tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030759610229712416.post5355884403105807383..comments2021-08-25T14:55:46.335+02:00Comments on Faith & Scripture: Lord Jesus Christ, by Larry Hurtado, Part 9: what does Hurtado mean by "binitarian" and monotheism effects on Jesus worshipJohn T. Bainbridgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16421002211748520767noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030759610229712416.post-5929922687855161372017-07-06T03:16:02.962+02:002017-07-06T03:16:02.962+02:00Hi Richard,
I re-read the entire passage in the b...Hi Richard,<br /><br />I re-read the entire passage in the book and you're definitely right. My above comment was incorrect, Hurtado does see this 'binitarian' variant as being in line with exclusivist monotheism.<br /><br />But then I completely agree with John's initial quibble and I have trouble following Hurtado's logic in this specific section.<br /><br />All along, Hurtado clearly references Jesus as a distinct figure, and the solution offered does not seem to be sufficient to meet the criterion he himself posited.<br />We all agree that Jesus was programmatically included in this binitarian/dyadic devotional pattern, and he is not worshiped as a 'second god' for all the reasons Hurtado gives in the chapter. Nevertheless, that Jesus-devotion really appears to violate this 'no other figure' criterion. Jesus is worshiped only in reference to God, in relation to God, etc... yet it is truly 'another figure'. It is hard to see how this would still count as a strict-exclusivist monotheism as Hurtado defines it.<br /><br />Or perhaps when he says that exclusivist monotheism means 'no figure other than God', he thinks it implies no deity that would be fully independent, autonomous, without reference to God, etc? If that's the case, it could have been stated more clearly.<br /><br />But I might be greatly confused on this, of course...<br /><br />Jonathan B.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030759610229712416.post-53913582490595288122017-07-04T20:49:16.783+02:002017-07-04T20:49:16.783+02:00Hi again Richard, thanks for your comment. Actuall...Hi again Richard, thanks for your comment. Actually I am not sure if Hurtado has abandoned binitarian terminology having listened to him a few times, I think he still uses it. One area in which I think he is strong is identifying a pool of helpful terms, which he tests and adapts accordingly as time goes on, aware that the richness in the variety conveys greater meaning to his readers. As I have pointed out with "mutation", he hasn't abandoned it, probably because it's one of the best metaphors out there for Christianity emergence, but he has reduced his reliance on it.<br /><br />I most certainly will go on the record and affirm with you, Hurtado or anyone else that I don't think the Holy Spirit was worshipped in the first century either, although I do think that the binitarian/diadic worship did depend upon the Spirit. My point is that a form of trinitarianism was operative before the close of the first century in some Jewish-Christian circles. I am not proposing importing fourth century ontological categories to achieve this.John Bainbridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419403943860885174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030759610229712416.post-37104432593987881022017-07-04T09:47:40.730+02:002017-07-04T09:47:40.730+02:00Anonymous:
I am inclined to think that Hurtado did...Anonymous:<br />I am inclined to think that Hurtado did and does consider the development of the worship of Jesus along side God the Father (Yahweh) as more or less "strictly in line with ... exclusivist monotheism. But this just as uniquely in the form of a (as he now prefers to call it) dyadic experienced worship of the one (mono-theistic) God. A variant for Hurtado isn't a deviation from as though it were theologically "significantly different." All of us seem to be diverging somewhat from the very fine historical and theological distinctions Hurtado is attempting to deduce from the evidence. BTW, he has moved toward the terminology of a "dyadic form of worship" to avoid the possible "two god" implications of the term "binitarian." The upshot of Hurtado's careful historical interpretation does, however, tend to confirm the belief not uncommon among groups considered heretical that trinitarian isn't an appropriate interpretation of NT worship practices and beliefs. Hurtado doesn't make a point of this as far as I have read, but there isn't any evidence in the NT to suggest that the Holy Spirit was worshiped as co-existent and co-equal with God the Father and the Son/Word (contra traditional creedal explications of Christian belief). Dyadic doesn't equate to Triadic. The evidence is fairly evident. (Tautologically speaking)Richard W. Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00766923774272243317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030759610229712416.post-80244579119845288212017-07-02T13:21:45.398+02:002017-07-02T13:21:45.398+02:00Hi Jonathan - thanks, I think I got bogged down in...Hi Jonathan - thanks, I think I got bogged down in some detail there, what you say makes sense. Christianity was certainly unique! Appreciated your encouraging remark also. Blessings.John Bainbridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03419403943860885174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030759610229712416.post-62528068915880812962017-07-02T03:57:31.163+02:002017-07-02T03:57:31.163+02:00This is a fantastic series on a fantastic book, I ...This is a fantastic series on a fantastic book, I really enjoy it.<br /><br />I'm not a huge fan of the term 'binatarian' either, it leads trinitarian enthusiasts to just think Hurtado is implying ontology while he's only talking about the shape of devotional practices. Words like 'dyadic' or perhaps even 'binary' would have conveyed the exact same idea without leading to this potential confusion.<br /><br />Next, you say that his initial definition of exclusivist monotheism is 'an imperfect line out of step with his wording throughout this section' since he describes it as a 'refusal to offer worship to any figure other than the one God'.<br /><br />But it seems to me you are missing the flow of this specific paragraph. Hurtado starts by defining exclusivist monotheism of Roman-era Judaism only to posit it as a constraining factor in the emergence of Christ-devotion, so as to explain how it developed the way it did. He didn't mean that early Christian devotion was strictly in line with this exclusivist monotheism — it is indeed a 'distinctive variant', strongly related but also significantly different.<br /><br />I like to call it "sui generis theism" — of a unique kind.<br /><br />Jonathan B.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com