2001 issue 2 - book review: the making of the new testament documents - counsel of chalcedon

8/12/2019 2001 Issue 2 - Book Review: The Making of the New Testament Documents - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/3

rippling Higher riticism

.A Review of Ellis' The Making o f he New

Testament Documents

E. E.Ellis, The Makingofth , New Testa-

ment Documents.

Leiden: Brill, 1999. 517pp,

with Indices (passages, authors, subjects).

Hardback. $151.00.

Summary:

A thorough, technical , evangeli

cal analysis of the historical process involved

in the making of the New Testament docu

ments. Counters liberal form-critical trends by

demonstrating the New Testament writers (and

their "schools") often used shared information

and drew from common, early sources. It

establishes an early date (pre- A.D. 70) for all

New Testament books, except for John's

Gospel and epistles (some early reviews

wrongly stated that he held early dates for

all

books).

Dr. E. Earle Ellis is Research Professor at

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,

Fort Worth, Texas. He is widely known and

highly regarded as an evangelical authority on

the New Testament. This work, his magnum

o

pus should establish his name and influence

for generations to come.

In his Preface he notes that his book is

something of a supplement to [John A. T.]

Robinson's investigation and a critique of the

current critical orthodoxy" (p. xvi). Despite

Robinson's foundational liberal convictions,

his work

R

edating the New Testament)

ex

ploded like a s tink bomb in the ivory towers

of

higher critical institutions, by arguing for a

pre-A.D. 70 date for

all

New Testament books.

Ellis' desire to supplement and develop

Robinson 's thesis alerts us to the significance

of his labor. He argues vigorously that "one

opinion in need of revision is the widely

accepted dating of the New Testament docu-

ments, a dating largely built

up

on nineteenth

century views quite at odds with the eYidence"

(p. 142). He establishes early (pre-A.D. 70)

dates for

all

New Testament books (and of 1

Clement, pp. 82n, 132, 280n, 307) except for

John's Gospel and his epistles. (He suggests

that John's Gospel was "the last written docu- .

ment not only

of

the Johannine mission but

also of our New Testament" po 306], being

written between

85

and 95 [po 319]).

Ellis informs his readers early on that his

book "represents a departure from

longstanding critical views of the origin,

composition and dating of the New Testament

documents.

t

argues that currently dominant

conceptions of the Gospels, in particular the

two-document hypothesis and the classical

form criticism, are in a number

of

their histori

cal and literary assumptions fundamentally

mistaken" (p. 1). He notes - - quite contrary to

prevailing critical orthodoxy - - that "good

historical method requires that a document be

tested first in terms of ts own claims" p.

294). This refreshing piece of practical wis

dom is quite contrary to the old-line Hegelian

dialectical methodology ofBaur's Tubingen

school

Ellis sets out to expose the "methodological

dogma .

. .

which asserted that a Gospel tradi

tion was to be ascribed, without 'further ado, to

the postresurrection church unless its origin in

Jesus' ministry could be demonstrated" p.

10). He endeavors to assess and critique the

"current state of critical studies and offer a

new appraisal

of certain .evidence which, it

is

hoped, may contribute to a more credible

historical reconstruction of the origins and

formation of the Gospels" p. 10). That recon

struction grants the New Testament writings

their full apostolic authority and historical

integrity, while explaining various "problem

atic" features seized upon by unbelieving

critics.

Readers interested in a brief, damaging.

critique of the Q Hypothesis will find p g ~ s

14-19 invaluable. He comments that "the

26 -

THE

COUNSEL of Chalcedon - FehruarylMarch, 2001


2/3

hypothesis of two sources, proto-Mark and Q,

enjoyed a growing dominance through the first

quarter of the twentieth century but since then

has become increasingly questionable if not

doubtful (p. 238). Though Hypothesis and

Marean prior ity

do

not pose an evangelical/

liberal divide, strong conservatives have been

uneasy about the whole construct. As Ellis

puts it: One may read essays today purporting

to set forth the hypothetical formation of the

hypothetical theology of the hypothetical

community of the hypothetical document Q.

But can the theory bear the weight of such

speculations or

ofthe

increasing objections

raised against the theory itself? (p. 16).

The author stands against the vast array of

liberal, higher-critical tendencies so rampant

in New Testament studies (the Jesus Seminar

serving simultaneously as a representative of

higher criticism's worst aspects and as its

most

influential promoter). He also has some sur

prises for conservatives, however. For he also

questions the traditional

view

that the

New

Testament letters were n individual enter

prise, written or dictated verbatim by the

author, and that their ascrihed authorship

could, consequently,

be

tested and determined

by such internal criteria as a common vocabu

lary, style, syntax and theological expression

or idiom (p. 1). This is not as scary as it

sounds. Indeed, his proposed resolution of the

higher critical problems - - the point of this

book - - is quite plausible.

Ellis seeks to demonstrate

the

degree to

which the New Testament documents, both

Gospels and letters, are products of a coopera

tive endeavor and not just the creation of the

individual authors (p. xvi). Ultimately,

they

are the result of four basic schools of apostolic

mission: the Petrine, Johannine, Jacobean, and

Pauline (all original, inspired ministers of the

gospel message). These four apostolic commu

nities

were the main fountainhead from which

the patristic church came forth, and in fact,

the four missions explain why our New

Testament has four Gospels (p. 252). Thus,

according to Ellis,

the

individual Evangelist

is not the creator e novo

of

the Gospel attrib

uted to him.

He

is - - Mark also - -

at

least

dependent on sources that are

the

work of

others (p. 38).

Even the

letters

were

authored in four

apostolic missions who created and transmit

ted several kinds of

pieces

and who

mutually

shared and mutually utilized some of them

(pp . 52-53). It is not, as traditionally sup-

posed, a matter of later writers following and

copying

Paul's correspondence

but

rather of

contemporary writers using existing traditions

in common and adapting

them to

the

needs

of

the particular letter

and

its recipients (p. 312).

This highlights a key conclusion resulting

from Ellis' historical and literary investigation

regarding the process involved

in

producing

the New Testament documents. And though it

initially sets off evangelical alarms, his argu

ment is just as tenaciously and abundantly

supported as it is unashamedly evangelical.

He even argues, on this basis, against any

direct inter-dependence

between

Ephesians

and Colossians (p.

II

0), as well as Jude

and

2

Peter (p. 122). Their remarkable similarities

are evidences, instead,

of

the

employment

of

pre-formed traditions, indicating the shared

nature and corporate composition

of

the

apos

tolic, early Christian community.

For

instance,

Ellis suggests that Paul's epistles were not, as

AdolfDeissmann thought, merely extempora

neous communications, 'letters' in the

popular

sense of the word, but were teaching pieces

clothed in

an

adaptable letter-form.

In

this

respect the preformed traditions strengthen a

conclusion already at hand from the multiple

recipients of some of the epistles and from the

Apostle's

command

that

his epistles be

read to

others

than

the immediate recipients (p. 116).

Onr author continues: many oCthe tradi

tions were composed by others, probably

by

Paul's gifted [i.e., prophet ically gifted] col

leagues in his and allied apostolic missions.

Along with the influence of his secretary and

of his co-senders and co-authors, such tradi-

FebruarylMarch, 2001 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - 27


3/3

tions point to a different understanding of the

nature

of

Pauline authorship and make the

denial of it on the basis of internal criteria

untenable, unless these factors have been

taken fully into account" (pp. Il6-17 . He

provides meticulously detailed, amply illus

trated argwnents for the use

of

pre-formed

materials for the various New Testament

books, even presenting helpful tables display

ing the percentages of pre-formed traditions

(e.g., p. 139).

Interestingly, he proposes that a "fifth

mission" - - a "subversive counter-mission - -

impacted the traditions of the "four allied

missions. These false teachers, as they are .

regarded in the literature of the Jacobean,

Johannine, Pauline, and Petrine missions,

show a marked resemblance in the doctrinal

errors that they espouse and in their deceptive

and greedy and boastful character" (p. 316).

(Interestingly, one of the unified themes used

to confront this subversive counter-mission

was an insistence upon the corporeal nature

of

the resurrection. This issue is still with us in

various cults (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses) and

heresies (e.g., hyper-preteristri).

Ellis proposes that the New Testament

author "did not compose his letter,solely as his

creation but used a variety

of

pieces created

by

other apostles or pnewnatics whose credentials

the author obviously accepted .... The non

authorial traditions demonstrate that the New

Testament letters, while sent under the

apostle 's name and authority,

Were

the product

of the corporate activity of a number of

apostles and prophets" (pp. 327-28).

Much

of

his research has helpful and direct

bearings on an evangelical preterist under

standing

of

various New Testament prophetic

passages (even though he denies the preteristic

understanding of Revelation as being "forced"

[po

215 n419] ). For instance, he observes that

1 Thess 2:15f. is an unusual denunciation of

Jewish religious leaders that has affinities

in

wording with the prophetic oracles at Lk

11 :49ff. Mt 23:34ff. and that may also have

its source in Christian prophecy" (p. Il2 . He ,

also provides helpful arguments for the early , '

date of Revelation, even citing and commend

ing my work in

Before Jerusalem Fell

(pp.

210-17) .

An

extremely helpful summary of fix.

points for placing the New Testament docu

ments" is foUnd on pages 239ff. In addition, to

Jerusitlem's destruction in A.D. 70, Ellis lists

other set-events iii the

ROman

world, such as

Caligula 's t t ~ u i p t to place his statue in the

Temple (AD 40), Claudius' expUlsion

of

the

Jews from Rome (AD 49.50), the Netonic

persecution (AD 64), and more. The careful

New Testament student will find these fix

points - - and those specific to the early

Church (pp. 248ff) - - to provide an invaluable

historical framework for New Testament

events:' '

The Making

o

he New Testament Docu-

ments ought to rattle a few 'cages,perhaps even

more than.N. t :WrighCsJesus andtheVictory

o God (1986),

t

certainly deserVes a hearing

as a competent counter-blast to the Jesus

Seminar and the various t\1:read-hare hyppth-"

eses of liberal high