the apostolic eyewitnesses and to consolidate not merely organizationally but also doctrinally. This was necessary not simply for the sake of
preserving tradition as such, or for the effective functioning of the Church

per se; but in order to distinguish true from false and to counter with an
apostolic authority and a united front the growing menace of gnostic syn-

creticism and other movements threatening a balanced and all-encompassing

proclamation and manifestation of the good news. Early catholic documents

in the NT are inevitable results of their own historical age.


These insights into the diversity, even outright divergence, among the
documents of the NT, and into the change of content as well as form of
the primitive Christian message in the light of changing historical situations,

involve many implications and ramications. The subject of early catholi-

cism is therefore of interest for a variety of reasons: exegetical, historical,


systematic-theological, liturgical. and ecumenical. The last of these reasons
is by no means the least, for it is precisely Protestant scholars, and not, as
might be expected, Roman Catholics, who have rst called attention to these
facts. And a Protestant or a Roman Catholic or simple Catholic denomina-

tional bias can be seen to play no mean role in the resolution of the tensions
brought to light. However, for the sake of this discussion, I shall restrict

myself to just one item which deserves, because of its central importance,
further consideration than that which has heretofore hem alforded it. This
is the question which the phenomenon of early catholicism in the NT raises
concerning the character of the gospel, or as E. Kasemann and W. G.
Kiimmel11 have identied it, "the canon within the canon." As a mode:
opsrendf, let us rst consider some of the basic points made by one repreh
sentative scholar, Ernst Kasemann, regarding three aspects of the problem;
namely, the changing attitude toward, rst, ministry and church organiza-

tion, then, the nature of faith, and third, the question posed concerning the
boundaries of the canon. Then we shall review some of the alternative

solutions proposed vis-a-vis the problems. Finally, I shall close with some
11 "Notwendiglteit und Grense des neutestarnentlichen Kanons." ZTK 4? (1950)
ll-313.

216

Tue Carnouc BracaL Quursscv

[Va]. 31

critical questions and points for discussion regarding the character of the
gospel.

In 1949 Ernst Kasemann wrote an essay treating "Ministry and Cornmunity in the New Testarnent." Comparing the concepts of organization
underlying the Church structure of the Pauline epistles, on the one hand,

and those in the Pastorals and Luke-Acts, on the other, he noted the differ-

ence between the charismatic ministry involving all Christians stressed by

the former and the hierarchical structure involving apostles, presbyters, and
bishops described in the latter. As the addressees of the Pastorals were to
be fortied in their contention with gnostic false teachers, emphasis was
placed not upon the gift of the Spirit dwelling in all Christians {as Paul had
done), but rather upon the Spirit given to those ordained through the laying
on of hands {1 Tm 4,14; 5,22; 2 Tm 1,6). Ordination now has become the
authorisation to administer the "deposit of faith" (1 Tm 5,20} and the
responsibility of preserving the sound doctrine (l Tm 1,10: 2 Tm 4,3).

According to Kiisemann, "the signicance of this is that an ofce which


stands over against the rest of the community is now the real bearer of the
Spirit; and the primitive Christian view, that every Christian receives the

Spirit in his baptism, recedes into the background and, indeed, for all

practical purposes, disappears."

Similarly, Kasemann nds that all references here to the apostolic dele-

gates are really to monarchical bishops who, under the guise of apostolic
delegates, are reminded of their duties. The distinction between clerics and
laymen is now in being, in practice if not in theory. It is now tacitly accepted
that the authority of the institutional ministry is guaranteed by a principle

of tradition and legitimate succession which has become the basis of all
Church order . . . 3" The development in Acts is similar. The charisma

concept has completely disappeared. The farewell speech in Acts 20,1175. incorporates the principle of tradition and legitimate succession of authority

which, in Kasemanns words, "runs like a red thread through the fabric of
the whole rst section of Acts? The apostolic witness becomes a witness
to facts. Not only the Seven (Acts 5,6) but even Paul (Acts 9,1?)

receives the Spirit through the laying on of hands. What was the purpose
13 This study was eventually published in his rst volume of collected essays

(Esegstisrfie Personae and Hemnyea, Gttingen, 196i], pp. IMF-134} and is among
these essays selected for the English translation, Essays on Here Testament These,
Studies in Biblical Theology No. #1 (London: SCH Press, 1964}, pp. 631-634. Citations of Kasemenn's essays are made according to this English translation.
13 rats, p. 3}".
1" Mid. p. 33.
1'5 He'd p. 39.

1969]

Banner: Connonrcarrons

213'r

of this transformation? Was it not, in the face of heresy, to defend the

legitimacy of the Church's own position and to maintain that outside the
boundaries of this Church with her sacred ofce and tradition there is no

possession of the Spirit and no salvation? Kasemann concludes that, "so


far as we can see, then, it was Luke who was the rst to propagate the
theories of tradition and legitimate succession which mark the advent of
early Catholicism."
A second transformation discernible in the NT involves the understanding

of faith and revelation. This change is most apparent in Jude and 2 Pt. Here
faith is treated not as that Spirit-motivated response of man to the selfrevelation of God and His grace in Jesus Christ (as Paul had presented it),

but, similar to the Pastorals, as a depositam, an object which was once

delivered to the saints" {Jude 3), which was obtained" {2 Pt 1,1). Transformed, with few exceptions (cf. 2 Pt 1,5), from an action to an object,
faith is predominantly a faith possessed," a norm of faith, a confession of
faith, a des quire creditor (Jude 3; 2 Pt 1,1 ; 2,21}, even a holy command
(2 Pt 2,21 ; 3,2}, and a virtue supplemented by other virtues {2 Pt 1,5-7').
As acorrelate, Kascmann points out, revelation in 2 Pt { 1,12 ; 2,21 ; 3,311}

is not a divine event, but has come to the community in the manner of an

object which is handed over . . . . Expressed in an exaggerated fashion . . .

revelation is now a piece of property which is at the community's disposal;

it is the Christian religion just as pistir meant the state of being a Christian. The result which Kasemann notes is that the once-for-allness and
nality of the eschatological event is lost and "an eschatological character

is being ascribed to the Christian doctrinal tradition as such.mi

It comes as no surprise, therefore, when Kasemann concludes his study


of 2 Pt with the disturbing though obvious question: What have we to

say about the canon in which 2 Peter has a place as the clearest possible
testimony to the onset of early catholicism i' Implied is the question: what
is the purpose and function of a biblical norm which itself contains not
merely variety but divergence and unmistakable contradiction? Two impli*

cations of this predicament are cited by Kisemann in his essay. The


|Canon of the New Testament and the Unity of the Church? The rst is
the futility of Protestantisms continued employment of the somalled "for1'5 Ibid., p. '91.

If E. Kasemami, "An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology," Essays,

pp. 169-195, esp. 11. 1'34.


13 fluid, 1). 125.
1* Ila-id, p. 195.
W This essay also appears in Ksemann's Essays on New Testament Themes, pp. 95111?.

213

Tara Csrnouc Ersucxr. Qusarnsnv

[VoL 31

mal principle" of solo scripture (versus scripture and tradition). "Protes-

tantism today can no longer employ the so-called Formal Principle without
rendering itself unworthy of credence in the eyes of historical analysis.21
Secondly, the variability of the NT lrmygma, the extraordinary wealth of

theological positions in primitive Christianity, and the incompatibility of


some of these positions must lead to the conclusion that the New Testament
canon does not, as such, constitute the foundation of the unity of the Church.
Do the contrary, as such (that is, in its accessibility to the historian) it
provides the basis for the multiplicity of the confessions."22 A simple
"return to the scriptures is misdirected and futile for ecumenical conver
sation. For the unity and unanimity which such a return would assume is
simply not to be found. The present denominations will nd in the sacred
scriptures only that which they have discovered in the pastthe biblical
justication of their own peculiar positions.
In view of these facts, what are the various alternatives open to him who

would remain conscious of and faithful to the witness of the Church from
her inception to the present? All these statements {in their positive content) are, of course, not new to the Catholic theologian, Hans Kimg has
reminded us, when speaking of Kasemanns position. What is new is that
these statements are made by a Protestant theologian and made with the

utmost clarity? As Kiing sees it, the dilemma of the Protestant theolo-

gian is obvious: either to accept early Catholicism as an element of the


New Testament and thereby denitely embark on the road to latc Catho-

licism, or else to reject early Catholicism as an element of the New Testament and correct the canon accordingly.i Heinrich Schlier, another

prominent member of the Bultmann school and close colleague of Ernst

Kisemann, chose the former alternative. For Kiisemann and other evan-

gclical colleagues there is still another option.


31
33
2*
1'1
2'5

Ibid., p. 103.
Ibid.
Kng, Structures, p. 154.
Ibid., p. 155.
Schlier, former Evangelical Nnrtestumsnttcr renowned for his commentaries on

Gal and Eph, in 1953 left Lutheranism and the Lutheran ministry for Roman Cathol-

icism. His study of the Pastoral Epistles, Eph, and the Pauline literature, he explains
in a brief autobiography of his "leavetaldng," led him to "ask whether the original
Lutheran creed, and the new evangelical faith which deviates considerably from this
latter, agree with its witness. Little by little. it convinced me that the Church it has in
mind is the Roman Catholic Church. The way to the Church was a truly protestant

one, if I may so express it. It is a way forseen, although not expected, in the Lutheran

confessional documents. . . . It was the New Testament subjected to an impartial


historical interpretation which led me to the Church." (We are New Catholics,

1959]

Snoarse Conunnrcartons

219'

The key to the solution of the dilemma he nds within the NT itself in

St. Paul's word to the Corinthians to distinguish between the letter and

the Spirit (2 lCor 3}. This principle. he maintains, applies to the NT as

well as the UT. It was the principle by which Paul distinguished between

esh and spirit, law and gospel, cosmos and creation and thus was able to

prescrve the tension between the freedom of man and the sovereignty of
God. In terms of our present problem," he writes, this means that we

cannot keep |God imprisoned even within the canon of the New Testament

. . scripture itself can at any moment become the letter and indeed does

so as soon as it ceases to submit to the authorization of the Spirit and sets


itself up as immediate Authority, seeking to replace the Spirit.21f This
means that the canon, the word of God, and the gospel are not synonymous.
Rather, the canon is only the Word of God in so far as it is and becomes

the gospel? The gospel alone, and not the canon, provides the foundation
of the unity' of the Church.

Here, nally, we arrive at the nub of the issue and possible core of the
solution of the question regarding early catholicism: the character of the
gospel. But what is this gospel and where is it to be seen amidst the diversity
of the NT witness? Kasemanns answer is that it is to be seen most clearly

in such Pauline documents as Gal and Rom where the good news is spelled

out as the event of justication through grace on account of Jesus Christ


and appropriated through faith. Here is the precarious middle road between
enthusiasm, antinomianism and individualism on the left, and early catholicism, legalism, and institutionalism on the right. Both extremes are present
in the NT and neither is eliminated from the canon. But, insists Kisemann,

according to the criterion of justication by faith both must be criticized as

distortions of the authentic gospel.ma This position, concurring most ob-

viously with Reformation presuppositions and dogmatic formulations, has

found support among other Evangelical exegetes (notably W. G. Kmmel


and H. Braun) who speak of the "center of the NT which in actuality
judges the content and determines the boundaries of the whole, a canon
within the canon.
R. Goethe, H. Schlier, G. Klunder, M. Giebner; edited by K. Hardt [Westminstert
The Newman Press, 1959] pp. 131215; quotation from pp. 193E}. For critique of
Schliers position, see Walter Fiirst, Kirrhe odrr It'Iv'ilms-is'lIr Heinrich Soldiers dosage
on den Prolastontinsts (Theologisehe Em'stenz Heute, Hr. 94; Ml'incben: Chr. Kaiser
Verlag, 1961).
3" Kismnann, Essays, pp. IUSf.
31 Ibid.
23 E. Kisemann, "Is the Empel Objective?" Essays, pp. Elli.

3 W. G. Kiln-mid, op. sin; H. Braun. "Heht die neutestameuttiehexezetfsche

Fond-tuna: den Kanon Inf?" Fuldoer Heft: 12 (Borlin, 19m).

221]

THE CATHULIC BIBLICAL QuaarEv

[VoL 31

But against this proposed solution serious objections can and have been
raised. First, are Ksemann and other investigators of early catholicism in
the NT correct in their conclusions? Have they perhaps overacceatuated
what they call "predominant traits and minimized the somllcd exceptions?
Are such documents as the Pastorals, Jude, and 2 Pt as devoid of reference

to the Spirit and the righteousness of God as some would have us believe?

(See, e.g. 1 Tm 4,1;2 Tm 1,14; Ti 3,56; 2 Pt 1,2021; Jude 19-20; 1 Tm


LIZ-1?; 2 Tm 1.8-10; Ti 2,11; 3.4; 2 Pt 1,1 to the contrary). Has there
perhaps been too much weight laid on what early catholic documents have

said and too little on what they, for perhaps obvious reasons at the time,
have not said? Has research of early catholic literature been historically

critical enough? Have the exigencies caused by the apparent delay of the
parousia and the obvious needs of the communities to address themselves to
the question of the moral life and empirical signs of the unity in the Spirit
been given their due? Is the indefatigable interest of the homo historic-as and
the homo historic Christiana in the roots and continuity of his history as
alien to the eschatological dimension of the gospel as some scholars would
suggest?

Secondly, even if the main points of the early catholic brief he acknowl-edged as exegetically sound, is Kisemann correct and justied in his proposed solution? Is not Kiisemanns solution fraught with subjective
arbitrariness? Why the Pauline writings as the center of the canon, and

even more center of center, why Pauls formulation of justication by faith?


As Kiing asks, on what grounds does Kiisemann claim that his selection

from the New Towent specically constitutes the 'Gospel'l . . . Can


Kimann base himself on anything more than an a priori Protestant viewpoint? . . . Is not this a position in which one can scarcely adduce reasons
that could prevent others from making other choices and, on the basis of

another a priori understanding. discover enegetically another median and


another Gospel? Kasemanu himself seems to anticipate this objection in
his essay on Paulus und der 13"riihltatholizismus"""""l by indicating that early
catholicism commences with the delay of the parousia. Hence a criterion for
the evaluation of early catholicism apparently must and can be found only
in those documents which antedate it, namely, those of Paul. But how

exegetically and historically sound is it to formulate such a criterion according to a phenomenon about which there is so much exegetical unciarity?
'50 Kong, Structures, p. 162.
31 ETK till (1963) 15-39. Reprinted in Errol-tire!" Fermche told ctional-torn
(GEttingen: Vanderdmeck 11nd Ruprecht, 1964}, 11, 239-251 This article has been
translated from the German by W. E Bunge, "Paul and Nascent Catholicism,"
Journal for Theology and Church {New York: Harper Torehbooltl, 196?), III, 14-21

1969]

Snoarsa Connomcanons

221

This then raises the question which both Fathers Kiing and Mussner

pose ;. namely, is it either possible or legitimate to seek such a criterion and

center of the NT? Is not such a quest for some canonical center inevitably
reductionistic? Is this not another manifestation of the persistent protestant

proclivity toward selecting from the whole and allowing only a part? In
point of fact, the NT writings themselves evince a trend running in the

opposite direction. From earlier to later documents we view the tendency

to' include with more and more diverse expressions and images, more and
more of the world and its cosmic forces and dimensions within the saving

action of God in Jesus. In this variegated and all-encompaSsing gospel is

indeed the liberating and strengthening message of St. Paul. And we thank
God for it! But especially we Gentiles are also thankful that the good news

is expressible and comprehensible in terms other than the Jewish one of


justication by grace and forgiveness of sins! In its universality as well as

its self-conscious Christian identity the NT witness is catholic. In this sense


Father King is correct: only a catholic can take seriously NT writings

which are catholic.


A further telling criticism is levelled against Kiisemann by his Evangelical
systematic colleague at the University of Thingen, Hermann Diem. In
shifting from the authoritative norm of the canon {the formal principle}
to a canon within the canon (the material principle) Kasemann transforms

the gospel from an event to a doctrine!'2 The gospel is not a static teaching
the very thing which Ksematm accuses the Pastorals, 2 Pt and Jude of
suggestingbut is a dynamic event which happens as a result of the proclamation of the word and faithful hearing. Willi Marasen in his study on earl",r
catholicisrn agrees with this, emphasizing that where in diverse historical
situations through diverse proclamation Jesus Christ comes to expression
and not merely some objectication of a former confessionthere the gospel
occurs. However, despite this necessary accent upon the dynamic and

historical character of the gospel, both Diem and Marxsen fail to see the
implications of this for the subsequent periods of the Church's history and

thus both attempt to rescue the NT from the opprohrious label of early
catholicism.
What I am suggesting with this last statement I shall expand in the form
of several points which attempt to recognize those sound insights of the
scholars aforementioned while also moving beyond them toward a clearer
understanding of the gospel.
First, the gospel, as the NT documents which attempted to proclaim it
*2 Hermann Diem, Doymtics; translated from the German by H. Knight [Edinburghmdon: Oliver and Boyd, 1959}, p. 23!}.
3 Marleen. pp. dS-l'll.

222

THE CarnoLtc Bremen. Quasi-ants

[VoL 31

indicate, involves change i not merely variety or diversity, but change. This
is so because the gospel is, secondly, historical; thirdly, relative : and iourthly,
dynamic. All descriptions are obviously correlated. The gospel is dymornir
because it is an event which occurs and occurs over and over again. The
gospel is relation because this event involves the reconstitution of the integral
relation between God and man and man with fellow-man through the

mediator Jesus of Nazareth. The gospel is historical because this dynamic


relating of God through Jesus to man occurs through a historical man,
Jesus of Nazareth, and to historical men and within the temporal and

cosmic dimensions of time and space. The gospel is change because this
dynamic relating of God to man through Jesus in history constitutes a
change from alienation and incompleteness to integration and integrity. The

gospel is good news. It is not simply news, but good news. It is recognized

and described and manifested as good news because it changes and ameliorates a bad" situation. As the historical characteristics of the bad situation change, so the explication of the gospel will accordingly change.
Accordingly, there was not, nor could there ever be, some kind of pristine

gospel" according to which all Christian experience is to be evaluated, be it


that of Luke or Paul or Jesus himself. Similarly there is neither in the
strict sense a development of dogma but rather a diversity of dogma. For

is not dogma the constantly varying and variable expression of the gospel,

the believing communitys historically bound witness of man and mans


worlds relation to God in and through Jesus? A fundamental error of much
demythologiaing and exegetical existentializing is the assumption of some
"essence" of the gospel which, when stripped of its mythological swaddling
clothes, can be appropriately related in modern dress. The recognition of
the total historical contiguity of the gospel should make the illusory char

actor of this assumption obvious. Similarly, it should pave the way for a
historically critical methodology which seeks to do justice to history in its
totality and continuity rather than to its partiality or its essence."

This is to say that the character of the gospel does not obviate the employ-

ment and formulation of theological criticism or authoritative norms as such.


Rather the character of the gospel and the history of its occurrence seems
to call for a historical criticism which, on the one hand, is attentive to the

totality of the experience of the gospel within and beyond the primitive
period of the Church and which, on the other, operates seriously with the
criterion of historical productivity and historical manifestation. By their
fruits you shall know them might well be more of a historical criterion than

heretofore realised. For the establishment of criteria is a reexive act.


Certain documents of the NT are, to be sure, early catholic in the sense

that they form part of the historical and theological continuum extending

1969]

Saunas. COMMUNICATIDNS

223

from the primitive community to the emergent Great Church. In another

and more profound sense they are not simply surly catholic" but "mthulic,"
[Periodl] ; and "catholic because evangelical. The}r are reections of and

witnesses to the diversity, all-inclusiveness, and Christocentticity of man's

Experience and expression of God's saving activity in their own time. They
are also indispensable for the signicance this has for the experience and
expression of the good news of the future.

Joan H. ELLIOTT
University of Sun Froncisca

You might also like