83 PDF

Journal for the Study of the New Testament
http://jnt.sagepub.com Lord Jesus Christ: A Response to Professor Hurtado

Maurice Casey Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2004; 27; 83 DOI: 10.1177/0142064X0402700106 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jnt.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal for the Study of the New Testament can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://jnt.sagepub.com by Mihai Cabau on November 11, 2007 2004 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
[JSNT 27.1 (2004) 83-96] ISSN 0142-064X
Lord Jesus Christ: A Response to Professor Hurtado Maurice Casey

Department of Theology, Nottingham University University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD
maurice.casey@nottingham.ac.uk
The origins and development of New Testament Christology are of central importance to the academic study of Christian origins. This topic also has considerable ramications for the whole question as to what forms of Christian belief should be considered reasonable, and even for the question as to whether some central Christian beliefs should continue to be held at all. It is accordingly a pleasure to welcome Professor Larry Hurtados major new contribution, Lord Jesus Christ.1 This books subtitle, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, indicates its major theme. Hurtado argues that devotion to Jesus, expressed in devotional practices such as worship and prayer, was central to the development of New Testament Christology, and indeed central to Christianity itself. As in previous publications, Hurtado makes particular use of the term binitarian, to indicate early Christian changes in worship of, and belief about, God.2 A relatively brief introduction sets out the main points for discussion, including a critique of the major work that Hurtado hopes to replace,
1. L.W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). 2. See especially L. Hurtado, One God One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (London: SCM Press, 1988; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2nd edn, 1998); Christ-Devotion in the First Two Centuries: Reections and a Proposal, Toronto Journal of Theology 12 (1996), pp. 17-33; The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian Worship, in C.C. Newman, J.R. Davila and G.S. Lewis (eds.), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (JSJSup, 63. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999), pp. 187-213; Pre-70 C.E. Jewish Opposition to Christ-Devotion, JTS 50 (1999), pp. 3558.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX and 15 East 26th Street, Suite 1703, New York, NY 10010, USA.
84
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.1 (2004)
Boussets Kyrios Christos.3 The rst major chapter, Forces and Factors, discusses three major factors essential to Hurtados hypothesis: the nature and effects of Jewish monotheism, both in Judaism itself and in early Christianity, the ministry of Jesus, and religious experience inside and outside the New Testament. These preliminary discussions concern major scholarly views other than those of Hurtado himself, to get straight the foundations of a very large book. The selection of scholarly views to discuss, and Hurtados comments on them, are in general very sane and sensible. The next chapter discusses Early Pauline Christianity. After stressing that Paul maintained his Jewish identity, Hurtado argues that all major facets of Pauline Christology have a Jewish rather than a Gentile background. He notes that Christos is the commonest honoric term in the Pauline epistles. He infers that Christos was used by Christians much earlier than the date of the extant epistles, and he associates it especially with the messianic interpretation of Jesus death and resurrection. He nds the 15 references to Jesus as Gods Son equally important. Jesus divine sonship connotes Jesus special relationship to and favor with God, his royalmessianic status, his unique signicance in Gods plan, and Gods close involvement in Jesus appearance (p. 107). He regards the much commoner Kyrios as very important too. Noting the use of this term in place of the name of God, and the transliterated Aramaic devotional formulamarana tha (p. 110), he suggests that this and the use of Abba for God reect a binitarian devotional pattern originating among Aramaic-speaking Jewish Christians in Judea/Palestine and then promoted among Greekspeaking Pauline churches (p. 111). Other important features include the application to Jesus of Old Testament Kyrios passages, which connote and presuppose the conviction that in some profound way he is directly and uniquely associated with God (p. 112). All this leads up to one of the key sections of this book, Binitarian Worship (pp. 134-53). This carries further the most important aspects of Hurtados previously published work. Here he sees a remarkable overlap in functions between God and Jesus, and in the honoric rhetoric used to refer to them both (p. 134). Correctly noting the lack of controversy about Jesus position reected in the Pauline epistles, he suggests that the epistles indicate that at an astonishingly early point basic convictions about Jesus
3. W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfangen des Christentums bis Irenaeus (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913); ET (from 4th edn, 1965) Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970).
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.
CASEY A Response to Professor Hurtado
85
that amount to treating him as divine had become widely shared in various Christian circles (p. 135). This is the pattern into which he ts the evidence that he has already discussed, together with much more evidence particularly associated with the cultic worship of the exalted Jesus. Here he discusses prayer, cultic confession that Jesus is Lord, baptism in Jesus name, the Lords Supper, hymns, and prophecy. All this is seen from within a frame of reference that regards Jesus as so high that Hurtados closing remarks needed to include his assertion that this is different from the polytheistic pattern. This is also not ditheism. Hurtado supports this with the correct and important observation that Jesus does not receive his own cultus, with his own occasions or holy days (p. 151). Chapter 3, Judean Jewish Christianity, is equally important. Hurtado begins with Pauline Evidence, noting Pauls acquaintance with Cephas, James the Lords brother (Gal. 1.19) and other people from the ministry of Jesus. He also notes the massive evidence of conict between members of the Jerusalem church and the Gentile mission over a range of matters, and this leads to the central point that there is no sign of conict over Christology. The most natural inference is that the pattern of devotional practices [sc. in Pauline Christianity] was not very different from that followed in the Judean circles with which Paul had these contacts (p. 167). Hurtado moves to early traditions embedded in the Pauline epistles, including, for example, 1 Cor. 15.1-7 and 11.23-26, and returning again to maranatha. He discusses early traditions found in Acts, including the titles Christos and Kyrios. Here he considers
an absolutely more stunning move still for early Christians to have taken the biblical expression that means the cultic worship of God, to call upon the name of the Lord [Yahweh], as referring also to cultic acclamation/ invocation of Jesus (Acts 2:21, citing Joel 2:32 [3:5 Heb.]). There can be no doubt that this phrase was adopted to refer to the specic invocation of the name of Jesus, both in corporate worship and in the wider devotional pattern of Christian believers (e.g. baptism, exorcism, healing)(pp. 181-82).
After more detailed consideration of the evidence of this, Hurtado concludes, In short, the most inuential and momentous developments in devotion to Jesus took place in early circles of Judean believers. To their convictions and the fundamental pattern of their piety all subsequent forms of Christianity are debtors (p. 216). Hurtados next two chapters concern Q, which he regards as a single Greek document, and the canonical Gospels in general, with a section on each of the synoptics. Hurtado nds further support for his views in all
86
these documents. For example, he notes that Jesus reply to John the Baptists question uses phrasing from Isaiah to present his miracles as eschatological blessings (Q 7.22), and the climactically placed beatitude in 7.23 makes ones judgement about Jesus the crucial issue (p. 247). Equally, he regards the Markan Jesus as a gure of power and transcendent signicance, with some scenes, such as the two sea-miracle stories as epiphanic scenes, with Jesus pictured in actions deliberately likened to Gods (p. 285). Chapter 6 is entitled Crises and Christology in Johannine Christianity. Hurtado correctly repeats some conventional points about the exceptionally high Christology of John and 1 John. For example, he notes the statement of core faith commitment at Jn 20.30-31, which includes the centrality of faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God (p. 358), and the description of Jesus unique divine sonship as monogens huios (p. 363). He also recognizes that the conict over Christology portrayed in the Gospel reects Jewish criticism of worshipping Jesus as a second god (e.g. p. 403). Points especially characteristic of Hurtado include stressing the importance of Jesus name, which was explicitly invoked as a feature of the prayer practice promoted and observed in Johannine circlesThis ritual use of Jesus name has no known parallel in Jewish tradition of the time, and it amounts to Jesus being treated in devotional practice as itself carrying and representing divine efcacy and signicance (p. 391). He also stresses very strongly the unity of the Father and the Son, noting, for example, Jn 10.30, 38, 14.10-11 and 20 (p. 374). The social background of these developments is very important. Hurtado repeatedly stresses the connections of Johannine features with previous Christian belief and practice. For example, noting the importance of the idea of Jesus preexistence in GJohn, he also notes the Pauline evidence that the idea of Jesus preexistence was circulating among adherents within the rst decades of the Christian movement (pp. 364-65). He also points out the context of controversy in which some of the exposition of Johannine Christology is expounded. He does not, however, offer a proper discussion of the identity of oi9 0Ioudai=oi. Discussing the end of Jn 8, he describes them as the crowd (p. 370). He repeatedly asserts that the group behind the Gospel were Johannine Jewish Christians (e.g. p. 402), and he explicitly discounts inuence from Gentile converts (p. 361). Like Bousset, Hurtado carries his discussion on well into the second century. Chapter 7, Other Early Jesus Books, offers a sane discussion of the Sitz im Leben of extracanonical Gospels. Chapter 8, The Second
87
CenturyImportance and Tributaries, is more programmatic for the rest of the book. Hurtado notes at the beginning a demographic shift that he considers important, namely that the leadership of the Christian movement became more and more dominantly made up of Gentile converts (p. 488). For characterizing the second century, he also introduces (p. 494) the terms radical diversity, which looks forward to his discussion of Valentinus, Marcion and others in ch. 9, and proto-orthodox, which he carries further in his discussion of Proto-orthodox Devotion in ch. 10. The remainder of ch. 8 is taken up with a discussion of First-Century Tributaries, further New Testament documents that fed signicantly into second-century Christianity. Here Hurtado nds further support for his main focus. He notes, for example, the presentation of Christ as the unique divine agent of creation and redemption (p. 507) in Col. 1.15-20. After ch. 9 has correctly played down the importance of some unusual forms of Christianity that have not lasted, Hurtado nds further support for his main points in ch. 10, Proto-orthodox Devotion. He notes, for example, the massive increase in the use of the Old Testament to foreshadow and portray many aspects of the ministry of Jesus, including his pre-existence and deity. The book of Revelation, here considered later than one might have expected, is held to attest the binitarian devotional pattern of earliest Christianity, notably in Rev. 5, where the Lamb receives heavenly worship along with God (Rev. 5:9-14) (p. 592). In the Ascension of Isaiah, the Beloved One (Gk. ho agaptos) is the pre-existent Christ who descends to a miraculous birth (pp. 596-97), and who is properly worshipped with the Father and the Holy Spirit (pp. 598-99). Other evidence brought forward includes Plinys report that Christians chanted hymns to Christ as to a god (p. 606), and Ignatiuss numerous references to Jesus as God (theos) (pp. 637-39). The nal section of the chapter argues that the works of Justin Martyr give us the earliest extant example of a proto-orthodox Christian seriously attempting to articulate an understanding of Jesus as divine in terms he hoped to make comprehensible and even persuasive both to Jewish interlocuters and the wider culture (p. 641). Hurtado nally concludes:
The devotional practice of earliest Christianity was particularly foundational for doctrinal developments Christians were proclaiming and worshiping Jesus, indeed, living and dying for his sake, well before the doctrinal/creedal developments of the second century and thereafter that have received so much attention in histories of Christian tradition Moreover devotion to Jesus as divine erupted suddenly and quickly, not gradually and late, among

88

rst-century circles of followers. More specically, the origins lie in Jewish Christian circles of the earliest years (pp. 649-50).
Taken as a whole, this is a very good book, which makes some important points about early Christology. It is in general well written, and should be regarded as compulsory reading for anyone interested in the origins and development of Christianity during this early period. There are, however, some minor defects to be noted before I express concern about two major aspects of Hurtados proposals. Many scholarly readers should be dismayed by the presentation of New Testament evidence in English rather than Greek, with just the occasional important term transliterated, as in quotations above. Fewer will notice that Hurtado is not fully at home in Aramaic, because this fault is widespread among New Testament scholars, most of whom cannot read the language Jesus spoke. This is especially obvious in the section on son of man (pp. 290-306),4 and presumably explains, for example, why Hurtado does not note the Syriac fragments of the Diatessaron (pp. 580-84, esp. 580 n. 56). However, I call these minor defects deliberately, because I do not think that they affect the presentation of Hurtados main proposals. Accordingly, I turn to Hurtados main points. There are two central matters on account of which I am not altogether convinced by Hurtados main proposals. One is the presentation of the evidence of binitarian devotion to Jesus. This evidence is real and important, but there are points at which Hurtado exaggerates it, and accompanies it with evangelical comments where I would have hoped for analytical ones. The second point is that Hurtado does not associate Christological development with the shift of Christianity from the Jewish to the Gentile world. First, the presentation of the evidence of binitarian devotion to Jesus. Hurtado rightly notes the importance of early Christian interpretation of the Old Testament with reference to Jesus. His description of this as sometimes astonishing (p. 73), however, is not sufciently analytical. He continues, the utterly remarkable allusion to Isaiah 45:23 in Philippians 2:1011 involves nding a reference to Christ as Kyrios as well as God in what is perhaps the most stridently monotheistic passage in the Old Testament!
4. Hurtado relies to a signicant degree on P. Owen and D. Shepherd, Speaking up for Qumran, Dalman and the Son of Man: Was Bar Enasha a Common Term for Man in the Time of Jesus?, JSNT 81 (2001), pp. 81-122. See now P.M. Casey, Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem: A Response to Owen and Shepherd, JSNT 25.1 (2002), pp. 3-32.
89
This passage is indeed important, but utterly remarkable is not a sufciently analytical comment on why it was written as it is. Hurtado continues to speak of inspired insights, suggesting that such experiences were likely in the context of group worship, which included prayer for and expectations of divine revelations (p. 74). This is simply pushing the evidence a bit too far. Hurtado proceeds to describe this as the incorporation of Christ into a binitarian devotional pattern, and suggests that to account for it we have to allow for the generative role of revelatory religious experience. I discuss the term binitarian later. Here the problem with allowing for revelatory religious experience is that these experiences, which surely were important, are not taken into a fully explanatory theory. Again, Hurtado discusses the important term maranaqa at 1 Cor. 16.22, which Paul did not need to translate and which was derived ultimately from the Aramaic )t) )nrm, correctly translated by Hurtado Our Lord, Come! (p. 110).5 In response to Fitzmyers mild comment that this does not explicitly present Jesus as divine, Hurtado describes its use as an unprecedented and momentous innovation in traditional Jewish liturgical practice. He goes on to suggest that its use in the same environment as the Aramaic Abba to address God reects a binitarian devotional pattern originating among Aramaic-speaking Jewish Christians in Judea/Palestine and then promoted among Greek-speaking Pauline churches (p. 110 n. 75, p.111). Here the term binitarian is an exaggerated description of one acclamation of Jesus and one of God, and unprecedented and momentous are not the kind of terms headed for an explanatory theory, even if unprecedented is literally true. There is then the whole section on Binitarian Worship (pp. 134-53). This begins with a remarkable overlap in functions between God and Jesus, which is all the more phenomenal because Pauls letters show it already rather well developed by the 50s, so that at an astonishingly early point Jesus was being treated as divine in various Christian circles (pp. 134-35). Again, these are evangelical rather than analytical categories. Moreover, I remain unhappy about the actual word binitarian, even though Hurtado has continued to clarify his views in the light of previous debate. For example, he now says explicitly that Jesus does not receive his
5. For discussion of this in the light of the most recent research, see P.M. Casey, Monotheism, Worship and Christological Development in the Pauline Churches, in C.C. Newman, J.R. Davila and G.S. Lewis (eds.), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999), pp. 214-33, at 223-25.
90
own cultus, and he puts this forward as evidence that Jesus is not treated as a separate deity (p. 151). I have previously made the point that Jesus does not have anything like a conventional cultus as an objection to Hurtados view of the cultic veneration of Jesus.6 It is now clearer that Hurtados binitarian is so far within a modied Jewish monotheism that my previous comments should not be seen as an objection to what he now wishes to maintain. Nonetheless, binitarian is modelled so clearly on the traditional trinitarian that it still seems to me to be an exaggerated description of the position of Jesus in Paul.7 Hurtado contends that the phenomena of Jesusdevotion reected in Pauls letters are to be assessed collectively, and amount to a constellation or pattern of devotional practice, a programmatic treatment of Jesus as recipient of cultic devotion (p. 137). This is an entirely fair criterion, but it still seems to me that the evidence of devotion to Jesus when so assessed is so much less than evidence of devotion to God the Father that so strong a term as binitarian is not justied. For example, under Invocation and Confession of Jesus, Hurtado draws attention to marana tha, to the confession Ku/rioj 0Ihsou=j, and to calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1.2) (pp. 140-42). This evidence is all of genuine importance, but it still is not fully parallel to the worship of God the Father. Accordingly, while the whole of the evidence brought forward by Hurtado may reasonably be seen as adding up to a modication of Jewish monotheism, binitarian is surely too strong a word. Evangelical descriptions within a framework of binitarian worship also have problems over uniqueness. For example, Hurtado comments on baptism in the name of Jesus, This is both remarkable and unparalleled in the context of Jewish tradition of the Roman period (p. 144). It was partly to avoid exaggeration of unique features of Christological development that I devoted a whole chapter of From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God to messianic and intermediary gures in Second Temple Judaism.8 I pointed
6. P.M. Casey, Christology and the Legitimating Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament, in S. Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J.L. North (JSNTSup, 189. Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press, 2000), pp. 42-64, at 53-54. 7. See further Casey, Monotheism, Worship and Christological Development in the Pauline Churches. 8. P.M. Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology (The Edward Cadbury Lectures at the University of Birmingham, 198586; Cambridge: James Clarke; Louisville, KY: Westminster/
91
out the very varied ways in which these gures were developed, and that the only detectable limitation was that of Jewish monotheism. In particular, there was no bar against taking over features of God. For example, at Wis. 1011, the major events of salvation history are attributed to Wisdom, rather than to God, while in the Similitudes of Enoch Gods function as the eschatological judge has been taken over by Enoch. It is this massive exibility within a framework of commitment to Jewish monotheism that explains how devotion to Jesus could be expressed with genuinely new and unique features. The early date that Hurtado proposes for binitarian worship is also problematical. He notes a number of old traditions, such as, for example, 1 Cor. 15.1-7, which must go back to the Jerusalem church, just as he says (pp. 168-71). But then we run into the same problem as before, that it does not present the full deity of Jesus. Nor can we tell with certainty how much of it has been rewritten. Christs death for our sins was very important to the Pauline churches: we have no control over how early that interpretation of Jesus death was originally produced, nor how early it became really important. Hurtado makes the central point that there is no evidence of controversy over Christology in the Pauline epistles, which have massive evidence of controversy over other matters. He infers in the rst place that Jewish Christians who visited the Gentile churches did not object to the patterns of Christ-devotion they found there (pp. 165-67). That is reasonable, true and important. Hurtado then goes further: The most natural inference is that the pattern of devotional practices was not very different from that followed in the Judean circles with which Paul had these contacts (p. 167). Jewish Christians for whom Jesus was the central gure might, however, have been entirely happy for Gentile Christians to have more extended beliefs about Jesus than they themselves needed, and to have beliefs in such matters as the forgiveness of sins through Jesus death incorporated into Gentile Christian services, even though Jewish Christians themselves may have believed they were forgiven when they repented. Once again, there is a lot of truth in what Hurtado says, but he has pushed the evidence a bit too far. There are similar problems with Hurtados treatment of other documents later in his book. For example, Hurtado concludes his discussion of Marks story of Jesus walking on the sea (Mk 6.47-52) by accepting Marcuss
John Knox, 1991), ch. 6, taken up again in Casey, Christology and the Legitimating Use of the Old Testament, p. 54; Monotheism, Worship and Christological Development in the Pauline Churches, p. 225.
92
verdict that the overwhelming impact made by our narrative is an impression of Jesus divinity (p. 286).9 Yet this is exactly what Mark does not say, as Hurtado almost recognizes in observing that Mark does not explicitly claim divinity for Jesus. At points like this, it does not help that Hurtado seems to have no concept of a boundary marker. He has a very clear grasp of the exible nature of Jewish monotheism, which permitted the extensive Christological development much of which he describes so well, but he does not seem to appreciate that there is a point at which Jewish monotheism may be perceived to be breached. Similar comments apply, for example, to his treatment of the book of Revelation, where he claims that the Lamb receives heavenly worship along with God (5:914) (p. 592). Here too the evidence of Jesus extremely high position is important, and may reasonably be seen as part of early Christian modication of Jewish monotheism. At the same time, the term worship is simply pushing the evidence a bit too far. It is equally important that the lamb is carefully distinguished from God, and is not said to be divine. The other major problem with this book is clearest in its treatment of the Johannine community, to which I therefore turn next. In the whole of ch. 6, Crises and Christology in Johannine Christianity, Hurtado does not offer any proper discussion of the identity of oi9 0Ioudai=oi. There ought to be no doubt that this group were the Jews. Discussing the end of Jn 8, Hurtado describes them as the crowd (p. 370), thereby missing the correlation between their Jewish identity and their opposition to the deity of Jesus. He repeatedly asserts that the group behind the Gospel were Johannine Jewish Christians (e.g. p. 402). But people who identify their enemies as the Jews cannot have anything resembling normal Jewish self-identication. To be accurate in our descriptions of peoples identity, we should respect their self-identication. Therefore we should not dene this group as Jewish in any simple sense, as Hurtado has done. As a result of this, Hurtado misses the correlation between the deity of Jesus and the Gentile self-identication of the Johannine community. I discussed these matters of central importance in Is Johns Gospel True?, published as long ago as 1996.10 Hurtado leaves it out, thereby avoiding a major challenge to his approach to the Johannine community. I also noted the straightforward evidence of the presence of Gentiles in the Johannine community, a consequence of a successful Gentile mission that
9. This is a quotation from J. Marcus, Mark 8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 432. 10. P.M. Casey, Is Johns Gospel True? (London: Routledge, 1996).
93
had been in progress for some two generations.11 Hurtado seeks to discount inuence from Gentile converts, and at this point he responds to my earlier work with regrettably inaccurate comments, supposing that I regard an ill-dened Gentile mentality as the factor that caused the elevated Christology of GJohn, and arguing that I have distorted Johannine Christology in portraying the Johannine Jesus as a second deity (p. 361, with n. 23).12 I did not dene Gentile mentality at all, because this is not an analytical tool that I used. I used concepts of Jewish and Gentile identity, and I used an eight-point scale to measure Jewish identity, Gentile identity and assimilation in both directions. I tracked out the whole of the development of New Testament Christology, beginning with the ministry of the historical Jesus, who was a sufciently powerful gure to be a genuine cause of subsequent Christological development. I moved through the Gentile mission, measuring with some care the well-known fact that when Gentiles became Christians they did not become Jews. I argued that this was another major cause of Christological development. Looking towards the end of this process, I suggested that in passages such as Phil. 2.6-11 Jesus is very nearly of divine status. What is required to turn him into a full deity? Nothing more, or less, than sympathetic Gentile perception.13 It is only at the stage of this shift that I saw the exercise of Gentile perception, and I did explain what I meant by that, for I discussed the way in which Jesus (only!) might be perceived as fully divine when the restraining factor of Jewish monotheism was removed.14 I did not however portray the Johannine Jesus as a second deity. On the contrary, I commented:
Having raised Jesus to full deity, the Johannine community had a logical option of believing in two Gods. In that case, however, they would have breached monotheism in their own eyes, because this is expressed in the sacred text and elsewhere with formulations such as the LORD is one (Deut 6.4). John 10.30 shows them opting for what became a standard Christian paradox, that Jesus is God, he is not the Father, but, nonetheless, God is one.15
11. Casey, Is Johns Gospel True?, pp. 112-15. 12. Hurtado refers to From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, p. 36 and, e.g., pp. 138, 144, 156. 13. Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, p. 114. 14. Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, pp. 114-17, 142-43, 144-46, 15659. 15. Casey, Is Johns Gospel True?, p. 55.
94
What I did do was to point out that the position of Jesus as fully God breaches Jewish monotheism, and I used the correlation of the presentation of the full deity of Jesus with accusations of blasphemy from the Jews as evidence of this.16 Hurtado himself comes so close to this position that he should hardly be objecting to it, supposing, for example, that we should understand the Jewish opposition to Jesus in 5.16-18 as reecting hostile steps taken against Jewish Christians, because they were perceived to be worshiping Jesus as a second god (p. 403, cf. pp. 394, 406). Yet here again Hurtado refers to the Johannine community as Jewish Christians, which underlines the fact that he does not offer a proper discussion of their identity. This is also another point at which Hurtado might have made fruitful use of the concept of a boundary marker. Hurtado does not offer proper analysis of the identity of Christians in other communities either. For example, he begins his treatment of Paul with very strong stress on his Jewish religious background and its continuing effect in his Christian beliefs and life (p. 87). He also regards Pauls identication of himself as a Jew as important (p. 88). He does note the existence of Gentile converts, but he relates them closely to Jewish attitudes and material (e.g. p. 89). His section on the Gentile mission even gets as far as realizing that it was Pauls mission to the Gentiles that required him to develop the rich implications of Christs redemptive death that he presents in passages such as Galatians 3:1-29 and Romans 3:9-31 (p. 97). Yet he still does not discuss whether the predominance of Gentiles in the Pauline churches generally produced a need for further Christological development. Indeed, he declares that in the time of Paul the overwhelming majority of Christian adherents, and nearly all the earliest Christian leaders, were Jewish (p. 87). This is true of the leaders. But it is hardly a probable view of most Christian adherents, and it is surely important that Paul ran a highly successful ministry to the Gentiles, and that he and other Jewish evangelists had to assimilate signicantly when conducting the Gentile mission. Again, Hurtado begins his section on the Epistle to the Hebrews by correctly noting the authors profound concern for the continued Christian commitment of the addressees (pp. 497-98). He draws attention to the rich Jewish heritage on which the epistle draws (p. 499), and this theme runs through his excellent discussion of the Christology of this document. This includes extensive references to the importance of Jesus death. Yet Hurtado does not reect on whether the community still observed the Law,
16. E.g. Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, pp. 23-24, 37-38.
95
and whether perhaps this was a factor in their high Christology, including the central importance of Jesus death.17 These two major problems, the evangelical exaggeration of binitarian worship in the earliest period, and the absence of analysis of the social identity of Christian communities, appear to be related. It seems to be partly because Hurtado regards binitarian worship as an early Jewish Christian phenomenon that he does not regard the correlation between the deity of Jesus and opposition from oi9 0Ioudai=oi as a major feature of the primary evidence. Yet even if he were right about the early date of binitarian worship, the opposition of oi9 0Ioudai=oi in the Fourth Gospel is presented with such vigour that his theory should surely be combined with explanation of it. I hope that these two criticisms will not be thought to detract from the value of this outstanding monograph. It is much the best presentation of early Christology from a relatively conventional Christian perspective by a genuinely critical scholar. It deserves to be read by everyone with a serious academic interest in the origins of Christianity in this early period. My criticisms are not intended to cast doubt on its quality, but rather to carry forward a highly necessary debate on a matter of central importance. If Hurtado is right, the central Christian doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity can continue to be honestly held in their present form by people who are fully aware of the Jewish identity of Jesus of Nazareth and of the origins and development of New Testament Christology. If the two major points that I have made are right, this is not the case. I drew out the implications of this some years ago:
The deity of Jesus is however inherently unJewish. The witness of Jewish texts is unvarying: belief that a second being is God involves departure from the Jewish community. Hence the deity of Jesus was deliberately expounded in the Johannine community at the point where it took on Gentile selfidentication, and it occurs together with accusations of blasphemy on the part of the Jews. It follows that the development of New Testament christology cannot be an example of the Holy Spirit guiding the church into all truth. The Holy Spirit could hardly lead the church into an evaluation of the Jesus of history which Jesus in his revelatory ministry could not hold, and which leads directly to the condemnation of the chosen people because they have cherished the revelation of Gods oneness to them.18
17. Cf. Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, pp. 143-46. 18. Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, p. 176.
96
It follows that the questions surrounding the origins and development of New Testament Christology are of fundamental importance, and I hope that the publication of Hurtados excellent monograph will lead to fruitful debate of the major issues that it raises.


83 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

83 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

http://jnt.sagepub.com Lord Jesus Christ: A Response to Professor Hurtado

[JSNT 27.1 (2004) 83-96] ISSN 0142-064X

Lord Jesus Christ: A Response to Professor Hurtado Maurice Casey

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.1 (2004)

CASEY A Response to Professor Hurtado

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.1 (2004)

CASEY A Response to Professor Hurtado

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.1 (2004)

CASEY A Response to Professor Hurtado

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.1 (2004)

CASEY A Response to Professor Hurtado

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.1 (2004)

CASEY A Response to Professor Hurtado

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.1 (2004)

CASEY A Response to Professor Hurtado

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.1 (2004)

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi