Source: Excerpts from Richard Bauckham, “Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Essays on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity” (2008).
Early Jewish Monotheism and New Testament Christology.wav
This excerpt addresses the crucial relationship between Second Temple Jewish monotheism and the development of New Testament Christology, arguing that understanding the specific nature of Jewish monotheism in this period is essential for interpreting how early Christians came to view Jesus in relation to God. Bauckham contends that Second Temple Judaism was characterized by a "strict" monotheism focused on the unique identity of God, defined by his sole creation and rule, which allowed for the inclusion of Jesus within this unique divine identity without violating fundamental Jewish monotheistic principles.
The debate surrounding early Christology fundamentally hinges on the relationship between the Jewish monotheistic context of Christian origins and how New Testament authors understood Jesus' connection to God. Questions about Jesus' attributed divinity – the nature and extent of it – are deeply intertwined with understanding Second Temple Judaism's concept of God's uniqueness. Modern scholarly interpretation of New Testament Christology has always been informed by assumptions about Jewish monotheism.
Quote: "The key question this book addresses is the relationship between Jewish monotheism—the Jewish monotheism of the Second Temple period which was the context of Christian origins—and New Testament Christology… How New Testament authors understand the relationship of Jesus to God, how far they attribute some kind of divinity to Jesus, what kind of divinity it is that they attribute to him—such questions are deeply involved with questions about the way Second Temple Judaism understood the uniqueness of God."
"Strict" Monotheism View:
Argues that Second Temple Judaism was strictly monotheistic, making it impossible to attribute real divinity to anyone other than the one God.
From this perspective, any claim of Jesus' divinity would necessitate a radical break from Jewish monotheism. This view tends to minimize the presence of "really divine Christology" within the New Testament texts, emphasizing the Jewish character of early Christianity.
Revisionist Views (Flexible Monotheism):
Propose that Second Temple Judaism was not strictly monotheistic, highlighting the existence of various "intermediary figures" (principal angels, exalted humans, personified divine attributes) with subordinate divine or semi-divine status.
These views suggest a less absolute distinction between God and other reality. Scholars holding these views often seek Jewish precedents and parallels for early Christian Christology, arguing that these intermediary figures provided a framework for understanding Jesus' exalted status within a Jewish context. The flexibility of Jewish monotheism, with its interest in intermediaries, is seen as making high Christology an "intelligibly Jewish development."
Quote (Strict View): "There is, first, the view that Second Temple Judaism was characterized by a ‘strict’ monotheism that made it impossible to attribute real divinity to any figure other than the one God. From this view of Jewish monotheism, some argue that Jesus cannot have been treated as really divine within a Jewish monotheistic context, so that only a radical break with Jewish monotheism could make the attribution of real divinity to Jesus possible."