Crispin Fletcher-Louis’s Jesus Monotheism sets out in four volumes a new paradigm for the shape and origins of early christological monotheism. The present volume under review lays the foundation for the remainder of the project.
Chapter 1 examines the “emerging consensus” concerning the shape and origins of early christological monotheism (pp. 3–30). Gleaning from the work of Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham, Fletcher-Louis upholds the central tenants of “Early High Christology.” At the end of the chapter, however, he does take issue with certain aspects of current early high christology models (pp. 26–30)—a subject to which he will return in chapters 3 and 4.
Chapter 2 bolsters the “emerging consensus” through engagement with 1 Cor 8:6. Fletcher-Louis dismisses Adela Yarbro Collins’s contention that Paul’s Jesus does not participate in the “divine identity,” on the grounds that she fails to account for all the evidence (pp. 32–33). This is followed by a more substantive engagement with James McGrath’s position that 1 Cor 8:6 represents an expansion of the Shema (Deut 6:4) rather than an inclusion of Jesus within it (pp. 33–39). In addition to affirming N. T. Wright’s interpretation of 1 Cor 8:6, Fletcher-Louis offers additional evidence from Hebrew gematria. He observes, first, that both halves of the “confession” consist of 13 words (13 for God and 13 for Jesus), totaling the numerical value of the divine name: yod (10) + he (5) + waw (6) + he (5) = 26 (p. 43); and, second, that Paul’s repetition of the word “one” (͗ehad)—“one God . . . one Lord”—reinforces the point, since the numerical value of ͗ehad is 13: one (13) + one (13) = the numerical value of the divine name (26) (p. 47). Thus, he concludes,
…[b]oth God the Father and the Kyrios Jesus Christ, together, are Yhwh-Kyrios. (p. 48)
Chapters 3 and 4 provide substantive critique of the christological paradigms offered by Hurtado and Bauckham (pp. 65–167). Fletcher-Louis claims that Hurtado’s model privileges exaltation over incarnation (pp. 61–86), that Bauckham’s ignores Jesus’s humanity identity almost entirely (pp. 87–101), and that neither offers a satisfactory account of christological origins. He argues, contra Bauckham, first, that Psalm 110 cannot provide the starting point for Jesus’s inclusion in the divine identity and, second, that inclusion in the divine identity does not sufficiently explain Jesus’s role as the agent of creation (pp. 138–47); and he contends, contra Hurtado, first, that historical precedent for the Christ cult need not take precisely the same shape as christological monotheism and, second, that post-resurrection visionary experiences cannot adequately explain why Christians began to worship Jesus (147–56).
Chapters 5–7 set out three strands of the tapestry of an argument, which, one assumes, will emerge more fully in the following volumes. Chapter 5 examines the “divine” messiah of the Similitudes of Enoch (1 En. 37–70; pp. 171–205). Here, according to Fletcher-Louis, we find a
mainstream first-century Jewish belief . . . to a living and more widely attested tradition of interpretation of Dan 7:13 in which it was believed that, when he appeared, the ‘one like a son of man’ figure would manifest the divine identity of Israel’s one God. (p. 203, my emphasis)
Chapter 6 examines the connection between Jewish messianism and the ruler cult (pp. 206–49). While Fletcher-Louis agrees with William Horbury that the ruler-cult offers a partial precedent for the worship of Jesus, he argues that the evidence is to be found in priestly rather than royal messianism. In chapter 7 Fletcher-Louis suggests that pre-Christian Judaism did have space for an appropriate form of “worship” of human beings, as attested in Life of Adam and Eve (250–92). Although he acknowledges that there is no reason to conclude that the “worship” of Adam in LAE is in any way generative of the worship of Jesus, he argues that the anthropology presented in LAE—namely, that Adam functions as an icon through which the angels are to worship God—is pre-Christian and, thus, may offer insight into the worship of Jesus as the new Adam.
I conclude with three general observations about the book and overall direction of the project.
First, Fletcher-Louis’s decision to build his argument from the “emerging consensus” has its strengths and weaknesses. Its strength is that it allows him to focus on issues within early high christology models which have hitherto gone unaddressed. Its weakness is that the project hinges, in part, on whether or not one comes to the book already persuaded by the “emerging consensus.” For readers who are persuaded, such as this reviewer, this move is of little consequence; for others, however, I suspect that the book’s minimal engagement with scholars who do not align with this “consensus” may be deemed problematic.
Second, it is clear that one of the primary aims of the project is to explain how and in what ways “high” christology and christology of the “divine identity” relate to Jesus’s humanity. If Fletcher-Louis can answer that question, or, at the very least, point us in the right direction, this project will be a huge success.
Third, while the last three chapters primarily serve to whet the reader’s appetite, it appears that Fletcher-Louis’s solution will come primarily by way of priestly and Adamic associations. There are, of course, a host of methodological issues this volume raises, such as, How does one define “messiah?” or, To what extent do texts like 2 Enoch and LAE provide a window into “pre-Christian” Judaism? But to engage these would go well beyond the scope of this review.
It suffices to say here that, for this reader, Fletcher-Louis’s Jesus Monotheism has been well worth the read. I highly recommend this book to all. Readers who are interested in connecting historical questions with contemporary theology and christology will find Fletcher-Louis’s approach particularly refreshing and engaging.
Reviewed by Max Botner
University of St Andrews
2 Comments
Leave your reply.