New Book on Early Christian Monotheism

[maklelan]

Your can see the description here. James McGrath is a phenomenal scholar, and the book looks fascinating. From the publisher's description:

Focusing on the early days of Christianity and its relations to Jewish religion at that time, The Only True God explores the extent to which Christianity began to move in new directions in the earliest period of its history. Surveying New Testament writings and Jewish sources from before and after the rise of Christianity, James F. McGrath argues that even the most developed Christologies in the New Testament fit within the context of first century Jewish "monotheism." In doing so, he pinpoints more precisely when the parting of ways took place over the issue of God's oneness, and he explores philosophical ideas such as "creation out of nothing," which led Jews and Christians to develop differing concepts and definitions about God.

These are topics I've been toying around with in my own research. I'm looking forward to this one. Thoughts?

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

Thoughts?

My first thought is that I'm glad it isn't priced like an EJ Brill book. My second thought is...

I'm not sure I understand this:

Christologies in the New Testament fit within the context of first century Jewish "monotheism."

Is he saying that the NT Christologies do not necessitate/imply the divinity/Godship of Jesus? Or is he saying that Judaism at the time allowed for other divine beings/gods besides the Most High?

The latter, I imagine I could potentially get on board with (although Iâ??m not sure about first century Judaismâ?¦ Iâ??m largely ignorant about Judaism during that time frame), but the former Iâ??m not sure about.

Or maybe thereâ??s something Iâ??m overlooking/misunderstanding altogether.

[juliann]

I'm not sure I understand this:

Is he saying that the NT Christologies do not necessitate/imply the divinity/Godship of Jesus? Or is he saying that Judaism at the time allowed for other divine beings/gods besides the Most High?

Judiasm has traditions of angels (as in Enoch) but I'm not getting this either. Christians wanted to be monothesists and scholars like to play along....but I still think it is ridiculous to call a belief in more than one God, no matter how it is put together, monothesism.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Judiasm has traditions of angels (as in Enoch) but I'm not getting this either. Christians wanted to be monothesists and scholars like to play along....but I still think it is ridiculous to call a belief in more than one God, no matter how it is put together, monothesism.

I agree with this, that is why I have a hard time with certain people that make certain assertions that they are "monotheistic" like the bible teaches. I have argued that no matter how you slice it you will have at least 3 Gods that are One. But there is 3.

However I am not sure how to interpret what is being said here.

[Doctor Steuss]

Judiasm has traditions of angels (as in Enoch) but I'm not getting this either.

[â?¦]

By him putting quotes around "monotheism," I would venture that he is moving along the lines that 1st century Judaism wasn't monotheistic in the sense that we generally think. But, it is my understanding that Judaismâ??s strict monotheism was essentially solidified several centuries prior (again, readily admitting my ignorance concerning 1st century Judaism).

Still not quite getting itâ?¦ Maybe it's a clever marketing ploy (it is making me want the book)

[maklelan]

I'm not sure I understand this:

I imagine he will argue that the orthodoxy of early Judaism that we garnish from the New Testament and Rabbinic literature is actually far removed from the variety of Jewish theology and liturgy practiced in and around Israel before and during NT times. Rabbinic writings vehemently condemn the "Two Powers in Heaven" ideology that was obviously popular during NT times, and so early Jewish ideas about monotheism probably differ greatly from those of the winners of the battle for Jewish orthodoxy. Gabriel's Revelation and the messianism of the Dead Sea Scrolls are two good examples of this heterodoxy, and I imagine he'll incorporate both and other texts and artifacts into this discussion.

[maklelan]

By him putting quotes around "monotheism," I would venture that he is moving along the lines that 1st century Judaism wasn't monotheistic in the sense that we generally think. But, it is my understanding that Judaismâ??s strict monotheism was essentially solidified several centuries prior (again, readily admitting my ignorance concerning 1st century Judaism).

Still not quite getting itâ?¦ Maybe it's a clever marketing ploy (it is making me want the book)

Strictly speaking, ontological monotheism is precluded by all Judeo-Christian theologies. The existence of angels or any other divine beings makes it impossible. The strict monotheism of late pre-exilic and exilic Judaism as more of a monolatrous theology that does not deny the existence of other gods, but does deny their value, relevance, and efficacy. When Isaiah has Yahweh saying, "I am God alone, and there is no other" we have to compare it to Isaiah representing Babylon as claiming she, as a city, "is alone, and there is no other." It doesn't mean Babylon is the only city on the earth. It means Babylon is the only important city. Thus the rhetoric of Isaiah's monotheism doesn't deny the existence of other gods (Isaiah 40 is a big divine council chapter). The same rhetoric is found in Deuteronomy 4 and 32, right alongside mention of the gods of the other nations as subordinates of Yahweh. A good article (by Michael Heiser, no less) is found here.

So when we talk about "strict monotheism" we're talking really about how each community of faith decides to interpret it. Philosophical monotheism was developed by the Greeks and wasn't appropriated by Judaism until the Hellenistic period, but it wasn't fully realized until the Rabbinic Period. Prior to that it was still grappling with divine councils, angels, and the children of God. They were all conflated into angelic roles during the Second Temple Period, and later it was simply decided that angels didn't conflict with "strict monotheism" as Judaism saw it. Christianity adopted that view, but they had their own battle with the whole trinity thing. Somewhere in there we have the "Two Powers" ideology and the idea of theosis looking for a place to stay, but they ultimately lost out thanks to the accession of the Rabbis.

[Doctor Steuss]

As always, thank you brother.