Bauckham’s paradigm is
problematic, however. First, Bauckham’s own approach to divine identity is
itself inconsistent. In his discussion of Mark’s depiction of Jesus as divine,
his three criteria factor little in the discussion. Bauckham speaks of the
transfiguration as “a revelation of Jesus in the glory of his messianic rule.”
(Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 264) But as Kirk points out, “in
that scene there is neither application of the divine name, nor affirmation of
a place in creation or rule over the cosmos, nor does Jesus receive worship.”
(Kirk, Man Attested by God, 18). I believe Bauckham’s conclusion that
the transfiguration in some way displays Jesus’s divine glory is right but his
divine identity paradigm does not account for Jesus’s divinity in Mark.
Second, Bauckham’s paradigm is
incapable of accounting for an abundance of Jewish sources that depict exalted
human beings. Bauckham’s inability to explain the data is manifest in his
discussion of the Enochic similitudes. He claims that the depiction of the
eschatological Son of Man “is one exception which proves the rule.” (Jesus and the God of Israel, 16) But if
Enoch’s Son of Man beaks the rule so blatantly, why should we follow Bauckham’s
exegesis of other exalted figures, such as the Moses of Philo or Ezekiel the
Tragedian or the picture of Melchizedek in 11QMelch (11Q13) II, 1-23 and Heb.
7:1-3? Indeed, his exegesis of the depictions of these and other exalted
figures strains credulity. Bauckham’s divine identity paradigm is, thus, a
brilliant theological solution to the problem of Jewish-Christian continuity in
Christological debate, but it is not good historical description. (Daniel B.
Glover, Patters of Deification in the Acts of the Apostles [Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 576; Tūbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022],
64)
