Monday, February 7, 2011

An Old Dog Looking for a New Book

To answer the title question effectively requires more than the citing of a few texts; we must first acknowledge that the way to the answer is more difficult than it appears and recognize that the answer may be less straightforward than many would like. The author raises some fascinating yet vexing questions: What is worship? Is the fact that worship is offered to God (or a god) what defines him (or her) as "G/god?" What does the act of worship actually involve? The conviction that God exalted Jesus to his right hand obviously is central to Christian recognition of the divine status of Jesus. But what did that mean for the first Christians as they sought to reconcile God's status and that of the human Jesus? Perhaps the worship of Jesus was not an alternative to worship of God but another way of worshiping God. The questions are challenging but readers are ably guided by James Dunn, one of the world's top New Testament scholars.

From the product description of:
Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?

I'm getting towards the end of A Complete Idiot's Guide to the Talmud (which is really good, by the way) and am in search of my next book to read. I suppose I've got enough books around the house to choose from, but some of the comments from my recent blog post The Deity Problem piqued my interest. A number of books specifically on the topic of the deity of the Jewish Messiah were suggested. The question is, can I "trust" them?

I don't mean "trust" in that Christian scholars would deliberately lie to people in their books about the evidence supporting Jesus being God (what else would they say?), but "trust" in the sense that, already having reached a conclusion long before they ever did a bit of research, can I really know that their conclusions on "the deity issue" will be completely unbiased and based only on the Biblical record? Also, since these writers are considered "New Testament" experts and scholars, will they even take the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings (the Old Testament, which makes up the first two-thirds of the Bible) into consideration?

The authors could have saved themselves a lot of writing by just inserting one small sentence on a single page of their books saying, "Jesus is God", and that would be the end of it. The world of Christianity (at least as far as I know) universally agrees that Jesus is God; end of story. No ifs, ands, or buts. No questions asked (at least out loud where others might hear them).

Since Christianity takes the matter of Jesus being God on faith (and pretty much for granted), what's the point of research, evidence, discussion and so forth? Why not just accept that Jesus is God (somehow) and let sleeping dogs (or old dogs like me) lie?

Frankly, if the deity of Christ is a settled matter in the church, I really don't know why any scholars, researchers, and other men of letters (none of the authors are women, so I can safely say that last bit) even write such texts? It certainly isn't as an evangelizing tool, since most non-Christians won't read these books and even if they did, a non-believer is unlikely to be convinced that Jesus is Lord and Savior from an academic work.

All that said, I still find myself pondering a number of titles and wondering if I should lay down my hard earned cash to purchase one or more of these books. Here's the short list:
All three books have good reviews at Amazon, but all of the favorable reviewers are Christians. I did find a poor review of one of the books, but the reviewer wasn't a Christian (see a pattern?). All of the authors are considered very well educated men in their field and have excellent reputations as New Testament scholars. All of their books were written for an audience that doesn't need to be convinced of the deity of Jesus since the audience has already arrived at the desired conclusion defined by the authors.

With all of that bias going on, what can I hope to learn except something like, "Yep, Jesus is God"...?

This dilemma has a parallel in another idea I had recently (but one that I'll probably have to give up) been considering. I've been thinking about taking some Bible or Religious classes, either online or through one of the schools in my area. However, the schools, being Christian schools and based on specific denominations, will carry the biases and theologies of those organizations. The only thing I'll "learn" is how a particular sub-set of Christianity understands the Bible.

For instance, Northwest Nazarene University has a very good reputation, at least locally, in a number of academic areas. They offer different religous programs as well, but when looking at the summary of some of the classes involved, they are very much biased towards how Nazarenes look at the Bible. This isn't exactly a shock, but I attended a Nazarene church for a number of years back when I first became a believer and sadly, they didn't leave a very good impression on me.

See where I'm coming from? What makes it worse, is most of the reading I've done (though not all of it) in relation to religion and faith over the past ten years or so, has either been from "Messianic" or Jewish source material. I suppose I'm just as biased as the Christian books and schools I'm considering but since the Messianic world is going to become an unavailable option for me in a few months, I have to consider alternatives.

Reading a book won't kill me and it's a lot less expensive and time consuming than enrolling in a university class. With that in mind, if you had to choose one of the books in the list above, which one would you pick and why?

The comments section is now open. Let me know what you think.

Thanks.


The road is long and often, we travel in the dark...

31 comments:

Yahnatan said...

James,

All three of those books are on my list (or at least my interest list)--I plan to read the Baukham book within the next few months.

And though they're both Christian New Testament scholars, you might still be able to see the traditional view tested somewhat in Larry Hurtado's friendly debate with James McGrath (via their blogs) over the Jesus-worship question. Perhaps it'll encourage you to buy both of their books?

Seth said...

James,

I think you have a lot of pre-conceived notions of Christians and New Testament scholars as well. Do you really know that they had their minds made up before embarking on this field of study? The proof is in the research, so give them a chance before you write them off.

I would heartily recommend Bauckham. Yes, he extensively references the Tanach and extra-biblical Jewish sources. He places a high priority on the absolute uniqueness of God, which Dunn ultimately diminishes in his works.

I would add to your list "Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ" by Bowman and Komoszewski. In fact, I would recommend this book as your starting point. Thorough, easy to read, and extensive footnotes for digging into other resources.

May God guide you in your studies.

James said...

I'd forgotten that Hurtado had a blog. I did review a ten minute video of him, apparently summarizing the main points of his book.

Getting ready for bed now (4 a.m. comes really early around here). I'll have a look tomorrow.

Thanks.

James said...

I think you have a lot of pre-conceived notions of Christians and New Testament scholars as well. Do you really know that they had their minds made up before embarking on this field of study? The proof is in the research, so give them a chance before you write them off.

I wouldn't be asking for suggestions if I were simply writing them off, Seth. I also questioned my own biases in the body of the blog post, so I realize that I'm hardly objective.

As far as why I'd believe the researchers may have made up their minds before doing their "homework", isn't a basic belief in the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) a basic tenet of Christianity? As my previous "Deity" blog post illustrated, if anyone questions the idea that Jesus is God within a Christian context, such as a church, it is seen as a lack of faith. Therefore, I'd have to conclude that most Christians accept that Jesus is God without evidence or research.

The interesting question is, what would happen if a Christian scholar, who on the outset, believes Jesus if God, were to determine from his or her research that Jesus was unique but not literally "God"? How would faith and ethical research practices interact?

Seth said...

Just because it is a basic tenet (probably THE tenent) of Christianity, does not mean people accept it uncritically. Obviously, there are perhaps some who do. But I see no reason to believe that NT scholars would base their entire lives' work off of an unexamined bias. Grant them the benefit of the doubt that they are are intellectually honest enough to recant their perspectives if their research led them in that direction.

Maybe they don't believe in the alternative (that Jesus is not Deity) because it lacks biblical support?

James said...

In my previous church experience, everyone seemed to take it for granted that Jesus was God. As a new Christian (back then), I couldn't really wrap my brain about the Trinity and how God could be here in the flesh *and* in Heaven as the infinite Creator of the Universe. Actually, after 15 or so years as a believer, I am (obviously) still having trouble making sense of it all. Sometimes I admire those Christians who seem to have it all sorted out and have no questions left to ask.

Don't let my comments about Christian scholars and researchers get you too upset. I don't believe that there are *any* completely unbiased researchers in any field of study anywhere. That doesn't discount research as a discipline, but it's something every honest researcher must acknowledge about himself or herself as they progress through their investigation. We invariably bring aspects of our personality into whatever we look into and in fact, the very decision to become a researcher involves who we are and how we conceptualize the universe around us.

I'm not discounting the deity of Christ out of hand, but neither am I accepting it "just because". I also am not dismissing research just because it's "Christian" but again, I'm not going to assume that Christian researchers are always universally accurate and correct in their findings, just because they are Christians.

I have faith in the infallibility of God, but that faith doesn't necessarily extend to His followers. I think I tried to say that a few days ago. That said, I'm appealing to His followers in my current pursuit, so I can't be completely cynical, either.

Gene Shlomovich said...

I am not afraid to venture into areas where I am forced to become a "Berean". I am not looking to justify any conclusion - just looking for truth. I am looking to bolster my faith with truth. No, it's not very comfortable to look into areas one avoided before - but it's intellectually honest. Supersessionism, for example, has been a deeply ingrained fixture in Christianity for almost two thousand years. It's a world view of even the most gifted of Christian theologians - it colors everything they produce. I am saying that everything they write is bad because of this one belief, but they certainly have come to take this belief for granted and it reflects in their scholarship. Only recently have there been a few bright stars who have challenged it.

R. Stuart Dauermannhas has a good article about ingrained worldviews (in his example, Supersessionism):

http://www.mjti.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=A-Word-About-Worldview-and-Supersessionism-146.html&Itemid=

Gene Shlomovich said...

"I am saying that everything they write is bad "

Meant to say: "I am NOT saying.."

James said...

Hi Gene. Nice to see you back on the blogs.

Actually, I forgot to mention just this point in my blog and in earlier comments. We all have our viewpoints which are based on a certain set of "givens" and those "givens" determine our perspective on the universe around us (think "rose-colored glasses"). No group is immune from this because human beings can never be completely objective. The only way we have to understand our universe is from within a context, thus the context imposes its set of rules on how we see the universe.

Judaism has a context as well which, by and large, prevents them from considering the possibility of Jesus (Yeshua) being the Messiah. I'm not being critical in saying this, anymore than I was being critical of Christian scholarship in my prior comments. It's a fact of our humanity. Most of us, once we establish a worldview that defines us, hesitate to explore the universe outside of that view. It feels uncomfortable and even a little dangerous.

However, I think we can learn more about ourselves and about God if we occasionally take a few risks and look outside the box that we live in. The danger is going overboard and completely abandoning our convictions, but we should still challenge those convictions to make sure they are solid (and if they aren't we have a problem).

As a side comment, I've checked and it's too bad my local library system doesn't carry any of the books we've discussed so far.

benicho said...

"But I see no reason to believe that NT scholars would base their entire lives' work off of an unexamined bias. Grant them the benefit of the doubt that they are are intellectually honest enough to recant their perspectives if their research led them in that direction."

Not that I disagree with you, but I'm sure I could conjure up a long list of Christians who based their lifelong studies off of evangelical bias. That's the whole problem James is having here, so much work is written based upon replacement theology that it's hard to cut through all the nonsense, hence why he says he'd wish some would just put "Jesus is God" so he won't have to read through the whole thing.

I have the same issue as James when reading books by NT authors. Have a hard time getting into scholarly books unless it's an author I know and have heard speak, or read before. I typically just stick to historical pieces or biblical texts.

Speaking of some of the most well known and revered Christian scholars (and church fathers) were people like Justin the martyr, John Chrysostom, Tertullian and of course Martin Luther. All of which were anti-Jewish. The christian church set it's foundation on their teachings so it's not surprising the rhetoric that we get.

Gene Shlomovich said...

"Judaism has a context as well which, by and large, prevents them from considering the possibility of Jesus (Yeshua) being the Messiah. I'm not being critical in saying this, anymore than I was being critical of Christian scholarship in my prior comments."

Quite true. My interaction with "Anonymous" (last post on my blog) is a perfect illustration of that.

James said...

I think that was two blog posts ago, but agreed. ;-)

Gene Shlomovich said...

"I think that was two blog posts ago, but agreed. ;-)"

You must mean "two blog posts ago" that I should have written last week but didn't:)

benicho said...

Sorry to cause a dilemma there, I didn't notice until last night everything Anonymous had said.

Gene Shlomovich said...

"Sorry to cause a dilemma there, I didn't notice until last night everything Anonymous had said."

benicho, you were not the cause of any "dilemma" - he was.

benicho said...

Thanks Gene. something I said obviously made him think otherwise though and nobody likes to be taken out of context.

rey said...

Shalom to you all,

I've learned a lot in the last couple of years and this happens to be the subject that I have studied the most (The Deity of Yeshua and The G-dhead),for the last 4 yrs. It's a very complicated subject and one that i believe we will only understand more fully in the world to come.
It's a little more complicated than the tenet of "the Trinity".

I believe that Yeshua is the fullness of G-d in "Human Form", please get that - in Human Form lol. That if you see Yeshua and everything He does it's as seeing G-d in Flesh. Now G-d in His fullness in not a man/human, but Moshiach is the physical Image of The Invisible G-d.

"No one has ever seen G-d; the only Begotten Son, who is at the Father’s side, He has made Him known." - John.1:18. Note: His Son/The Eternal Word has been the One who has made G-d known.

Judah Gabriel Himango said...

James,

Your post reads as if you're looking for a reason to NOT believe in Yeshua's deity. Confirmation bias?

James, the first time we ever came in contact, it was on your congregation's blog. It must have been maybe two years ago? I remember we talked a bit then about the divinity of Yeshua. I would love to see how our conversation went.

James said...

You have a very "young" memory, Judah. I can't recall the details of our first meeting with any clarity at all. If I can find the conversation though, I'll certainly email you the link.

Actually, it's more like I don't want to be expected to "automatically" accept Yeshua's deity. I also don't want to necessarily accept certain propositions, just because an expert said so.

I've been ambivalent about Yeshua's deity for years (something you don't often say outloud in religious company). The fact that I'm questioning a "sacred cow" of Christianity doesn't make me bad or evil, it just means I'm asking the question. Notice that I said I'm "ambivalent", which means I don't really have the answer.

I'm looking for that answer or at least a direction in which the answer may be found.

Gene Shlomovich said...

James, I think that ever since you started talking to the BE people, it's been downhill from there (right, Judah:)? As he told you before, he should have never exposed you to BE!

rey said...

"Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory". - 1.Tim.3:16 (Some translations have: G-d was manifested in the flesh)

My question is this what does it mean when it says "He was manifested in the Flesh?" What other Form is there?

Also when we say He, we mean The Word was manifested in the Flesh correct?

James said...

In an odd sort of way, you're right, Gene.

More accurately, since I started reading "Messianic" blogs and started having these conversations, I have started questioning a lot of my basic assumptions. Actually, my ambivalence about the deity of Yeshua and whether or not I was doing any good as a teacher in my congregation predates my entry into the Messianic blogosphere by quite a bit (so it's not all BE's fault, Gene... :-) )

What has also significantly contributed to the change in my thinking is my wife's journey of discovery into her own Judaism. If we were a couple united in our faith, like the vast majority of you folks out there (another assumption on my part), I might not be seeing more than one side to my religious expression and understanding. But watching her pursue being Jewish as a lived experience and contrasting it with my own faith lifestyle has resulted in a lot of questions coming up for me.

Put it all together and either I'm one really confused puppy or I'm a person with a very unique (but at times uncomfortable) viewpoint. Since the walls of my personal religious construct have become more fluid than the constructs of many other people of faith (at least apparently), I'm free to ask questions that aren't typically asked and free to not see most answers provided by the larger Christian and Messianic communities as necessarily absolute.

Hence the intensity and scope of my investigation.

Daniel said...

Perhaps its an idea to read a book whose conclusions are critical of the traditional Christian position on how Jesus is portrayed in the NT and one that is less so. In this sense Dunn and especially Casey (see also his latest book) are in the former camp while Hurtado and Bauckham fall in the latter.

James said...

I assume you mean Maurice Casey's Jesus of Nazareth book, Daniel. One book at a time, please. I can't afford to buy out Amazon in one fell swoop. ;-)

James said...

OK, I just ordered "Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ" by Bowman and Komoszewski and "From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God" by Maurice Casey. I think that'll get me started.

Anonymous said...

I assume Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman is too liberally progressive. I find his arguments more compelling than most, but then again, I am an historian and lean toward a Jewish viewpoint. I am biased. I do, however, think many Christians (and all religions) focus too much on orthodoxy (creeds) instead of orthopraxy (doing the Lord's work). Doing the work of Yeshua's parable seems more pertinent than believing Yeshua truly said these words.

James said...

Wow! Jesus Interrupted does seem like a compelling book and one that's willing to challenge popular canon. I'll have to add it to my "wish list". Thanks for the suggestion.

benicho said...

It does look good, cheers to you Cataract, always good to see another historian around here.

James said...

LOL. None of the books recommended are in my local public library system...except "Jesus, Interrupted". Guess which book I'll be reading next?

Thanks, Moon.

Judah Gabriel Himango said...

Since you're reading some of Ehrman's works, you might find this interesting:

Dr. Michael Brown and Bart Ehrman debate (mp3)

Apologies if I've already linked you to this before.

James said...

Thanks, Judah. That's a good debate, but anyone else who wants to listen to it, make sure you have over 2 hours of free time available. I had to stop after about 75 minutes. Listened to the main debate plus one round of questions and answers.

It's interesting, since the debate is on whether or not the Bible gives an adequate answer to pain and suffering, that each man has gone through great personal suffering and yet they have completely different responses to it based on their understanding of what the Bible is saying to them.

In the end, regardless of what the Bible says and regardless of your life experiences, we all make individual decisions about the Bible, God, and who we are (or aren't) in Him. Faith (including whether you choose to have a life of faith or not) is a personal journey and while you can help another person as they travel, they must walk their own road themselves. Both Dr. Brown and Dr. Ehrman have done that as do we all.

The difference is that Dr. Brown still is a man of faith and Dr. Ehrman chose to lay his faith aside.