I continue here with another post about something that I learned about or changed my mind about while writing How Jesus Became God. I have to admit, that for many years I was puzzled by the apostle Paul – specifically his Christology. All the various things he said about Christ didn’t seem to add up to a coherent whole to me, even though I thought and thought and thought about it. But I finally found the piece that, when added to the puzzle, made it all fit together. I think now I can make sense of every Christological statement in Paul’s letters. This not because I myself finally figured it out. It’s because I finally read some discussions that actually made sense, and saw that they are almost certainly right. Here’s what I say about it in the book. It’s a result that I would have found very surprising just two years ago.
*********************************************************
Many people no doubt have the same experience I do on occasion, of reading something numerous times, over and over, and not having it register. I have read Paul’s letter to the Galatians literally hundreds of times in both English and Greek. But the clear import of what Paul says in Galatians 4:14 simply never registered with me, until, frankly, a few months ago. In this verse Paul indicates that Christ was an angel. The reason it never registered with me is because the statement is a bit obscure, and I had always interpreted it in an alternative way. Thanks to the work of other scholars, I now see the error of my ways.
In the context of the verse Paul is reminding the Galatians of how they first received him when he was ill in their midst, and they helped restore him to health. This is what the verse in question says:
Even though my bodily condition was a test for you, you did not mock or despise me, but you received me as an angel of God, as Jesus Christ.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!!
Sorry to bother you. Is this what the earliest manuscripts of Galatians say? Which manuscripts are most trusted and accurate? Is there a book or source that lists and explains all the different manuscripts and which are most trusted and what their dating is?
Yes, there is no serious textual variation at this point. The most important manuscripts are discussed in Bruce Metzger’s book Text of the NT. More are discussed in Barbara and Kurt Alands’ book of the same title.
Thank you. 🙂
Hi Bart,
Do you think there is a difference in “an angel of God” and “an angel”.
Do you think Paul meant that Christ was “an angel of God” or perhaps “the angel of God”?
John
In the book I argue that he probably thought of Jesus as “The Angel of the Lord”
Prof Ehrman
So the view that Jesus was a pre-existent divine being had appeared already in the tradition by the 50s?
Do you think James and Peter ever came to have this view?
If not could some of the controversy between Paul and the folks in Jerusalem have been caused not just by their atttitude towards Jewish practice by converts but by conflicting Christologies?
Is there a difference between the exalted Christology of Paul and of John? If so could you discuss a bit?
Thanks!
Yes, absolutely. James and Peter: I don’t know. We simply don’t have the evidence. Yes, there is a difference between John and Paul’s Christology. You need to read my book!!
I wonder if we conflate the meaning of “Angel” too much with our 20 centuries of baggage? Messenger makes more sense right? As to his ‘state’: http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/21/74/65 is an old, but decent read for others with access to an academic library, good stuff happening in the latter pages.
Any personal thoughts or ideas as to why Paul thought he had an authentic vision of Christ the angel that he then equated with the human Jesus? That’s the part that doesn’t make sense to me. If he really was fighting against the Jesus Movement Jewish sect, then this vision and conversion does not make sense the way it is presented. What makes more sense is that he was a hellenistic non-practicing Jew who was looking to create a new religion that borrowed the Jewish antiquity so he could have his Gentile friends join a religion and have what the Jewish people have.
He thought Jesus was an angel *before* he became a human. There were probably some psychological processes involved in his “vision,” though at this distance and with such few sources of information, we can’t say what they were, though it’s not hard to guess (e.g., guilt, confusion, things not adding up otherwise, and other htings)
Paul seems enough of an enigma for a wide range of theories about him. My personal one is that he started as a Roman spy but after the stoning of Stephen felt remorse, had a genuine conversion, became a priest after a three year Essene apprenticeship, changed his name and mostly avoided Jerusalem and his past Roman connections, ultimately had to play the Roman connection card to save himself, and the Romans shipped him to Rome to answer for having vacated his Roman connections.
Of course there are many reasons for the conclusions.
I still have problems reconciling your interpretation with Romans 1: 4. If Paul , in accordance with the hymn of Philippians and your view on Gal 4:14, thought Jesus to be an angel before being born, he would surely already be a Son of God before incarnation?
Maybe Paul, even more than modern authors, did not have a logically coherent understanding of every aspect of his belief. It is like when we are told that the early apocalyptic Christians thought that Heaven would descend on earth, but then Paul talks about meeting the Lord in higher altitudes in an upward motion.
Have you read my book on this? Rom. 1:4 is a pre-literary tradition that he’s quoting.
“As the Angel of the Lord…he can be called God;”
But how? Would it be acceptable for a Jew to equate an angel with God? Were all angels God, then?
You need to read my book!!
Dr Ehrman:
Do you believe Christ was an angel before he became a man?
Do you think that Michael whom Daniel mentions in Daniel 12 is the one who became Jesus?
He’s called the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people (Israel) by Daniel.
Do you believe the Word, whom John states, was there with God in the beginning and was God, was an angel? Angels like Christ had the appearance of man. The three men that appeared to Abraham, one of whom Abraham calls the Lord of all the Earth, looked exactly like the other two who were referred to as angels. Genesis 18:1,2 and 19:1 What do you think?
No, I don’t believe these things. As you probably know, I’m an agnostic.
DR Ehrman:
Yes I know you’re an agnostic. I understand that we can’t know the nature of God through the scriptures. The scriptures have been altered to some degree, therefore it’s impossible to arrive at any accurate theological or historical truth. However the question of Jesus resurrection is answered as true or false. Did this historical person Jesus literally rise from the dead or not? I believe he did rise from the dead. I accept the testimony of the ‘eyewitnesses. Blessings!
In Greek, how did authors distinguish heavenly angelic beings, from the generic “messenger”? How come the Greek language never found the need to create two separate words to describe two very different entities? In Jewish thought, angels are messengers of God – but also much more. But for Greco-Romans, angels surely did not feature in their religious cosmology?
It’s the same word for both. You have to rely on the context.
How do we know Paul is using “aggelos” to refer to Christ as a heavenly being, instead of a generic messenger of God?
Context.
Any thoughts on the finding in the Harvard Theological Review:
“Over the past two years, extensive testing of the papyrus and the carbon ink, as well as analysis of the handwriting and grammar, all indicate that the existing material fragment dates to between the sixth and ninth centuries CE [Common Era]. None of the testing has produced any evidence that the fragment is a modern fabrication or forgery.”
http://wunc.org/post/gospel-jesuss-wife-papyrus-not-forgery-harvard-says
I’m waiting to study the report before commenting on it.
Are there any examples in Jewish literature from antiquity that describe something similar to an angel being born as a human and then living among humans for some relatively long period of time (comparable to three decades or so), or is this something totally innovative that Paul introduces?
Nothing exactly like that, no. But I don’t think Paul is the one who came up with it.
Is being elevated from a pre-existing angel to equal with God known as the Jackie Wilson (Your Love Keeps Lifting Me Higher and Higher) Exaltation Christology?
Lyrics:
Your love, lifting me higher
Than I’ve ever been lifted before
Haven’t heard *that* song in a long time!
I look forward to the additional post. One of your best features is how you change your mind with evidence as shown in this series of posts.
Your blog readers might want to Google “Jesus Wife Manuscript Probably Isn’t a Forgery.” which was part of today’s MSN News.
When I heard you discuss this in your seminar at UNC last fall I was skeptical that the Galatians verse was enough to make such a conclusion, but I think the more important point is that such a view is consistent with the rest of Paul’s writings. Can you address what the book of Hebrews says about Jesus in comparison to angels in its 1st chapter? Is this supportive of the view that they saw Jesus as an exalted angel, or not?
No, I think the author saw him as superior to the angels. What his readers thought is harder to say….
I find it refreshing that you’re willing to change your mind on some of your previously-held views in light of new information. I think it shows that you really are in search of the historical truth and not just seeking to find evidence to justify your own stance. This seems to stand in contrast to many on the other side of the aisle. I attended a seminar here in Denver last year called Unpacking Atheism, featuring Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, and other intellectual apologists (none of whom were biblical scholars) and really wanted to ask them a question about their motives during the Q & A seesion but never got the chance. They all claim they’ve come to their beliefs by virtue of analysis and study of all the options before finally arriving at Christianity as the only logical belief system, but I have my doubts. I wanted to ask them, if there were suddenly some new evidence that shattered their worldview and forced them to reconsider everything, would they turn away from Christianity if the evidence definitively pointed elsewhere? In other words, are they really trying to find the truth, or are they just trying to find reasons to believe? I get the sense they have a destination in mind when they begin their search, whereas you follow the evidence wherever it may lead. To me, that’s a more intellectually honest approach, and something I wish the apologists would concede more often.
Hi, Bart-
Wasn’t this the way that John Milton presented “The Son” in Paradise Lost? Sounds like it to me. If so, then maybe he read the Greek the same way you do.
Does he? I haven’t looked at Milton in years.
It’s funny you should mention your problem of a ‘gloss’ reading of Galatians 4:14. It was through your TC series on the Historical Jesus that I first realized the ‘gloss’ reading I had been doing of the parable of the sheep and the goats from Matthew 25. My goodness, there it was all along, though I was now only seeing it for the first time, Jesus’s plan of salvation in parable form. Nicely answers the tricky issue regarding those who had not heard, and seemed quite comprehensive in that it was tangible and not based in ‘correct belief.’ It was something any/everyone could do, or not. Within weeks of this awakening, I heard a knock at the door, and there were four men standing on my porch asking me if I wanted to participate in a survey of religious sentiment in my neighborhood. I consent and the first question was whether or not I believed that there was yet to be a ‘second coming’ of Christ. I said that I did not believe that Jesus was coming back. The elder in the group opted to argue with me, and I simply laughed and asked how it was that there could be a wrong answer on a survey of religious sentiment in my neighborhood. Needless to say, the survey (which was never completed) was a red herring, and we chatted for nearly 3 hours (they were from a local SDA missionary training school in the area). I was offered the L, L, L, argument of C.S. Lewis, and simply added a fourth L; literary creation of incidents/sayings/titles. I then offered them Matthew 25:31-46. I was told that this passage was not relevant because it was a parable. Alright, I said, then tell me, what does it mean? They told me that they would get back to me; that was November of 2009.
Bart.
I haven’t read your book yet, so excuse me if you’ve dealt with this question therein.
Is there a “majority opinion” among NT scholars, particularly among those whose who are not hardcore Evangelicals, regarding Christology?
Yes, on some things. No, on others. (well, there’s probably a “majority” opinion on everything, but not necessarily a consensus.)
Bart: I always thought that Paul drew a clear distinction between the earthly Jesus and the risen Christ. However, I read commentaries that suggest that for Paul, Jesus and Jesus Christ are the same thing. What sayest, thou?
Paul certainly understood that there was a man Jesus; but his Lord was the exalted Christ.
Title of Response: “pre-fall Lucifer, Micha-El (St. Michael), Rapha-El, Gabri-El, and Christ)
Bart Ehrman:
“…you received me as *an* angel of God, as Jesus Christ [is *an* angel of God]..
As *the* Angel of the Lord, Christ is a pre-existent being who is divine; he can be called God; and he is God’s manifestation on earth in human flesh.
Steefen:
Please elaborate on why you’re going from Jesus being one of God’s angels to Jesus being the angel of God. Jesus was greater than pre-fall Lucifer?!
2. Jesus as a pre-existent being reminds one of John’s gospel. Would John agree with Paul?
3. Then the angel at the empty tomb could have been Jesus Christ shapeshifting (from angel to human), yes?
You need to read my book. But no,k the angel at the tomb is not usually understood to be Christ, given what he says there.
Yes, Dr. Ehrman, I totally agree and look forward to reading it. HOLY JESUS YES: there’s an index in this book. I’m really looking forward to reading it now.
Below is a link to a direct counter response to your view regarding Jesus as the Angel of God. You have mentioned here that context is the key to grasping the meaning of Paul’s statement.The blogger also agrees context is the key and elaborates why your perspective is unlikely.Can you please clarify your stance in response to the bloggers articulation that jesus was not a pre-existing Angel.
http://dustinmartyr.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/review-of-bart-ehrmans-book-how-jesus-became-god-part-8-gal-414/
I’m afraid this person is very much in minority when he argues that “angel” means “messenger” in the other passages that he cites. By far the more natural reading is “angel” (esp. 1 Cor. 11!!)
If I may be a temporary narrator to this Blog, like the Holy Spirit in Acts, “bloggers, what Dr. Ehrman is saying is……READ THE BOOK!” Ha!
Would it be correct to say that an exaltation Christology definitely came first…but then, there were two separate lines of development?
The majority of early Christians continued to have an exaltation Christology for several decades, but found themselves moving the *time* of the exaltation back further and further: from the resurrection to Jesus’s baptism, then to his birth. When they moved the concept of his being “special” back to *before* his birth, it became an incarnation Christology. (Did all Christians who’d gone that route immediately embrace the view expressed in John?)
A *minority* of early Christians – but an important minority, because it included Paul – had an incarnation Christology from a much earlier date. But they believed Jesus had been an angel before his human incarnation, and had been rewarded for the mission he’d carried out by being raised to a higher level of divinity than he’d enjoyed before.
I think it *is* a chronological development, but that it happened at different rates in different places for different people. The “incarnation” option was available at the same time as the “exaltation” option; and some people, like Paul, our first author, already has a combination of the two.
This all reminds me, of what I believe is the Jehovah’s Witness’ view on Jesus, and on their translation of John 1:1. At work the other day we were discussing whether or not the phase “… and the Word was A god.” is a possibly correct translation of ” Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.”. Since we don’t know Greek we relied on Strong’s, but found that Strong’s doesn’t differentiate between θεόν and θεὸς. Should they be treated as distinct indicating “The God” and “a god”? Or is Strong’s essentially correct that they are essentially the same word?
Strong’s doesn’t differentiate between the two because they are exactly the same word, one in the nominative and the other in the accusative case. The issue of translation has to do with the fact that the final THEOS does not have an article in front of it, and so could either be God or a god. But since LOGOS does have the article, and is the subject, then the predicate nominative THEOS is probably to be understood as definite as well, that is, as God.h
Hi Dr. Ehrman. Is it possible that when Paul refers to Jesus as an angel of God in Gal. 4:14 that he understood Jesus to be the incarnation of the Old Testament “Angel of YHWH?” That would account for Paul having a high Christology and yet allow him to remain (perhaps?) monotheistic in the Jewish sense. Daniel Boyarin (in “The Jewish Gospels”) asserts that the concept of Jesus as the son of man yielded a more “divine” understanding among Jews of his day than would have the concept of Jesus as the son of God. He discusses the “son of man” passage in Daniel in support of his thesis and it would seem that Paul may have been trying to explain how this pre-existant divine being could be divine, receive worship of a sort and yet not be God. I suppose I have a hard time with the notion that Paul had a trinitarian (or bitarian) understanding of God, but it makes sense to me that he could have an understanding consistent with the second century BCE author of Daniel. What do you think?
PS – The above is my first query – I am new to your blog. I have read “Forged,” “Lost Christianities,” “Jesus Interrupted,” and “Misquoting Jesus,” and have just ordered “How Jesus Became God.” I sincerely appreciate your scholarship and ability to make that scholarship available to all. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Graham Hudgins
Yes, I argue in the book that for Paul Jesus was The Angel of the Lord, born as a human.
“Many people no doubt have the same experience I do on occasion, of reading something numerous times, over and over, and not having it register.”
Or as Martin Luther put it…
“I greatly longed to understand Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, and nothing stood in the way but that one expression, “the righteousness of God”, because I took it to mean that righteousness whereby God is righteous and deals righteously in punishing the unrighteous . . . Night and day I pondered until . . . I grasped the truth that the righteousness of God is that righteousness whereby, through grace and sheer mercy, he justifies us by faith.”