Source: Crispin Fletcher-Louis, Jesus Monotheism: Christological Origins: The Emerging Consensus and Beyond, vol. 1 (Eugene, OR: Whymanity Publishing, 2019), 206–249.
This podcast delves into the origins of Christological devotion in early Christianity, specifically examining the argument by William Horbury that pre-Christian Judaism, already influenced by Greco-Roman ruler cults, provided a foundation for the worship of Jesus. The podcast critiques Horbury's focus on a pervasive royal messianism, arguing instead for the significant, often overlooked, role of priestly messianism in Second Temple Judaism. While acknowledging Horbury's valuable insight into Judaism's potential openness to honoring exalted human figures, the podcast ultimately suggests that existing Jewish traditions alone don't fully explain the unique way early Christians included Jesus within the divine identity, highlighting a need for a new theological framework.
1. The Scholarly Debate on Christological Origins: The source begins by framing the discussion around the scholarly debate regarding the origins of early Christian views about Jesus, particularly his worship and divine status (referred to as Christ devotion or Christological monotheism). It introduces Wilhelm Bousset's older argument that Greco-Roman religiosity influenced the early church after it moved beyond its Jewish roots. It then presents the "emerging consensus" view, which argues that Christ devotion was entirely "birthed in a Palestinian Jewish context," theologically and experientially separate from Greco-Roman pagan worship patterns. According to this consensus, any interaction with Greco-Roman religion in the New Testament, such as the cult of the divine emperor, is purely confrontational, challenging polytheism and idolatry with the worship of the one God revealed in Jesus. This sets the stage for introducing a scholar who challenges this consensus.
2. William Horbury's Challenge to the Consensus: A major portion of the source focuses on the work of William Horbury, who offers an alternative explanation that echoes some aspects of Bousset but differs significantly. Horbury argues that, contrary to the "emerging consensus," Judaism in the Hellenistic and Roman periods was already significantly impacted by encounters with Greco-Roman religious life and thought. This influence, combined with traditional biblical piety, prepared the way for the worship of Jesus as Israel's messiah. Horbury's thesis suggests that Judaism before Christianity was not hermetically sealed off but was an "inclusive monotheism" open to dialogue and accommodation with the wider Greco-Roman world. He points to biblical texts where the king has an exalted, god-like form and argues that Jewish texts retained and developed this language. He further proposes that the rise of transcendental messianism in the Hasmonean and Herodian periods was partly a positive response or emulation of the Hellenistic Ruler Cult and Roman emperor cult, where Jews adopted language of praise, honor, proskynesis, petition, and prayers for their own rulers, allowing these patterns to color their portrayal of the coming royal messiah.
3. Critiques and Limitations of Horbury's Model: While acknowledging Horbury's valuable contribution in highlighting Jewish interaction with Greco-Roman patterns and challenging the idea of a hermetically sealed Judaism, the source extensively critiques his model as an explanation for the origins and shape of "Christological monotheism" and the "full pattern of cultic devotion" given to Jesus. Several key issues are raised: ◦ The depth and nature of Christ devotion, particularly Jesus' identification with Yhwh-Kyrios and full inclusion within the divine identity, are considered unprecedented in pre-Christian Judaism, even in texts Horbury cites as evidence for Jewish ruler veneration. ◦ Texts like the Similitudes of Enoch, while depicting an exalted messiah, are argued to derive their contours from biblical tradition (Daniel 7, Isaiah, Psalms) and engage in polemic against pagan rulers, rather than consciously emulating or borrowing from non-Jewish Ruler Cult practices. ◦ The portrayal of Christ in Philippians 2:6-11, while having aspects comparable to ideal ruler language, goes significantly beyond Jewish precedents (like 1 Maccabees) by presenting Jesus as a fully divine, preexistent being who shares the name of God (Yhwh-Kyrios), an "incarnational shape" not found in Jewish royal messianism influenced by Greco-Roman motifs. ◦ Early Christian expressions of "Christological monotheism" (e.g., in Paul's letters) often lack specific interest in royal messianic notions as central to their high Christology. The relative infrequency of "God" language for Christ in some core texts might even indicate an avoidance of direct comparison with figures like the divine Caesar. ◦ While Jewish texts show some openness to Hellenistic honorific practices for rulers, the praise is often more muted, avoids calling rulers "gods" or "saviors," and lacks the incarnational and divine-identity language applied to Jesus in the New Testament. The "full pattern of Christ devotion" is noted to have similarities to Hellenistic treatment of rulers in terms of focusing on the ruler's personality/achievements and ritual actions, but fundamental differences exist (e.g., Christ cult not added to God's cult, no statues), and ultimately, these similarities don't fully explain the unique claim of Jesus' inclusion in the divine identity.
4. The Importance of High Priestly Messianism: The source introduces the concept of priestly messianism as a significant, often overlooked, aspect of Second Temple Jewish expectations and political theology, presenting it as a counterpoint and complement to Horbury's focus on royal messianism. It argues that recent scholarship highlights the prevalence and importance of the high priesthood, which often held significant civic and cultic authority, sometimes alongside or instead of a king. Evidence is presented from biblical texts (Pentateuch, Zechariah), pre-Maccabean literature (Aramaic Levi Document, Ben Sira), and the Hasmonean period, showing that the high priest was considered an "anointed one" (messiah) with strongly royal characteristics, wearing royal garments and sometimes even taking the title "king." This contrasts with the idea of a separate royal messiah and suggests that for much of the Second Temple period, a "royal priesthood" model was the established ideal, often prioritized over kingship, which is portrayed critically in some biblical texts (e.g., 1 Samuel, Deuteronomy). The source notes that texts often associate "glory" (divine kavod) with the priesthood and their garments, but consistently avoid this language for kings or royal messiahs in a way that suggests shared divine glory. This raises the possibility that priestly messianism, rather than purely royal messianism, might offer a relevant background for New Testament texts that attribute divine glory to Jesus, although this possibility has received little attention in modern scholarship.
5. True Humanity, Israel, and Worship: This topic delves into the biblical concept that the "royal" status and identity of being God's image, with dominion over creation (as originally given to Adam in Genesis 1), were "democratized" and applied to humanity as a whole (Psalm 8) and specifically to Israel as God's chosen people. This "nationalization of royal ideology" is seen in texts where Israel, not just the king, is called "son of God." The source argues that this biblical framework is crucial for understanding how Jews in the Second Temple period viewed the potential for humans, especially representative figures of Israel or true humanity, to receive high honor or even "worshipful" treatment, which might appear to accommodate Greco-Roman patterns of venerating "divine" individuals. The example of Daniel receiving worship from King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:46 is discussed. While Horbury sees this as evidence of messianism accommodating Ruler Cult patterns, the source argues Daniel is worshipped not just as a ruler but as a "divine benefactor," a wise man representing Israelite virtue and embodying Adam's intended role. The literary link between Daniel's worship in chapter 2 and the worship of the "one like a son of man" (associated with true humanity and Israel) in Daniel 7 is highlighted, suggesting that such "worship" of a human or humanlike figure is presented as acceptable within a distinctively Jewish theological framework, possibly anticipating the eschatological worship of the people of God's representative. This Jewish theological anthropology, where representative figures embodying the ideal human or Israelite status are shown receiving high honors, is argued to be a distinct phenomenon from, though sometimes intersecting with, royal messianism and ruler cult emulation, and it presents a challenge to understanding how such practices could be reconciled with strict Jewish monotheism. Ultimately, while acknowledging Jewish openness to according high honors to individuals, the source concludes that this phenomenon is still distinct from the full inclusion of Jesus within the divine identity as confessed in early Christianity.
How did the early church's understanding of Jesus as Messiah originate, according to the "emerging consensus" in New Testament scholarship?
The emerging consensus posits that early Christ devotion was born within a purely Palestinian Jewish context, hermetically sealed off from Greco-Roman religious patterns. Interactions with Greco-Roman religion, like the emperor cult, were seen as challenges to polytheism rather than influences on Christology. This view generally rejects the idea that Greco-Roman religiosity played a constructive role in shaping New Testament Christological material.
What is William Horbury's alternative hypothesis regarding the origins of Christ devotion?