REVIEWS

From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology, by P. Maurice Casey. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co.; Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1991. Pp. 197. $21.00

Douglas R. A. Hare Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

This book is fully as provocative as its title. The author intends to challenge Trinitarianism by undermining the biblical sources of the doc- trine of the incarnation. Casey here tests out his theory that christology developed in rela- tionship to the degree of Jewish self-identification of the New Testa- ment authors and their communities. On this basis he organizes the material into three stages: Jewish, Jewish and Gentile, and Gentile. This trichotomy, however, does not provide the book's structure. After examining modern theory concerning Jewish identity, he devotes his first major chapter to the Fourth Gospel and its "Gentile self- identification." He then studies the major christological titles of the Synoptic Gospels, concluding that their use as titles emerged only after Jesus' death. Central to his presentation is his treatment of Jesus' minis- try in chap. 5; he proposes that Jesus "could be perceived as the embodiment of Judaism as it should be" (p. 72) and that this percep- tion became "the driving force of early Christian belief in the resur- rection of Jesus," a belief that was "legitimated by means of scripture and visions" (p. 105). Casey apparently thinks that belief in the resur- rection preceded experience of it. As preparation for his treatment of the development of christology prior to Paul, Casey presents a survey of Jewish "messianic and inter- mediary figures." His point is that development in the way Jesus was viewed was natural in view of the fact that such development had already occurred with respect to Enoch, Adam, Moses and Wisdom. He devotes special attention to the "pre-Pauline hymns" of Phil. 2:6-11 and Col. 1 : 15-20. Both identify Jesus with a pre-existent being close

95 96

to God (on the analogy of Adam and Wisdom) but stop short of assert- ing his deity because of the restraint of Jewish monotheism. "At the same time, only sympathetic Gentile perception is required to turn Jesus into a deity" (p. 116). Paul's own christology does not go beyond the limits observed by the pre-Pauline hymns; his use of "son" with reference to Jesus does not violate Jewish monotheism. The same is true of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1 Peter and the Synoptic Gospels. All belong squarely in stage two, where Gentile thought does not predominate. In Casey's view stage three was precipitated by the expulsion of Johannine Christians from the synagogue. The conflict was over stage two christology. In this conflict Christian Jews had to choose between Jewish and Gentile self-identification. The removal from the Johan- nine church of Jews loyal to Jewish identity left it without the restraint of monotheism, with the result that the Jewish prophet was turned into "a Gentile God" (p. 97). Note the confusion implicit in the capitali- zation of "God" after the indefinite pronoun; it reflects Casey's inde- cision concerning whether or not it is fair to say that John presents Jesus as "a second god," i.e. "a genuinely separate being" who is "fully divine," whatever this may mean. He concedes that it is a mat- ter of perception. From the Christian perspective John's language does not violate monotheism, while from the Jewish perspective it most certainly does. He sides with the Jewish view, because orthodox christology is in his view seriously undermined at two points. First, Jesus was mistaken in his prediction of the imminent arrival of the kingdom; this is conclusive proof that he was not divine. Second, belief in the deity of Jesus "could have developed only in a predominantly Gentile church" (p. 169). "The Holy Spirit could hardly lead the church into an evaluation of the Jesus of history which Jesus in his revela- tory ministry could not hold... " (p. 176). A thorough critique cannot be attempted here, but several remarks are in order. First, Casey builds heavily on the assumption that there was a massive expulsion of Johannine Jews from the synagogue. I know of no evidence that Christian Jews generally felt obligated to worship in the local synagogue. On the basis of the data we possess it is far safer to assume that their worship was centered rather in Chris- tian gatherings.