Bauckham and Christology

I am currently reading a book of Bauckham’s essays, which I hope to review sometime this week, and have found him to be up my ally, so to speak not only on 2nd Temple Judaism (yes, I can hear someone saying now about his ‘flawed’ methodology) and his High Christology. For preperation, please take a gander at this post and discussion:

The “Early High Christology Club” (i.e., Hengel, Hurtado, Bauckham) have argued that 1. Jewish monotheism was strict, 2. In the first twenty-years of the church some momentous developments happened in christology that resulted in Jesus being identified with the God of Israel and incorporated into patterns of religious devotion normally reserved for YHWH. In contrast, scholars such as James Dunn, Maurice Casey, and James Crossley have argued that we have to wait until the Gospel of John (e.g., 1.1, 8.58) before we encounter any christological beliefs in Jesus’ identity that genuinely transgresses what was acceptable in the first century Jewish monotheism . However, some are now contesting whether Johannine christology (from the Gospel and Revelation) really go so far as to include Jesus within the identity of God, or simply place Jesus in an exalted and divine state beside God. I’ve already noted the arguments of A.Y. Collins that the Johannine materials present Jesus as the most eminent created being (was Arius right afterall?)….

Mike Bird then goes on to discuss James McGrath’s book, One True God, with the good Professor chiming in.

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.