Bauckham's work on this topic is great because he has left us with a great paper trail that can function as a kind of archaeological dig in which to trace the development of his ideas. If anyone is looking for a topic for a masters thesis in biblical studies, as soon as his summative work on this subject comes out (we've been waiting for 10 years), the circle will be complete. Perhaps it's not in exactly the form he'd planned initially, but alas, we're glad to get it finally.
Here is the paper trail as best I can tell:
"The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity," New Testament Studies 27 (1980-81).
"Jesus, Worship of," Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3 article (1993).
God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Didsbury Lectures, given in 1996, published by Paternoster in 1998, by Eerdmans in 1999). This is the best single resource available at present.
"The Worship of Jesus in Philippians 2:9-11," in Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians 2 (1998).
"The Throne of God and the Worship of God," in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (given as a paper in 1998, published by Brill in 1999)
"Monotheism and Christology in the Gospel of John," in Contours of Christology in the New Testament, Eerdmans, 2002.
"Monotheism and Christology in Hebrews 1," in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (2004)
"Paul's Christology of Divine Identity"
"The Divinity of Jesus," The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, forthcoming from Eerdmans, 2008.
Jesus and the God of Israel, forthcoming book that I think will sum up these different articles and papers in one place.
Here's a very brief summary of the first chapter of God Crucified.
1. There are two main approaches to the question of monotheism and Judaism at the time of Christ:
- The first sees monotheism as an essential characteristic of Judaism of the time.
- The second sees Judaism as blurry at the time, with various angels, exalted patriarchs and such as sharing in God's divinity to varying degrees.
2. Bauckham argues that Jews made a strict distinction between God and the creation, with God's unique identity consisting in two aspects:
- God as sole creator. Bauckham argues strongly that Jewish texts did not allow for any other angel or exalted being to take part in the creation.
- God as sole ruler. Bauckham argues strongly that only God could rule and sit on His throne. Angels and exalted figures did not rule for God. God ruled and they served.
I'm also unclear about the hard exclusion of angels from participating in God's rule. Would not the royal traditions of the OT imply that the messiah would participate in God's rule?
3. Bauckham's attempt to move beyond the distinction between "functional" and "ontic" Christologies. A functional Christology would consider language of Christ's divinity as a matter of him functioning in ways that divinity functions. An ontic Christology would argue that Christ's divinity is a matter of him having a divine nature.
Clearly Christianity came to view Christ's divinity as a matter of his nature. It is less clear, however, that the New Testament was already thinking in such categories. Bauckham suggests a new way of thinking about Christ's divinity that thinks of Christ as becoming part of God's unique identity, understood more in terms of what God does rather than what God is.
I have generally found the way Bauckham describes this concept as ambiguous, but that's because Bauckham is half theologian :) (I have the same reaction to Barth). Surprise, surprise, Bauckham had been reading Hans Frei's The Identity of Jesus Christ.
4. Bauckham divides Jewish intermediary figures into two categories:
- angels and exalted patriarchs--these Bauckham excludes from divine roles in creation or rule
- personifications of divine attributes--figures like God's wisdom and word are part of God's identity, and so can participate in God's creation and rule, but they are part of God's identity.
- pre-NT and already has the highest Christology of the NT, since Christ participates in the essential, unique aspects of God's divinity
- unprecedented within Judaism, although anticipated by figures like wisdom and word
Since God Crucified, Bauckham has spoken of three dimensions of Jewish monotheism (slight shift from the "creation" and "rule" aspects that imply "sole worship" or monolatry):
- creational monotheism--God as sole creator
- eschatological monotheism--God will be the final ruler of all
- cultic monotheism--God alone is worthy of worship
I wonder if some of these distinctions Bauckham makes are somewhat artificially imposed on Jewish literature. It is quite possible that he is thinking more deeply than I have as yet caught on to.
A particular question I have relates to Bauckham's ideas on Jesus inheriting the divine name YHWH. In the Philippian hymn and in Hebrews 1, Jesus receives these divine names at the point of his exaltation to God's right hand, incorporation into God's eschatological monotheism. Bauckham sees no way then that Jesus cannot then also be included within God's creational monotheism, as in 1 Corinthians 8:6.
I am sure that this means something coherent in Bauckham's mind, and I will continue to pursue it. My Dunnian realism, however, leaves me wondering what it could mean in the real world for the real Jesus and ex-Pharisee Paul rather than the esoteric halls of post-liberal theology.
9 comments:
Although I am not a psychologist, psychology holds that a "healthy" identity is necessary for a fully funcioning individual. Borderline Personality Disorder is recognized from identity disfusion and is believed to be the result of emotional, physical and sometimes sexual abuse. Overcontrolling parents who do not allow individual identity for the child do inevidentably damage their childre. Such damage is due to an obessive need to control due to an understanding of conformity to certain rigid rules of behavior due to their own neurosis or their neurotic environments' "standards"...
Jesus' identity was soley within himself. He did not allow others to determine his identity (who he was or what he was to do..he laid his life down freely, no one took it from him). He recognized that it was in only doing what was in line with 'creation order" that his "purpose" was fulfilled. But, at the same time, it must also be affirmed that the Scriptures were written within that understanding of "science"...God's absolute sovereignty over all of the earth and everything on the earth...(the "blessed controller" of all things)...."God" is not the causal agent of all things...some believe today that God is not an agent at all, but the creativity within the universe and leave open to others their belief in God...
But, certainly, the Church should be affirming the individual's development, not on a "standard" but on the individual's individuality (passions, desires, giftings)...
I might add that Boderlines have not been controlled so much as neglected, ignored and invalidated. That also is not healthy in parenting..
Sorry, but I fail to see how all those comments are connected in any way to the issue of Jesus and monotheism.
Hi Ken,
I wonder if you've come across Bauckham's “Biblical Theology and the Problems of Monotheism.” In Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation, edited by C. G. Bartholomew, M. Healy, K. Moller, and R. Parry. Scripture & Hermeneutics Series, 5, 187-232. Carlisle/Grand Rapids: Paternoster/Zondervan, 2004?
If not, may I commend it to you as very helpful for getting a historical feel for understanding how Bauckham sees the development from OT to 1st century Jewish monotheism. Especially, if your view of the historical development of Jewish monotheism is that of an anachronistic Dunnian monist! But that's for another day ;-)
Last year I wrote an essay on Bauckham's understanding of the development of Christology within Jewish monotheism and I wish, as you have suggested, that I had chosen it as my masters thesis rather than trying to get it down into a 4000 word essay! I heartily concur with you about theologians by the way. Yet, I do think Bauckham has grasped something very important when he speaks of "identity", but it needs a lot of elaboration in his projected opus if his paradigm is to make a lasting contribution to understanding monotheism and Christology.
Thanks for this Jonathan. I hadn't seen that piece. I'll get hold of it forthwith...
You're very welcome. I'll look forward to reading your article.
The piece I'm working on will be in a book I'm writing called Hebrews and Ways That Never Parted. My thesis, which seems popular in some circles, very unpopular in others, is that Hebrews is more of a consolation in the absence of a temple than a polemic against reliance on one. The chapter in question argues against Bauckham and Hurtado that divine language of Christ in Hebrews, and indeed in most of the New Testament, is royal language signifying Christ's mediation of God's lordship.
We'll see if I can convince anyone :-)
Jesus' identity in God's lordship over all creation was illustrated in his ethics of inclusion of all people....AND his life of service...in using his giftings for "the glory of God"....
Paul's identity was shaped by the character of Christ as illustrated in Stephen's life. Religion seems to limit or shut off man's "humanity" and seeks to re-invent man to "superman" (or "super apostles").
Character that is fully human is not perfection by a 'standard" (a text), but "perfection" in the context of humanity...Christ was fully man who represented God to those that were outside the camp of religious tradition. Tradition defines the boundaries around culture, but are not ultimate in their revelation of God.
While tradition is limiting in revelation, politics, or the realm of experience, can also limits revelation. God's government should be representative and allow moral agency to individuals that are outside the camp of the powerful.
Reason, which is a gift to each individual, cannot be engaged without a freedom of access to information (education) and an understanding of man's limitation within his particular context, which takes humility.
Education and freedom of access to information is necessary for accountability of the powerful and necessary for the decisions of the least powerful.
Moral education cannot be effective if moral choice is annulled. Freedom is the soil for morality to flourish, otherwise, we have tyranny and oppression.
Nope, still fail to see how all of that in any way relates to the topic in question.
Post a Comment