![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jamefmcgrshom-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0664231969\")
\u00a0(SPCK\/Westminster John Knox, 2010) ![\"Did](\"http:\/\/ws.amazon.com\/widgets\/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=0664231969&tag=jamefmcgrshom-20\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jamefmcgrshom-20&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0664231969\")
I probably should preface this post with a disclaimer that this should not be thought of as your typical review. I studied for my PhD under Jimmy Dunn. He is my Doktorvater, mentor and friend. I also didn\u2019t receive this book from the publisher \u2013 in fact, it is still\u00a0not available in the United States, and I ordered my copy from the UK so as to have a chance to read it sooner. I also had a chance to read an earlier draft of\u00a0Did The First Christians Worship Jesus?<\/a><\/em>\u00a0a couple of years ago and to discuss it with Jimmy and another of his former students. And when my copy of the published book arrived, I\u00a0found that my own recent book on monotheism and Christology (The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context<\/em><\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jamefmcgrshom-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=025203418X\")
)\u00a0was cited in the notes on numerous occasions. And so I make no claim to being an \u201cimpartial observer\u201d but am rather an engaged participant in the ongoing conversation about monotheism, Christology, and worship that encompasses Jimmy, many of his former students, and a wider community of scholars as well as\u00a0many others interested in the subject.<\/p>\nThe book begins with an acknowledgment of two principal dialogue partners: Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham, both of whom have published numerous studies on this topic, interacting with Dunn and with one another. In posing the question that is the title of the book, and identifying his key conversation partners, Dunn also emphasizes that mere citation of texts will not answer the questions, and that\u00a0his scholarly interaction with others is\u00a0less a matter of\u00a0\u201cagreement\u201d or \u201cdisagreement\u201d than one of nuance and an attempt to bring further precision and clarity. The introduction ends with an identification of key sub-questions that will be the focus of the chapters in the remainder of the book. <\/p>\n
Chapter 1 is on the language of worship, and addresses the breadth of the term \u201cworship\u201d in English as well as the range of meanings of relevant terms in Greek. Prostration (one of the key words for \u201cworship\u201d in the New Testament) indicated a recognition of superiority and dependence on the one to whom the gesture was being made, but the gesture itself does not consistently indicate a recognition of the divinity<\/em> of the one to whom prostration is offered.\u00a0And when it comes to\u00a0a term\u00a0that more consistently has God as its object, Dunn writes, \u201cIn no case in the New Testament is there talk of offering cultic worship (latreuein<\/em>) to Jesus\u201d (p.13). The chapter also\u00a0touches on doxologies and benedictions, and includes some discussion of the degrees of reverence\/devotion\/veneration found in certain strands of the Christian tradition. At the end of the first chapter, Dunn is already clearly seeking to neither overstate nor downplay evidence \u2013\u00a0and having sought to be balanced, his initial answer to the question posed by the title is \u201c\u2018Generally no\u2019 or \u2018Only occasionally\u2019, or \u2018Only with some reserve'\u201d (p.28).<\/p>\n Chapter 2 focuses on the practice of worship, and here too Dunn emphasizes that the evidence is not as clear cut as we might like. Practices such as prayer, singing, and animal sacrifice are all mentioned, as are sacred times, places and meals. Dunn draws attention to the lack of sacred sites in the New Testament (to the extent even that Jesus\u2019 tomb was not a focus of attention as a destination for pilgrimage in the New Testament literature, as far as we can tell).\u00a0What is more, we have reference\u00a0to priests\u00a0who joined\u00a0the Christian movement, but no reference to priests serving as priests within that context. And once again, \u201cin earliest Christianity, Christ was never understood as the one to whom sacrifice was offered<\/em>, even when the imagery of sacrifice was used symbolically for Christian service\u201d (p.56). Yet Dunn also suggests that Jesus is somehow on \u201cboth sides\u201d of the process of offering his death sacrificially. This chapter ends with the suggestion that the question posted by the book\u2019s title may perhaps be too narrow or even misleading.<\/p>\n Chapter 3 moves onto the topic of monotheism, heavenly mediators and divine agents. Dunn is critical of Bauckham\u2019s rejection of agency as a helpful category on the one hand, and his adoption of identity as somehow preferable (p.61). The figure of the \u201cangel of Yahweh\u201d\u00a0provides an\u00a0example of a figure who \u201cboth was God and was not God\u201d (p. 68). Personified divine attributes like Word and Wisdom, as well as exalted human beings, are discussed. <\/p>\n Chapter 4 is on the Lord Jesus Christ, and begins by returning to that important and yet still too often neglected question of whether Jesus was a monotheist. This is obviously of crucial importance, since it is problematic to\u00a0envision Paul undertaking a significant revision of the very Shema that Jesus affirmed as axiomatic of his own outlook and emphases. <\/p>\n It is in Dunn\u2019s discussion of\u00a0the impression Jesus made on his disciples that I encounter the first points at which I really feel I would nuance things differently \u2013 or on one important point emphatically disagree. The latter relates to this: The Aramaic abba<\/em> does not mean \u201cdaddy,\u201d<\/a> but is simply the Aramaic<\/a> word for \u201cfather\u201d in the\u00a0emphatic state (as the Greek translation of the term in the New Testament indicates clearly). As for nuancing things differently, Dunn states in this chapter that \u201cJohn clearly felt free to attribute to Jesus words and sentiments that Jesus himself probably never uttered while on earth\u201d (p.119). And yet in discussing how Jesus was remembered, Dunn cites the example of Jesus\u2019 authority as depicted in Matthew\u2019s \u201cantitheses\u201d (p.99).\u00a0However, even if the latter incorporate more of Jesus\u2019 own words in something closer to their likely original form, we need to acknowledge that Matthew\u2019s portrait at this point is largely a result of the Gospel author\u2019s redactional activity, which is responsible for setting the sayings of Jesus in comparison and contrast with things found in the Jewish Law. And so it seems to me unwise to make too sharp a contrast between Matthew and John. Both represent impressions of Jesus, based to a greater or lesser extent on recollections about him; and both feel free to be creative with the words they place on Jesus\u2019 lips, once again to a greater or lesser extent. Nevertheless, it seems as though there is a widespread impression of Jesus\u2019 authority in the New Testament, which suggests that Dunn\u2019s larger point still retains its validity.<\/p>\n This chapter also includes treatment of key passages from Paul\u2019s letters, such as Philippians 2:6-11 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. In the latter, Dunn highlights that one God is affirmed, and what is said about the one Lord uses prepositions indicative of agency<\/em> (p.109). And in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 it is felt to be particularly clear that \u201cthe kyrios<\/em> title is not so much a way of identifying<\/em> Jesus with God, as a way of distinguishing<\/em> Jesus from God\u201d (p.110). Dunn regards Hurtado\u2019s case for the Christ-devotion of the New Testament Christians having been controversial in their time as \u201csurprisingly weak\u201d (p.113), and\u00a0draws attention to\u00a0the lack of evidence for such controversy. Also in this chapter are treatments of the Book of Revelation, Jesus as God\/god and Jesus as Last Adam.<\/p>\n The chapter concludes with a focused examination of Bauckham\u2019s language of \u201cdivine identity.\u201d If ancient technical terms for Trinitarian discourse such as persona <\/em>tend to be misunderstood because of the difference of\u00a0meaning between such ancient words in other languages and their nearest English equivalents, \u201cidentity\u201d seems to be vague even in its current English usage (p.142). And so Dunn expresses his reservations, with a succinct summary of his concerns that is worth quoting: \u201cI remain unclear as to the advantages that introducing \u2018divine identity\u2019 as they key term produces, and I remain concerned as to the dimensions and aspects of New Testament christology that the term \u2018identity\u2019 pushes to the side\u201d (p.143). Returning to Paul\u2019s language, to the extent that Jesus shares in the \u201cdivine identity,\u201d Paul\u2019s language (and once again in particular the prepositions he uses)\u00a0suggests that sharing of identity partial, <\/em>with Jesus sharing in\u00a0divine roles of agency<\/em> but not as source <\/em>(p.144). <\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-9057162776200149321?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"