The "Early High Christology Club" (i.e., Hengel, Hurtado, Bauckham) have argued that 1. Jewish monotheism was strict, 2. In the first twenty-years of the church some momentous developments happened in christology that resulted in Jesus being identified with the God of Israel and incorporated into patterns of religious devotion normally reserved for YHWH. In contrast, scholars such as James Dunn, Maurice Casey, and James Crossley have argued that we have to wait until the Gospel of John (e.g., 1.1, 8.58) before we encounter any christological beliefs in Jesus' identity that genuinely transgresses what was acceptable in the first century Jewish monotheism . However, some are now contesting whether Johannine christology (from the Gospel and Revelation) really go so far as to include Jesus within the identity of God, or simply place Jesus in an exalted and divine state beside God. I've already noted the arguments of A.Y. Collins that the Johannine materials present Jesus as the most eminent created being (was Arius right afterall?). Now James McGrath in his book The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context, contents that:
1. In the Fourth Gospel - "The claim that Jesus was the Messiah, God's supreme agent, was clearly a sticking oint between Christians and non-Christian Jews, and the group whose traditions and experiences are reflected in the Gospel of John are no exception. However, it seems that it was not the things that were said that were in themselves provocative and controversial in the abstract. Rahter, what was really at issue was the fact taht these things were said about Jesus. Similar language applied to an even, or even to a huan being was was universally accepted within Judaism as having been divinely appointed and sent, did not provoke this sort of controversy. This simple fact makes clear that what was at issue was not hte idea of the Logos, nor the idea of a divine agent bearing the divine name, but the claim that Jesus was such a figure" (pp. 68-69).
2. In Revelation: "The inclusion of God's appointed representative alongside God as recipient of praise is noteworthy, but it is neither unique nor without precedent. Such a development was foreseen to a certaiin extent and was perhaps even to be expected as a response to the appearance of God's agent in the realization of his eschatological salvation ... And so the depiction of Christ in the Book of Revelation represents a development within the context of Jewish monotheism rather than a development away from Jewish devotion to the only one God" (p. 76).
Several criticims could be made here (James McGrath and Michael Whitenton had an exchange over this I believe) and I'll leave it to others to examine McGrath's points.
11 comments:
Thanks for mentioning my book. If at some point you find the time, I'd be interested to know what you made of it!
From what I understand so far (having read Hurtado and Bauckham) I draw out two things. It seems that everyone agrees with point 1. Bauckham seems to argue that Jesus' inclusion within the divine identity is "within the context of Jewish monotheism". The point of argument (and I'm guessing here, I haven't read McGrath yet) is over just "how high" early Christology is, and whether or not this divine identity paradigm is even correct. Or have I missed something?
Actually, there is extensive disagreement about point one. There are some who deny that there was anything that deserves the label "monotheism" in first-century Judaism (the term itself is a modern one). Others would affirm that there was a distinctive Jewish allegiance to one God alone, but argue that it left room for the various mediator figures the significance of which Bauckham seeks to downplay.
Yes, I think yourself, Crossley, Bauckham, or Hurtado recognize the inapplicability of 'Enlightenment monotheism' onto the subject (if I remember correctly, Bauckham devotes a chapter to it).
For your case, do you see those intermediary figures as one way Judaism guarded that strict monotheism?
I think that, more than anything else, it was the exclusive sacrificial worship of God Most High that set Judaism apart from other systems of thought which also had a supreme deity and various subordinate figures, but worshipped many of them sacrificially.
That would seem to bring us to a sort of impasse, considering the placement of the Temple in the NT and its destruction in 70AD.
Not entirely. In the Diaspora for instance, it was the refusal to worship any other deity sacrificially that set Jews apart, while relatively few would have participated directly in the Temple cultus in Jerusalem.
On the other hand, it certainly seems to be in the period after the second Jewish revolt, when hope for rebuilding the Temple received a huge setback, that both Jews and Christians began to explore other ways of setting the one God apart from all other entities.
You're not really going to make me summarize the whole book here, are you? :)
Haha not in the least. It is on my wishlist to get, hopefully very soon. Thanks for your participation, I've really enjoyed this topic, especially when it was covered on your blog.
I hope someone who is likely to buy you a Christmas present has been reading this exchange! :)
If and when you manage to read it (you can always recommend your local library get it, too), please do let me know what you thought of its argument and conclusions!
You seem to have ignored the work of Alan Segal `Two Powers in Heaven` etc. who suggests a more nuanced understanding of God existed in 1 C.E. Any comments?
Andrew, I'm not sure to whom your comment was addressed, but my book has a chapter on the "two powers" material in the Rabbinic literature, with detailed interaction with Segal's claims regarding the dating and character of the controversy.
Post a Comment