SCRIPTURE

AS CANONIN THE CHURCH

J'-\:\1E S A. SAj\;DERS

Scripture and T radition

Every. Christian faich commumty has rwo basic references of authority:

Scripture and tradition. While there is a common structure shared by all
Christian biblical canons , each believing co,nmunity has its own body of tra -
ditions which distinguishes it as unique and provides the hermeneutics by
which to read its particular canon. This is true whethe r the community be
one of the Orthodox communions, the Rom an Catholic, a Reformation
Church, or indeed Rabbinic Judaism. The major difference between the Je w-
ish canon and che Christian First T estament is the difference between a tri-
partite and .ª quadri -partite structure. 1 Whereas the Prophetic Corpus , for
instan ce, is simated in the J ewish canon to explain the uses of adversity in
the hands of One God, in the Christian canons the Prophet s are placed last,
just befo re che Second T estament, to predice the coming of Chrisr - thus
changing the very nature of prophecy itself. 2 On e would be hard-pressed to
say for which community, Jewish or Christian, its magisterium or body of
tradition is more dominant. H eirs of left-wing Reformation movements tend
to call rhemselves conservative today, such as Fundamentalists and Evangeli-
cals in che United Staces, whereas in the SL'<teenthand seventeenth centuries
their predecessors were the most radical in accommodating the cultural tenets
of the time, especially the Renaissance of Greco-Roman stress on individual
worth and respon sibility.
The Reformation was a child of the Renaissance, which stressed individ-
ual reading of Scripture. As early as the fourreenth century in Europe monks
became scribes in arder to produce enough copies of the Vulgace for the in-
creasing numb ers of individuals \vho were becoming licerate. By che sixteench

1
'·Setting che Canon of the Tanak'', in History o/ Biblicctllnterprclatirm (4 vols, Grand
Rapid s: Eerdmans , 1999 l.
\'<'here the author is not specifie d in rhe notes, ic is che prese::nc \\'rit e r .
! "' Sp innin g' che Bible: Ht1\\' Ju<laism and Christianícy Shape che Canon Oifferently" ,
Bible Reul'l l' 14/ 3 (J unt 1998) 22 -28. -1-1--15. \'G'he rcas a prophet in the Bihle is prescnre<l as a
spokesp erson. for God to tht: pe ople an<l for the p~ople to Go<l ( in intercessory prnycr ). Ear-
ly Christianity tt1rned che proph e t into onc who prc<licreJ Christ; apocalypticist~ have ma<le
che propher one who fort:sa,,· Armagt:ddon.
122

century individual readings of Scripture engendered resistance to reading it

solely through the Carholic Magisterium. Individual readings of Scripture be-
gan to challenge the meanings the Church had assigned to crucial passages.
Ir was this wide-spread growing Renaissance belief in individual worth and
responsibilir y which gave che rebellion in the sixteenth cemury of one such
monk, Marrin Luther, the social and cultural hearing he increasingly received
in Western Europe and Scandinavia rhat rapidly produced the Reformarion.
Viewed in chis manner ir is not surprising that Luther rejecred che Magisteri-
um of che Catholic Church as the sale way to read Scripture, and went on
to develop che idea of Sola Scriptura as the sole authority for salvation. But
stress on Scripture as the sole reference of aurhoriry gave rise to different
sets of new tradirions or hermeneutics by which to read it. Ir was clearly che
diversity \,·ithin Scripture itself that gave rise to different readings of ir, but
chat same diversiry also gave rise to the quest within each community of
readers for a canon within che canon, or unity .within diversity, or a magis-
terium, by which to make sense of it as a whole.
Severing Scripture from che Magisrerium of che Roman Church and
reading it independently of it was revolutionary in itself. But éloing so ex-
posed the diversity within Scripture, which had necessirnted the Magisterium
in the first place. If Scripture was to be the sole authority in che quest for
human meaning and salvation, each faich group had to be able to say what
Scripture teaches. What happened was that the Magisterium of the Church
Carholic gave way to che many magisteria of Protestantism. The diversity
within Protestanti sm that ensued put the long-standing differences between
Catholic and Orthodox canons and magisteria into a far broader perspectíve.

The Corporate and the Individual

Ir is interesting to range Christian communities today on a spectrum be-

t\1/een corporate worth and responsibility and individual worth and responsi-
bility. All faith communities, of course, give evidence of borh, but the differ-
ences among them are pronounced. The tradirions which distinguish a faith
community provide the particular hermeneutic by which it reads Scripture.
Salvation of the believer is a common message of ali Christian communities,
bue the locus of that salvation ranges from the corporate to the individual.
For Orthodox and Catholic communions salvation is in che Church, but for
left-\\'ing Protestant groups salvation is purely an individual matter, for whom
che "church" is the sum of ali che individuals who claim similar but disrincr
personal saving experiences. This was a pan of the dramatic shift that took
place because of the Renaissance in Europe of gradual de-emphasis on cor-
 Scripture f,/S Canon in thc• Church 123

porate , with concomitant growing emphasis on individual worth and respon-

[Link] ali, ancienr Greece had been the birthplace of Western democ-
racy. Accompanying this shifr was a change in understanding of the nacure
of church and the nature of authority.
It is commonplace to note chat authority in the West derives either
from above by special revelation , from below by the consenc of the majority
of those over whom authority is exercised, or by sorne combination of the rwo.
The idea that che Church was founded b y C hrist in the Gospels , having
been called into being by God' s pastoral call on Abraham and Sarah in Gen-
esis, and is a mighry flowing scream into which individuals are initiated by
bapcism and instrucrion offered by priests ordained by_ that mighty flowing
srream, is Orthodox , Catholic and mainscream Protestant. Baptism of each
child of rhe church is mandated b y a corporate view of covenant.
Bue thi s gave way for left-wing Reformation groups to the Renaissance
or democratic idea that Church derives its aurhority from the consent of che
"saved" individuals who make ic up, hence presbyterian and con gregational
forms of church governance, or policy. Authority derived from che Holy Spir-
it working through individuals and the courts of the church they constituted .
Votes taken in [Link]-constituced congregations, dioceses, synods, presbyteries
and conferences are raken as binding because chey are viewed as authorized
by the Holy Spirit impacting each individual member. Such courts of the
church, whenever chey meet for decision-making , are con stituted by prayer
for guidance of the H oly Spirir.
Communions '\vhich derive from che early Anabaptist movement stress
the saving experience of each member for whom the acid test is whether
s/he professes "the Lord Jesus Chr ist as personal savior".; There are numer-
ous lefc-wing Reformation heirs coday which do not practice infant baptism
or follow a common lection ary, che rwo practices which most clearly sponsor
among the laity a sense of the corporate nature of faith and salvation . Such
communities also minim ize che importance of rhe Chr istian calendar, sorne to
the point of elimination of ali but Sunday ( the Lord' s D ay) and the holidays
that have become part of the general culture. Of che rwo most binding fac-
tors of community, canon and calendar, left-\ving Reformation Protestants fo-
cus on canon or Scripture only , read at will.
An important strain of the current neo-Puritan reviva! of Christian Fun-
damencalism in che United States denigrares corporate cíes or denominations,

1
Knowle<lge among believers that such individuali stic stress on salvarion probably deri-
ved from lmer forms of rhe Mithraic cult, or from the \·arious mystery or imperial cults of an-
cient Rome is ni!, or mínima! ar best.
1 .. _

1 ..
....
)
,·
.,.._
124

and sponsors congregational authorit y solely, even the spawning of "commu-

nity churches". \,,hich proudly declare themselves as tocally auronomous con-
gregations. Mosr members of such churches are typically dependenc for cheir
knowledge of the Bible on the preaching and teaching of che chari smatic
pastor who founded the church, with emphasis on the work of the H oly
Spirit through rhe pastor's gifrs and graces as their leader : Though indi\·idu-
als are encouraged to read the Bible for themselves, they do so by che
hermeneutic absorbed from che pasror 's preaching and ceaching. Characteri s-
cic of che preaching and teaching of Fundamentalist and Evangelical commu-
nicies are rhe chree-pronged tenecs of a) believer ' s or adule bapcism , b)
choosing Scripture passages at will to preach and teach, and e) che dogma
that all Scripture is harmonious an<l therefore automatically supporcs \\'hatev-
er the pastor or leader ceaches abouc che passage (s) chosen. Even where de-
nominacional cíes are apparencly strong in che Fundamentalist churches, such
as those of che Souehern Baptist Convention , che chree tenets of adule bap-
tism , free choice of Scripture passage, and belief in che harmony of ali Scrip-
ture, are solid dogma . The combination of the ehree tenets work together to
provide for rhe magisteria of Fundamentalist groups the Scriptural authority
necessary for their work. The charisma of the pastor is his auchority because
it convinces his followers the Hol y Spirit works in him. Typical also is the
denigration of theolog y, with heavy emphasis on moralizing when reading
Scripture.
Historicall y speaking such groups derive from che Anabapcist and Pu ri-
tan streams of Procestantism which incorporated the most Ieft-wing O'r ad-
vanced cultural developmems of the Renaissance. Yet such groups have sorne
of the most dogmacic traditions by which they read and undersrnnd the na-
ture of Scripcure, as well as the meanings of passages wirhin ir.
Two srories illuscrate the point. I was recently invited to address rwo
such Protestant groups. In one I asked a class of students who in the
class were members of churches thac used a lectionary. Of rhe sorne
fifcy students not one raised a hand. While I was hurriedl y trying to
think of whac to say in such a situation, one hand went up. Relieved,
I asked him whac church he belonged to. H e asked instead , " \X'hat is
a leccionary?" Ther e were four foculry members arrending the lecture,
one of them a former student of mine.
The ocher experience was later che same year with a group of ninery
Southern Baptist pastors in North Carolina \\'ho h ad invired me, as
one said, to bring ''a br each of fresh air to their stiíled lives". On e of

' Se~ Rr <:!IAIW T on D. '·Not Yollr Facha\; Chtm:h" . Cii:ili:,1t1iJ11

(ApriVl\hiy. 1999) -H--16.
Scripturc as Canon ri, the Church 125

che pastors there told me thac che president of che Souchern Baptist
Convention that year, in a speech to the faculty of Southern Baptist
Seminary in Louisville KY, rold them rhat if "we tell you a pickle has
a soul, that is \\'hat you will teach". These two srories illustrate the
point that all Christian communities have magisceria thar arise because
of the diversity wichin Scripture and hence che need to read Scripture
by sorne kind of externa! authority, sorne regulafidei.

Hermeneutics
The hermeneutic brought to reading che Bible, conjoined with irs multi-
valency and diversity, essentially determines what one will find there. All
branches of Christianit y apparently agree that che Bible is in one understand-
ing or another "che \V'ord of God". But how this is understood varíes con -
síderably. The Orthodox and Catholic understandings of Scripture are that ir
is essenrially che revelarory story of the founding of the Church, which itself
is che resurrected korporate) body of Christ as it is manifest on earth. The
undersranding of che Bible in Protestantism is quite varied. The Lutheran
view is that Scripture is rhe textbo ok of God 's work in history, culminating
in Chr ist, which Ieads to the jusrification of each individual sinner by faith in
that divine work . The Calvinist view is chat Scripture is the "\'v'ord of God
and che only infallible rule of foith and order for Christians" , but ofren see
che Bible as largely a Rule Book (Regelbuch) to guide che Christían's person-
al moral and social erhical existence as a witness to belief in God' s work in
Scripture and in Christ. They include chu rches in che Reform tradition and
Fund amenta list neo-Puritan communities . Ocher more lefc-wing Reformation
churches puc emphasis on different aspects of Scripture. Many view it as the
"old, old story" of salvacion which leads to belief in Christ as one's personal
savior. Other groups see ir as "a box of jewels" of ancient wisdom which
lead the believer to the abundant life of faith and obedience.
American Christian Fundamencalism harbors various views of Scripture
within a narr0\\ ' range of understanding ir as a kind of code book for those
who accept th e five basic tenets, as the y vie\v them, of faith, including literal
and hiscorical understandings of che virgin birth and the bodily resurrection
of Chrisc.s For them the Bible reveals to che true believer what God will do

' See Brndle~·.J. L o:--c;F 1E1.D , Thc Pn·sbytt·ni.m Co11troversy:

Fundc1111e11Ltilists
, MÓdcrnistscmd
Modera/es(Ne\\" York: Oxford University Press. 1991 l . cited by B ARR.\R:\ \\"1n:[Link] in --An
Aub urn Affirmation : Rd ·lections for a 75th Anniversary", Auhurn ViclcS (New York: Auburn
Theological Semin:1ry. spring 1999). The five ··fundamentals", insisted on b:,: such [Link] -
talists are: che inerrancy of Scriprurc. che Yirgin birch. the subsciturionary atonement. che literal
bodily resurreccion. and che foctualiry of rhe mirades worked by Jesus Christ.
 126 james A. Sandcrs

in the eschaton both to judge evil in ochers and to guaramee salvation, even
instant rapture , to individual believers of the in-group. There is a consuming
interese in the battles they believe will take place at Armageddon to destro y
the forces of evil and bring in che eternal Kingdom of Chrisr. On tours to
the Holy Land organized by Fundamentalists rarely anything is heard about
the Sermon on the Mount bue much is taught about Mount Megiddo where
Armageddon will take place. 6 The hermeutic by which chey teach Scripture
is very clear: the Bible addresses rhe end-time; we live in che end-time;
therefore, the Bible speaks directly to us. Interesting is che fact that this was
largely the hermeneutic by which the ancient pre-Christian J ewish sect at
Qumran read Scripture. 7 There was no interese at ali in what Scripture pas-
sages meant originally, bur only in how rhey addressed them and the bardes
they believed would eventually destroy the forces of evil, as the Qumr an sect
understood evil, of course. Most currenr Christian apocalypticists read Scrip-
ture by rhe same hermeneuric.

Biblical Criticism

The Renaissance, with its emphasis on individual worth and responsibili-

ry, brought with it also, however, the belief that aurhority derives from in-
ductive reasoning and critica! inquiry democratically pursued. This gave rise
in Protestant circles to rhe phenomenon of bíblica! criricism. While Ori gen,
Jerome, and Luther had shared openly with che licerate church che cexc-criti-
cal problems scemming from differenr texcs and versions of Scripcure, it was
not until the seventeenth century that so-called higher biblical criticism began
to be conceived in Europe as necessary to probing the truth of Scripture.
After ali, Scripcure had been set loose in Europe from che moorings of a
common Magisterium to address che pluralism thac individual readings of
Scripture exposed.
The Critica Sacra movemem and che Ami-Critica Sacra reacrion to ir in
rhe seventeenth century eventually led the great genius, Benedicrus (or
Baruch) Spinoza, to declare, in his Tractatus of 1670, thar the truth of che
Bible would be found in a hismry of rhe formation of its texrs, providing
rhereby the ímpetus for che development of hisrorical/critical study of the

1
• (New York: Macmillan, 1981).
GRA CE H. -\1. SE I.. Joumey to Jerusafem
; KAR L E1.1.1
ci::R. Studien wm Habakuk -Kommcntar vom Totl!n Mecr (BHTh 15; Tübin·
gen, 195.3). Th e same hermeneutic was operative in other Early Jewish interpr etation of Scrip-
rure; cf. JAMES L. K ucE t. , Traditionso/ the füb!c (Cambridg~: Harvard Univ. Press, 1998) 16-17.
Scriplure as Canon in the Church 127

Bible.~ Spinoza went on to say that such a history should thereby recover
che authorial intentionality of authors of bíblica! texts. In his genius he
added that in ali probability recovering individual authorial intencionality
would prove fucile. Due to Spinoza's being persona non grata by both syna-
gogue and church , his influence far outweighed later specific reference to his
work. From the efforts of Richard Simon at che Oratoire in Paris beginning
in 1675, in response to Spinoza's call, until those of Johann David Michaelis
in Germany a century larer, the hermeneur ic of biblical criticism took a
course it would follow well into the second half of the t:wentieth century -
ro identify as much as possible che "original" words of the writers and
speakers represented in rhe biblical text. Individual scholars would thereafter
for nearly three centuries seek out the individual contriburors to the Bible.
So powerful had been che rebirth of Greco-Roman culture in the Renais-
sance that the Bible carne to be regarded as the produce of individual minds
rather than as a collective, community literature. Ir is here that both scholars
and fundarnenta lisrs share che sarne goal, rhe ipsissimaverba of the biblical
authors; the difference is that scholars say only sorne are the ipsissimaverba,
while Fundamentalisrs say rhey ali are. Borh positions have problems.
The anonymous or community dimension of biblical literature , of both
restaments, was almost entirely set aside. The heritage of che Renaissance in
Europe in Christian, largely Protestant circles, was in effect a massive reprise
of che Hellenization process that had gone on in Early J udaism after the
conque sts of Alexander che Great. 9 The dominant Asían Babylonian and
Persian cultures prior to Alexander were similar enough in chis regard to the
Early Jewish world that the largely anonymous nacure of a community's iden-
tifying líterature presented no great problem. Bue because the European Gre-
co-Roman world needed to know who had writcen chis Jewish epic literature
thac had become available in Greek translation , the biblical phenomenon of
communit y anonymity gave way to authorial pseudepigraphy.
In semitic Jewish communities che Torah and che Prophecs, che Psalms
and other writings were their community lirerature. It cold them who they
were in ever -changing circumstances and whac they should stand for as
God 's people in the ever-changing non-Jewish world in which they were

~ Tractatus theologJco-politirns,ed s. G. G. -\Wl.! C.:K and F. :'\r i-:woH:--:ER (Opera , Werke

lareinisch und deutsch l: Darmsrndt: Wissenschafdiche Buch gesellschafc, 1979) 87-88.
• " The Impacc of che Scrolls on Biblical Scudies" , The ProL"O lnterm1tionalCon/erence on
the Dead Sea Scrolls, r:d. D o :--:Al.l> \\". P ARRY and En ;E :--;f: L ; 1.R1c r1 (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 47-57.
 128

forced ro live. 111 Bue the need to answer rhe questions of Gentiles, and of in-
creasingly hellenized Jews , who kne\.\' who \Vrote the Odyssey or rhe Aenei<l,
made rhe phenomenon of Scriptural pseudepigraphy widespread. [Link]
forms of focus on individua l worth and responsibilicy had already enrered the
ethical chinking of anciem J udah near che end of the First Temple P eriod,
or !ron Age (Jer 31:29; Ezek 18), bur now there was interese in knowing
who wrore the P entateuch , who wrote che Proph ets, Early and Latte r, an<l
who penned the Psalms . And this issued in answers which would make
sense to che Greeks and che Romans , that is, ancient individual "heroes" of
Israel's pase. Thus arose the con vemio ns that Moses wrote ali the Torah ,
David a11 the P salms, individual prophets all of each propheti c book.
Solomon che bulk of bíblica! Wisdom literature , and individual apostles each
of the Gospels. It also encouraged writing new literature pseudepigraphically.11
And chus arase the need after the Renaissance of Greco-Reman culture
in Europe to know exactly what the original authors of bíblica! literature,
whether those heroic figures or not, had written . \'v'hat could not be amibut -
ed to an original author was called secondary, even spurious. Toe focus on
che verifiable history of rhe formation of the bíblica! texr (which Spinoza had
called for) has been so great rhat the community dimension of rhe Bible of -
ren got lose in the effort.
Toe Sitz im Leben of the Christian Bible veritably shifted from che
church to rhe university. Its historical dimension rook precedence in sorne
European Prot estant intellectual circles over its actual cultic and theological
functions in che church. \Vhen critica! historical study of che Bible entered
into and became an integral part of seminary study of che biblical text in che
Western world , the crisis of che authority of the Bible carne to the fore. This
has been the case for at least a cemury and a half in Procestant seminaries.

Criticism and Crisis

A case in point was the New SchooVOld School schism that took place
in che Presbyterian Church in che USA in 1832. It provides a mirror for re-
fleccion on similar cont roversies in other Christian communions in the nine-
teenth and early cwentieth centuries. Simply put , che New School argued that
che Bible should be scudied hiscorically in order to plumb che depchs of its
riches, while the Ol d Schoo l insisced chat che Bible shou ld be read chrough

''' ··The Exile an<l Canon Formation ", E"(tk: O/d ·frstt1111''nl.Je1ásh.[lll{/ ChristianCr/1/a-p·
[Link] . .J..\~I ES \l. Scor r (Leiden : Brill, 1997) 37-61.
11
·'Why che Pseudepigrapha?' ' in Th,· Pse11dep1:,.!_r,1ph,1
mu! Ear~r/3ibl1át! [11!('l¡)rd<1t1ó11
. c:d.
J A~!Es H. C:11.-\[Link] and C:RAIC, E\·A:,..:s (SheffidJ: ,ISOT Pres$, 1993) 13-19.
\
¡
Scriplun· ,1s Ctmon ú1 the Church 129

rhe prism of the \X/estminscer Confession, chac is, chrough che post-Calvinist
magisterium of the Presbyterian faith, to rernin its authority. The conviccion
\\'as scrong that the \Y/estminster Confession had been an accurate reading of
Scriprure--precisely rhe hermeneutic circle. Convicrions were deep-seated on
borh sides of the issue, and che Presbyterian Church was in schism from
18.32 until 1870. 1~
Because Secession and che American Civil War caused a dJferent, more
divisive schism between churches in the North and the South on other press-
ing issues, an acmosphere of goodwill about che earlier schism brought about
reconciliarion in che separaced northern Presb yterian churches in 1870. Bue
\,·hen che intellectual forces of nineteenth-centur y theories of evolution en-
cered che scene in che last third of the century the old pre-war lines of divi-
sion asserted chemselves once more, almost precisely along che same issues as
earlier, namely , the auchority of Scripture and how to underscand that au-
thoricy. Heresy trials were conducted and intellectua l giants in che church
were condemnec..l and rejecced.
New School chinking was quite clear abouc che pertinence and relevance
of hiscorical-critical srudy of bíblica!, and indeed human origins. God had yec
1 more wonderful things to revea! and it was possible and even exciting to
reconcile che resulrs of scienrific srudy of nacure and che human experimem
\,·ich hiscorical-critical study of the Bible, or at leasc puc the t\VO in fruitful
dialogue. The Bible was indeed "che \Y/ord of God , the only infallible rule of
faith and order" for the New School, but only when read in the original He-
brew and Greek, and read and understood critically in its "original" contexts
of numerous anonymous authors and edirors. Biblical Criticism for them
meant critique of the herrnen eutic brought to rhe Bible, not criticism of the

l
-r
biblical content itself.
New School thinkers had been considerably influenced by the Great Re-
viva! of the early nineteenth century in America and rested their case on the
conrinuing revelatory work of the Hol y Spirit , who meced out God's evolving
truth as humans became capable of understanding ir. The Old School, on
the contrary, rested their case on che Bible' s being che totally sufficient base
for faith and order and comained, according to rhe \'ij estminster Confession,
all the revelation humans needed ro understand God 's trurh. Adherents of
borh schools of chought were folk of great fairh and piety; no difference or
accusarion on rhat score seriously arose bet,veen them. Personal faith and
piery \\'ere not the issue. Ar issue was the nature of the authority of Scrip-

1
' Semtiwry Qut1rlr!r(vR,,neu· (52/.>-4 ,
.. Th e Bibl~ ,H Union . 1835 ro che Pn::senc" U11io11

spring 1999) 19-2 l.

1.30 James A. Sa"'las

ture and how to read it for application to the on-going life of rhe church
and of individual Christians.
In P rotestantism generally New School thinking, rhough in a distinct mi-
nority in the nineteenth century, became the mode of biblical studies in the
twentieth. By the end of the First \'v'orld War almost every mainline Prot es-
tant seminary was teaching Scrípture through the same historical/critical
methods rhe "heretics" h ad espoused on ly a few decades earlier . Old School
positions that survived embraced what was left of nineteenrh -century Fund a-
mentalism. But even so it lost most adherems after the Scopes Trial in Ten-
nessee in 1925. F undamentalism turned inward, as in Pentecost alism, to
stress che salvation of individual souls as the way to address issues of church
and society. Basíc Fundamemalism did not reassert itself until che mid-l 970s
in neo-Fundamental ist movements such as che Moral Majoríty. Pem ecostal -
ism, with its emp h asis on the authority and power of the Hol y Spirit , as in
rhe Assembly of God Churches, specifically opposed F undamemalism in the
fifty-year interval. But by 1980 ir had joined it, losing much of its distinctiveness.
Evangelists like Billy Sunday , Amy Semple McPherson, Dwighr Mood y,
Charles Fuller, Billy Graham and others were exemplars of focus on salvation
of the individual soul .as the business of Christianiry in che interim before
che rise in the last quarcer of rhis century of the Moral Majority and the
Christian Coalition. These Fundamentalist movements tried to turn personal
morals into corporate and social-ethical issues in a "Christian nation" by call-
ing, with the implied arrogance of bein g che only "Scriptural Chri stians ", for
government legislation at all levels that would prohib ir abortion, criminalize
homosexuality, mandare prayer in schools, sacralize the naciona l flag, and
censor art and líterature . In the view of many, however, the y tacirly support
bigotry, greed , and hypocris y, including outlawing certain drugs while tacítly
shíelding the most lechal of them all, that of the (Southern ) tobacco industry.
The failed impeachment tria! of President Clinton in 1999 may become the
same sort of historical marker of the current decline of Fundamentalism as
rhe Scopes Trial in 1925. Sorne of the most prominent Fundamemali st lead-
ers have begun to call for a retreat from politics and a return to "sprea ding
the gospel" so that individuals would be converted and do what is "right". 1J
H istorical/ critica! study of the Bible and tradition was well enough es-
tablished in universities and sorne seminaries in the American Northeast by
the fourth quarter of the ninereenth century thar the Society of Biblical Lit-

" See che op-e<l arcicle by Cal Thomas and E<lward Dobso n in che Los Ang,!les 1iilleS,
i iecro Section of 24 March 1999. commemed on in a Túnes editorial in che Metro s~c:tion of
.3 April 1999.
Scriptur~ as Canon 1i1 th,· Church 13 1

erature was foundedin 1880, and the AmericanSocietyof Church History

in 1888, both at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, the seat of
New School thinking. Such guilds soon found adherents and members ouc-
side the Northeast, and their influence spread steadily until the y bec ame na-
cional in scope by che second quarter of the twentieth centwy. But the
membership was largely limited to Protestants. Sorne Jews in America, who
had been influenced by the rise of the Jüdische Wissenschaft (Enligh ten-
ment) movement in Germ any beginning in the middle of the nineteenth cen-
rury, became members of che guilds befo re the turn of the century. But Ro-
man Catholics were not free to join such societies until the encyclical of
Pope Pius XII, the Divino A/flante Spiritu, in 1943. i-1 Thus Renaissance and
Enlightenmenr study of Scripture, that is, individual critica! reading s, which
had given birrh to the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, grad-
ually spread to Jews by the late nineteenth -century, and to Catholics by the
middle of the tv.1entieth century.

Criticism and Authority

Efforts to reconcile historicaV critica! study with basic teners of Christian

faith begged the quesrion of the authority of Scripture. Most adherents of
Enlightenment srudy of Scripture and tradi tion refused to abandon sorne
form of Christian identity and therefo re were confronted personally with the
issue of authority. Ir is interesting to note that the minutes and records of
the Society of Biblical Literature give lictle or no evidence of the bitter mod-
ernísr/fundamentalisr debates raging outside the guild in the country at the
end of the nineteenrh cenrury. 15 But personally its members could not escape
the issues involved.
The crux of che issue of biblical autho ricy was the place of revelation
(author ity "from above") in understanding th at authority. Most biblical
scholars retained sorne form of specific faith identity and could not escape
the task. Tho se who opted entirely for Enlightenment views of authority of-
ten let their faith identity lapse. Bue most could or would not . The New
School of "evangelical liberals" , as rhey liked to be called, were very clear
that revelation was an integral part of unde rstanding Scriptural authority, but

1
• See che writer's report on che Requiero Mass for Fr. Raymon<l Edward Brown , cele-
brated at St Patrick 's Seminary in Menlo Park on 14 August 1998, in che booklet published
for the Memorial Service held for Fr. Brow n at Union Theological Seminary 2 O ctober 1998,
y Revic,zo(52/ 3-4).
republished in the sprin g 1999 issue of che UmonSeminary Quart<?rl
" ER;,.;EsT \\". S.-\l· :--:nERS, Searchingthe Scriptures. a History o/ the Society o/ Bib!icalLite-
rature, 1880-1980 (Chico: Scholars Pr ess, 1982 ).
132 ]amc-sA . 5,uulcrs

insisred that revelation had not ceased wich che dose of che Christian canon
but that God continued to reveal higher truchs, even making "old truths un-
couch". The emphasis on che continuing and challenging work of the Hol y
Spiric in che Great Reviva! of the early nineteenth century emerged among
Christian progressives as the key ro being able ro scay in che faich, broadl y
conceived.
Inrerescing in chis regard was che doctrine in nascent Rabbinic J udaism ,
beginning in rhe second century of rhe common era after rhe Bar Kochba
Revolt, chat prophecy or revelacion had ceased centuries earlier in che rime
of Ezra-Nehemi ah . This new teach ing explained why che messianic move-
menr of Bar Kochba , which the famous Rabbi Akiba had supponed , failed
disastrously, buc also explained why surviving Rabbinic J udaism chose ro de-
pare from hiscory. Rabbinic Jews would thereafter live in stasis in close<l J ew-
ish communities chroughout che Roman world. God had become distant and
remoce and chus had departed from history cemuries earlier for many Jews ,
as for man y Greeks , and surviving J udaism shoLtld go and do like\vise. Ju-
daism, indeed , did nor re-enter history unril che Jüdische \'v'issenschafr move-
ment in che nineceenth century, noted above , and did nor fully do so uncí!
che founding of the Stace of Israel. 11'
Orher Jewish communities in pre-Christian Early Judaism , howev er, did
not agree that prophecy or revelation had ceased, bue continued to believe in
and to wrire of God 's work in che política! evencs of cheir time , chat is, in
history . These were che communities \vhich produced much of che Apoc -
rypha, Pseude pigrapha, and che Qumran literature which show belief in
God 's continuing and future involvernent in history. On e of chese Je wish
sects called "The Wa y" (Acts 9:2; 19:9) quite clearly believed in God 's con-
tinuing revelation. In fact most Early J ewish communities did not believe
chac God had departed from history or had ceased all further revelacion.
E ven Rabbinic J udaism after the revolts against Rome believed in che Shek-
inah, the presence of God 's spirit in Jewish communities. Bue che concept of
Shekinah did not involve either further acts of God in secular history , or in
apocalyptic speculation. The Shekinah was God's support for individual Jews
and for Jewish communities that strove to be obedient and faithful to Torah

,,. ··Sp inning che Bible", 27 -29 ( fn .2 above); ·'Th e Hebr ew University Bible ami Biblia
Hebraica Q uinta", ]ournal o/ Biblica! Litcrature 118/ 3 ( 1999) 518-26; and ··To e Judae.10 Des ert
Scrolls and che History of che Texr ot the H ebrew Bible'". in Caces o/ E11!~,¿_ht em1m1/: Pmce<'-
dings o/ tbe American Schoo!so/ Orimta! R,mwd:o Dcacl Sé·a Sao/Is ]uhi/('(' -~~r111p()si11m ( 19-li'·
l9?n. ed. hy jA\I ES C:IIAR I. ES\\ "OR TI-I (Bih,1I P ress. 1999) 1-17. D,1\·id [Link] of the Sha-
lom Hartman ln sriruce in J erusalem asserts. with others. th,1t che founding of thc:: St,1te of
Israel was noc a response to the H olocausc bue to che Jüdische \'(lissensch, 1ft mo\·emenr.
Scriptur,• as C,1110111i 1 th,· Church 133

despite the hostility all around them, but not further revelation in political or
common history.
Chrisrianiry, in orher wo rd s, was among those Early Jewish communities
that fully believed in God 's continuing revelation, both in Chrisr and in the
nascent Church. And revelation is a concept to be reckoned with in Chris-
tianiry today. If critical inquiry and inductive thinking were the only base of
aurhority for understanding Scripture , the question of the conrinuity of Jew-
ish or Christian identity would sharply arise. Even belief in che so-called
quadrilateral nature of Christi an authority [Link] belief in Scripture and tra-
dirion as well as in current human reason and experience . The concept of
divine revelation in Scripture and in Christ needs to be addressed even by
the mosr crirical of scholarship . \'{lhat has been added since che Renaissance
and che Enligh tenment is increasin gly strong belief in inductive researc h and
critica! reasoning . Thi s brought me, early on, in contrast to Brevard Childs
of Yale, \vho also works in che area of che meaning and nature of Scripture
as canon, to assert belief in bíb lica! criticism as a "gift of God in due season". 17
Critica! inquir y and bibli cal criticism explain increasingly well both che
history of formation and the history of transmission of Scripture wirhout ref-
erence to the concepr of revelarion - if rreatment of the source of prophet -
ic quotes of God is left a mystery, or a matter of che thinkin g of the indi-
vidua l biblical tradent sofely. Critica! inqui ry should be thoroughly pursued
befor e asking che question of che auchori ty of Scripcure for believing commu-
nities tod ay, and its results should be che basis of the formulation of any
theory of authority, chus continuing the pro gram Spinoza launched ove r three
cemuries ago. Th e subdiscip line of Canonical Criticism, developed since the
early nineteen-s eventies , is hence an excension of biblical criticism. 18 O ur
work to date can be characterized , if not summa rized, rather brieíly.

Scripture as Canon

Whereas che Qur ' an purp orts to be a record of revelation by God to

one person , Muhammed, che Bible, J ewish and Ch ristian, on che contrary,
purp orts to be records of hum an responses to divine revelations to numerous

" E.g .. in Frolll Sacred Story lo Stlcrc:'dText (Philadelphia: Fortress Pre ss. 1987) 171. See
A Gi/t o/ God in Duc SL·ason:Essays 011 Scripture all(/ Comlllunity 1i1 Hrmor o/ James A. 5,mders,
ed. RI C.:11.-\RD \\. EIS nnd n .\\ ' 11) C:.\RR ISheff ield: Arndemic Pré SS, 1996) 13 et pt1SJÚJ1 .
•• Beginning wirh Torah ami Ca11011( Minnapolis: Forrress. 1972) ix-xx . Con crast Brevard
Childs' lirerary focus on "can o111icalconrcxr".
1.34 James A. Samfc·rs

people, many anonymous, over a course of about fifteenhundred years. 19 This

observation illumines critica! readings of the Biblical text which indicare a
high level of diversity, or limited pluralism, of points of view stemming from
irs long hisrory of formation. This is rhe reason there are so many different
views of what ir says, and so many denominations to give varying emphasis
to the different voices in it. And it is nor a compendium of similar voices
compiled by one editor. On the comrary, the Bible, Jewish or Christian, is a
dialogical literarure. The richness of the Bible' s diversity líes in part in its
providing in itself prophetic challenges to any and all efforts to build theolog -
ical constructs on parts of it. Critically read it harbors its own self-corrective
apparatus, discerned through critica! readings of the Bible independent of
magisteria.
And, like much of the world's greatest literature , especially good poecry,
it is largely written in multivalent language. This observat ion illumines che
fact that the Bible has spoken for at least two thousand years to very differ-
ent situations and comexts in the history of its transmission and function in
diverse cultural communities around the globe. The discipline of Comparative
Midrash illumines in critica! terms che widely variant, even opposing, under-
standings of single passages clown through Early Judaism into Early Chris-
tianity and Rabbinic Judaism. In fact, no two understandings of che same
passage are ever exactly the same. This is true even for critica! readings of
rhe same text since the rise of biblical criticism and the efforts to respond to
Spinoza' s call; and it is true according to diff erent schools of critica! thought
about the same passage. 2º
Because of these two pervasive traits in biblical literature, the limited
pluralism and the multivalency, the Bible is inheremly adaptable to address in-
nu~erably different conditions . In fact, che Bible is in this sense "adaptable

,. See "Canon", in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, ed. DAVID i\"0E1. FRE1::m1A:-;.et
al. (New York: Doubleday. 1992) 837-52. Manuscript evidence has recemly been founcl in rhe
Great Mosque of Sana' a, in Yemen, that indicares che Qur'an was also a cext char evolved
over time, albeit a much shorter period, indicating chat it, like the Bible, has a textual history;
see Toby Lester, "What is the Koran?" in The Atla11tic Monthly for January 1999, 43-56.
\Vords in zialics rhat follow are the salient charncteristics of canonical literature.
w Canon and Community: A Gutde to Canonical Crziicism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
198-0 21-45; l\L.\RY CALLOV\"AY , Sing, O Barren One: A Study tit Comparative Mtdrash (Adan-
ta: Scholars Press, 1986) 1-12; D.-wrn C:ARR. From D to Q: A Study o/ Ear~v]eu:ish lntcrprela-
tions o/ Solomon 's Dream al Gibeon (A danta: Scholars Press , 1991) 1-5; CRAIG E\' ,\:s;S rmd J.
SA:-;DERs, Luke and Scripture: The Ftmction o/ Sacrd Tradition in Lukc-Acts (Minneapolis: For-
tress Press, 1993 ) 1-13. Sce now JAMES Kt 'GEL's Traditions o/ the Bibfe (Cambrid~ e: Hanrard
University Press , 1998), \\"hO, however, fails to acknowledge most of the work in this area of
the past thirty years.
Script un• ~,s C anon in th e Church 135

for life".21 In the period before stabilizationof the text of most of the Bible
carne about, the cexts of boch testamencs were relatively fluid in nature. The
Judaean Desert Scrolls have dramatically changed the early history of rhe
mmsmission of the Hebrew Bible. The earliest period of textual transmission
is now seen as charac terized by textual fluidity. Scribes copying texts as well
as translators could slightly alter the reading of a passage to make it more
comprehensible and adaptable to concerns in rheir communities. Such inten-
tional scribal changes in the texts of the earliest biblical manuscripts indicare
clearly that the focus was on the community and its dependence on the text,
rather than on accuracy of transm ission. That would come later, for borh tes-
raments, for socio-political reasons. 22
To speak of the Bible as canon is, in effect, to speak of its relevance
and adap tability to many different communities, in many cultures, over thou-
sands of years. Christian believing communities differ over canonical stabtfity,
that is, the number and order of books to include in the Bible, but they ali
agree that it is relevam and adaptable to them and their condition. Stab iliry,
however, is equally important for understanding canon. The stable structure
of a canon indicates the hermeneutics by which rhe community is expecte d to
read it. 21 Not only so, but recitation of a Scripture passage muse be recogniz-
able by the community for it to have the rhetorical authority sought in ap-
plying it. If it is so paraphrased that che community does not recognize it, it
fails to provide the authority sought. Ir is commonplace to observe that every
time a literary passage is recited it is resignified to sorne extent (relecture),
sirnply because the hearers understand the passage from within the unique
condition of each hearing. While there are constraints in the text and must
also be, of necessity, in its recitation , even so, che "word of God" rhat
occurs in the recitation is at the juncture of text and context , not in the sta•
bilized text alone .24

2
' "Adapt able for Life: Th e N arure and Function of Canon", Magnalia Dei: The M ighty

Acts o/ God, ed. fRA:-;K .\I o oRE C Ross et al. (N ew York: Doub leday, 1976) 531-60; and
From Sacred Story to S,zcred Text: Canon as Paradigm (Minn eapolis: Fortr ess Pr ess, 1987) 9-39 .
n "Text and Cano n : Old Te stament and New", Mélanges Dominique Barthélell'ry: Etudes
bibliques, ed. P. C ASETTI et al. (Frib ou rg: Editi o ns universitaires, 1980) 373-94; " Scabiliry and
Fluidicy in Text and Canon " , Traditon o/ the Text: Studies o/fe red to Dominiquc Barthélm ry in
Celebration o/ his 70th Birthday, ed . G . N o RTo :-; and S. Pt SA:--iO (Frib ourg: Pre sses uni versitai-
res, 1991) 203-17. See also ER:-;EsT CA D~t.-\:-; CoL\ VELt.. New or Oíd? The Christian Strug,gle
with Change a11d Tradition (Phil adelphi a: Wes tminster Pr ess, 1970) , the Sprunt Lectur es of
1969 at Unio n Semi [Link], Richm o nd VA.
n "' Spinning' che: Bible'' (fn . 2 , above) 25-29.
2
• "H ebr e\\" Bible an d Ol d T estament: Tex tual Criticism in Service of Biblical Studies" ,

Hebreu: Bible or Oíd Testament? Stuc(wi1g,the Btblc in Judaism and Christúmity. ed . Roc ER
B ROO KS and J o H:-; J. C:0 1.1.r¡,,;s (Univers ity of No rre Dam e Pr ess, 1990) 41-68.
136 James A. S,11u/e;·
s

Three factors are essential in study of che relevance/adaprability factor of

a biblical passage re-read and re-applied ro a new situation: che text cited;
the new situation in which ic was heard and app lie<l; and che hermeneucic
by which che passage was applied to che new situation. This may be called
the hermeneucic triangle, which often challenges the hermeneucic circle closed
when che biblical cext is read solely through communiry cradicions and magis-
tena.
When asked what one needed to do to inherit eternal life, Jesus an-
swered che quescion with c,.vo furcher questions: What is writcen in T ornh
and how do you read ir? In other words, one needs ro know whac in Scrip-
ture is pertinenr to the quescion asked, and one needs to be aware of the
hermeneurics (che "how") by which to read chat passage. The inquirer re-
sponded by cicing from che Jewish Shema', which is a recitacion of D eut 6:➔-
5 (Luk e 10:25-27; Mark 12:29-3 1; cf. Lk 18: 18), adding the paraphrase of
Lev 19:18 abour loving che neighbor, a convention in Judaism by chat time.
And Jesus approved of che response. The Shema' focuses on che hearr of
Jewish faich: God is One and should be loved by che fairhful with ali rhe
he art, all che self, and all one's wealth or power. Thus che hermeneuric by
which the passage should be read is clearly a rheocencric-monorheizing
hermeneucic. The passage icself indicated che hermeneutic: loving God as
One ruled out loving God as a nacional, ethnic, or denominarional deity on-
ly. The chir<l factor was the situation in Jud aism and Judea in the time of
Christ, che firsc chird of rhe first cenrury of che common era. In facc, prob-
ing che socio-policical situacion out of which a passage arose, and for which
ic was relevant, is of viral importance in undersrnnding "vhac Jesus meam.
The meaning assigned to the passage by lacer cradition is ofcen challenged by
a critica! or historical reading of chac passage.
On the ocher hand , if a passage is read critically only there is che dan-
ger char che Sitz im Leben of che Bible as canon becomes academia or rhe
universiry, relevant only ro discussions of rhe hisrory of rhe formarion and
rransmission of the texr, and becomes irrelevanr ro che believing communities
that gave us these text s and conrinue to recite chem, irrelevant also ro inter-
foirh dialogue toda y.!~
In arder for believing communicies to benefit from and be challenged by
critica! readings of che rexr, chose critica! readings must be brought [Link] inco
the setting of che believing community by che currenr rradem who would ad-
dress its relevance for rhac communir y (cf. Divti10 A/flante Spiritul. The
meraphor Canonical Criticism has suggesred is chac of the beadle in che

:, --Inrertextu:iliry and Di:1k,gue·•.BiblicalThcolog,y

B11l!ctú1
29/ 1 ( 1999) .35-+I.
Scripture ,1s Canu11 i11 th c Church 137

Church of Scotland, who '·bears the Bible" criricallyread from the pasror's
srudy to the communion table in the chance! at the beginning of che weekly
Sunday worship service. Thus the Bible symbolically reco vers its true Sitz im
Leben in rhe cominuing , believing communities (Jewish or Christian ) whence
ir arose and developed, and continues to have its relevance; that is where it
reaches its foll srature promised in critica! study of its meanings when it got
onto che tenure track roward canon, which brought ít ro the current commu-
nities today.
Faithfully read only, Scripture bears the full burden of whatever magis-
cerium has become attached to it in che multiple believing communities of ei-
rher J udaism or Christianity. Critically read only, the Bible becomes che his-
tory of che foundation of those [Link] today, largely buried in che pase,
and largely irrelevant to cheir on-going existence. 1" The true or trusr,.vorthy
relevance of Scripcure is in reading che cext boch critically and faithfully , crit-
ically first, and then fairhfully brought back into che believing community. An
example of che false and untrustworthy relevance of Scripture roday is read-
ing ir as an apocalyptic code which when broken reveals to che current read-
er che date of che end of che world. Th e falsehood of such readings , though
obviously popular chrough the ages, is demonstrated in a history of such
readings: they have never been right in their predictions based on the Bible,
but each time believe anew thar they have now found the right key chat can
break the "code" and get it right. The approach of the chird millenium will
encourage further such efforrs. It is tesrimon y to che popular attraction of
the view that che Bible addresses the End-Time and chac che present, con-
sramly updated, is always a candidace for che Eschaton. 2;

Canonical Hermeneutics

The hermeneutics by which the text is read determines the interprecation

given. Consistently applying the critica! hermeneutical triangle in reading the
Bible it is possible to discern a pattern in che hermeneutics used by che bib-
lical tradencs in antiquicy, the prophets , psalmists, historians, sages, evange-
lists, apostles , and rabbis in applying an earlier text or traditon to a new sir-

z. jA:-.1Í::s S:-.[Link] Stran.e.e5,lcnceo/ thc Biblc ;n thc Chnrches(Lou isvilll!: \X'escminscer

Press, 1970).
z: [Link] C. C:[Link],E. R o RERT t\ . H os .\ CK. R1 c:1-IARD \'. P1 ERARD, Th,· Nezc Mtl-
lennium 1Vfa11ual: A 011ce ami Fut11n' Gwdc (Grand Rapid s: Baker Book Hous e. 1998): R1-
CIIARD K YI.E. The Last Davs are Ha e Agat"n:A Histor_ro/ the End Ttines (Baker H ouse ,
1999). These are \\Titten from a --conservative" srnnce.
138 Jam es A . Samkrs

uation. 2s Nearly chirty years work in Canonical Cricicism offers sorne clarity
abouc what might chus be called canonical hermeneutics - the hermeneucics
critically discerned that líe between the lines throughout the biblical texr. 1~
Succinctly, the hermeneutics discerned by use of the triangle point to the au-
thority of che first three of che Ten Commandments as the basic biblical
view of reality, a rheocentric monotheizing hermeneuric: God is One; idolatry
is worshipping or fearing any of God 's gifts instead of the Giver of ali gifts;
and vanity is co-opting God' s name for one point of view whecher in courts
of law or of church.
God is che principal actor in the Torah/Christ story. The Bible, no mar-
ter the canon, is not really a monotheisric literarure. On the contrary, much
of che cultural polytheism of the ancient eras through which the Bible was
formed is lodged in bíblica! texrs. But its thrust is clearly a monotheizing
one. Not as in a clear progression from polytheism to henotheism to pure
monotheism , or the like, but rather in the remarkable observation the bíblica!
historical critic must make, that what became canon out of all che literature
of Ancient Israel and the Early Church has had a monotheizing thrust. What
ended up in che canon is only about ten percent of the known Early Jewish
and Early Christian literature. The history of the canonical process is marked
by a kind of "survival of the toughest", what people may noc have [Link]
when first uttered or written but was "a daptable for life" to later surviving
Early Jew'ish and Christian communities. This is especially clear in study
within the Bible of true and false prophecy. 30 The so-called false prophet
generally had che popular message, the vox populi, while the true prophet,
the one whose words got onto the tenure crack toward canon, was unpopu-
lar at the time. Why? Because che true prophet insisted that it was the same
God who had chosen Israel who was judging Israel, and then later that che
very God who had punished Israel was restoring her. God, as presented
from the T orah through the whole Bible is the God of risings and fallings,
victories and defeats, what che people would call good and what they would
call evil, at any given time in its history.
God ' s Oneness may be seen as the Integrity of Reality - all evidence
to the contrary notwithstanding. God 's Reality has integrity, omological and

i• "The Scrolls and che Canonical Process", The Dead Sea Scro!ls A/t er Fi/ty Years. Vol. 2,

ed. j ,,:-.IES \ 'A :--OERK<\M and PET ER f1.1:-;T (LeiJen: Brill, 1999 ) 1-2.3.
!" Canon and Communily (fo . 19, above) 46-60.

"' •·Hermeneutics · of True and False Prophecy", Canon ami Authority: frstschri/t /or Wal-
ther Zimmerli, ed . G E oRCE CoATE S and B u RKE Lo :--;c(Minneapoüs : Fortress Press, 1977) 21-41.
 Scripture as Canon in the Church 139

erhical. 11 God is One. The concept of che Heavenly Council in che Firsc Tes-
camem, and che later concept of the Trinity in Christianicy , may be seen as
the guarn nto rs of God' s Oneness, easemem buffers, as ir were, against the
chaos of polyrheism to prevent disimegration into ir. Human reason resises
the idea that, with so much evil abounding, God is One and has integrity
beyond human reason and experience. But that is the m atter and the heart
of faith, as seen by Jesus' response to the inquirer. Th e trinitarian formula
of understanding God is for human needs , an effort to grasp the incompre-
hensible. God is Deus Revelatus for Christians; but God is in equal measure
Deus Absconditus. To believe that God , or T ruth, is completely revealed,
through Scripture or in Christ or in the Church, is ido latry .
A way of expressing the aurhority of Scripture in post-modern times is
to see it as seasoned and proven wirness to rhe Inregrity of Realiry. The
Bible was formed over a fífteenhundred year-period thro ugh five ancient cul-
ture eras , the Bronze Age, rhe lron Age, the Persian E ra, and che Greco-Ro-
man-Hellenistic Period , and is hence a dialogical literature . Read critically
and faithfu lly by the theocentric -monotheizing hermeneutic that comes from
its own pages , the Bíble emerges through it all as a powerf ul witness to the
moral fiber of God 's creation. Ir is a powerful dialogue p artner with current
natural science that cont inues basically to subscribe to Chance or Fortun a as
the "god" of creation. 32 Judaism and Christian ity, while learning from induc-
¡ tive science and current critica! study of nature, say No to the authority of
chaos or chance, and Yes to the Imegrity of Realiry, ali evidence to the con-
trary not withst anding . .

1 For the Chris tian that moral fiber is expressed nowhere more powerfully
than in che biblical story that begins with creation an d reaches its clima," in
l the condescension of the God of ali Creation to submic "perso nally" to the
i inhuman cruelty in che clash bet:ween European and Near Eastern Jewish
cultures , that occurred during che Roman occupation of Palestine and led to

l three devascacing revolts against Rorne in P alestine alone . Th e story of th e

Crucifixion and th e Resurrection of Jesus epitomizes chat clash with a story
of God 's love unbounded and undeterred by human fear, bigotry and greed.

r
Striking is che observation that though the C'vvofinest and most developed le-
gal systems of antiquity , T orah and Lex Romana, were both in place and
functioning in First Century Palestine, this sto ry says tha t is when. God carne

11
"The Inr~grity of God", Concern(December 1976) 9 -10.
12
See STEPIIE'.\' .}AY G oe1.n. Rocks o/ Ages (B:1lhintine. 1999). Timothy Ferris. of UC
Berkeley, in his The Whole Shcha¡¡ g (Ne,\· York: Simon & Schuster, 1997) is an apparent
exception . Chance or Flirtuna for Ferris is ' ·Life" which pro,·ides surprises even for God.
140

to dwell fully in one person, a Je w, and that is when we humans, caught up

in a culture clash of stupendous proportions, crucified him - that God's
glory might be made manifest. Chrisr's own power was in his willingness ro
be condemned to rhe grearer glory of God, rhat is, to witness dramatically to
che Integrity of Reality, to God's being the God of risings and fallings, victo -
ríes and defeats, what humans call good and what humans call evil. Th e
To rah/Christ story from beginning to end testifies to God 's abiliry to cake
what humans call evil and convert ir imo whar humans call good (Gen 45-
50, Isa 28: 16, erc.).H
In one of che mosr inspiring and beautiful recent books in Je wish rheol-
ogy, Michae1 Fishbane writes chac che authorizing moment of rhe Torah srory
is che descent of God on Me. Sinai to give Moses the Law . 1• In a review , I
asked why Fishbane had chosen rhat rheophany in che T orah story as che
auchoricy of Scripture. ;5 Fishbane explores Jewish views of incarnation, that
of Maimonides and Abraham H eschel as God's incarnation in Israel, the
Jewish people, and chat of Rosenzweig and Buber as God's íncarnat íon in
T orah or Scrípture. Why rhen not choose ínstead an earlier theophan y, rhe
pastoral cal! of God on Abram and Saraí in Genesis 12? That was che be-
gínn ing for Israel of che story of God 's sojourn with humans. If che authority
of Scripture is in a cheophany che Bible describes , why choose one and not
the ocher? The answer is that Fishbane' s "herrneneutic cirde ," his identity as
a comernporary Rabbinic Jew, brings him to see rhe one rheophany as che
core expression of biblical auchority, while my hermeneutic cirde, my identity
as a Christian, bríngs me ro see the earlier _cheophany as che genesis of the
T orah/Christ story thar reaches its clima,-x in Christ, not only in a pastoral
call bue in an incarnation in one person_,<, For ali the inductive study of
Scripture that Fishbane and I have both done and trust on che historical lev-
el, it is clear to us both that biblical criticism is not our true hom e, and can-
not express our real identity. And there can be no umpire between us; bibli-
cal criticism alone is incompetent to decide [Link] us or bring either of us
to che whole truth about che Bible - a testimony to its multivalency and di-
versity.

" "Torah and Christ ", Interpretation29 ( 1975) .372 -90; Cod Has a Story Too (Minn eapo•
lis: Fomess Press, 1979) 41-56.
'º The Carmentso/ Torah: [Link] Bib!iet1! Hermeneutics (Bloomingron: Indi ana Universicy
Pr ess, 1989).
'' Thcolo,~• Today -171➔ ( 1991) ➔.33 -.35 .
"' "Incercextuality an<l Dialo gue'' (fn 25, ,1bove). See also '' 'S pinning '" (fn 2) for a Jj.
scussion of che almost universal belief in Early Chrisrianity, so-cal! J udaizers and Hellt:nizo;:rs
alike , th at ir had superse<leJ Ju<laism as G od's Israel.
 Saipl ure as Canon in the Church 141

Scripture as Paradigm

Biblical criticism was a gift of God in due season , and ir is a gift rhat
can be shared by Jew and Christian. But it cannot afford us our complete
idemity; ir is not a place ro stand. Fishbane stands, on rhe contrary, ar the
foor of a mounrain, and I at che fooc of a cross, and biblical criticism clari-
fies for both of us not only the origins but the power of each biblical im-
age. ;; The one focuses on faith in what the Bible indicares God has done
with humans, while the orher focuses on what humans can do to obey and
please God--without either denying the validity of che other focus. Abraham
Heschel srressed that Judaism is made up of boch haggadah and halachah ,
not jusr the latter. 1~ And his older colleague, Reinhold Niebuhr, stressed that
Chriscianit y is made up of boch gospel and law, not just the former. Heschel
furcher insisted that no religion is an island. 19 The rwo Israels need each oth-
er. Neither alone can comprehend ali chac Scripture has bequeathed us.
Ir is in this sense that Scripture cannot finally be seen only as a story of
God 's ways with humans , or only as God 's will for how humans should live
to God 's glory. Ir is both, if critically read in terms of che cultural differ -
ences and historical givens which were the vehicles of its formarion and
transmission through the ages. It is the Word of God receptus - but only
as ir is comprehended by humans where they live, conditioned by their own
cultural givens. It therefore cannot essentially be a Rule Book. Ir cannot be
belittled as a Code to be broken to predice an apocalypse. Ir cannot only be
a casket of jewels of ancienr wisdom still negociable. Nor should ir be
abused as prooftext of the various magisteria that developed out of its diver-
sity and multivalency. A critical and faithful reading of Scripture challenges
every theological construct built upon it since there can be no single theology
that escapes the judgments of other pares of Scripture. Scripture critically
and fairhfully read induces reverence for its power in che lives of umold mil-
lions throu gh the ages, and still toda y. Wherever and whenever that power
has been abused to claim partisan gain , exclusive claims on God , to dehu-
manize others because rhey are different genetically or cuhurally, or to prac-
tice bigorry , racísm, or greed , God continues to suffer. God suffers in Israel
for the sake of the world, and God suffers in Christ for the sake of the

1 ,: " Ide nriry. Ap ocalypric, anJ D ialo~ue", Echoes o/ Many Texts: Re/lectio11s011Jezcishand
Christian TraditlÍJl1S. Essa_rsin Honor o/ Lou H. S!lberman. ed. \\'[Link]\I D 1:.vER and E o wARD
(At!a nra: Sch olars Press, 1997) 159 -70.
1 \\"R1 G H T
'" For refe rence s see --To rah and C hrisr " (fn 31, abovel.

ll '" In h is ina ugural addr ess as f os Jick Visiting Pr ofesso r at Union Th eolog ical Seminar y
in Ne\\' York in rhe foil of 1965 ; U11iu11Semüwry Quarlcr~)' Review 21 ( 1966 ).

i.
 142 ]<1mcsA . S,mders

world - as the prophets and Jesus clearly taught, if they are read both crit-
ically and faithfully.
The Bible then becomes for us tod ay a dialogical paradigm of the di-
vine/human encoumer. 40 We have been given in Scripture, with all its seams
and fractures critically perceived, the means to conjugare the verbs of God' s
ways with humans, and to decline the nouns of God' s wisdom so generously
shared in these texts. Scripture does not contain the whole truth about God,
or about us, but offers a paradigm , forged in suffering through the ages,
whereby we may continue in dialogue to seek the truth about ourselves, and
about our yearning for the One who first sought and continues to seek us in
a form of love that is at once both incomprehensible and transforming.

Addendum
Re-reading the Bible by a theocentric-monotheizing hermeneutic , both
critically and faithfully as the Christian paradigm of the divine-human en-
counter, would issue in a theocentric christology. It might be seen as che
contrapositive of the effort of Karl Barth early in the century to write a bib-
lically based christocemric theology. By this hermeneutic one theologizes in
reading the biblical text befare moralizing. That is, one facuses first on what
God has done with the (sinful) humans who populate the story from begin-
ning to end, befare one asks what humans should do or should have done.
And when one <loes then moralize, after celebrating what che text says God
has done with humans , one uses che principie of dynamic analogy to discern
the ethics indicated for the reader, who thereby finds her/himself mirrored
in the dramatis personae of che biblical story. Nor <loes one decide who in
the text is the protagonist or the antagonist until the dynamic reading is
complete.
The Gospel chus begin s in Genesis wich God' s first act of righteousness
and justice, the creation of heaven and earth. That same God, both august
and personal (Gen 1-2), paid a pastoral call on Abram and Sarai (Gen 12)
inviting them on an journey of great promise with G od. They would not be
apostles of God but, on the contrary, companions on the bíblica! (EmanueD
journey. God 's presence with Israel would be its distinguishing mark (Exod
33: 14-16, et passim).
For che Christian chis journey finds its clímax in God 's incarnation in
one person , a Jew from che Galilee. A careful, critica! reading of the story

'" E1.1zABETH ScHÜSSI.E.R F10RE:s;ZA. In Memory o/ Her (New York: Crossroads . 199-1)
suggests that Scripture may be understood as model. The concept of paradigm seems co me
more apt for che reasons noted above and below.
Scripture as Canon in the Church 143

indicates that it was noc umil che hellenization process afcer Alexander's con-
quests of the Near East had reached a crescendo that che full story could be
heard by sorne Jews. Most of the Bible focuses on community worth and re-
sponsibility, God ' s intimate relationship with Israel as a People. Beginning in
the late !ron Age individual worth and responsibility began to find expres-
sion within che corporate (Jer 31:29-24; Ezek 18), bue it was not until the
hellenization process had affected much of J udaism that the message found
ears to comprehend that God would come finally to dwell in one person for
the sake of ali the world.
Man y J ews, even so, would not be able to hear the message or accept it
because it was for them too Greco-Roman, too pagan. Jewish theology would
accept che idea of incarnat ion, not in one person but in Israel as a P eople
(ha- 'am - Maimonides , Heschel) or in Scripture (Rosenzweig, Buber, Fish-
bane ). Christianicy' s m~intaining a double-testament Bible after Marcíon and
other efforts to reject the First Testament was not a pro-Jewish move, but
an affirmation of the almost universal Christian belief of the first centuries of
the common era that the Church had succeeded J udaism as God's True Is-
rael (whether Judaizers [conservatives] or H ellenizers [liberals] in the church-
es). For the rabbinic Jew the Christian understanding of the double-testa-
ment Bible was too pagan. 41 For the Christian it provided a glorious clímax
to che story that began in Genesis. The God who created the whole world
and accompanied Israel on her journey became accessible to the larger world
through God 's work in Christ and in the Church.

" T ora h in its br oad se nse indud es both haggadah and halachah , tha t is, both story and
stipulation , or gospel and law, from beginn ing to end, by its very nature. (See "Torah and
Ch risc'', lnterpretation 29 [1975] 372-90; and "T orah and P aul", in God 's Christ and His People,
ed. \ \ "AY.-.:E :\I EE KS [Oslo: Universitetsfo rlaget, 1977] 132-40.) Christianity emphasizes the
srory or gospel aspect of To rah , while Rabbinic Judaism :mes ses che halachic a~pect. D i,ilogu..-
between che C'\\ºO is manduted to honor che ful] nature of God 's gifr of Torah as well as GoJ's
gift of Chrisr.
 LA TESTIMONIANZA DEI LIBRI DELNUOVO TESTAMENTO
AD UN UNICO KERYGMA/EVANGELO,
1
BUON ANNUNCIO DELL'EVENTO ORGINARIO

GIUSEPPE SEGALLA

Introduzione: il problema

Quando si affronta un argomento, occorre anzitutto definire due cose:

termini del problema e su quale sfondo problematico si configura.
I termini sono due e li esaminíamo singolarmente.
Anzitutto « la testimonianza dei libri del NT » implica che tali líbri non
sono considerati semplicemente come « documenti neutrali di una storia pas-
sata », ma piunosto come « testimonianza ad una persona ed alla verita salví-
fica di questa persona in relazione ali'uomo, alla sua storia ed alla storia del
mondo » . Tale testimonianza si presuppone provenga da testimoni, che atte-
stano !'evento originario, la historia Jesu e la sua conclusione con la risurrezione.

1
Nota b ibliografica: J .N. ALETTI, Gesii Cristo: unita del Nuovo Testamento?, Borla,
Roma 1995 (orig. 1994); C.H. Dooo, La predicazione apostolica e zl suo sviluppo (Studi Biblici
21), Paideia, Brescia 1973 (o rig. 1970•); ].D.G. Dunn , Umiy and Divemiy in the New Tes/a-
men!. An lnquiry into the Charracter o/ Earliest Christianity, SCM Press, London 1977; 199Cr;
V. Fusco, Le prime Comunita Cristiane. Tradiúoni e tendenze ne! cnstianesimo de/le origini
(Bibbia nella storia 8), EDB, Bologna 1997; \\'. HEITMÜLLER, Zum Prob!em Pau!us zmd Jesus,
ZNTW 13 (1912) 320-327 = in "Das Paulusbild in der neueren Deutschen Forschung", a
cura di K.H . Rengstorf , WBG, Darm stadt 1969, 124-143; Vo:-J TR AUCOTT H oLTz, Oberle-
gungen zur Geschichte des Urchristentums, TLZ 100 (1975) 321-332; E. K.;.;sEMAN'.'I,I! canone
neotestamentario fonda l'umia della chiesa?, in "Saggi esegetici", a cura di M. Pesce, Marietti,
Casale Monferrato 1985, 58-68 = EvTheol 11 ( 1951-52) 13-21; EvcE:>;E E. LEMCIO, The past
o/ Jesus in the gospels (SNTS MS 68), CUP , Cambridge 1991, 115-1.31; J. I H.M cDONALD,
Kerygma and D1dache. The articulation and structure o/ the ear!iest Christian message (SNTS MS
37), CUP, Cambridge 1980; R. PENNA, J rtiratti originali di Gesii Cristo: l. Gli inizt~· II. G!i
svzluppi (scudi sulla Bibbia e il suo ambiente ), San Paolo , Cinisello Balsamo 1996 e 1998;
H. ScH ÜR;,,u:,;:-;, Jesu Baszleia-Verkündigung und das christo!ogzsch
e Kerygma a!s Mitte der Schri/t,
in: lo. , « Gottes Reich-Jesu Geschick . Jesu ureigener Tod im Lichce seiner Basileia-Verkündi -
gung », Freiburg i.B 1983, 246-251; J .B. SOL'CEK, Einhezi des Kanons-Einheit der Kirche, in
"Bibelauslegung ais Theologie" a cura di P. PoKORc'iY- J.B . So uc EK, (WUN T 100), Mohr,
Tübingen 1997, 99-108 (orig. del 1968); \\·. TH ÜSINC, Die neutestamentlichen Theologien und
Jesus Chrzstus. Grund!egung einer Theologie des Neuen Testaments JI. Programm einer Theologie des
Neuen Testaments mit Perspektiven fiir eine Bib!ische Theologie, Aschendorff, Münster 1998. I li-
bri e gli anicoli di questa noca bibliografica saranno citati per autore e pagina.
 La testimonianza dei libri del Nuovo Testamento ad un unico kerygma! evangelo 305

TI referente di tale testimonianza e

un unico kerygma », termine che
«
usualmente indica l' annuncio postpasquale oppure « un unico evangelo », che
olrre all'annuncio postpasquale, implica anche la historia Jesu, ossia I'evento
originario, in turto il suo spessore storico-significativo, ossia salvifíco.
Nell' esegesi contemporanea, sullo sfondo della teología kerygmatica, e il
kerygma il punto di riferimento nella discussione sull'unita o varieta del mes-
saggio fondamemale del NT. Ora, kerygma e una parola greca che puó signi-
ficare sía l'anmmcio (della salvezza) sía zl contenuto di tale annuncio, cuí l'uo-
rno deve risponde re con la fede.
La tesi che qui si vuol afferrnare e alternativa ad un' altra, classica in am-
biente protestante liberale, almeno da verso la fine del secolo scorso, propu-
gnara dalla scuola storico-religiosa: nei libri del NT non vi sarebbe un unico
kerygma, ma piu kerygmata. 2 Fondando I'argomentazione sulla predicazíone
cristiana in ambienti culturali diversi, si sosteneva che il kerygma giudeo-cri-
stiano palestinese annunciava Gesu Figlio dell'uomo atteso nel prossímo futu-
ro, mentre il kerygma cristiano-ellenistico annunciava Gesu Signore presente
con I'eucaristía nella cornunita cristiana e lo invocava come tale, dando inizio
alla divinizzazíone di Gesu. Di qui anche la contrapposizione fra il Gesu del-
la storia, profeta escatologico e il Cristo della fede, Signore morro e risorto
per i nostri peccati secondo le Scritture.
E. Kasemann nella famosa conferenza ecumenica, tenuta a Gottinga nel
1951, sosteneva che il cano ne del NT non fonda I' unita , ma la diversita delle
chiese, perché vi e· una grande « variabilita del kerygrna neotestamentario ».3
In area inglese, piu recentemente, J.D.G. Dunn sostiene la stessa tesi,
sia pure in modo piu soffice. Egli afferrna: « Questa e l' unita del kerygrna
postpasquale (proclamazione del Signore risorto, richiesta della fede e conse-
gueme promessa di salvezza). Ma accanto a questa ( unita) si ha la considere-
vole diversita dei vari kerygmata (corsivo mio). Si deve chiaramente capire che
il centro kerygmatico unificato, sopra delineato, e un' astrazione. Nessun scrit-
tore del NT proclama questo kerygma come tale. Questo kerygma basilare,
in ognuno dei casi sopra esaminati e piu ampio di questo centro ».4 E conti-
nua ammonendo: « Dobbiamo percio essere cauti quando parliamo del "ke-
rygma del NT". Per cuí, se intendiamo il kerygma central e, parliamo del ke-
rygma che nessun evangelista ha effettivamente predicato nel NT. E se lo in-
tendiamo come uno dei diversi kerygmata, allora vi e solamente una forma di
1 .
kerygma e non necessariamente appropriata e accettabile per i diversi evan-

2
Se ne puó trovare una sincesi in J.D.G. Du¡-.;:--:
, 11-32.
1
E. K. )[Link] MA:-,.;:--:.65.
' ].D .G. DL·:-,.;:-,;
, 30.
306 Ciu seppe [Link]"

gelisti nel NT o per le loro circostanze ».' D unn perc10 ravvisa l' unita del
NT, non in una tradizione o kerygma unificame, ma in una serie di asserzio-
ni sopraletterarie oppure, alla fine del suo lavoro, a livello crist0logico, sostie-
ne che l'unica del NT, quella indiscutibile si trova « nell'unita fra l'uomo
Gesu e il Signore esalrato ».6 oppure « nella unita fra il Gesu uomo e il
Ges u esaltato ». ; Tale unita cristologica e asserita in contrasto con Bultmann
e la sua scuola che ravvisa l'unita ceologica del NT nella comprensione di sé
nella fede, e perció nell'antropología teologica.
Una breve critica alla tesi del Dunn si puó sintetizzare in due punti:
1) egli ut ilizza spesso l' argo mento ex silencio per asserire che un auto re nega
quanto tace e cosi e facilitato a contrapporlo ad altri; 2 ) utilizza il met0do
filologico per negare la presenza di un tema in un libro, come ad esempio il
tema della carita in Atti, perché non vi si trova la terminología d~ agape e di
agapan. La diversita, in queseo e in alero modo, viene indebitamente accen-
tuata, mentre potrebbe essere compatibile con una unita omogenea , ancorché
non uniforme .
Su questo sfondo problematico, brevemente delineare, proporró la mia
risposta in ere passi successivi. Anzirutto la definizione piu precisa del pro-
blema; in secando luogo le varíe risposte attuali a tale problema per dimo-
strare un unico kerygma nel NT e infine la tesi dell' unico vangelo, testimo-
niato dai libri del NT.

l. D efiniz ioni e metodi nell'affrontare il problema

Per precisare meglio il problema vanno dichiarati con maggior chiarezza
il suo oggetto e i metodi di ricerca praticati nel suo srudio.

1.1. Kerygma ed euagg,elion:unita e zdentita

Cominciamo con i termini che designano il messagg10 neotestamentario:

kerygma ed eugg,elion.
La voce kerygma e stata enfatizzata nella recente teología kerygmatica. Se
e vero che kerygma e keryssein sono presentí nel NT (rispettivamente 8 e
61x), lo sono tu ttavia molto di piu euagg,elioned euaggelizein(rispettivamente
76 e 54x, compresa la finale canonica di Me). Inoltre, dei due significati pos-
sibili di kerygma, l'atto dell' annuncio o il suo contenuto, e stato enfatizzaco il
primo squalificando il secando (Bultmann) oppure il contenuto e stato consi-

' Ib,d., 30-31.

6
Ib!d., 227.
; !bid., 371.
La testimonian-zadei libri del Nuovo Testamento ad un unico kerygma!evangelo 307

deraco talmente vario da arrivare a sostenere un docetismo ingenuo ne! IV

vangelo (E. Kasemann). 8
Ora kerygma, nel senso di atto di annunciare un messaggio, usato ne! e
vangelo (Mt 12,41) (Le 11,32) e nella letteratura paolina (Rm 16,25 in paral-
lelo con euagge!ion;1 Cor 1,21; 2,4, in parallelo con lagos; cf anche 2 Tm
4,17). Nel senso di comenuto del messaggio lo si legge in 1 Cor 15,14, ove
Paolo afferma: « V uoto e il nostro kerygma e vuoca la noscra fede », che ov-
viamente si riferisce al contenuto della fede: la confessione della rísurrezione
di Ges u; in Tt 1,3 e insieme I'annuncio e il contenuto. Insomma non sono in
alternativa i due significati di annuncio e contenut0; ovviamente il contenuto
ha senso solo se viene annunciaco come messaggio di salvezza, che richiede
la risposta di fede.
Passando ora al secondo termine per indicare il messaggio del NT, euag-
gelion, notiamo anzitutto che e molro piu pervasivo del precedente. Si trova
ben 76 volte nel NT, concentrare in Mt-Me (12x) e Paolo (60x). Fuori si
legge solo 2 volee in Atti, 1 in 1 Pt e 1 in Ap. Euaggelion,oltre ali'annuncio
include anche la sua qualita di « buon annuncio », e ció che e ancora piu in-
teressante e che euaggelion e oggetto del verbo « predicare-keryssezn». Gia
nella prima letrera di Paolo si legge queseo sintagma: <<lavorando giorno a
norte per non essere di peso abbiamo predieato a voi zl vangelodi Dio » ( 1 Ts
2,9). II contenuto del « vangelo di Dio» predicato da P aolo e la paradosis-tra-
dizione, cuí Paolo si richiama in 1 Cor 15,1-2.3-6; pa rlando qui della morte
di Gesú per i nostri peccati secondo le Scritture e della sua risurrezione se-
condo le Scritture, la qualifica per ben tre volte nella breve introduzione
( 15,1-2) con la radice euaggeli-on-zein. Abbiamo gia ricordato che in Rm
16,25 kerygma ed euaggelionsono in parallelo. ll « vangelo di Dio » e oggetto
anche dell' annuncio di Ges u in 1\[Link], 14: Ges u viene in Galilea « predicandozl
vangelo di Dio» il cui contenuto e riportato nel v. seguente: « E diceva che
si e compiuto il tempo (kairos), e si e avvicinato il regno di Dio. Convertite-
vi e eredete ne! vangelo>> (Me 1,15). ll tempo e quello della nueva era, escato-
logica, e il kerygma e il vangelo del regno di D io, che si e avvicinato in Ge-
su. Altri tre cesti di Me contengono l' espressione « predicare il vangelo >>: in
Me 13, 10 si annuncia che prima della fine del mondo « il vangelo dev'essere
predicato a tutee le genti »; in 14,9 nel contesto dell'unzione di Betania: Gesu
predice « In verita, in verita vi dico, dovunque sara predicatoil vangelo,anche
ció sara detto in memoria di lei ». Un ultimo testo si legge nella finale cano-
nica di Me, ove Gesu risorco ordina ai suoi discepoli: « Anclare in tutto il
mondo, predicate zl vangelo ad ogni creatura » (Me 16, 15).

' E. K.'.\sE .\1.-\.N:S:, ]esu letzter Wtlle , Tübingen 1971' .

.308 Giu sc•ppe Seg_C1l!a

In Paolo il vangelo e « il vangelo di Dio» come in Me 1,14 (Rm 15,16;

1 Ts 2,2.8.9) oppure « il vangelodi Cristo>>similea Me 1,1, ove il vangeloe
« il vangelo di Gesu Cristo» (Rm 15,19; 1 Cor 9,12; 2 Cor 2,12; 9,13; 10, 14;
Gal 1,7; Fzl 1,27; 1 Ts 3,2 ), potenza salvífica di D io in cui si deve credere
per essere giustificati (Rrn 1,16-17). Paolo difende il vangelo di Dio e di Cri-
sto, che egli predica , da qualsiasi falsificazione. Non vi e un altro vangelo,di-
verso (Gal 1,6; 2 Cor 11,4) come non vi e « un alero Gesu » e « un alero
Spirito » (2 Cor 11, 14).
Paolo e dunque coscientedell'unita e dell'zdentita del vangelo, e della possi-
bzlita che venga/alsi/icato.9 Il contenuco cristologico della tradizione e del van-
gelo si trova non solo in 1 Cor 15,1-6, ma anche in Rm 1,3-4: Gesu, « figlio
di David secondo la carne e Figlio di Dio con potenza secondo lo Spirito di
santita a partire dalla risurrezione ». Quesea e l'essenza del vangelo di Paolo,
recepita dalla tradizione, che non <leve mutare (Gal 1,6) . Lo scesso si puó
dire del vangelo di Marco, insieme annuncio e contenuto dell ' annuncio « Ge-
su Cristo, Figlio di Dio », che nella sua vicenda terrena fino alla morte-risur -
rezione predica e porta il regno di Dio.
L'a nalisi veloce dell'uso di kerygmae di euaggelionnd NT ci porta dun-
que a concludere che I' evangelo predicato a tutte le genti e sempre identico,
pur assumendo forme diverse, come risulta chiaro dalla sua forma lecceraria
in Marco e Paolo. Percio non dev' essere travisato, ma t rasmesso nella sua
identita ancorché adattato a destinatari e circostanze diversi.

1.2. Metodi e teorie nello studio del problema

Dall'oggetto , espresso con kerygma ed euaggelion,passiamo ai mecodi di

indagine del problema. I mecodi, pur essendo in sé oggettivi, sono strumemi
relacivi all'oggetto che si esamina, i tesci del NT. Se un metodo viene assolu-
tizzato e poseo a servizio di una tesi previa, il risultato e scontato in partenza.
Semplificando e riducendo a due le grandi metodologie che ci interessa-
no, quella storico-critica e quella letteraria-strutturale , va subito detto che pre-
suppongono una teoría diversa del testo.

' La tensione fra Gal 1,6 -7 e Gal 2,7 e solo apparente. I1 « vangelo della circoncisione »
e quello « della incirconsione ))' !'uno affidato a Pietro , l'altro a Paolo non indicano due vange-
li diversi, ma due modi diversi di predicare lo stesso evangelo, alle « genti » e alla « circonci·
sione )> (i giudei ), come risulta da! seguente v. 9. Si tratta di un genitivo « di descinazione ».
Quello predicato alle « genti » esdudeva certameme la circoncisione come appare da! contesto.
Ma per Paolo la circoncisione e la incirconsione non comano milla in relazione alla chiamata
alla fede, che giustifica, come risulta chiaramente da Gal 5, 6 e 1 Cor 7, 17-19 (Lettera ai Ca·
lati: lntr oduzione, versione e commento di A. P1TTA , EDB , Bologna 1996, pp . 119,120, ove
cita in favore di questa tesi anche Corsani, Ebeling , Matera e Schlier aUa n. 181).
 La t<!stimonian za d ei libri d,•l Nu ovo Testamento ad un unico k erygma/evange lo 309

Al metodostorico-crztico
soggiaceuna teoria del testo concepirocome un
tell, che va scavato per scoprire gli strati storico-letterari anteriori alla reda-
zione del testo com' e ora: la storia delle fomi scritte e delle tradizioni orali.
Ció che imeressa e la storia di fatti accaduti o una storia delle idee, il testo
viene sfruttato come documento di tale storia e perció destrutturato, perden-
do la sua identita redazionale e canonica. Si pensi solo alla teología di Gio-
vanni come viene decostruita e ricostruita da R. Bultmann: non solo viene
totalmente eliminato Gv 21, ma anche tutto ció che nel IV vangelo riguarda i
sacramenti, la chiesa e l' escatología futura; in tal modo egli ricostruisce una
teología kerygmatica della rivelazione e della fede , propria dell'evangelista,
comrapponendola ad una teología della istituzione ecclesiale che offre la sal-
vezza futura mediante i sacramenti , creara dal redattore finale con le sue ag-
giunte e la sua riorganizzazione dell'ordine originario del IV vangelo. La teo-
logía dell' evangelista e quella del redattore ecclesiastico vengono cosi contrap-
poste. Le tensioni o addirittura le supposte comraddizioni scoperte nel testo
servono a ricostruire stadi successivi della storia della tradizione in opposizio-
ne fra loro. Ora , se applichiamo queseo metodo a tutti i libri del NT, il ri-
sultato sara non solo una pluralita e diversita di kerygmata, ma addirittura
una dialettica fra di loro. La debolezza delle conclusioni cuí perviene tale
metodo, nell'uso spregiudicato che talora ne e facto, proviene, a mio parere,
da due passaggi indebiti:
1. L' applicazione della nostra logica a un testo che ne ha una diversa
dalla nostra e che noi dovremmo in primo luogo capire nella sua singolarita,
proprio per rispettare la sua collocazione srorica in un passato lontano dal
nostro presente;
2. Si ha inoltre il passaggio indebito dalla critica letteraria a quella stori-
ca ove si dovrebbero avere o trovare delle conferme esterne al testo per
giungere a conclusioni propriamente storiche. Da qui si comprende la debo-
lezza della scuola storico-religiosa, che spesso faceva l'errore di applicare acrí-
ticamente ai paralleli del NT con la letteratura religiosa o filosofica del I se-
colo il principio « analogía, ergo genealogia ». Di qui deriva la tesi dei keryg-
mata diversi e talora opposti nel NT.
L' altra metodología, letteraria-strutturale, assume il testo com'e e lo ri-
l. spetta nella sua integrita, cercando di scoprirne la logica interna, retorica e/ o
narrativa, privilegiando in tal modo una presupposta omogeneita e coerenza
del testo , finché non vi si scoprono chiari indizi di fonti diverse, redatte nel
testo attuale. Ció e chiaro fuori del NT nel libro apocrifo di Enoch oppure
secondo alcuni critici anche in alcune lettere di Paolo. Un tale metodo riesce
piu agevolmente a mettere in luce l'un ita teologica del kerygma neotestamen-
 310 Giuseppe Scga!ta

tario: l'annuncio che sta a fondarnento del vario sviluppo che ha subito per
la sua applicazione a situazioni sempre nuove e per la riflessione che su di
esso hanno praticato gli autori dei vari libri del NT, ed anche, infine, per la
ricchez za polisemica dell'unico kerygma o vangelo di Dio e di Gesu Cristo ,
che si radica in fin dei conti nella persona stessa di Gesu , vissuto in mezzo
. .
a no1, morto e nsorto.
E del tutto evidente che il metodo piu adatto nelio studio del nostro
problema, I'unita del kerygma neotestamentario, e il secondo con alle sue
spalle una teoría del testo come testimone coerente di un evento originario ,
che ha valore perenne per l'uomo e per la sua storia. Essendo il testo espres-
sione di un evento originario, mediato, narrato e applicato da testimoni o da
predicatori del vangelo che li hanno conosciuti, tale evento cacle necessaria-
mente anche nell' ambito del primo metodo, in quanto il kerygma o euaggelion
si considerano trasmessi dai primi testimoni e dai loro concinuatori attraverso
una tradizione storica (Le 1, 1-4).
Evento originarioe testimonianzaoriginariacostituisconodunque zf /ondamen-
to storicodell'unico kerygma,contenuto e testimoniatonei libri del NT.

2. Le risposte al problema dell'unico kerygma/vangelo

Recensisco, in questa seconda parte, le principali proposte sinora avanza-

te a partire dal Dodd ( 1935) fino a R. Penna ( 1998) per individuare un uni-
co kerygma o un unico evangelo , testimoniato dai libri del NT, o almeno
I' unita teologico-crist0logica del NT.
CH. Dodd fu il primo a proporre una risposta scientifica alternativa alla
tesi kerygmatica della scuola bultmanniana. Lo fece in una serie di tre lezioni
tenute al King' s College di Londra, pubblicate nel 1936. 1º Nella prima lezione
cercava di dimostrare il kerygma originario come kerygma unitario, ricavan-
dolo dalla tradizione prepaolina, dai discorsi della prima part e degli Atti e
dalla predicazione del vangelo di Dio all'inizio del vangelo di Marco ( 1, 14-
15). E sintetizzava tale kerygma in sette punti, da leggere sullo sfondo del-
. l'apocalittica giudaica, cristologicamente rinnovata , in quanto la nuova eta era
gia iniziata con la morte-risurrezione di Gesu , mencre il suo compimento av-
verra al ritorno del Signore. 11 In una seconda lezione dimo strav a lo sviluppo
del kerygma unitario nei vangeli, in Paolo e in Giovanni .
La tesi fu accolta con favore da molti , in un primo tempo , ma in segui-
to fu sempre piu criticara per vari mocivi: perché i1 kerygma proposto era ar-

'" C. H. Dooo, The Apostolic Preaching ami Lis Dcvclop111ents, London 1936; [Link]. cicac.1
nella noca bibliografica iniziale.
11
/bid., ed. it. , 19-20.
La testimo nianza dei lzbri del Nuovo T,•stamento ad un unico k erygmalevangelo 311

tificialmente messo insieme dal Dodd , ricavandolo da vari scritti, e per di piu
era messa in discussione la tradizionalita dei discorsi degli Atti; inoltre per-
ché avrebbe irrigidito il kerygma (annuncio) in un « credo » (Me Donald ); e
infine perché, piu che ad una dimostrazione oggettiva, rispondeva ad un bi-
sogno psicologico della chiesa del suo tempo (Me Donald , Lemcio). A mio
awiso pero il suo tentativo mantiene un suo valore, sia pure relativo, anche
perché si e dirnostrato che dietro ai discorsi degli Atti vi e effettivameme
una tradizione precedente. E difficile pero dimostrare che il kerygma unitario
proposto dal Dodd sia il filo rosso che lega insieme tutti i libri del NT.
E.L. Lemcio (1991), nell'appendice alla sua monografía 12 avanza una
nuova proposta. Anzitutto egli critica i metodi che destrutturano il testo del
NT consideraindoli « documenti » da cuí estrarre informazioni sulla storia del-
la fede, mentre il NT va considerato come un corpo letterario , studiato nella
sua integrita , prima di ogni esame storico successivo. L' atomizzazione del te-
sto preclude e oscura il compito storico ed e quindi pericoloso. Muovendo
da questa premessa, egli scopre in 19 su 27 scritti del NT uno stesso keryg-
ma, ravvisandolo in una formulazione letteraria simile, composta di sei elementi:
l. Dio che
2. ha inviato e/o risuscitato
3. Gesu.
4. Una risposta (accogliere, pentirsi, creciere)
5. a Dio
13
6. porta dei benefici all'uomo, descritti in vario modo.

Gli elementi sopra descritti non hanno bisogno di essere armonizzati, in

quamo sono gia strutturati nei testi in cui compaiono (si evita cosl la critica
mossa al Dodd). II modello e costante anche se non e costante la formula
letteraria. Rappresenta uno stadio anteriore alla tradizione, fissata nella reda-
zione, e sarebbe il nucleo originario che poi si definl in modo diverso, so-
prattutto per gli elementi 4 e 6. Tale struttura ceologico-letteraria compare
nei vangeli , negli Atti, nelle lettere paoline, in quelle cattoliche e persino nel-
l'Apocalisse. 14 Il cristocentrismo vi appare in funzione del teocentrismo: e Dio
che invia (e risuscita ) Gesu, e a Dio che si deve rispondere con la fede e la
vita. Non vi compare pero un elemento, presente in tutti i libri del NT e
nelle tradizioni originarie, il compimento delle Scritture e dell'era escatologica,
che caratterizza invece il kerygma unitario , proposco dal Dodd. Il vantagg io e

t: E.L. L E;-.JCJO,115-131.
1
' lhid., 117 e i testi riportati alle pp. 130-13 l.
1
• Cf tabella alle pp . 130-131.
 3 12 Ciú sepp,, S egallt 1

che nella proposta del Lem cio si tratta di testi letterari inseriti nei libri del
NT: dal Gesu dei vangeli fino all'Apocalisse e comengono una struttura teo-
logico-letteraria comune.
Va nello stesso senso la proposta di W. Thüsing, elaborata nel secondo
volume della sua opera: « Die neutestamentliche Theologien und Jesus Chri-
stus » (1998 ), anche se la struttura dell'unico kerygma da luí proposto e di
carattere teologico e non formulaico, come in Lemcio. Richiamo qui solo la
tesi cemrale, che ci interessa. I testi del NT non vengono considerati come
documemi né come letteratura, bensi come testimonianza .15 Qual e dunque la
testimonianza convergente che sta dietro a questi testi? E « il tema costituito
dal rapporto fra l'unicita di Dio e !'evento di Gesu Cristo», studiato nel ter-
zo volume, appena uscito. 16 La_ struttura originaria e unitaria dello specífico
cristiano sarebbe: « Il vangelo di Dio come unita del vangelo del regno (di
Dio portato da ) Gesu e del vangelo su Gesu Cristo», formula breve per an-
nunciare la globale azione salvífica di Dio . 1• Il vangelo fondamentale e dun -
que quello, in cui il vangelo su Gesu Cristo rimane ordinato al vangelo del
regno di Gesu di Nazaret, l'un ita del « vangelo di Gesu stesso e del vangelo
di Gesu Cristo postpasquale ». 18 Il vangelo « non e una somma di dottrine ,
ma piutcosto dalla sua or igine gesuana (e fin nelle sue radici anticotestamen -
tarie) !'opera stessa di Dio, la potenza di Dio per la salvezza (Rom 1,16) ». E
vero che euaggelion con questo senso lo si trova solo in Paolo; ma si apre a
tucto il NT e sintetizza l' annuncio cemrale . Dice non solo l' annuncio della
salvezza, ma anche I' event o salvífico originario. E dunque sia il vangelo narra-
to (i vangeli) sía quello annunciato nel resto del NT, ambedue comunque
con carattere di _annunc io, che racchiude la potenza divina di salvezza: nella
persona storica di Gesu durante la sua vita terrena e nell' evento della sua
morte-risurrezione-dono dello Spirito nel tempo postpasquale della chiesa.
In questa proposta di struttura teologica della testimonianza neotesta -
mentaria che abbraccia vangeli e letteratura epistolare , si evidenziano al~uni
elementi dell'unico kerygma: 1) l'unita dell'unica globale azione salvífica di
Dio, che abbraccia insieme le radici anticotestamentarie, I'evento originario di
Gesu Cristo comprendente I'annuncio del regno da parte di Gesu e I'annun -
cio postpasqale su di luí; 2 ) l'unita e la continuita del vangelo di Gesu Cri-
sto e del vangelo del regno di Gesu di Nazareth; 3 ) L'unita e qu alifica di

u \\·. TH ÜSI:--G, 161- 162.

16
I o ., Die neutestamentliche Theologien und ]esus Christus. Grundlegung einer Theo!ogie des
Neuen testaments. III: Einzigkeit Gottes und ]esus-Chri"stus-Ereignis (mil Studien [Link] Verhdltnis L-011

]uden und Christen), a cura d i T H. S6D1:-;c, Aschendorff , Mü nster 1999.

" Ib,d., 165 .
IS !bid.
La tc·stimonianza dei libri del Nuol)() Testamento ad un ,mico kerygma l evangelo 313

euaggelioncome insieme di annuncio-evemo e contenuto dell' azione globale

salvífica di Dio, che si compie in Gesu Cristo. La difficolta sta nella compli-
cara elaborazione concettuale.
Tre altri autori (Aletti, Fusco e Penna ) rawisano il centro unitario del
NT nella cristología, lasciando in secando piano la teologia.
J. Noel Aletti (orig. 1994; ed. it. 1995), mettend osi in confronto princi-
palmente con la tesi di J.D.G. Dunn , che trovava tre diverse forme di keryg-
ma nei libri del NT, sostiene che una metodología diversa da quella storico-
critica perviene a risultati diversi. Si tratta di una rnetodologia che studia le
strutture profonde e i diversi livellí dei testi del NT e permette di concludere
che l'unitapro/onda (il kerygmaunitario) del NT sarebbe costituita dalla gesu-
crisrologia (il discorso relativo a Gesu Cristo, vale a dire il Gesu terreno e il
Signore glorificato) e dalla gesucristologizzazione del NT, cioe dall'utilizzo del
motivo gesucristologico negli altri campi della teologí a, della ecclesiologia, del-
I'etica, ecc. 19 Questa unita strutturale profonda e omologa alle varíe strutture
che compaiono al secondo livello, superiore, nei vari libri o complessi lettera-
ri (Paolo , Giovanni ... ) del NT. E alla fine del suo lavoro, risponde anche al-
1'obiezione che, in questa proposta , si assolutizzerebbe la cristología, metten-
do in ombra la teología: « Gesu porta al Padre » - egli afferrna. 20 La termi-
nología usata e inconsueta e la trattazione e in forma di saggio. Aletti dimo-
stra comunque che nel NT e present e un' azione dinamica unificante , che uti-
lizza la medesima struttura di base al primo livello, quello gesucristologico. Il
saggio dimostra: 1) l'importánza del merodo strutrurale, 2 ) la funzione unifi-
cante dell' evento salvifico gesucristologico, 3) le omologie profonde nelle
strutture teologiche presentí nei vari corpus letterari del NT, in altre parole
l'unita del kerygma gesucristologico; non e solo un centro, come sostiene
Dunn, ma pervade rutto il NT.
V. Fusco (1997), seguendo il metodo storico-genetico delle diverse tradi-
zioni e tendenze del cristianesimo delle origini, rawisa nella tradizione keryg-
matica della risurrezione il fulcro e il centro originario della fede cristiana.
Tale trad izione e comune alle comunica cristiane palestinesi ed ellenistiche: le
prim•e non ignorano la presenza sacramentale di Gesu e le seconde condivi-
dono l'attesa escatologica (centro la tesi storico-religiosa , ricordat a nell'intro-
duzione , dei due kerygmi opposci).~1 Da queseo kerygma avrebbe preso im-
pulso il processo di recupero della tradizione sul Gesu terreno. Due sono
dunque gli eventi generatori della paradosi: l' evento pasquale e il Gesu ter-

1
" J.N . AtETTt led.i r.), 268, n. 35.
Zll lbtd .. 270.
21
\'. Fusco, 170.
314 Giuseppe Segalla

renc22 in uno sviluppo omogeneo progressivo piu nel tempo che nello spazio,
cioe nei vari gruppi. 23 Io comunque insisterei di piu sull'unita radicale nel-
1'identita della persona di Ges u Cristo, Signore risorto . L ' evento pasquale e
fondazione del fondamento, che e la tradizione del Gesu terreno.
R. Penna 0998) segue pure rigorosamente, come il Fusco , il metodo sto-
rico-critico nel delineare i ritratti originali di Gesu Cristo, partendo dalle due
tradizioni precedenti: quella della morte risurrezíone e quella del Gesu terre-
no, trattate nel primo volume. Pur mettendo in luce owiamente la variera al-
l'interno del NT, secondo il suo programma coerentemente perseguito ,24 Pen-
na si sente in dovere alla fine del suo lavoro di trattare anche il problema
dell'unita della cristología neotestamentaria. Invece di ricorrere a modelli uni-
tari (G. Segalla) egli la rawisa, come Fusco, « nella categoría delle fasi tem-
porali, con le quali la fede ha sempre visto connessa la figura di Gesu. Di
luí cioe e stata coltivata la memoria, di luí e creduta e percepita la presenza
viva nel cristiano e nella chiesa, e luí ancora e fatto oggetto di un' atiesa co-
stante. La memoria rimanda al Gesu terreno e a tuteo cío che lo ha caratte -
rizzato in parole ed azioni (e passione!) ancorando la fede cristiana allo zoc-
colo duro della storia e delle sue coordinate spazio-temporali ». 2' L'unita della
cristología del NT non sta dunque in un kerygma, ma in un evento salvifico,
che, radicato nella memoria passata, rimane tuttavia presente nel cristiano e
nella chiesa, mentre si aspetta il compimento nel futuro ritorno del Signore.
Il metodo storico-critico non puo non rawisare che in un evento, I'evento di
Gesu Cristo , l'unico kerygma nei libri del NT. Ed e giusto .
In conclusione, mentre la proposta del Dodd viene oggi criticara ed ab-
bandonata, le altre cinque qui presentare si possono dividere in due gruppi
sotto il profilo teologice: le prime due (Lemcio e Thüsing ) collocano al cen-
tro dell'unico kerygma la ceo-logia, cuí e subordinata la cristología, le altre tre
invece, sía pure con metodi diversi, mettono al cenero la persona di Gesu
Cristo. Inoltre, per quanto riguarda il rapporto con l'AT, mi sembra che, a
parte il Dodd, delle nuove proposte quella che piu lo colloca alla radice del
kerygma neotestamentario sía quella del Thüsing con la sua sottolineatura
dell'unica e globale azione salvifica di Dio, che si compie in Gesu Cristo.
Passiamo cosl alla terza parte, in cui cerchen:> di proporre la tesi di un
unico kerygma che si fonda su e annuncia un unico vangelo.

n lbtd., 278.
2
' Ibid., 270.
2
' R. PENl'>A, I I. Gli svzluppi, 5-6.
2
' Ibtd., 537.
Lo testimonianzo dei libri del Nuo1,•o Testame nto ad un emico kerygma l evongelo 315

3. L'unicovangelodi Gesu Cristo, che include quello del regno di Dio

Gli studi sopra recensiti, pur riconoscendo una grande varieta teologica
nei libri del NT, dimostrano , ancorché in modo diverso, che vi e un'unita
teologica e cristologica profonda. Varie sono le proposte: la formulazione del-
le serte proposizioni del Dodd, una formulazione letteraria-teologica che si ri-
pete nella maggioranza dei libri del NT (Lemcio), una struttura teologica
unitaria che lega !'evento di Gesu di Nazare t al kerygma su Gesu Cristo nel-
l'unica azione salvífica di Dio (Thüsing) , la dinamica della gesucristologizza-
zione che darebbe omogeneita teologica al NT, partendo dal kerygma gesu-
cristologico (Aletti), la fondazione dell' unita del NT nel kerygma della risur-
rezione e il suo fondamenco nella tradizione di Gesu di Nazaret considerati
due inizi (Penna ) o due tradizioni (Fusco ).
A questo punto, prima di presentare la mía tesi, vorrei sintetizzare alcu-
ni princip i metodologici ricavati dagli studi esaminati. Occorre previamente
evitare gli errori precedenci: 1) anzitutto i libr i del NT non sono trattati di
teología in senso dottrinale , e percio sembra non si possa sintetizzare il keryg-
ma in una serie di formule di fede ricavate dal NT (Dodd ); 2) va inoltre te-
nuto presente che i silenzi nei vari libri del NT su qualche tema non signifi-
cano la sua negazione ed inoltre che le tensioni pur presentí non vanno esa-
gerate a sfavore della convergenza (contro D unn); 3 ) gli sviluppi del kerygma
originario vanno consideraci come lo sviluppo di un organismo omogeneo
(Thüsing e AlettD e non come l' evoluzione da un kerygma ad un altro, da
una teología ad un' altra o la presenza contemporanea in diversi ambienci spa-
ziali e culturali (palestinese, ellenistico, apocalittico) di kerygmi diversi e in-
componibili, se non comradditori .
Positivamente l'unico kerygma sembra debba presentare le seguenci carat-
teristiche: 1) <leve essere una formula letteraria presente nel NT e non una
sincesi da tes ti del NT (con Lemcio contro Dodd ); 2) <leve essere presente
nella maggior parte dei corpus letterari del N T (con Lemcio); 3) deve rispet-
tare l'orientamento della cristologia alla teo-logia ed escaro-logia, nonché la in-
clusione dell'AT nel Nuovo; 4) va infine ricordato che la sua unita e data
dall' unicira dell' evento originario, che annuncia.
Tenute presentí quesee esigenze, e possibile dimostrare che i libri del
NT testimoniano un unico kerygma fondamemale o un unico euaggelion?
lo mi permetto di avanzare una risposta al problema, radicara nella stes-
sa terminología del NT, in particolare nella parola fondamentale per tutto il
NT: euaggelion,oggetto dell'annuncio (keryssein) sía nei vangeli, in cuí il sog-
getto che annuncia e Gesu (A1c 1, 14; Mt 4,23; 9,35; 24,14) sia in Paolo
(1 Ts 2,9). La voce euaggelione la piu pervasiva, insieme a baszleia,in tutto
316 Giuseppe Segalla

il NT. E assente solo dal Corpus Johanneum (a parte Ap 14, 6, che parla
del « vangelo eterno »), dalle lettere cattoliche (eccetto 1 Pt 4, 17) e dalla let-
tera agli Ebrei. Sui 27 libri del NT e presente in 18, se consideriamo Luca-
Atti come un'unica opera.
L' altra parola, basileia, e pure un termine pervasivo, presente anche negli
scritti piu seriori del NT, con influsso evidente della tradizione di Gesu. 21'
Anche questo termine si legge in 17 libri del NT. E assenre in cinque lettere
di Paolo, nella 1 Pt in 1-3 Gv e Giuda, praticamenre in 10 scritti minori.
La tesi che vorrei sostenere si puó enunciare brevemente cosi:
« I libri del NT testimoniano, nello Spirito, l'unico vangelo di Dio e di Gesi't
Cristo (e non ve n'e un altro) che include in sé zl vangelo del regno, predicato e
portato da Gesu di Nazaret, preparato dall'alleanza di Dio con Israele e prean-
nunciato dai Pro/eti nelle Scritture Sacre, in particolare da Is 52 ,3-7 e 61, 1-3 ».
Il nucleo piu unitario e consistente e presente nel prologo di Marco
(1, 1-14). L' evangelista pone tutta la seguente narrazione sotto il titolo di
« Inizio del vangelo di Gesu Cristo, Figlio di Dio ». Com'e presente aU'inizio
del piu antico vangelo, cosi « vangelo » ricorre in forma pervasiva nel primo
scritto del NT, la 1 Ts (1,5; 2,4.8.9; 3,2), ove il vangelo non e solo l'annun -
cio, portato da Paolo, ma potenza salvífica nello Spirito Santo ( 1,5); e qualifi-
cato come « il vangelo di Dio» (2,2.8-9), che e al contempo « il vangelo di
Cristo» 0,2); ed e l'annuncio della salvezza mediante la fede in Dio e l'ab-
bandono degli idoli ( 1,9-10). TI vangelo di Dio, predicato da Paolo e dunque
anche il vangelo di Cristo, e diviene nel prologo di Marco « il vangelo di
Gesu Cristo». Nel vangelo Gesu e annunciatore e portatore del vangelo del
regno di D io, ma e anche annunciato nel racconto dello stesso evangelista.
Ora !'evangelista all'inizio del suo racconto sintetizza il vangelo in questo mo-
do: « Gesu venne nella Galilea, predicando zl vangelo di Dio e dicendo: TI tem-
po (ho kairos) e compiuto (inizia una nuova era), e si e avvicinato ti regno di
Dio» (Me 1,14). Il regno di Dio, che si compie nel tempo presente, escatolo-
gico, media nte la predicazione e la missione di Gesü e dunque il contenuto
del « vangelo di Gesu Cristo». La conclusione parenetica e « Convertitevi e
credete nel vangelo » (del regno, predicato e iniziato da GesuL
« Evangelo » e perció un' espressione sintetica per dire « il buon annun-
cio della salvezza mediante Gesu Cristo »; il suo contenuto indude l'imperati-
vo della conversione e del credere in esso. L' evangelo e tutto il libro, tuteo
l' evangelo secondo Marco, il racconto della missione di Gesu dall'inizio fino
alla sua morte e risurrezione, preannunciando all'interno anche il loro caratte-
re salvifíco (Me 10,45; 14,22 -24). L'evangelo di Gesu Cristo ha carattere glo-

,. U. Luz , bas1leia, in « DENT », I, coll. 530-542 .

La testimo nianza dei !ibri del N uovo Testamento ad un unico kerygmalevangelo 317

bale, in quanto indude in se il vangelo del regno di Dio, la sua sovranita e

potenza salvífica, presente nella persona e nell' opera di Gesu Cristo, che si
apre nel tempo della chiesa al futuro « regno eterno» (Ap 14,6).
Ancora piu significativa e la struttura e la funzione di « Evangelo di
Dio » nel prologo della letrera ai Romani. Paolo dice di essere stato separa to
« per l' evangelo di Dio, preannunciato mediante i suoi profeti nelle Scritture
Sacre» (e il pre-evangelo dell'AT). Qual e l'oggetto, il contenuto di questo
pre-evangelo e dell'Evangelo stesso che lo porta a compimento? E « il Figlio
suo (di Dio ) - nato da seme di Davide secando la carne Oa missione terre-
na di Gesu come Cristo, cioe Messia ) - costituito Figlio di Dio in potenza
secando lo Spirito di santita dalla risurrezione dai morti, Gesu Cristo Signare
nostro » (Rm 1,3-4). Questi due emistichi che parlano del duplice stato di
Gesu, terreno e celeste, sono comunemente attribuiti ad una tradizione pre-
paolina, che Paolo riporta. Egli continua, nel prescritto , richiedendo la rispo-
sta ali'evangelo, cuí mira la grazia dell' apostolato ricevuta da Gesu risorto
« per I'obbedienza di fede (obbedienza che consiste nella fede) in mezzo a
tutte le gen ti » (Rm 1,5; cf 16,25). Al vangelo si <leve rispondere con la fede
com' era detto da Gesu anche nel prologo di Marco. L' evangelo ritorna in
forma assoluta nella propositio principalis della letrera: « Non mi vergogno del-
1'evangelo, potenza di Dio infatti e in vista della salvezza per ogni creciente »
(Rm 1,16). La fede nell'evangelo di Dio , che ha come contenuto il Figlio di
Dio, Gesu Cristo Signare nostro, giustifica l'uomo: « la giustizia di Dio si ri-
vela da fede a fede » (Rm 1, 17). TI contenuto soteriologico e centrato nella
morte e risurrezione di Gesu come evento originario salvifico (Rm 3,24-26).
La tradizione , chiamata « evangelo », viene rammentaca ancor piu chiaramen-
ce in 1 Cor 15, 1-5: « Vi rendo noto, fratelli, l'evangelo che ho evangelizzat o,
che anche avete accolto, nel quale pure permanece , mediante il quale siete
pure salvati, con quale parola vi ho evangelizzato... Vi ho trasmesso infatti in-
nanzitutto ció che ho ricevuto: Cristo e morto per i nostri peccati secando le
Scritture , e fu sepolto, ed e risorto il cerzo giorno secando le Scritture, e ap-
p arve a Pietro , poi ai Dodici ... ». Questa « paradosi » dell' evangelo Paolo di-
chiara di averla ricevuta a sua volea, certamence nella comunica originaria di
Gerusalemme probabilmente negli anni 36-37, tre anni dopo la chiamata vici-
no a Damasco (Gal 1, 18; 2 Cor 11,30-33).
La inter-azione fra « l'evangelo di Dio, di Cristo » e « I'evangelo del re-
gno di Dio » (Mt 4,23 ), come pure tra « il regno di Cristo » e « di Dio » (E/
5,5) mi sembra riveli chiaramente il buon annuncio dell'unico evento salvífica
originario: Gesu stesso come « figlio di David » nella sua condizione e mis-
sione terrena e come « Figlio di Dio » nella sua condizione gloriosa; egli lo
attua e lo fonda nella sua morte per i nostri peccati secando le Scritture, e
318 Giuseppe Sega/la

nella sua risurrezione il terzo giorno secondo le Scritture (Rm 1,3-4; 1 Cor
15, 1-5). E inoltre, sía nei vangeli sía in Paolo, nella sua strutturazione amro-
pologica, tale evento originario salvifico, annunciato come « evangelo » richie-
de la risposta della fede e dell' obbedi~za. TI regno di Dio , potenza salvífica,
annunciato e portato da Gesu e incluso nel racconto dei vangeli come opera
leneraria, sincesi della struttura teologico-cristologicasalvífica dell'evento originario.
Anche nella dimensione storico-letteraria, se il kerygma della morte-risur -
rezione di Gesu come evento salvifico originario precede la memoria narrati-
va del Gesu terreno, tale memoria in realta viene non solo suscitara, ma in-
clusa nell' evangelo della morte-risurrezione gia nella primitiva tradizione (qui
prescindiamo da tutee le iporesi, che tali rimangono , sull' assenza di tale ke-
rygma nella cosiddetta fonte Q ). Non si possono dunque separare, anche se
si possono distinguere. Gia il racconto primitivo della passione e morte di
Gesu riflette il kerygma postpasquale. La separazione creata dalla critica fra il
Gesu storico e il Cristo della fede ha smembrato quanto, nell'evento origina-
rio e nella paradosi che include annuncio e catechesi (Me Donald ), era ed e
unito. Persino nella forma piu elevata del vangelo qual e quello di Giovanni,
e sottolineata l'umanita di Gesu insieme alla sua unita con il Padr e. Non e t
¡
Gesu un « Dio che cammina sollevato da terra » (E. Kasemann). E l'Incarna-
to Figlio di Dio, uno col Padre. Anche qui l' evento salvifico originario, testi- j
moniato dal discepolo amato, che dona la verita e, attraverso I'abbandono di
fede ad essa, la vita, - include l'annuncio del regno di Dio (Gv 3,3.5) che
si compie nella missione salvífica di Gesu , e nel suo regno , che si rivela pa-
!
l
radossalmente nell'elevazione alla croce e alla gloria del Padre (Gv 18-19).
Mi sembra perció troppo poco asserire l' identita del Gesu terreno col
Cr:isto risorto come unita basilare del NT (J.D .G. DunnL L'evangelo, annun- 1
ciato e narrato, connota gia la missione terrena di G esu come realizzazione
di url pre-evangelo (predetto dai Profeti nelle Scritture e realizzato « secondo 1
le Scritture »), mirante ad annunciare e portare il regno di Dio, che si com- i
pie nell' evento della morte e risurrezione di Gesu come evento salvifico origi- •
nario, cuí si deve rispondere con I'obbedienza della fede.
Quesea struttura unitaria dell' evangelo viene espressa in vari modi nelle
teologie del NT in relazione a situazioni diverse, ad ambienti culturali diversi
l
J
e a destinatari diversi, ma e sempre l'unico evangelo di Dio e di Gesu Cri-
sto, che include il regno di Dio (cf Ge 2,5). Molto sinteticamente, in relazio-
ne ai grandi corpus letterari , si potrebbe dire che nei vangeli sinottici il cen- 1
tro del buon annuncio e il regno, in Paolo e il vangelo di Gesu Cristo, che
porta a compimento la sovranita salvífica di Dio sul mondo, in Giovanni il
regno di Dio si identifica col regno trascendente di Gesu, che si rivela com-
i
piutamente nella sua elevazione alla croce ed alla gloria del Padre; in luogo
1
l
l
La testi mon ianza dei !ibri del Nuovo Testa men to ad u n unico k erygrnalevange lo 319

del « vangelo» si trova qui la categoria della « testimonianza»; perció la

struttura di « vangelo del regno di Dio e di Gesu Cristo cuí si <leve rispon-
dere con la fede » si traduce in quello di « testimonianza della verita, risposta
della fede e promessa della vita» (Gv 20 ,30-31); la testimonianza e anche la
categoría che domina la finale del vangelo di Luca (24, 48 nel contesto di
24 ,44-49) e l'inizio degli Atti (1,8 nel contesto di 1, 1-11).
L' evangelo originario, testimoniato da quasi tutti i libri del NT, e in
particolare dai vangeli e da Paolo, e radícato nell'AT (da cuí e preparato e
che svela il senso dell 'evento originario), evidenzia l' azione salvífica, originaria
e globale, di Dio, che invia il Figlio, che lo risuscita dai morti e che porta
nel mondo il suo regno, la sua potenza salvífica, il tempo escatologico (il kai-
ros) e chíede ad ognuno di rispondervi con la fede e la vita.
Non vi e un evangelo, che dimentichí la storia dí Dio con Israele e
l'AT. Non vi e un evangelo che esalti talmente Gesu da dimemicare che egli
e l'inviato del Padre e porta al Padre. Non vi e un evangelo che esalti la
Chiesa e le sue istituzioni in luogo di Gesu e si sostituisca ali'evento salvifico
originario come fome di salvezza; la Chiesa, nella sua paradosi dell' evangelo
come annuncio e come potenza salvífica di Dio e solo mediatrice di salvezza
per l'uomo. Non vi e evangelo che dímentichi la dimensione futura del regno
di Dio; il suo regno e venuto in Gesu, rna non e ancora compiuto. Ogni
tentativo di costruire kerygmata diversi ed opposti si infrange contro il dato
indiscutibile di una paradosi dell' evangelo, fondata sull'evento salvifico che si
tramanda e che si rende presente (il « gia ») e aperto al futuro (il « non an-
cora»).
I libri del NT testimoniano l' unico evangelo, ma contengono anche la te-
stimonianza dei testimoni che hanno tramandato l' evento salvifico originario e
l'hanno pensato, sviluppato e vissuto. Ma l'unita piu profonda e data dal-
1'evento originario che si e compiuto nella persona di Gesu Cristo, dalla sua
eccedenza di senso che spiega la possibilita di origina re diversi modelli, che
riflettono in modo vario ed omogeneo l' evento salvifico originario e l' evangelo
che lo annuncia e lo contiene. Forse la spiegazione ultima di tale struttura
dell'uníco kerygrna/evangelo sta nel fatto che questo messaggio e un messag-
gio vivente, trasrnesso in una comuníta vivente e che vive di esso nella storía .
Un organismo vivo ha una sua organicita e omogeneita , altrimenti muore.
Cosi e anche del!'evangelo unico, attestato nel NT e nella cornunit a cristiana
che lo continua a vivere, col manito a non falsificarlo.
 328 ]oseph A. Fitzmy er, S.].

"seek first the kingdom [of God] and His righteousnessand all these things
will be given to you in addicion" (Niatt 6:3 3). 1~ Here o~z'.X~ocrú,rr¡
is linked to
entrance into che kingdom. It is not, however, merely an object of human
striving, but involves a gift from God , with which -:-e<::í-:-cr. ,.&,,-:-e<
, "all these
things", will be given in addition. So in chis instance, D~xcuou'J'J'l)aú-:-o;:;is
not used simply as a divine attribute, as in Romans, but concerns rather che
goal of Christian life. It has thus been adapted to che general Matthean copie
of human "righteousness" as a characteristic of Christian life (Matt 5:20),
even though the meaning of six other instances of o~x'.X~ouúv·¡¡ (Matt 3: 15;
5:6,10,20; 6: 1,33; 21:32) may be debated. In any case, the use of otxe<~0uJ-
19
1

vr¡ in Matt 6:33 is somewhat related to the second Pauline meaning of "the
righteousness of God " in 2 Cor 5 :21, even though it obviously does not have
che same nuance.
In ]as l :20, the author utters a sapiencial counsel: "Let every one be
quick to listen , slow to speak, slow to anger, for the anger of a man does
not promote God' s righteousness" (ópyr¡ yap a1,opoc; O~Y.,.<tOO'Ú'rt¡v8e:oü 01J%.
zpyá~c:.ca). Here otxawcrú,,"f)fü:oG seems to denote God's fidelity to what is
right as che norm for human conduce, for human anger blocks righteousness
in the sight of God. 2º This meaning of otxmou6,rr¡ fü:oG clearly differs from
che Pauline usage despite its verbal identity, because it stresses what the ri-
ghteous God demands of human beings, as in Old Testament teaching alrea-
dy noted.
In 2 Pet 1:1 the author writes againsc false teachers of the early second
century A.D., identifying himself as "Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Je-
sus Christ" and addressing "those who have attained a faith equal to ours in
the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (-ro'i:'::; tüÓ-rtµov -~µiv
Aaxoüut'J 7tÍüTLV EV ó~[Link]üÚv·'l, oü 0wG f¡µw,, xcd ú'ú.)"¡'·r,¡,0~' h ¡croG X¡ncr-:oü).
The author seems to be comparing the faith of his addressees understood as
ordinary Christians with that of "apostles" 0:2) and "eye-wimesses" (1:16)
of the Christian movement. TTtcr-:t::;is used in the sense of jides quae creditur

1·~ The phrase -:-,:,üfü:llÜ is not found in all manuscripts. If omined, one could translate
the verse as the RSV has done, "Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness". See B. M .
l\IETZGER, A Textual Commentaryon the Greek N<:iuTestament (2d ed.; Stuttgan: United Bi-
ble Societies, 1994) 15-16.
The passage is derived from "Q" , as the parallel in Luke 12:31 shows. There, however, no
mention is made of "His righteousness", which reveals that this phrase is a Matthean addi-
tion , which suits his emphasis on righreous conduce of human beings.
19
For a useful survey of the debate, see J. REt'MA:'\:'\ , ''Righteousness'' in the Neic Testa•
men/: "Justi/ication'' in the United States Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue (Philadelphia, PA:
Fortress; New York: Paulist, 1982) 124-26, 130-31.
211
!bid., 149-50.
 Unity and diversity o/ concepls in the New Tes/amen/ 329

of later theology, the sum-total of apostolic belief handed on to later genera-

tions. In chis case, che phrase o~[Link],¡•;v·r, ,r.,;:;0wG , despite its verbal identity
with the Pauline phrase, is understood as that of the Savior Jesus Christ , sin-
ce the one article C:-oG) governs both 0s0ü ·í;µw,, and aw-:-r,po~'l-r¡aoü Xpr.-
cr-:-00(compare 2 Pet 1: 11, and note the difference from 1:2) .21 Th e phrase
seems to mean , then, that because of the ~r.x~uoc;i'.i,rr¡of our God and Savior,
Jesus Christ, all ordinary Christians come to share equally in saving apostolic
faith. Hen ce it does not mean faith in the righteousnes s of our God in a
Pauline sense, but rather faith attained on the basis of His ( = Chrisr's ) ri-
ghteousness.
Thus , one can see from chese New Tescament examples how the con-
cept of [Link]úv·t¡
0soü has undergone a variety of nuances , which manifest
the diversity of the concept.

111. The Concept of Church in the New T estament

Many other New Testament concepts could be cited for their unity and
diversity, but the use of zxx ).:t¡GÍo: in the New Testament calls especially for
sorne comment. ' Ex:ú :r¡crl!:x became in time che standard name for the bod y
of Christians, but it is never found in the four Gospels , save in the late Go-
spel according to Matthew ( 16: 18; 18: 17). It is also absent in the early chap-
ters of Acts, where Luke recounts the story of the first Christian community
of Jerusalem. Hen ce zx:lú,r¡crlo:was scarcely among the primitive names used
by Christians to designare their group as distinct from the rest of the J ewish
population of Jerusalem. It first appears in che Luc an comment at the end of
the Ananias and Sapp hira episode , "Great fear carne upon the whole church
and on all those who heard about these things" (Acts 5:11). There , however ,
Luke is employing the name current in his day to designate (by hind sight)
that Jerus alern community, the idyllic existence of which has been shattered
by the deception of Ananias and his wife. Luke ' s comment uses his characce-
ristic hyperbole , o): ,¡ ·í; zxx):r,crr.~ , "the whole church " (cf. Acts 15:22 ).
Othe rwise, che name first appears wirh the beginning of che story about Saul
and the persecution of "the church in Jerusal em" (Acts 8:1). From chen on
it occurs regularly, twenty-nine times in all: not only for the community in
J erusalem (8:3; 11:22; probably 12: 1, 5; 15:4, 22; 18:22), but also for that in
Antioch (11:26; 13:1; 14:27; 15:3), in Lystra and Iconium ( 14:23 ), in Syria
and Cilicia (15:41), in Ephesus (20 :17, 28 ), in unnamed towns (16:4 ), and
throu ghout Judea , Galilee, and Samaria (9 :31 ).

i, See furcher R. E. BRow:-.:,]l'sus God and Man: Modern Btblical Re/lections (Milwaukee,
\Xl1: Bruce , 1967) 22-23 ; J. R i::c;-..1..,:-.::-.:. ·'Righteousness
" (n . 19 above ), 170-73.

1
i
330 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.].

Over against thís líne-up of the occurrences of b:ú:r¡ul'.Z in Accs, one

muse consider thac of its occurence on the lips of Jesus himself. In the first
episode in the Matthean Cospel where it is found ( 16: 166-19) and where
J esus is depicted replying to Peter ' s acknowledgement of him as "the Mes-
siah, the Son of the living God ", J esus says, uÚ EI n s-:-po:;, z'.[Link] -rcxú-tj)
,:-É:-rp~ [Link]µ·í¡crw µou ,r¡v e:xú:t¡o-b:v, "You are Peter , and on chis rock I
will build my church" ( 16: 18). The parallel acknowledgement of Peter in the
earlier Marcan Gospel contains no such statement of Jesus (i\1ark 8:27-30);
nor <loes the Lucan parallel (9: 18-21) have anything similar. 22 This makes it
likely chat the statement uttered by the Matthean Jesus about che founding
of the church belongs to a retrojected narrative derived from the tradition
about a post-resurreccion appearance of Christ to Peter (see Luke 24:346,
"has appeared to Simon"), analogous to that recorded in che still later Go-
spel of John , "Feed my lambs, ... Feed my sheep!" (21: 15-18). 2 > In other
words, the First Evangelist has made use of an understanding of the post-re-
surrection appearance and state\Tient of Christ to Simon Peter as related to
Peter's acknowledgement of Jesus as the Messiah at Caesarea Philippi. 24 It
thus establishes the connection b etween the church of the evangelist' s day
with the ministry of J esus himself.
Consequently , the gradual emergence of the use of e:x.:ú:r,crl!Xin Acts,
though it is scarcely a Lucan creation , seems to reflect the historical growth
in che awareness of early Christians that they were "church". The name
e:xx.A,¡crÍ'.Xwas certainly current among Christians long before Luke began to
associate it with the Paul-story in Acts. Paul' s own abundant use of the na-
me - forty-four times in his undisputed letters 21 - attescs its earlier usage,
at least from A.D. 51 on.
Ar time s Luke speaks of e:xxA·r¡cr[cx. i (Acts 15:41; 16:5), meaning local
Christian communities. It denotes the unity of groups that emerged from
their common faith and worship. Similarly, Luke's use of che distributive
phrase [Link]-r ' hú:r,cr[cx,1 (Acts 14:23; cf. 13: 1) reveals his awareness of

zi See R . BvL T:-.1.-\:'-'.:'-'.,Theology o/ the New Testament (2 vols.; London: SCM, 1952,
1955), 1.37-38; K. L. ScH~IIDT, Theological Dictionary o/ the New Testament, 3. 518-25.
21
See further R. E. BRow.-; et al. (eds.), Peter in the New Testament : A Collaborative
Assessment by Protestan! and Roman Catholic Scholars (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg; New York:
Paulist , 1972) 83-10 l.
N This would likewise explain why Pecer acknowledges Jesus to be not only "che Mes-

siah", as in Mark 8:29, but also "the Son of che living God" (Matt 16: 18), using a cicle dearly
born of posr -resurreccion faich, and hardly a gauge of Peter's attachment to Jesus at Caesarea
Philippi .
' ' Exú ,r,d,-. also occurs fourreen tirnes in che Deute ro-P aulines (Coloss ians, Ephesians,
2

2 Thessalonians ), and only three times in 1 Timoth y. bu e never in Tirus or 2 Tirnochy.

 Unir¡ and diversity o/ concepts in the New Testament 331

bcú:r,a[~ as a name for a particular or local "church". This local sense 1s

found furrher in Acts 8:3; 15:4; 18:22 (of J erusalem); 11:26 ; 14:27; 15:3 (of
Amioch ); and 20: 17 (of Ephesus).
A broader, generic sense, however, is found in Acts 12: 15 (and probably
also in 5: 11; 15:22), and related to such ínstances are the problema tic Lucan
phrases ·r¡ Éxx):r¡ab. ~ t,, 'fapovoAÚµot::; (Acts 8: 1), +,hxkr¡cr(~ -í¡ o0mx t,,
'hp0'JG"XAºÍ¡µ (11 :22), and Y) EXX/1.T¡G[cx.
xcx.0' o),:r,c; , lo JOcx.b:c;xcd. r~ÚLAcx.[cx.::;
1 xcx.t
( 9:31). The first two of rhese expressions may mean the local
:Ecx.µc1.pd7.c;
" church in Jerusalem' ·', but it could also mean "t he church" understood in
the broader, rranscendem sense, as it is embodied "in Jerusalem". For the
latter is the meaning of the third expression, "the church throughout ali of
Judea, Galilee, and Samaria". Her e the singular ÉxxA-y¡[Link] a unir for-
med by the Christian groups in different geographical localities of ancient
Palestine. Finally, the last mention of "church" in Acts even speaks of f¡
Éx:ú·t¡crl~ ToG fü:oü, "the church of God" (Acts 20:28). 26 Since in irs context
it refers to rhe church of Ephesus , the dependent genitive enhances the mea -
[Link] of é:xxAy¡[Link] suggests the divine origin of this Christian body. This
varied usage of é:xx1;r¡crb:in the sense of a local community and of a com-
munity that transcends local boundaries, reveals a Lucan diversity in the one
concept of "church" .
The Pauline usage reveals still greater diversity of this sort. He too em-
j ploys ÉxxA·r,crlcx. for the local congregations of Macedonia, Galatia , Achaia,
and Cenchreae (1 Thess 1:1; Gal 1:2, 22; Phzl 4:15; 1 Cor 4:17; 7:17; 11:18;
14:23, 33, 34; 16: 1, 19; 2 Cor 8: 1, 18, 19, 23, 24; 11:8, 28; 12: 13~ Rom 16: 1,
4, 16, 23), he also speaks ar times of f¡ xCt. , ' [Link]ÉxXA"Y)üÍcx., «che house
27
church" (1 Cor 16: 19; Rom 16:5; Phlm 2), which denotes a specific form of
a local church. Paul , however, often uses hxA,,cr[a in a transcendent sense,
meaning che body of Christians not restrict ed to local boundaries or towns
(Phtl 3:6; 1 Cor 6:4; 14:4, 5, 12, 19, 28, 35). Moreover, he dearly says in
1 Cor 12:27, "You (Corinthian Christians ) are the body of Christ and indivi-
dually members of it", and closely relates the term -í¡ Éxxkr,cr[[Link] that body
in the next verse (12:28). 28 In this tr ascendent sense y¡ [Link]¡[Link] the
unity of the church.
A particular Pauline usage ,calls for comment here, for at times he
speaks of ·r, ÉxxAy¡cr[c.< -:-oG fü:ou, "the church of God" (Gal 1: 13; 1 Cor

'" Or "the church of che Lord" , a variant reading in manuscripts P74 , A, C, D, E, y. 33, etc.
,; The house church is also found in Col 4: 15.
'' This sense becomes even dearer in the Deurero-Paulines (Col 1:18, 24; Eph 1:22; 2:10,
21; 5:2.3, 24, 25, 27 , 29, 32 ).
332 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.f.

10:32; 11: 16[pl.J, 22; 15:9). 2" At first sight, that phrase might seem to deno-
te the universal, transcendent church, but 1 Thess 2: 14 reveals a significant
aspect of it, speaking of cú h.z.i-:r,ub.~ -:-r;;:i 0soG o:[ o6um sv-;~'l 01JO'.X.t'1,,"the
churches of God that are in Judea". That too is the connotation of the plu-
ral use in 1 Cor 11: 16. Moreover, it may be the nuance intended when Paul
speaks of his having persecuted "the church of God" (Gal 1:13; 1 Cor
15:9). In these instances the phrase "church of God" would connote the
mothe r-church of Jerusalem in Judea, che designation for the primitive com-
munity or the first units formed in Christian history and peculiarly linked
through their Jewish roots to the Israelite "congregation" of old (hxkr,ub:
xuplou , Deut 23:2). 30
"The church of God", however, is also used eventually of the Corin-
thian community (1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1). According to L. Cerfaux, this titular
usage does not mean che "universal church" as manifested in Corinth, but is
rather a Pauline way of flattering a community with which he has had such
stormy relations, now that they are being smoothed out. Paul would be ac-
cording the Corinthian community the title that he had previously used of
che mother-churches of Palestine (1 . Cor 10:32). 31 In this extension, however,
one detects the broadening of Paul ' s understanding of sxxk,¡ul:x. , and it is
the seed of Paul' s teaching about rhe universality of the unique Christian
church that transcends local boundaries. For chis reason Paul warned the Co-
rinthians against submitting ordinary matters of dispute to che judgment of
"people who are nothing in the church" ( 1 Cor 6:4).
In all such Pauline passages we detect the Apostle's unique conception
of che body of Christians, who rhrough their fairh in Christ Jesus, manifest
cheir solidarity in ixxA'l)utcx despite che various nuances that he may at times
attribute to it. For Paul sxxt ,·r¡ula is basically a unified concept/ 2 despite che
nuances listed above .

Z'ISee also 1 Tim 3:5 and 3: 15 (" che church of che living God").
io See J. HAt:--z, Ekklesia: Strukturen paulütischer Gemeú1de-Theofogie tmd Gemeinde-
Ordung (BU 9; Regensburg: Pustet , 1972).
11
See L. CERFAüX , The Church in the Theofogy o/ Saint Pauf (New York: H erde r and
Herder, 1959) 113.
'
2
The unified concept of E'/.Y.t
•.:
r,.-,b:is noc to be confused with « che unity of che church »,
and the modero discussion abouc ic, whecher Paul has any idea of che unity of che church
and whecher Gal 2:7-9 an<l the Amioch-lncidenc (Gal 2 :1 1-14) revea) che disunity of che
church (see, e.g., H. D. BETZ , Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in
Gafatia [Hermeneía; Philadelphía , PA: Forcress, 1979) 97-101, esp. 100). In Gal 2:7-9 Paul
admits a distinction berween « che gospel to che uncircumcised » entrusced to him and « the
gospel to che circumcised » entrusted to Pecer, which mighc show a <liversity of nuance in his
use of zu:x:rf)..w,,, bue ín hardlv says anything abour che concepc of hú·r,.-,(:x or abouc che
 Unity and din :rsity o/ con cepts in the New Testam ent 333

In the D eutero -Pauline letters, hxkr¡a[~ is further involved in the

"rnystery of Christ". The barrier berween Jew and Greek has been broken
down , and all hu man beings are said to have been reconciled to God in
Christ's "bod y, the church" (Col 1:17). Th e cosmic Christ is now the head
of the church, which is his body; he is preerninent in ali creation . For God
"has put ali things under his feet and made him the supreme head of the
church, which is bis body, the fullness of him who is filled out in ali" (Eph
1:22-23). Here che church is said to be "che fullness" (¡-;;).r¡pwµ~.dof Christ
(contrast Col 1:19; 2:9). "The church" is given cosmic dimensions, and even
the spirits , which are not members of the church , are said to learn about the
Father 's plan of salvific activity in Christ through it (Eph 3:9-11). Note above
ali the order in the praise given to che Father for his wisdom "through the
church and through Christ Jesus" (Eph 3:21) - the church becornes so im-
portant in the Letter to the Ephesians that it seems to take precedence even
over Christ! Sorne of the notions that are brought together in these Deutero-
Pauline writings , "head " , "body" , and "church ", appeared earlier in unconte-
sted lette rs of Paul (compare 1 Cor 11:3; 12:27-28; Rom 12:5), but now they
are gathered and fashioned imo the full-blown teaching about the church as
che bod y of Christ. }}
Consequemly, whether the writings be Pauline or Deutero- Pauline, one
notes the diversity of nuance associated with the unique concept of Z%XAY¡crh
as che way par excellence of referring to Christians in the New Testarnent as
a group chat can be identified and distinguished from others.
In what precedes I have sought to show how important Ne w Testament
concepts , Messiah, righceousness, and church, have a certain unified meaning ,
bue chat they also have diverse nuances. Sorne of the diversiry comes from
che use in different writers, but sorne of it also is manifested in the way one
and che same author makes use of the one basic concept. The recognition of
such a unity and diversity of concepts in the New Testament has to become
part of che hermeneutical approach that one adopts in imerpreting the wri-
tings of thac T estament , and above all in the synthesizing of its theological
teaching. Even though such a theology should reflect che uniqueness and
onenes s of the basic faith that all the New Testament autho rs share in com-

unity of the church. To read thar passage as involved in the discussion of the latter quesrion
is eisegetical.
11
Despite aU its insistence on rhe unity of whar consritures che church , th e Epi stle ro the
Ephesians never speaks of µb . h ú:r, ,; [ ;c See furthe r P . B ENO IT . « Corps, rete et pléróme
d ans les Ep 1tres d e la Capcivité » , Revue Btblique 63 (1956) 5-44; J. A. Frr z:-.1Y
ER, Paul anti
H is Theology: A Brie/ Sketch (2d ed., Englewoo<l Cliffs, NJ: Prentic e H all, 1989) 95-97.
334 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.f.

mon, it must also reflect the diversity of nuances associated with the concep-
tions of the various authors - of Paul, Luke, or John.
In the three examples that I have used as representative of New Testa-
ment notions that show a unity of conception along with a diversity of nuan-
ce, I have laid out sorne of the ways in which one has to respect the various
strains that have fed into these notions. Sometimes one must reckon with di-
stinct and discrete origins in the Old T estament and resise the temptation to
conflate them in the name of sorne unspecified synthetic mode of thought
supposed to be characteristic of early Jewish Christians. Such respect for a
diversity of nuance also will permit one to reckon properly with the emer-
gence of new nuances in the history of ideas.
 PARTECIPANTI AL SIMPO SIO

P rof. SA v AS AG0URIDES, Atene ( G recia)

Pr of. J EAN NoEL A LETTI S.J., PontificioIstituto Biblico, Ro m a
P rof. Eo MUKD ARENS, HochschuleLuzern (CH )
P rof. ANTONIO ARTOLA ARBIZA C. P ., Universidadde Deusto, B ilbao (Spagna)
Pro f . em. P AUL BEAUCHAMP S .J ., Centre Sevres, París (Fr anc ia)
P rof. K ARL B ECKER S .J ., Pontificia UniversitaGregoriana,R oma
Rev. P rof. Gr ANANTONIO BoRco:-;ovo, Facolta Teologica de!l'Italia Settentrionale,
M ilano (Italia)
Rev. P rof. j. .\[Link], lnstitut PontificalRatisbonne, J erusalem (Israel)
Rev. P rof. T t:L LIO C1TRINI, Facolta Teologicadell'Italia Settentrionale, Milano (Icalia)
S.E. P adre GEORGES CoTT IER O. P ., Teologodella Casa Ponti./icia(Ciml del Vaticano)
P rof. C HRISTOPH D o HMEN, Universiti:itOsnabrück (Germa ní a)
Sr. M. T m :-.10THEA EL LIOTT, R S:\ 1, Saint John Vianney Theological Seminary,
D enver (U .S.A.)
P rof. \ V1LLIA:\-
I R. f ARMER, Universityo/ Dallas (U.S.A.)
S.E. Mo ns. R r:--.:oF rsrc HELLA, PontificiaUniversitaGregonana, Roma
P rof. J osEPH A. F rTZMYER S.J., Georgetown University,Wash ington (U .S .A.)
Mons . P rof. BRUNO F oRTE, FacoltaTeologicade!l'ItaliaMerzdionale, Napo li (I talia)
Rev . D r. H ELi\IUT G ABEL, Rimpart-Maidbronn(G ermania)
Rev. P rof. M ARC GI RARD, Universitédu Québec a Chicoutimi (Canada)
Prof. em. P R.:;.LATj oACHIM G :-,;1LKA,UniversitatMünchen (G erm anía)
P rof . P ROSPER GR ECH O.S .A ., Pontificiolstituto Biblico, Roma
P rof . em. BoxIFACIO H ox 1Ncs O .C. D. , Pontificia UniversitaLateranense, Roma
P rof. E DWARD K ACZYNSKrO.P ., PontificiaUniversitaS. Tommaso d'Aquino, Roma
P rof. KoRBERT L o HFI:--.:K S.J. , Theo!ogische
Hochschule St. Georg.,Frankfurt (Ge rmanía)
Rev. P rof . AxTO:\"IO l\ lr RALLES, PontificiaUniversitade!fo Santa Croce, Roma
Rev. Pr of. MARC O uELLE T, Ponti/iczaUniversitaLateranense, Roma
Madame A :--.::---EiVl ARIE P ELLETIER, Universitéde Marne-"ta-Vallée, P aris (Francia)
Mons . Pr of. R o :MA:'iO P E:"-NA,Pontificia UniversitaLateranense, Roma
Prof. Pr ERRE P1RET S .J ., Institut des Etudes Théologiques,B ruxelles (Belgio)
Rev. Prof. A:--.:CELR ooRIGUEZ Lc5:o , PontificiaUniversitadella Santa Croce, Roma
Prof. em. Mons. LOTHAR RuPPERT , UniversitiitFreihurgim Br. (Germanía )