CONSTRUYENDO UN PROYECTO 1997

Three final studies illustrate the need for further work on christology in the Gospels and Acts through the different conclusions they reach despite their similarity in method: Daniel Boyarin’s The Jewish Gospels, J.R. Daniel Kirk’s A Man Attested by God, and Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis’ Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology.94 _{All three seek to read}

New Testament texts in the context of Second Temple Judaism, and they all emphasize similarities between the presentation of Jesus in New Testament texts and that of extraordinary figures in other Jewish texts.

91 _{Ibid., 166–67.}

92 _{Ibid., 168–69. She also mentions Acts 17:31 on 170, but without adding any additional information} or analysis.

93 _{Ibid., 169.}

94 _{Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (New York: New Press, 2012);} J.R. Daniel Kirk, A Man Attested by God: The Human Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2016); Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology, WUNT, 2nd ser., 94 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997).

24

Boyarin argues that the presentation of Jesus in the New Testament Gospels fits within a diversity already present within Judaism and that their form of Christianity does not extend beyond the boundaries of Second Temple Judaism, including in “the notion of a dual godhead with a Father and a Son, the notion of a Redeemer who himself will be both God and man, and the notion that this Redeemer would suffer and die as part of the salvational process.”95 _{For him, the similarity of Jesus to other figures indicates a prevalence of}

differentiated monotheism in Second Temple Judaism. Thus, Jesus’ divinity in Christianity is not exceptional. The main figures outside of the Gospels that Boyarin considers are those in Daniel 7, 4 Ezra, and the Similitudes of Enoch.96

Boyarin considers the figure in Daniel 7 to be divine since he rides on the clouds and sits on a throne beside the Ancient of Days.97 _{He argues that the two figures come from}

earlier Israelite religion and correspond to El and Baal, but that the deities combined to yield a differentiated monotheism.98 _{The figure from Daniel 7 further combined with davidic}

95 _{Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels, 158. Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 33, 148 considers Boyarin} inconsistent in the note in The Jewish Gospels, 55 where he mentions the distinction between functional and ontological divinity in Adela Yarbro Collins, “‘How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?’: A Reply,” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity; Essays in Honor of Larry W. Hurtado and Alan F. Segal, ed. David B. Capes, April D. DeConick, Helen K. Bond, and Troy A. Miller (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2007), 57. Boyarin says that he is arguing for the former, which Kirk considers contrary to the thrust of Boyarin’s argument. Boyarin, however, claims, “I believe the very distinction between ‘functional’ and ‘ontological’ is a product of later Greek reflection on the Gospels.” For Boyarin, it seems, these categories are not separate in the Gospels and other texts he discusses. He argues for functional divinity (which would include ontological divinity in the texts he discusses) in that the evidence he uses to make his case largely concern the functions of Jesus and other figures rather than statements about ontology. Boyarin’s argument in “Enoch, Ezra, and the Jewishness of ‘High Christology’,” in ‘Fourth Ezra’ and ‘Second Baruch’: Reconstruction after the Fall, ed. Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini with the

collaboration of Jason M. Zurawski, JSJSup 164 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 337–61 does not include this qualification.

96 _{Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels, 31–52, 73–101. Boyarin presents largely the same argument, in places} with identical wording, in “Enoch, Ezra, and the Jewishness of ‘High Christology’,” 337–61, extending it in 357–61 to account for the worship of Metatron during the Rabbinic period.

97 _{Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels, 39–40.}

98 _{Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels, 44–45, 49–50. See also, at greater length, Daniel Boyarin, “Daniel 7,} Intertextuality, and the History of Israel’s Cult,” HTR 105 (2012): 139–62.

25

messianism, resulting in a future “divine-human Messiah.”99 _{The figures in the Similitudes of}

Enoch and 4 Ezra illustrate this divine-human messiah within Second Temple Jewish monotheism. The features of the figure in the former that indicate divinity are pre-existence, reception of worship, and position on a throne of glory.100 _{In 4 Ezra, he argues for the divinity}

of the messiah from his riding on the clouds, his association with fire, and the apparent use of Isaiah 66:20 in 4 Ezra 13:12–13.101 _{He mentions judgment in so far as the son of man figure}

judges from a throne in the Similitudes of Enoch,102 _{but otherwise does not emphasize it in}

either text.

Much within my argument shows compatibility with Boyarin’s contention that early Christianity was not radically separate from Judaism, but rather was part of Jewish diversity in its exegesis, halakha, and messianism. My argument does, however, press against what I think to be a flattening of distinctions. The presentation of Jesus’ role as judge in Acts, in comparison to other contemporary figures, emerges as distinct, as the exegesis of the Acts speeches will show. Daniel 7 and other scriptural texts may indeed have contributed to a differentiated monotheism for Christians and some non-Christian Jews, although I question the extent to which non-Christian texts give evidence for the pervasiveness of such

differentiated monotheism at the time of Christianity’s beginning.

Kirk emphasizes similarities between Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels and figures including Adam, Moses, kings, priests (including Melchizedek in 11QMelch), “the son of

man,” and “the community of the elect” in Jewish literature ranging from scriptural texts

99 _{Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels, 33.}

100 _{Ibid., 77–81.}

101 _{Ibid., 98.}

26

through to pseudepigraphal texts as late as 3 Enoch.103 _{Kirk classifies all of these as “idealized}

human figures” and argues that this category can account for everything the Synoptic Gospels say about Jesus such that they nowhere suggest Jesus’ divinity nor present him as divine.104

Kirk indicates that he sees the same presentation of Jesus in the Acts speeches, although he does not mention the speeches in Acts 10 and 17.105 _{Kirk’s main contention with the approach}

of studies arguing for a christology by which Jesus shares in divinity in some New Testament texts is that they do “not adequately appreciate the wide-ranging possibilities open for

idealized human figures in early Judaism.”106 _{Kirk particularly faults Bauckham’s application}

of the concept of divine identity, distinguishing between identification “with God” and “as God” and arguing that the texts he discusses identify figures “with God” and present them as “participating in the divine identity” without identifying them “as God.”107 _{Although the few}

mentions of judgment in the book are not specific, Kirk views Jesus’ role as a judge in the Synoptic Gospels to be part of his role as the messiah.108

Several problems in Kirk’s work indicate the need for a different approach in

considering judgment in the speeches in Acts 10 and 17. First, like Boyarin, Kirk emphasizes similarity without sufficiently distinguishing the differences within that similarity. The

103 _{Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 44–176. Under “son of man,” Kirk includesthe figures from Dan 7,} the Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra, 3 Enoch, and 4QPrayer of Enosh.

104 _{Ibid., 45 defines “idealized human figures” as “non-angelic, non-preexistent human beings, of the} past, present, or anticipated future, who are depicted in textual or other artifacts as playing some unique role in representing God to the rest of the created realm, or in representing some aspect of the created realm before God.”

105 _{Ibid., 25.}

106 _{E.g., ibid., 31, from which the quotation is taken. Kirk himself says that the christology he presents} is “high”, but he uses the term differently from other studies.

107 _{The discussion of 4 Ezra in ibid., 157 is illustrative.}

108 _{It mentions judgment on ibid., 73, 114 (both in the Animal Apocalypse), 115–116 (4Q246), 120} (summary), 122–123 (11Q13), 138 (1Q167), 151–53 (Similitudes of Enoch), 157 (4 Ezra), 169 (1QM). On Jesus judging as the messiah, see, e.g., ibid., 561–62 on Luke 13:24–30.

27

primary similarities he emphasizes are that various human figures, like God, rule and have glory, leading him to conclude that Jesus’ rule and glory indicate humanity, but he does not distinguish how God’s glory and rule may be unique.109 _{This problem is particularly}

egregious when he speaks of “idealized humans” creating. He states that Moses displays creative power in the Exodus events and that Sirach 50 describes Simon as participating in the creation of the temple, and he thereby reasons that the activity of creation does not indicate anything beyond humanity.110 _{He does not, however, give due attention to the}

uniqueness of God as the creator of the heavens and the earth, as in Genesis 1. While

commenting on Mark 8:38, Kirk raises the question of whether or not Jesus’ role as “judge in the final judgment would amount to an indication that Jesus has so encroached on the divine prerogative of judgment that he is being depicted as God,” but he quickly dismisses this possibility by appealing to 1 Corinthians 6:2–3.111 _{He does not consider, however, how the}

judgment activity in 1 Corinthians 6:2–3 may differ from that of Jesus in the final judgment. Second, Kirk appears to misrepresent Bauckham’s concept of divine identity. He claims that Jesus’ identification with God is analogous to Isreal’s, Moses’, or the patriarchs’ identification with God, and that therefore such an identification does not indicate any nature aside from human.112 _{Kirk’s identification “with God” seems to mean the identity of an}

individual or group derives in part from relation to God and that the individual or group represents or is particularly associated with God in some way. Kirk even uses identity

language with negative attributes when he says of Ezekiel, “the identification of God with the

109 _{E.g., ibid., 71, 112, 119, 124–25, 128, 151–52, 155–56.}

110 _{Ibid., 80, 127.}

111 _{Ibid., 311. He notes Jesus’ judgment in Matt 16:24–28 but associates it with human judgment} figures in T. Ab. 11–13, 11QMelch, the Animal Apocalypse, Matt 19:28, and 1 Cor 6:2–3 without noting the differences between the presentation of Jesus’ judgment and that of these other figures on 331–32. He also discusses judgment, particularly of demons, on 430–33.

28

people means that God is identified with Israel’s failure, weakness, defeat, and exile,” and he summarizes his discussion of Israel and divine identity by saying, “God’s identity is often bound up with the people of Israel, they representing God to the world or the world to God, or else standing as a proxy for the glory or shame of God among the nations.”113 _{This differs}

from Bauckham’s use of “divine identity,” which concerns “the unique, defining characteristics by which Jewish monotheism identified God as unique.”114

Finally, Kirk relies on questionable dichotomies. Kirk devotes a chapter, for example, to demonstrating that “son of God” in the Synoptic Gospels is a designation of Jesus as a human messiah.115 _{This does not mean, however, that a text referring to a figure as “son of}

God” could not also present that figure in ways emphasizing something other than humanity. If texts may present figures as human and also in some respect participating in divine

identity, which Kirk himself affirms for some other New Testament texts,116 _{this raises the}

question of whether study of particular characteristics of a figure might simultaneously point toward a particular human identity and particularly divine characteristics.

Fletcher-Louis likewise emphasizes similarity between Jesus and other exceptional figures in Jewish literature, but for him these similarities indicate that Luke-Acts presents Jesus as angelomorphic. Fletcher-Louis considers elements in Luke-Acts that he contends present Jesus in an angelomorphic manner, including Peter falling at Jesus’ feet after the miraculous catch of fish, Jesus’ appearance at the transfiguration, the post-ascension

appearances of Jesus, and the question of some Pharisees in Acts 23:9 εἰ δὲ πνεῦμα ἐλάλησεν

113 _{Ibid., 163–164.}

114 _{Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, ix.Kirk’s critique of Bauckham in A Man Attested by God,} 17–21 seems to indicate that Kirk and Bauckham would disagree on what constitutes God’s uniqueness, but that is a matter of identifying more precisely how God differs from other figures, not a problem with Bauckham’s concept of divine identity and general method.

115 _{Kirk, A Man Attested by God, 177–260.}

29

αὐτῷ ἢ ἄγγελος;.117 _{He considers the son of man title in Luke-Acts to present Jesus in an}

angelomorphic category from earlier Jewish speculation appearing especially in the Similitudes of Enoch.118

Fletcher-Louis’ work does not make angelomorphism an exclusive category, so not all of its conclusions are necessarily contradictory to my conclusions. He notes that some

features of Luke-Acts present Jesus more as divine and as human than angelic.119

Nevertheless, like Boyarin and Kirk, he reaches his conclusions through observing similarity without sufficient attention to difference. The characteristics of Jesus in Luke-Acts that Fletcher-Louis observes are not particular to angels. At times, Fletcher-Louis’ own labels reflect this imprecision, as when he views the standing or falling before a figure in Luke 21:36 and 1 Enoch 48:10; 50:4; 62:8–9 as reflecting the response to “the divine judge” but then says that this is a “common pattern of human response to a theophany / angelophany” without clarifying why this presents Jesus in an angelomorphic category rather than a divine one.120 _{Although Fletcher-Louis’ work focuses extensively on Acts, it has little discussion of}

judgment in Acts, does not mention 10:42, and mentions 17:31 only a single time as support for the statement that “the Son of Man here acts as God’s divine agent or judicial

representative” when discussing Luke 17:24, 26–27, 30; 18:8b.121

117 _{Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts, 34–71; these points appear on 34–38, 38–50, 50–57, 57–61, and 62–70} respectively.

118 _{Ibid., 225–50.}

119 _{Note the comment in ibid., 61, “for Luke, and his hero Paul, the risen Jesus is more fully Divine} than an angel. Yet returning to the end of the gospel we find evidence that for Luke, at the same time, the risen Jesus must be regarded as more fully human than an angel”; italics in original.

120 _{Ibid., 234–35.}

30