Views of Textual Criticism
Some scholars of the Greek New Testament and of the historical Jesus, both liberal and conservative, regard the trinitarian formula as an early Christian elaboration. Biblical scholars from the controversial Jesus Seminar, a group of textual critics (including figures like Robert W. Funk, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Bruce D. Chilton, and John S. Kloppenborg), have said that the whole of Matthew chapter 28 is the result of later editorial work on the Gospels and was never uttered by Jesus or his immediate disciples. Luke Timothy Johnson, a frequent critic of the methodologies of the Jesus Seminar, says in his book The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation that his research affirms a view of Matthew 28:19 as apocryphal.
While denying that Jesus spoke the formula, these scholars acknowledge that the verse does represent Trinitarian ideas in the early Christian church. Most Christians belong to denominations that recognize church history as at least partially inspired by the Holy Spirit, so they tend to see the formula as valid even if not spoken by Jesus himself. However, the formula does not necessarily endorse the specific Nicene Trinitarian doctrine adopted at the 4th-century Council of Nicea and elaborated upon by later councils, and does not necessarily show that 1st-century Christians believed in the mysterious unity, equality, or co-eternity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Other scholars have challenged the work of the Jesus Seminar, arguing that those working on the project began with a conclusion and worked to justify it through their research and exegesis.
Read more about this topic: Trinitarian Formula
Famous quotes containing the words views and/or criticism:
“Taught from their infancy that beauty is woman’s sceptre, the mind shapes itself to the body, and, roaming round its gilt cage, only seeks to adorn its prison. Men have various employments and pursuits which engage their attention, and give a character to the opening mind; but women, confined to one, and having their thoughts constantly directed to the most insignificant part of themselves, seldom extend their views beyond the triumph of the hour.”
—Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797)
“Homoeopathy is insignificant as an art of healing, but of great value as criticism on the hygeia or medical practice of the time.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)