For some time, New Testament scholarship has debated the question of when the earliest Christians worshipped Jesus and what exactly that might mean. Wilhelm Bousset put forward the most influential hypothesis of the twentieth century, in which he argued that the worship of Jesus arose in the context of Greco-Roman religion in Paul's churches. The earliest, Aramaic-speaking believers, according to Bousset, did not worship Jesus.
In the post-Holocaust world, however, voices like Krister Stendahl, W. D. Davies, and E. P. Sanders began to undermine long standing views about the nature of "early" Judaism and early Christianity's relationship to it. The ripple effects of their re-examination has drastically impacted the study of Paul (the "new" perspective) and the historical Jesus (the "third" quest). Similarly, it has brought intense scrutiny on Bousset's understanding of the "parting of the ways," so called, between Christianity and Judaism. A slew of studies in the 90s opened what some have called a new religionsgeschichtliche Schule, in which Christian origins are located in relation to early Judaism as the primary influence rather than Greco-Roman religion.
We can largely categorize this diverse body of literature and its voices by the way a given scholar addresses three questions. First, did those who believed Jesus was the messiah worship him in the strictest sense of that term? Secondly, if they did, did this worship stand outside the boundaries of mainstream Jewish monotheism? Finally, if they did, when did this worship first take place and what factors facilitated it?
A first group of contemporary scholars would answer affirmative to the first question and would see the worship of Jesus early in answer to the third. At the same time, however, they understand the "Judaisms" of the time to be so diverse that monotheism was not a strict boundary to be violated. Jewish believers in Jesus would thus have violated monotheism by later standards, but such standards would be anachronistic in relation to the first century. Christian Judaism would simply stand as one of many diverse Jewish options of the day. Such scholars include individuals like Jarl Fossum, Margaret Barker, and Crispin Fletcher-Louis.
A second group of contemporary scholars has attempted to bolster a position that more or less aligns with traditional Christian views. This perspective sees monotheism as an established boundary within Judaism at the time and sees the worship of Jesus as a relatively early phenomenon within the Christian movement. However, they argue that this worship was not a violation of Jewish monotheism. Although the various ways in which they argue for this position differ significantly from one another, we might mention Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham, and N. T. Wright as exponents of this perspective.
The view that prevailed throughout most of the twentieth century affirmed Jewish monotheism and saw the worship of Jesus fairly early (usually with Paul or Hellenistic Christianity). However, it did see the worship of Jesus as a significant departure from Jewish monotheism. Wilhelm Bousset was of course the fountainhead of this perspective and the impact of his work dominated the scholarship of the early and mid-twentieth century.
A final view affirms Jewish monotheism as a relatively fixed boundary, but does not see the worship of Jesus in the fullest sense of that term as a phenomenon of the earliest Christian believers. Rather, it sees the full worship of Jesus as the end of a process of development that only reaches its destination in John and the latest writings of the New Testament, if even then. The best known proponents of this position are James D. G. Dunn and Maurice Casey.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Thanks for this summary, Ken.
As you can probably tell from my last comment (the long one), I am somewhere in between Hurtado and the new religionsgeschichliche schule (let's just say NRS). Like both, I tend to look to Judaism first. But I am not willing to go nearly as far as Fletcher-Louis or Barker (they have many great insights, but I find many of their overall arguments unconvincing), but I am influenced by some the less extreme figures of the so-called "new religionsgeschichliche schule" (or people somewhat associated with it), such as my advisor, Alan Segal. By the way, the term "Judaisms" is not from the new religionsgeschichliche schule (although they use it), but from Jacob Neusner--it is his invention. Basically, the most widespread usage of the term are by followers of Neusner.
Larry Hurtado himself stands very close to this group of scholars (not Fletcher-Louis, but other figures--if one can consider Alan Segal, for example, as part of this school or perhaps close to it in some ways) in the sense that he, too, looks for inspiration from Judaism. And, I must confess, my undergraduate instructor at the other IWU (Illinois Wesleyan University) was a student of Jarl Fossum.
So I, too, tend to see a wide variety of competing ideas circulating in ancient Judaism, but focusing on three main issues--the temple, the torah, and God. Basically, the variety can be seen as varying interpretations of these core elements, highlighting their importance by how much people disagree about them. I hate speaking of "Judaisms," however, because I can't get over the grammatical problem of pluralizing -ism words. It just grates my ears.
I met Segal briefly once at the 98 St. Andrews conference on christological monotheism. He is quite a personality! I can imagine he is a hoot to work with at Columbia. I once heard him read a paper at SBL from a laptop. It's always nice to know that there is someone out there even more last minute than you are :-)
By the way, would your undergraduate advisor have been April Deconick?
Alan is quite a hoot. Class was always an unexpected adventure--you never knew what was going to happen--if you were going to have to spot-read a Greek passage from the NT or un-pointed Hebrew text from Hekhalot literature. Last minute can really keep you on your toes.
And, yes, I worked with April DeConick--she taught me Coptic while I was still an undergraduate.
I guess I don't understand why there are so many viewpoints on this issue. So many people worshiped Jesus even when He was in the flesh on earth...
- Wise men (Mt. 2:11)
- Blind man (John 9:38)
- Thomas the doubter (John 20:28)
- All the disciples (Mt. 14:33; 28:17)
- Little children (Mt. 21:14-16)
And after His ascension...
- His own mother and brothers (Acts 1:14)
- Entire churches (1 Cor. 1:2)
- Angels (Heb. 1:6)
- The Apostle John (Rev. 1:17-18)
Jesus never rebuked or corrected them for worshiping Him when He had the opportunity. He accepted their worship.
So why isn't this issue settled?
Great mini-study, Glen!
There are at least two reasons why these references have not ended the debate for many:
1. The word worship in these cases is generally proskyneo, which was not restricted to the kind of worship you gave to the divine. One "bowed the knee" before a king, for example. The worship the angels give Jesus in Hebrews 1:6 could thus, for example, be analogous to the worship the angels give Adam in the first century BC Life of Adam and Eve.
2. The second factor has more to do with the scholarly than faith domain. The gospels are late first century presentations of Jesus. Not all scholars agree that Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. John's Christology has some striking features when you compare it to the Synoptics.
In scholarly writing, you have to defend the historicity of this or that saying. For example, once we leave evangelical circles, we search long and hard to find someone who sees John as a straightforward historical account.
This is, by the way, why C. S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" argument has a major blind spot. Once we leave evangelical circles, you will search long and hard to find a scholar who thinks Jesus claimed to be God. Perhaps even the majority of non-evangelical scholars do not even think Jesus claimed to be the Messiah!
Ken, you misrepresent me. It may be that you describe Fossum and Barker's positions accurately - I can't speak for them. But I have never said in print or anywhere else what you say in your fourth paragraph. It is true that my position is different from that of Hurtado and Bauckham, but I emphatically insist that that the worship of Jesus is thoroughly in continuity with the shape not just of post-biblical but also biblical monotheism. You seem to imply that I think the worship of Judaism is the product of some kind of divergence within Judaism from biblical faith. I can't think what I have ever said that could be construed that way.
Crispin (Fletcher-Louis)
Hi Crispin--hope you are doing well... been several years!
Ironically, I was looking at some of your work in Stuckenbruck's volume today. I can see that the way you fall in my groupings doesn't capture the nuance of your position very well.
What I basically mean by putting you in that paragraph is that you don't see the worship of Jesus as a big departure from prior Jewish practice in terms of worshiping a human such as a high priest or Adam. I know you think it was unique in relation to a specific individual like Jesus. But you also see the worship of Jesus as real worship, not simply veneration, n'est pas?
Wouldn't you also agree that rabbinic Judaism would have found the kind of worship you see Alexander giving to the high priest heretical?
Please correct me if I this analysis is wrong!
Post a Comment