Ecce Recensus: The Only True God Persuades A Skeptic

Last updated on: July 20, 2009 at 3:10 pm by James F. McGrath

Ecce Recensus: The Only True God Persuades A Skeptic 2009-07-20T15:10:00-04:00 James F. McGrath

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Michael Whitenton has posted a review of my book The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context on his blog Ecce Homo. Since he has encouraged me to respond and turn his blog review into a bloggersation, I’ll add a few thoughts.

First, let me say that I’m very grateful for the review, and pleased to learn that keeping the book succinct did not undermine its persuasive power.

Next, I do want to try to offer some clarification in response to this statement: “McGrath points to a few inscriptions found in ancient Palestine that seem to suggest that Jews were worshipping pagan gods alongside the god of Israel at the dawn of the first century CE”. What I point to in chapter 2 is evidence that there were a range of forms of acknowledgement of the existence of “other gods”, including the acceptance of their relevance within limited domains, as well as their identification with the “only true God” in what might be called “inclusive monotheism” (although Richard Bauckham uses that term to mean something very different, and so I will have to return to this point on a later occasion). Since I emphasize the need to be precise about what we mean by “worship”, I am less than thrilled with this characterization of what I said, at least without further clarification. On the one hand, almost all Jews in the period in question would have refrained from offering sacrifice to any deity they understood to be other than YHWH alone. On the other hand, when it came to matters other than animal sacrifice, a range of views seem to have existed within Judaism. The Greek word most frequently translated as “worship” properly means “prostration” before another figure, and on that issue we can find evidence of a range of views and practices.

In his discussion of chapter 3, Michael refers to 3 Enoch (and other Rabbinic sources) as possible counter-evidence to my assertion that mediator figures were not controversial in the New Testament era. 3 Enoch 16 is of course a key text related to Jewish mysticism and the “two powers” heresy, and on p.89 (in the context of my discussion of “two powers”) I emphasize the late date of that work, and in particular of the passage in question. And so I think it is fair to summarize my argument as being that mediator figures were not controversial in the New Testament era, but became controversial in at least some circles at some later point. The evidence from 3 Enoch in my view provides supporting evidence rather than evidence to the contrary. I might also add that it seems unlikely that the same exact debate would have continued from New Testament times until 6 or more centuries later, without interruption or significant change!

As for the point that more discussion of primary source material outside of the New Testament could have been provided, I’m sure this is true. I tried to focus the most attention on neglected evidence, such as the statements of non-Jews about Jewish beliefs and practices, and the inscriptional and epigraphic evidence, rather than simply revisiting texts that are well-known, and so inevitably some well-accepted understandings of primary source material were at times assumed rather than defended. Of course, presumably one reason Michael was left with the impression that I did not always cite primary source material when necessary is his aversion to endnotes. While I sympathize with his point about footnotes vs. endnotes, it was primarily the desire to include some lengthy notes (for the sake of those who were interested in certain minute details that would be unlikely to interest most readers) that led to the decision to opt for endnotes. The trouble caused thereby is remedied, in my experience, through the use of a second bookmark. I will gladly send Michael one (or two) if he would find that useful. 🙂

Finally, when it comes to the question of the doctrine of the Trinity, I would put my position briefly as follows (and I invite further discussion): I do not think that the New Testament material in any respect made it inevitable that the Nicene Creed’s understanding of God as Triune would become the orthodox viewpoint. The main reasons for my thinking this way is my conviction that the debates that led to the Council of Nicaea were focused on answering questions that were not raised (much less answered) in the New Testament period, and the length of time spent trying out various options over the intervening centuries is inexplicable if all Christological questions had already been answered in the New Testament. It seems clear from both the length and the ferocity of the Christological debates of the second, third, and fourth centuries that we are dealing with what Hanson rightly called the search for the Christian doctrine of God, and not merely the defense of something that already existed. But having said this, I do not think that determining what the New Testament says on the matter is the only consideration when asking whether Trinitarianism is a helpful and appropriate theological image. Personally, I find thinking of God in Trinitarian terms particularly helpful in making sense of the notion of God as eternal love, since it is hard to envisage love (or at least, a love that is not egocentrical) without there being more than one person. But ultimately I consider such imagery metaphorical and recall with fondness a question John Macquarrie asked about some of the church’s Christological and Trinitarian language, which appropriately burst my theological bubble in my undergraduate days. He rightly asked, with respect to Christian thinking about natures and persons, and terms like enhypostatic and anhypostatic, how any human being could claim to know such things about God.

And so my book is mainly focused on answering historical questions, and if there is a contribution to the tasks of Christian theology and of Jewish-Christian dialogue, it is to emphasize that questions about what we should believe and how we should interact in the present cannot be resolved only by appeal to Scriptural texts. The development of Jewish and Christian monotheism(s), and of the church’s Christology, illustrate well that Jewish and Christian doctrines never remained static, and were always formulated in a dialogue between traditions and texts on the one hand, and contemporary issues, needs and concerns on the other. That is how it has always been, and perhaps that is how it should be.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

July 19, 2009

Quote of the Day (Michael Spencer)

Next Post

July 20, 2009 Co-moon-ion

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 1 Corinthians 1 John 1 Peter 1 Samuel 1 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Corinthians 2 Kings 2 Peter 2 Samuel 2 Thessalonians 2 Timothy academia Acts of the Apostles afterlife Akhaten Alcatraz American Academy of Religion Amos Anglican Arabic Aramaic archaeology art artificial intelligence astronomy atheism atonement Babylon 5 Baptists Battlestar Galactica Bible Biblical Studies Carnival biblioblogging Black Mirror Blade Runner Book of Job book review Buddhism Call for Papers China Christianity Christmas Christology Chronicles Coptic creation Daniel Deuteronomy Doctor Who Dune Easter Ecclesiastes economics education Eldad Keynan Enoch Seminar Ephesians eschatology Esther Evangelicals evolution Exodus Expanse Ezekiel Ezra fantasy Fringe fundamentalism Galatians games Ge'ez genealogy Genesis Gnosticism Gospel of Jesus' Wife Gospel of John Gospel of Judas Gospel of Luke Gospel of Mark Gospel of Matthew Gospel of Peter Gospel of Thomas Greek Harry Potter Hebrew Hebrews Hinduism historical Jesus history Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Holidays horror Hosea humor incarnation India inerrancy information literacy inspirational Intelligent Design Ireland Isaiah Islam Israel Italy James Jeremiah John the Baptist Jonah Joshua Judaism Jude Judges Judith Lamentations languages Latin Leviticus libraries literature Lord of the Rings LOST Mandaeans Mandaic memes Methodism Micah monotheism morality Mormons movies music mythicism NASSCAL Nehemiah new perspective New Testament news Numbers Orthodox paganism panentheism pantheism Patheos Paul and his letters Pentecostals Philippians Philippians 2:6-11 philosophy physics Planet of the Apes podcast politics Progressive Christianity Protestantism Proverbs Psalms pseudoscience racism religion Revelation Roman Catholicism Romania Romans Ruth scams science science fiction Secret Gospel of Mark Society of Biblical Literature Song of Songs Star Trek Star Wars Stargate Swahili Syriac Taoism technology Terminator The Handmaid's Tale The Hobbit The Matrix theodicy theology theory Timeless Titus tomb Torchwood travel TRON Uncategorized United Kingdom Westworld X-Files young-earth creationism Zechariah

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 February 2007 January 2001

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz