Mike has an excellent question and I believe qualified responses. He gives two things which he would impress upon his congregation, if he had a pulpit:
Continue reading “What Does Athens Have to do with Jerusalem?”
Jul 29 2009
Beginning Thoughts on The Only True God – Copernicum (5)
Click to Order
I have been reviewing James McGrath’s book, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context. While I do not want to give away the ’spoilers’ so to speak, I want to give an honest review, so here it goes:
During the first chapters of the book, McGrath lays out well his understanding of monotheism in ancient Judaism, which he continues to build upon in later chapters. It is here, as any good author does, that he plants seeds which is brought to fruition as he progresses. It is also here where he gets my attention with such motifs for monotheism as worship and creation.
McGrath approaches the subject with care, and almost apprehension, so as to not go too far too fast. He writes for the common reader, often explaining himself in more detail than perhaps he should – but this is to the reader’s advantage. Further, from time to time he leads his readers back to previous explanations, reminding them before he proceeds.
Continue reading “Beginning Thoughts on The Only True God – Copernicum (5)”
Jul 28 2009
More Thoughts on The Only True God (4)
Click to Order
By now, most of you know that I have been reviewing James McGrath’s latest book, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context. This will be my last in the series of the rolling reviews, with a final review to follow sometime this week.
In this chapter co-written with Dr. Jerry Truex, McGrath dialogues with Alan Segal’s theory on the Two Powers Heresy in early Rabbinic Judaism. Segal interprets this theory as a ‘principal angelic or hypostatic manifestation in heaven was equivalent to God.’ (p124, n1). Segal’s point, I believe, is that he feels Christianity developed from this hypothetical heresy supposedly found in 1st century Judaism, or at the very list, Segal believes that the two powers heresy found in later Jewish sources refer to the burgeoning Christian movement.
This, besides the endnotes, is the major problem of the book. While some may find it pleasing to see McGrath dialogue with others on this subject – primarily Hurtado and Bauckham, it feels to me as if I am joining a trilogy on the last few pages of a book. While I do not dismiss the need for such dialogues, especially in this field, I feel that more attention should have been given to establishing arguments independent of other works, not based as a response to them (if this was possible).
Jul 25 2009
Continuing Thoughts On The Only True God (3)
Click to Order
This is the third in a series of the rolling review for James McGrath’s, The Only True God. (Here and here). Further, Michael at Ecco Homo has posted his final review, which sparked a conversation with the author of the book. (Here, here, and here. Michael also posted something concerning 1st Corinthians in light of McGrath’s book.)
I have only read Michael’s post on Paul ’s monotheism, as I didn’t want to cloud my judgment during the review. To be honest, I attempted to read Michael’s review, but I found something in his, about the end of the book, which made my view of the entire book change. That’s not fair to an honest review, in my opinion – basing it (even subconsciously) on someone else’s thoughts and reactions.
I want to start off this review with the negative – I still do not like the Endnotes, but I here that the author addressed this issue with Michael. Further, the chapter on John’s monotheism was entirely too short. It was, what’s the word, copernicium. It was weighty, you might say.
Continue reading “Continuing Thoughts On The Only True God (3)”
Jul 17 2009
Review: McGrath's The Only True God (2)
Click to order from Amazon
My first impressions on James McGrath’s newest book is are here. Jared Calaway, at Antiquitopia, has posted his general impressions as well. When I meet a book that deserves a rolling review, I want to give it one. This book is barely 100 pages in length (not counting notes) and while it is not for the faint of conservative heart, it does bare a responsibility to give it a decent review. I’ll leave that up to someone else, and give you what I can.
I am a conservative Christian, depending upon conservative scholarship to steady my foundation – and that’s how I try not to approach this book. I accept that, but I am also determined to grow in God, first, and knowledge second, so when a book that threatens me a bit comes along, I have no problem reading it.
I am trying not to make this review a response to his work, but I do have to make a point concerning a few things that I have found in chapter 3, Monotheism and the Letters Attributed to Paul. The book thus far has been an intellectual exercise, forcing me to examine some dearly held beliefs, even from his passing comments. (I wonder if he will devote more time to cosmology and monotheism?) Further, he takes the time to speak to non-specialists (what’s the word here?) and keeps away from those nasty Greek, Latin, and German words used so frequently in modern scholarship. I prefer to read the book, instead of having to take the time to either translate the passages or look them up.
One problem that I have with the set-up of the book is that it utilizes endnotes, and not footnotes.
But, returning to my brief point, while the author associates sacrificial worship with monotheism, he never finds the attribution of this worship to Christ in the letters of Paul. Seemingly ignoring 1st Cor. 10, and indeed, the eucharist, McGrath doesn’t connect Paul’s use of idols in this passage with the Deuteronomistic prohibitions to sacrifices in the places of idols, which is further connected to the communion meal of the primitive Church.
I would also contend with the author about his belief that the Trinity (‘three in one’ as the author puts it) was formulated at Nicaea.
Finally, in this section, the author spends considerable time on Philippians 2.9-11, and indeed, he does have a point, that this could very well point to the fact that God took a mediatory figure, which was common in 2nd Temple Judaism, and placed within him the Divine Name – except he pays very little attention to the verses preceding this passage, which focuses heavily on the deity of Christ. More than a mere human, the pre-existence is assumed in vs 6-8 (Pre-existence is also assumed by Paul in 1st Cor. 10.4). Also, he uses a passage in Colossians, which he notes that while it is not considered a true Pauline book it is attributed to Paul, and thus fits into perimeters of his current discussion. Considering the passage in Colossians is fine, but he ignores the deity attributing passages in other letters attributed to Paul, such as 1st Timothy 3.16 and Titus 2.13. He also fails to acknowledge, even in passing as a translation choice, Romans 9.5, a letter generally affirmed to be Pauline.
One of the most positive things about the book – which for me is important – is that while the author sees Jesus as exalted rather than divine, he still allows for the uniqueness of Christ and the history of the Gospels.
Again, this is only my view, as a conservative Christian.
Jul 07 2009
Can you explain away Christianity?
Two posts which are somewhat related – two questions for you to think about.
Let’s set it up:
Let’s say that Christianity is an imagined community from the ground up. No Resurrection of a political Jesus. No miracles. No signs and wonders. No fulfillment of prophecies. Let’s say that the earliest written accounts of this myth called the Son of God, Jesus, was made by a disenchanted Pharisee who took up the rallying cry of a dead Jew. Let’s just say that the biblical accounts of the Resurrection of Christ and the beginning of the Church from Pentecost onward is little more than children’s fairy tales, told to urge rebellion against Nero.
But, we have to answer the history provide for in the Talmud and in other secular sources. Further, while we may discount the miracles of Acts, let’s say we take for a moment the life of Paul – that disenchanted, no good, Pharisee. He preached a risen Christ 30 years after it was said to have happened. He was there, after all, then Stephen had his life exercised from him for speaking in that name of Jesus Christ. He must have known that Jesus was alive and well or dead and buried.
Yet, something happened to that Pharisee where he not only took up the banner of that dead rebel, but began to move it away from the Jewish roots to a combined system of Jew and Gentile, Male and Female, Bond and Free. And others joined him.
Of course, he met only a few of the close followers of the dead man. Surely, he would have not mistaken their deep seated ‘he is still with us’ mythology for an actual account of the Resurrection – not enough to rehearse it to a physician.
How can we explain away Christianity if there was a sudden explosion of this new myth which not only saw people willing die – those people that had heard the message of the rebellion from others – but also the closest followers of the decaying man? And what about this Paul fellow? He died too. He killed to prevent the message from being spread. Then he died to spread it.
We can explain away a few hundred people believing a man is a god or a lord, but can we explain thousands to tens of thousands of people who heard the message, who turned from killing to dying for it?
Here are those two articles -
So we are left with options. Either take the NT as it is, more or less; accept an historical analysis that raises more questions than it answers; . . . . or or or . . . .
And
Assuming its true, He’s God. He offers you a life that is radically different; he offers you the opportunity to live forever; he offers you the ability to live to the fullest imaginable extent, IF you buy into his presentation, assuming he really is who he says he is.
We hear an awfully lot about what the message of Christ cannot be true, why He was a really a political rebel, and ever increasing attacks upon our faith – yet, even if you take away the Scriptures, how can you explain away Christianity?
Jul 01 2009
First Impressions of The Only True God
Click to order from Amazon
I am progressing more slowly than I had hoped, but I am enjoying James McGrath’s latest book a great deal. It is providing me with a lot of thinking material. That is ultimately how I judge scholarly books – does it make me think? Does it shake me a bit? Can I explore new avenues, new paths? In the end, do I gain? So, far, I am happy with the time that it is taking me to read is book.
I breeze through fiction books, and books more often than not those books found in the Family Christian Bookstores. I like meat, not milk. (This is a personal reference, and should not be construed as a must for every Christian.)
His writings style is deep – long sentences, long paragraphs, and someone who knows how to use commas. He explains himself – which is part of his goal in trying to reach those with the background usually need for scholarly materials.
One of the issues which he is teasing is the use of creation as a key to monotheism. It’s got me thinking, which he may cover, but what of Genesis? Is Genesis key to the entire idea of the one true God? I mean, remove the Creationism vs. Intelligent Design (Evolution with God at the start) debate, just for a moment. What if the central message of the Creation account was not the 6 days and a literal understanding, but the fact that the only true God was the only true Creator? Rather, that the Creator was the One True God, the God Most High.
There are two subjects dealing with theology which interest me, 2nd Temple Judaism and Doctrinal Development until 381 of the early Church. Frankly, I can see how this book might inform me of the former and thus inform me of the latter.
For other blogs covering this book, try these:
Here si the product page from the publishers.
May 08 2008
Good discussion on preachers, scholars in the Church
I like his blog and find his point here more than ‘adequate’ .
