(11 votes, average: 4.64 out of 5)
Loading...Yesterday I posted about the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, which clearly differentiated between the man Jesus and the spiritual being, the Christ, who inhabited him temporarily – leaving him at his suffering and death since the divine cannot suffer and die. That understanding of Jesus Christ is sometimes called “docetic,” but strictly speaking that’s not quite right. The term docetic comes from the Greek word DOKEO which means “to seem” or “to appear.” It refers to Christologies in which Jesus was not a real flesh-and-blood human but only “seemed” to be. In reality, what they saw, heard, and touched was a phantasm.
That is not what is going on in the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter. Here there really is a man Jesus – flesh and blood like the rest of us. But he is indwelt by a divine being who leaves him at his death, abandoneding him to die alone on the cross. That is similar to a docetic view, but also strikingly different. I call it a “separationist” Christology because it separates Jesus from the Christ (who himself separates from Jesus at his death).
A separationist Christology is what you find in various ways among different groups of Gnostics. Many of them thought that Jesus was born as a human, but at his baptism the Christ entered into him (remember in the Gospels, the “Spirit” comes upon him: that’s when he came to be filled with the divine being). That enabled Jesus to begin to do miracles and to deliver such amazing teachings. Then at the end, when he began to suffer, the Christ left him. And that is why on the cross he cried out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me [i.e., left me behind]?” He died alone.
Both the docetic and separationist Christologies wanted to ensure that no one should think that the divine Christ could actually suffer.
There was a third, and far less popular view of what happened at Jesus crucifixion that confused people into thinking that the Christ suffered when in fact he did not. It was the view, only occasionally attested, that at his crucifixion Jesus pulled an “identity switch” with someone else, so the Romans crucified the wrong guy, while Jesus himself stood by laughing at his little stunt. Really.
The view is attested in
Pretty weird stuff to most modern readers. Want to learn more? Join the blog!<a href=”/register/”>Click here for membership options </a>
I’m curious to know if after Paul wrote his letters to the churches, was there ever any responses from those churches? Anything retained? How would we ever know?
Nothing retained, I very much regret to say. But we know there were responses because he mentions some, e.g., in 1 Corinthians and Philippians.
How do these views deal with the Resurrection, if they deal at all? Perhaps since Christ could never die, then no Resurrection was relevant
We don’t know how the author of this particular text did, but other gnostic thinkers with similar views about the Jesus and the Christ being different figures apparently thought *either* that the divine Christ raised the man Jesus as a reward for his faithfulness (“thanks for letting me share your body for a while…) or simply that, as a flesh-and-blood human, Jesus himself was not raised (since salvation comes to the spirit)
Dr. Ehrman
From these amazing early differences about the very nature of Jesus, isn’t it clear that reliance on the idea of the accuracy of oral tradition just doesn’t work?
Yes, my book Jesus Before the Gospels deals with just that issue.
Thanks! I’m currently reading that book!
There were clearly many “Here’s what Jesus said” accounts forged in the names of various followers of Jesus, but apparently very few that claim to have been written by Jesus himself. I only know about the “weather is fine, wish you were here” letters between Jesus and King Abgar…but I’m not particularly knowledgeable. I know that Jesus likely couldn’t write, but neither could Peter, and that didn’t slow him down any. Does it strike you as odd that there isn’t a “Book of Jesus” in the New Testament? (Though I guess that would pretty much BE the New Testament.)
Actually, the King Abgar is much more interesting than that. But otherwise, the only other writing of Jesus I know of from antiquity (apart from him writing on the ground in the scribal account of the woman taken in adultery in John) is in the medieval text (impossible to date — but sometime from 5-12th c.s probably) The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea, where Jesus dictates a letter to the heavenly cherubim from the cross. (!)
Dr. Ehrman,
Is there any research that all of these alternate versions of Jesus being part divine/part human,
fully both, or fully one or the other at different times, was part of a marketing approach. Not necessarily in the modern sense, but more like, hey I got an audience because they wanted to hear about rising from the dead, but they are not going for the idea that Jesus suffered, so I modified the story?
We can’t tell where such stories came from — but in a sense all the stories came from places. Some probably by rumor, some possibly made up, from one cause/reason or another. There’s nothing to suggest malicious intent or intent to deceive — but there’s no evidence of any kind really for the origin of any of the stories, except possibly the need to explain what Christains “knew” to be true about JEsus’ death and reurrection.
My understanding is that, like the historical Jesus, Paul did not believe in eternal torment for the unsaved. Rather, like Jesus, he believed in their annihilation.
I think I’ve always had this idea that Jesus not only died to save sinners from death but that he also took on all the additional punishment that sinners deserved for their sins-which would include the equivalent of eternal torment for all humanity.
After rereading your discussion, in “The New Testament,” of Paul’s various models of salvation, I’m becoming convinced that Jesus’s death saved believers from their own deaths (ie, annihilation) but not from any additional punishment for sin. For Paul, if death is not the only punishment for sin, it’s by far the most important. “The wages of sin is death.”
I find this important because it makes atonement a result of only/primarily Jesus’s death and not (also) of his additional suffering. While the need for Jesus’s death in order to effect atonement is still barbaric, it seems far less barbaric than him suffering all the (other) punishment humanity deserves for sin. Jesus’s death seems more like a simple sacrifice to bring about atonement.
Is this a supportable interpretation?
Yes, I think Paul believed in destruction of the person, not eternal punishment. But I would say that like Jesus he appears to have thought the final destruction would come only at the end of the age after the dead were raised. Some would enter eternity with Jesus, others would be shown the errors of their ways and destroyed for all time.
Do you think the distinction between Jesus simply “dying” for sin and Jesus also receiving all the “additional” punishment (eg, eternal torment) humanity deserved for sin to be an important difference?
To me it makes Jesus’s death seem more like a simple, almost ritual sacrifice—like animal sacrifices for atonement—rather than something that “pays God back” for human sin. How could one person’s death “make up for” all the billions of deaths human beings as a group deserve for their sins?
I don’t recall ever seeing the second view you cite in any ancient sources; it is the kind of thing you might hear today though.
In the traditional understanding of Jesus’s death as atonement, has it ever struck you that, if Jesus was God and knew in advance that he would be raised from the dead on the third day to sit at God’s right hand, Jesus’s death, while still terribly frightening and painful for a human, was not nearly as horrendous or so great a sacrifice as Christians normally assume it was?
I have very little familiarity with death of God theology, but if God literally died at the crucifixion-so that humanity might live-that would make it a much more stupendous sacrifice than our traditional understanding.
Oh yes, people have often pointed that out! And it seems to be assumed in both Luke and John, where Jesus really does not seem to suffer very much (emotionally, e.g.)
Bart, if it’s possibly the case that the “Son of Man” was thought to be a pre-existent being in Jesus’ time, then wouldn’t it follow that it is also possible that all 4 gospels, not just John, present Jesus as a pre-existent divine being, and in all 4 of them, Jesus claims to be a pre-existent divine being, and thus, this is not exclusive to John?
Most of the traditions about the son of man don’t portray him as “pre-existent” in the sense of always being with God. In Matthew and Luke Christ comes into existence at his birth of a virgin; in Mark there is nothing about his divine status before his baptism. And John does not do much with the son of man idea; for him Jesus is the incarnation of the pre-existent Logos.
The docetic and separationist views seem incompatible with atonement theology: if the Christ did not really die, then He could not have been a sacrifice for the sins of humankind. But with the orthodox view, Jesus was fully divine, and therefore immortal, so how could he die on the cross? If only his mortal part died (like all us mortals), then how does that provide any divine sacrifice for sins? Even though I used to evangelize on behalf of it, I now see that no matter how you look at it the crucifixion of the Christ raises a lot of difficult issues and paradoxes.
It’s because in the orthodox tradition he is not part human and part divine. He is *fully* human and *fully* divine. That doesn’t actually work mathematically (he’s only one thing, but 100% one thing and 100% another thing), but either does the Trinity or, in earlier times, 5 loaves and 2 fish that feed 5000 and with basketfulls left over. This is why modern universities are dissolving Religious Studies Departments and putting all the funding into STEM.
Orthodox tradition also argues that Jesus emptied or lowered himself to become human like us but still retained his divine status.
Islam, perhaps based on the Koran (4:157), seems to have picked up this idea of a supernatural switch. It’s a popular belief among Muslims that Allah caused Jesus’ betrayer to look like Jesus and be crucified in his place. This may point to the popularity, spread and longevity of this tradition.
its not actually in the quranic text. if you look at the arabic the “made to appear” is passive verb and the DOER UNKNOWN.
i am wondering if the quran is attacking from multiple angles by keeping the doer unknown.
who is making it appear? mark who was not a witness made it to appear
paul made it to appear by saying “you foolish galatians who betwitched you….”
Fascinating!
For a long time I’ve been working on the idea that heaven is not in a time or place different from this life. Rather it’s a fuller, deeper dimension of this life. We, at least potentially, already have one foot-or toe-in heaven. And of course this deeper dimension would have to be timeless in some way.
My question is whether this idea is consistent with parts of the NT. First, there is the idea that the kingdom of God has already started to become present, in a small (but irreversible) way, in the lives of Jesus and his followers. Second, I believe you’ve written that, in John’s gospel, those who believe in Jesus are already experiencing eternal life in the here and now.
Another question is whether my ideas are gnostic. I don’t have a good handle on Gnosticism but am wondering if this ground has been trod before.
It’s not a view you can find in the Bible, no. Biblical writers, of course, didn’t think in terms of dimensions. So too with Gnostics. Some writers do think the end is being experienced now, but given the ancients’ different understanding of physics and metaphysics, they would not have imagined it this way. Though I would say that John’s view would probalby be analogous in some ways: you already *have* eternal life in some sense.
One interpretation of the “heavenly dimension” idea is that it’s similar to the Buddhist idea of enlightenment. That’s one reason why I bring up Gnosticism. If the latter is based on (secret) knowledge, would that have an affinity with the former? A difference might be that Gnosticism seems to have a rather strong esoteric/magical/superstitious cult element. Buddhist enlightenment, at least in the contemporary US, is more focused on mindfulness and meditation and other things not too foreign to modern-day psychology and psychotherapy.
What enlightenment and Gnosticism might have in common though is a goal of a change in consciousness that goes beyond ordinary knowledge and helps one realize the way things really are—which provides a kind of salvation. It’s an experience that goes beyond the cognitive and embraces feelings, self-identity, relationships, etc.
Does all this have much of anything to do with Gnosticism and are there significant (perhaps surprising) similarities between Gnosticism and Buddhist enlightenment?
Some scholars have discussed the similarities. It is important to stress, though, that similar approaches to life and reality can spring up independently of one another (e.g., think of all the ascetic religious traditions in the world). So similarity does not necessarily mean dependence. Though it can! And for those who think it does, they simply need to show a plausible historical connection. Scholars of Gnosticism are, of course, open to any explanations; but when you dig deeply into Gnostic writings, their roots are, for most scholars, far more connected with strains of middle-Platonic thought than Buddhist, and those connections, in addition, are far more readily explained historically and contextually (that isn’t what makes them *right*; it’s just a side note worth observing)
For some time I’ve been puzzled by how Paul could say that Christians are “expected” to follow the parts of the Law, especially the Great Commandment, that apply to all people and not only to identify Jews as a distinct people. At the same time, only loving trust, ie faith, in the efficacy of Jesus’s death and resurrection was needed for salvation.
Previously I’d thought maybe living in accordance with the Law might be seen as the natural result of/response to the joy and gratitude people feel when they realize that they’ve received the gift of salvation through faith in Jesus’s death and resurrection.
Although now I can’t find it, I think I’ve recently read something you said about how, for Paul, Baptism releases us from the power of sin as a cosmic force. Then we are free-and genuinely want-to follow the Law. What I find very helpful in this notion is that Baptism provides a rather clear “mechanism” that allows/helps/makes people want to follow the Law and that it comes after faith.
Do my thoughts here track with Paul’s ideas?
To an extent. Paul thought that baptism delivered a person from the power of sin (a power that made people sin; Romans 6); but also at baptism a person received the Spirit, and the Spirit enabled a person no longer to sin. So it’s not just baptism. The Law indicates what needs to be done but doesn’t provide the power to do it; the Spirit provides the power.
Thanks. I think I have a lot of clarity on this issue now.
In the cleansing of the temple Matthew and Luke both have
“My house will be called a house of prayer but you are making it a den of robbers.”
Mark however has
“My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations but you have made it a den of robbers.”
with the addition of “for all nations” doesn’t Mark clearly have the edited version?
I don’t know any scholar who thinks so, but it’s a free world!
Do L, M and the parts if any of Mark that are not in either Matthew or Luke make any especially unusual or notable points or have any strong emphases that are not to be found in Luke, Matthew, or the parts of Mark that can be found in Matthew or Luke? In other words, in segments that only appear in one of the Synoptics?
I’m interested both in anything significant in comparison with both their own parent gospels and as a group.
Are there parts of Q that are not in “both” Matthew and Luke?
Well, there are lots of significant stories in M and L found no where else: Matthew’s entire infancy narrative (the massacre of the innocents; flight to Egypt; etc.) and Luke’s (census for the world to be taxed; presentation at the temple; JEsus as a 12 year old) and lots of things in the ministries — including, e.g., Luke’s parables of the Good Samaritan and Prodigal Son.
It’s impossible to say if Matthew had material taken from Q that Luke decided not to include and vice versa, since strictly speaking the only way to know for sure it’s Q material is if both of them have it.
Mmm, I hadn’t thought of it that way. So, even if Q is defined as what Luke and Matthew have in common that is not also in Mark, parts of L and M could still come from Q if it was a written document? Or maybe Q would not even have to be written—maybe just a “source”, possibly an oral source?
There must be scholars who have tried to figure out what parts of L and M might have come from the Q source—based perhaps on similarities in ideas or the “form” of the material, for instance, in the form of sayings?
THat’s right. But I think it had to be written. Otherwise we wouldn’t have the precise word-for-word agreements of Matthew and Luke. And yes, tons of scholars have written on that. But without Matthew-Luke agreements, it gets even *more* speculative….
Dr. Ehrman, since the temple was destroyed, does that mean Jesus really the savior? I read another post of yours and I just can’t really figure this out because since the temple was destroyed, it will prove that Christianity is true,right?
No, the historical evnts of the year 70 have no bearing on the theological claims about Jesus.
What happens from a theological standpoint of Jesus’ stunt double after he’s left to die alone on the cross in the third view stated earlier in this thread? Is he a disposable sentient body? Does that body rise to be the resurrected Jesus –with the ethereal Jesus back in– whose perforated physical hands you can put your finger through? Is that body who has accomplished such a great service to be brought back in the new kingdom as a rather fascinating doppelgänger?
THere were different opinions about that attested in our sources. Some thought he just died. Others that hte Christ raised him from the dead as a reward. And in a lot of traditions the raised body is inhabited again to deliver more teachigns. None of the views is spelled out at length or in precise detail so as to resolve teh logical problems….
Good evening Dr. Ehrman: if someone came to you and said “reconstruct the most likely story of Jesus’ life that you think is most probably accurate”, what percentage of Mark or perhaps of Q would you use? Would you use the majority of Mark, for instance, or only a fragment? How much would you take from other sources? I’m not asking for an in depth answer, just off the top of your head, if possible. Would you use anything at all from the Talmud? I believe you’ve said that you don’t think the Talmud’s sources on “Jesus” are early, but perhaps there is some % of it that is perhaps credible? As someone who isn’t always fond of organized traditional Christianity, I would like to think that the Toledot Yeshu is more accurate than the Gospels, but I’m guessing you wouldn’t think so. Thank you for sharing your genius, I always respect your opinions.
I’ve actually done that in my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. I think that Mark and Q are our best sources, but I have never worked out what percentage of either/both I think is reliable. But M and L material can be as well, and parts of John. The Talmud is centuries later, so not a good candicate. So to Toledot Yeshu.
I cant remember.
First question-
Which is the gospel of which it says there was a cross that reached the sky? When the guards were exceptionally scared. Gospel of peter? Apocalypse of Peter?
Second question-
Also, so in Mark, 15:51 and Mark 16:5 the “young man”? Who is Mark talking about? Do they have any relation with the same young man? Just curious, I support your blog. I am just making CIA (Christianity in antiquity) comments and questions. I love your blog and its topics. It is not my belief, but it is interesting me.
Thank you, Joseph.
I think you’re thinking of the Gospel of Peter. Do you mean Mark 14:51? Some readers have said they were the same person. I think I’ll write a blog post on this.
Yes. Mark 14:51. That would be great. I would definitely want to read what you have to say.