AHÍ VIENEN LOS MONOS CAÉ CAÉ 1994

Since the 1980’s, several scholars have argued for an early “high” christology by which the earliest tradition about Jesus in the New Testament texts presents him as divine while emphasizing the Jewishness of early Christianity and including significant treatment of Qumran literature and pseudepigraphal literature. Discussion of the work of another so-called “neue religionsgeschichtliche Schule” scholar, C. Kavin Rowe, appears above in §1.2.2. As

noted there, since Rowe focuses on the use of the title κύριος, he does not discuss judgment. Larry W. Hurtado’s various studies of christology in early Christianity focus on the veneration of Jesus. He argues that early veneration of Jesus paralleled the unique veneration of God in Judaism. This produced a “binitarian” form of early Christian worship that

represented a “mutation” of previous Judaism.80 _{By identifying indications in New Testament}

texts that this veneration preceded their composition and was not a significant matter of contention among early Christians, Hurtado argues for the universal presence of “high” christology in early Christianity. He identifies the uniqueness of Jesus in comparison with

80 _{Most significantly Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity} (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2003) and One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, 3rd ed. (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015). The third edition of One God, One Lord adds to the 1988 edition, which spearheaded much discussion of early “high” christology, an epilogue

21

other figures in contemporary Jewish texts. In the epilogue to the third edition of One God, One Lord, he affirms that, while “chief agent” figures of various kinds appear in this other

literature, indicating a tradition from which early Christianity probably drew, “none . . . gives us a full precedent or analogy for the more thoroughgoing way that the exalted Jesus was linked with God in early Christian devotion, and neither individually nor collectively do they represent a major mutation in ancient Jewish monotheism comparable to the cultic veneration of the exalted Jesus.”81 _{My own conclusions largely affirm this statement with regard to}

Jesus’ activity as a judge in the speeches in Acts 10 and 17 while also exploring how the uniquely exalted view of Jesus as a judge relates to messianic identity. Hurtado’s work does not focus on questions of the significance of judgment for christology.82

Richard Bauckham’s contribution to the present discussion is his discussion of “high” christology in relation to divine identity, particularly in God Crucified.83 _{Bauckham argues}

that “high Christology was possible within a Jewish monotheistic context, not by applying to Jesus a Jewish category of semi-divine intermediary status, but by identifying Jesus directly with the one God of Israel, including Jesus in the unique identity of this one God.”84

Bauckham seeks to show how New Testament texts present Jesus as having the

characteristics or attributes, and performing the activities, uniquely associated with the identity of Israel’s God in the context of Second Temple Judaism.85 _{Bauckham distinguishes}

81 _{Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 154–55.}

82 _{In personal conversation, Hurtado expressed that he was unaware of any significant studies in this} area and affirmed the need for research on the subject.

83 _{Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism & Christology in the New Testament (1998; repr.,} Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999), included in Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: ‘God Crucified’ and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2008), 1–59. References are to the latter.

84 _{Bauckham, “God Crucified,” 3.}

22

his proposal, on the one hand, from works that exclude the divinity of Jesus from Jewish monotheism as a premise and thus see it as a late, Gentile development external to Judaism.86

On the other, he distinguishes it from “revisionist views of Second Temple Judaism which in one way or another deny its strictly monotheistic character,” as through proposing lesser degrees of divinity, or lower divine status, for mediator figures or divine attributes.87 He states that he does not consider them “of any decisive importance for the study of early Christology.”88 _{He identifies only one such figure aside from Jesus whom he thinks shares in}

the divine identity, the son of man figure in the Similitudes of Enoch, although Bauckham considers this participation incomplete in that the rule and judgment of this figure, in Bauckham’s assessment, does not precede the time of eschatological judgment.89_God Crucified does not otherwise discuss judgment, nor provide any discussion of Acts.

Bauckham’s work provides divine identity as a tool for distinguishing Israel’s God in his uniqueness from other figures for this study. Other figures may display similarities to God without participating in the divine identity, however, if the area of similarity does not

constitute part of God’s uniqueness. Where a figure appears in a way uniquely associated with Yahweh in texts available, however, the presentation of that figure may suggest participation in the divine identity.

Nina Henrichs-Tarasenkova, in Luke’s Christology of Divine Identity, uses

Bauckham’s work to argue for a christology of divine identity throughout Luke-Acts, which she approaches as a coherent narrative.90 _{Her discussion of judgment, however, is limited.}

86 _{Ibid., 2.}

87 _{Ibid., 2–3.}

88 _{Ibid., 3.}

89 _{Ibid., 16.}

90 _{Nina Henrichs-Tarasenkova, Luke’s Christology of Divine Identity, LNTS 542 (London: Bloomsbury} T&T Clark, 2016). See her correction of Conzelmann not reading Luke-Acts as a coherent narrative on 21.

23

While she argues from the Nunc Dimittis that Jesus’ role as judge is one element of Luke- Acts that presents Jesus as having the status and functions of Yahweh so as to present him as sharing Yahweh’s identity, she does not clarify what distinguishes Jesus’ judgment from other non-divine judges.91 _{She again appeals to Jesus’ judgment in John’s baptism, saying}

that it puts Jesus in the place of Yahweh by speaking of Jesus as clearing his threshing floor when Yahweh is the Lord of the harvest in 10:2, and she here cites Acts 17:31 for this transformation of the Day of Yahweh to the “Day of Jesus.”92 _{Jesus as messiah performs}

Yahweh’s activity of judging.93 _{She does not develop these assertions further, however, and}

the book never mentions Acts 10:42. She also does not discuss eschatological judgment figures in other Jewish literature.