(17 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...This will be my final post on the debate I had in New Orleans with Michael Bird on “How Did Jesus Become God” a couple of weeks ago. As I indicated in my previous post, it appears where we disagree in particular is with how the resurrection affected the disciples’ understanding of Jesus. My view is that when they came to think Jesus was raised from the dead, the disciples thought that this entailed his being exalted up to heaven. And *that* is why thy started calling Jesus “God,” because in ancient thinking – as documented widely in both pagan and Jewish circles – it was believed that a mortal being who was taken up to heaven was made immortal, and was in fact, considered then to become a God.
That is the belief attested for such figures as Romulus in Roman circles and Enoch in Jewish circles. And it is, I’ve contended, how the earliest Christians understood Jesus. Only as they thought about it more did they start saying even more exalted things about him – eventually saying not that he was a mortal who had been made immortal or a human who had been made divine, but that he had been a divine being *before* he was a human being, that is, that he had pre-existed his appearance in this world and that he was a God come to earth, not an earthly being taken up to be a God. In other words, in the terms I use in my book, the early Christians shifted from an “exaltation” Christology (where Christ was exalted to the level of divinity) to an “incarnation” Christology (where Christ was a God who became a fleshly human being, temporarily).
This is where Michael disagrees with me. I should say again that in our debate he…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR??? It costs only a little, and you get a lot. And every penny goes to charity!!
Michael Bird’s most popular books are The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians, and Introducing Paul: The Man, His Mission and His Message.
DR Ehrman”
YOUR COMMENT:
Only as they thought about it more did they start saying even more exalted things about him – eventually saying not that he was a mortal who had been made immortal or a human who had been made divine, but that he had been a divine being *before* he was a human being, that is, that he had pre-existed his appearance in this world and that he was a God come to earth, not an earthly being taken up to be a God.
MY COMMENT:
I believe that from the very beginning the disciples were taught by Jesus Himself that He had come down from heaven, that he was not from this world, that he was the Son of God through whom God created all things and that He would be killed and rise from the dead. The disciples never thought that Jesus was a mortal who after His resurrection became immortal. I think they didn’t understand everything Jesus was telling them until after the resurrection, but after the resurrection they did understand everything Jesus had been telling them.
I believe that the accounts recorded in the Gospel of John were written by John Himself.
This is clearly taught by the person reporting these narratives. This person testifies that it was the disciple whom Jesus loved who ‘testified and wrote’ the things written in John.
John 21:24 is unambiguous:
John 21:24-This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
Would highly recommend Bart’s college text book (in 6th edition printing as of 2015) as a way to come up to speed on the historian’s approach to the New Testament. There is an excellent chapter specifically on the Gospel of John. I found some of the side bar discussions very interesting indeed.
The Gospel of John is so extraordinarily different manner of gospel from the Synoptics, having the highest form of Christology and being loaded up with “I am” verses attributed to Jesus, and it has a most interesting (to me) metaphysics (pre-incarnation and democratization of the nature of Jesus in respect to all of us – John 10:30-31). A side bar discussion in Bart’s book considers whether this gospel was in some way a forerunner (prototype) of 2nd century gnostic Christianity, as it seems to have been a gospel well like by gnostic Christians. The sidebar mentions that the very first commentary on a New Teetament gospel was written by a 2nd century Valatinian gnostic Christian on the Gospel of John.
From a historical critical perspective, the Gospel of John is not viewed as a probable source of teachings going back to the historical Jesus and it authorship is not viewed as have been by the apostle of John (which the text book has discussion on). But it is very definitely a most fascinating gospel.
Is Eusebius’ Church History considered a valid source? If so, he speaks at some length of the origins of John’s gospel. In it, he says that John was still alive at the time the other Gospels were making the rounds in the community and while John was happy with the texts, there were some things he felt needed to be included, things he’d seen in person, a different perspective on things. Eusebius also speaks of the rejection of Gnostic thought of the time.
Dr. Ehrman, Jesus was then not thought to be God or a divine incarnate despite his mother having been impregnated by God? Is there a chronology of which fabrication (they are fabrications aren’t they?) came first? The virgin birth or the resurrection?
Belief in resurrection came first. Only decades later, the virgin birth.
Some back and forth posts from you two would be….awesome!
I don’t doubt that the views of most early Christians evolved from Jesus’s having been made divine at his resurrection…to its having been at his baptism…to its having been at his birth or conception. And finally, to his having been a preexistent divine being.
But you yourself have indicated that Paul, and at least a few others, believed at a much earlier date that he was a preexistent divine being (albeit a lesser one than he is in John). For Paul, he was an already-divine being who was “promoted” to a higher status after his resurrection. How does that differ from what you think Bird is implying? (If there’s actual evidence that Paul thought it, why is it hard to believe the disciples may have thought it?)
My sense is that Bird thinks this is what the followers believed as soon as they became convinced of the resurrection, instead of later.
Above you mention that more detail is given in your book. Do you give a lot of detail also in your Great Courses lecture series on the topic? I am a fan of the Great Courses and your courses in particular. I find that method of learning, via audio lectures, to be helpful in my life at the moment.
Yup, I give a lot of details there too!
Bart,
Mate, thanks for your reflections on the debate, I have my own reflections coming up in blog post which I’ll publish in a few hours.
Fantastic! I’ll send you a note about it.
Tried to respond on patheos, but it won’t let me log in for some reason. I read part of your response. I’ll get to the rest when I’ve had more sleep!
I’m not understanding how 2 Sam 7:12-16 is a reference to the Son of God, namely Jesus. Verse 15 reads “When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men…” Since Jesus was supposed to be perfect, how could he have done wrong?
I looked up the 4Q246 manuscript. I must say, I’ve never heard of it before. What’s the date of the manuscript? I see that it’s Aramaic and may have been taken from Luke. Is that right? I’d definitely like to know more about it!
I can see how Paul may not have had an adoptionist view. However, the author of Mark reads differently to me. If people thought Jesus was preexistent then it seems Jesus would have been portrayed as God of the Jews instead of king of the Jews. As for the term “Son of God,” how are we supposed to know that the Son of God is part of a triune God?
It’s the next morning now. I’m recharged after much needed rest and a cup of coffee to start the day. Anyway, I can see your point with Luke, and I can’t say I’ve ever heard of possession Christology either. Maybe that could be explained further on here or on your blog. Or both!
I need to go back and re-read How Jesus Became God, all those sources that have been quoted, and THEN make up my mind about it.
I discuss all this in my book How jesus Became God (except for 4Q246; off hand I don’t know the date)
Patty, 2 Sam 7:14 says, ” I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me” which is taken as a prophecy of a future Davidic king that shaped hopes in places like Ps 89, Micah 4, and intertestamental literature. Not every detail in the prophecy was taken as a direct application to Jesus. On 4Q246, it is not taken from Luke, but is probably datable to 66 BCE to 66 CE, shows that the Messiah was regarded as a Son of God. Finally, I’m not sure pre-existent = God, nor is it necessary that Mark’s divine christology would require rejecting regal qualities. What we find in Mark is that Jesus proclaims and even embodies YHWH’s reign in his words and actions.
Thanks so much for replying. 4Q246 leads me to some other questions, but I won’t wear you out with them…for now!
Hey — wear him out!!! 🙂
LOL
4Q246 was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q = Cave 4, Qumran). It therefore dates before 74 CE by when the scrolls, most believe, were hidden in the caves. So they all predate at least Matthew, Luke, and John.
I’d like to know its meaning. I can’t find much.
I meant to write in my last comment that I’m planning on reading How God Became Jesus as well!
If the Jews thought (as did many pagans) that being exalted into heaven made one a god, do you say that the Jewish people thought that Elijah, who is clearly taken up into heaven, and perhaps Enoch as well, were God? If so, could you elaborate? I’m not seeing it
Some Jews absolutely thought this! I lay it all out in my book.
In ‘How Jesus Became God’? Did these Jews believe they (Enoch and Elijah) were alternate gods, i.e. polytheism, or they were just manifestations of the one God?
They were lower level divinities, like mighty angels.
So much for monotheism, I guess.
Dr. Ehrman, I notice that a lot of NT scholars will to point to Philippians 2:6-11 as a confessional hymn from the oral period, and that since it begins by stating that Jesus was in the “form” (morphe) of God and came down to earth in the “form” (morphen) of a servant, that this supports a pre-existance/incarnation christology in the early church. But I also notice that within the same passage, it also states that the Christ Jesus 1) was not at first equal (isa) with God, 2) that he came in the “likeness” (homoiomati) and “appearance” (schemati) of a man, and that 3) that he was “highly exalted” (hyperypsosen) and was “granted” (echaristo) a name above every name (i.e. God would make him the most powerful man on earth). Each of these points imply a non-trinitarian, docetic and exaltation christology, respectively. How do apologists such as Michael Bird square that circle?
I’m not sure. I deal with the passage at some length in my book.
Bart,
I apologize for such a simple-minded question, but what made the disciples/early christians think that Jesus arose from the dead? I have recently begun reading your blog and earlier writings so I don’t know if you’ve previously answered this query.
Also, in your estimation, what happened to the body of Jesus post crucifixion?
Thanks,
Stan
I deal with this at length in my book. Some of the disciples apparently had visions of Jesus after his death. My view is that his body was probably deposited in some kind of mass grave.
Your area of expertise seems so different from other fields. Professors of literature, anthropology, law etc… may disagree but they support their opinions in a rational way. In your field it seems so many “experts” are so emotionally attached to their inherited beliefs that they cannot rationally debate ideas or come to their own conclusions. Generally, scholars follow facts and base opinions on observations and change opinions based on new facts. In you profession, it seems many “scholars” have a belief and all their work is committed to proving that belief. It must be much frustrating for you (and others like you) to deal with this. Physicists and anthropologists debate reasonable ideas based on evidence/observations but a true scholar in your field will always have to debate others who are tired to faith and not only scholarship. How frustrating is this for you, or do you use it as an opportunity to inform as an historian versus as a “believer?”
My sense is that very few NT scholars would agree that they are biased and everyone else is not!
Yes, I think it would be a great idea to read a response from Dr. Bird about your recent blogs. Somehow, I think he has to conclude that the disciples thought that Jesus was God Incarnate all along as evidenced by Jesus performing miracles, forgiving sins, and having demons recognize Him. I guess one could also argue that Jesus made statements about being divine.in “The Gospel According to John” and that these statements are historical.
Before reading “How Jesus Became God” and “How God Became Jesus,” I had not heard about pre-literary creeds in Acts and Paul’s epistles. It was very helpful to learn about these creeds.
I read this week that “Jesus Before the Gospels” is your 29th published book. Wow! That is a stunning number. Most of us would consider the publication of one book, especially one as extensive as your New Testament text book, to have been a whole career. Congratulations!!!!!!
I have two things left on my bucket list: Write a book that gets published and make a hole in one. The later seems much more likely than the former. Congratulations again!!!!
I would like to congratulate you. This is comment 1000 that you have posted on the blog!!!
My view is that there probably is no consistent “earliest (attainable) Christian” view on such things. I suspect even during his ministry his followers had all sorts of conflicting ideas about Jesus’ relationship to Yahweh and where he fit on the divine spectrum.
Curious: Have you seen the movie “Risen”? Thoughts?
Haven’t seen it yet!
I hope he responds positively. I’d like to see the two of you going back and forth.
Dr Ehrman: I am now reading your latest book. Jesus before the gospels.. This book is great. Do you think that since the gospels were written in Greek. do you think these stories were written as Greek comedy??? After all they were written about an oppressed people, the brunt of jokes????
No, I don’t think they are comedy. Although the “tragedy” does get reversed in them to end on a avery good note.
That’s very clear, coherent, and convincing. If the only alternative to this argument is for Jesus to have been considered in his lifetime a pre-existent divine being who had descended to a human existence, there is surely no precedent for such a belief regarding any Jewish rabbi or prophet.
It seems closer to the message of the late gospel of John or the Docetist heresy of the early Christian centuries. Then the onus is on anyone who wants to show that a Galilean preacher and his disciples in the first century were fundamentally interested in theology rather than the imminent arrival of the kingdom of heaven with the raising up of the poor and afflicted and the humbling and punishment of the mighty. That doesn’t fit with the context or content of the message.
Indeed the pre-literary traditions cited from Romans and Acts are to the point. But by putting all the emphasis on baptism in the Risen Christ and the magical immortality conferred by the Resurrection on others joined to Christ in the Eucharist, Paul seems to have also laid the basis for belief in the pre-existent divinity of the eternal Son of God with unique access to the Father. That may have been his unique and powerful message based only on his personal ecstatic experience of contact with the post-Resurrection Christ, as he claimed.
In this case, it may be plausible to distinguish between: (i) views of Jesus when he was in life: (ii) the experience of the original disciples of the risen Jesus and their reactions; and (iii) the message of Paul who had never known Jesus in life and didn’t care too much, according to his own comments, for the opinions of Peter, James, or the others, but whose views were of overwhelming influence because the alternative Jewish Christianity of the groupl led by James at Jerusalem left no record.
Great Idea!
Michael, in a lot of ways, was a better debating partner than many you’ve had in the past!
Happy Birthday on your Newest Book .. March 1!
I actually thought in listening to Michael’s arguments that he did not agree with you that most people (the disciples) believed that Jesus became divine at the point of the resurrection, that it was earlier than that. But he also agreed that most people did not consider him divine during the events retold in the Gospel of Mark. But then he went back and forth between a reference point of “most people believed later” and “the majority believed at the time” so it was not clear when he thought the majority view swung to an “always has been divine” notion.
Also he quoted a John Knox who apparently argues that “pre-existent divinity” can be inferred at the resurrection, but again, this was a later formulation of events; it did not appear to support the argument that most people at the time believed Jesus had been a pre-existent divinity.
So he was either arguing that most people later came to believe that Jesus was a pre-existent divine being — in which case he was not disagreeing with you because you were arguing the same thing. Or he was arguing that the point in time when most people believed this was sometime after Jesus’ birth but before the resurrection, but he never identified when this point was or why he believes that.
Yes, he absolutely does not agree that hte disciples thought Jesus “became” divine at that point. They came to *realize* he was divine at that point.
This may be a bad time to ask the question, especially since you want to get on to other things, but I was wondering how you see your argument relative to Reginald Fuller’s FOUNDATIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY? It’s been a long time since I looked at Fuller, but doesn’t he also argue that the earliest NT texts indicate that God exalted or vindicated Jesus at the resurrection (adoption?), that the next stage was to see Jesus as sent by God, to be vindicated at the resurrection, and the latest stage reflects belief that the eternal, pre-existent Christ became incarnate in Jesus, who was then resurrected to return to the right hand of the Father. (To be honest, the only details I remember now from Fuller are his nifty diagrams.)
Ah, it was an important book for me back in graduate school. My approach is very different (not based on “titles” of Jesus)
Both of you posting would be really fun!
Dr. Ehrman, you stated in your blog post that an example of Paul quoting pre-literary tradition is… “Romans 1:3-4, where Paul stresses that Jesus was descended from king David ‘according to the flesh….’ The view set forth in these verses is different from what you find in Paul otherwise (he never elsewhere talks about Jesus’ Davidic descent, and the idea that he was “made” the Son of God at the resurrection is a bit at odds with things he otherwise says).”
Dr. Ehrman, I completely agree with you that Rom. 1:3-4 is very unlike Paul. Perhaps another explanation for this oddity is that verses 3 and 4 were not written by Paul, but instead are interpolations. Let’s take another look at Romans 1:1-5. Verses 3 and 4 are marked by parentheses.
“1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, having been separated to the good news of God —
2 which He announced before through His prophets in holy writings —
3 concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh,
4 who is marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the rising again from the dead,) Jesus Christ our Lord;
5 through whom we did receive grace and apostleship, for obedience of faith among all the nations, in behalf of his name.”
I think it is very apparent that the text/prose in Paul’s salutation reads much more smoothly and coheres perfectly when omitting the content in the parentheses. Verses 3 and 4 are awkward, disruptive to the natural flow of the prose, and is different in style and in tone when compared to the surrounding Pauline text. Frankly, the passage looks like a subsequent apologetic insert. To my knowledge we have at least one Greek manuscript that does *not* contain the creedal statement. Perhaps Paul didn’t write this? Indeed, there is scholarship supporting this view.
What are your thoughts on the notion that these verses are a later interpolation by orthodox (anti-docetic?) scribes who wanted to “fix” Marcion’s version of the text by establishing that Jesus was indeed a fleshly person as opposed to a purely spiritual “likeness” of a human as was posited by the docetic community?
By the way, I think it is also interesting that there’s no mention of a supernatural/virgin birth. Rather, the passage reads that Jesus was born from the seed (i.e., literally the “sperma”) of David according to the flesh. This could suggest that the writer of this passage, whether Paul or a later scribe, was either unaware of or did not subscribe to the virgin birth tradition. Is it possible that the virgin birth tradition developed later (late 1st century into the early second century) and was not embraced by all Christian sects?
My view is that an interpolation theory requires a compelling case. There aren’t any manuscripts lacking vv. 3-4, and that’s important. And it makes sense that Paul would be quoting an old familiar creed in this context, so that’s important too.
Thanks for your response.
1. To my understanding, we do actually have a Greek manuscript (Codex Boernerianus, designated by Gp or 012) which does *not* contain the creedal statement, and which reveals a more fluid connection of ideas in the salutation that is more typical of Paul. This manuscript reads: “Paul, servant of Jesus Christ, called an apostle among all the Gentiles on his behalf.” Perhaps this Greek manuscript is a vestige of the earlier version of the text? It is hard to imagine a scribe omitting such a long and important section, even by accident. I think it stands to reason that verse 3 and 4 should at least be questioned or scrutinized a bit more and not merely assumed to be original to Paul. My thought is that the verses were possibly either marginal comments or intentional interpolation that was incorporated very early into the standard text of Romans.
2. Outside of manuscript evidence, what in your opinion constitutes a compelling case of textual interpolation or alteration? I understand that anachronisms, changes in writing style, and atypical vocabulary are probative of interpolation. But I would also argue that atypical or divergent theology and disjointed prose (or apparent interruptions of the contextual flow of the prose) are also evidence of interpolation – both of which are present in the Romans 1 passage. If I am not mistaken, you’ve argued that Paul’s letters likely underwent redaction and theological edits prior to the 3rd century manuscripts that we have. This is further confirmed by the fact that early church theologians such as Tertullian often quoted versions of Paul’s letters that are different than (and arguably more coherent than) the texts found in the canonical version.
Sorry — I’m on the road and can’t refer to any of my books (even a Greek New Testament)! Usually G is not thought of as having a superior form of the text, but it’s worth looking into. Generally I think that the evidence you mention is very important. Another criterion would be whether the passage seems intrusive in its literary context, and in this case I would argue just the opposite, that the passage makes very good sense where it is now found. My general view is that there has to be REALLY strong evidence to indicate an interpolation, such as what I htink you find in 1 Cor. 14:34-35.
What is theological so important about ‘sitting on the right hand of God”, and if that is true, how can an entity sitting on one side of another be the same entity or essence as the other
The idea is that if a king enthrones someone next to him, that person shares his authority, power, and prestige.
Bart,
I know you said you want to get on to other things, but if you don’t mind, regarding an above comment in which John 21:24 is noted: “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.”
Regarding the same passage in Forgery and Counterforgery (pg 270) you state:
“And we know that his testimony is true.” The author differentiates himself (as is not always recognized) from the “beloved disciple” to imply a personal acquaintance with him and his testimony, and to provide a firsthand assurance of the accuracy of his testimony.
To further quote, from the same page, though a paragraph up: “the first person pronoun( both singular and plural) was widely used in ancient texts. Christian and otherwise, precisely in order to provide authority for the account.”
I just wanted to point out that the author was not the beloved disciple, who most understand to be John, though we don’t really know who that “beloved disciple” was, do we? We can but assume.
Again I highly recommend that any one who has not read Forgery and Counterforgery do so, for it is, in my humble opinion, a most informative and important writing, that leads to a much clearer understanding.
Your latest book will have to wait; I hate to say; as I’ve buried myself in Albert Schweitzer, now.
Right — we don’t know who it was! But there are lots of opinions out there….
Per your book, Bart (How Jesus Became God), the pre-literary creed embedded in Romans1:3-4 would seem to seal the deal as to what the manner of Christology was as held by the very first Christians (even those preceding Paul).
I don’t recall the debate bringing up any point based on the pre-literary creeds, though.
Who was descended
From the seed of David
According to the flesh
Who was designated
Son of God in power
According to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead
The first Christians thought Jesus was designated Son of God, i.e., exalted, and Paul parrots the party line here, so to speak. Probably have telescoped as far back in time in the annals of Christianity as can get, right there in that early creed.
“Robin Lane Fox ‘Alexander and the Gods -and the Early Successors’. ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBY6antXpPw
Is interesting viewing
what did it mean to be “divine” in the ancient world ?
That’s what my book How Jesus Became God is about.
In regards to pre-literary tradition, specifically in Romans 1, I randomly came across a passage from Philo of Alexandria today that is eerily close to vv. 24 to the end of ch.1 – do you think this is just coincidence, or would Paul have been likely to have been influenced by Philo’s writings? I’ve also heard the famous logos passage from John 1 is somewhat plagiarized from Philo… anyway, here’s the passage, would really like your thoughts:
“As men, being unable to bear discreetly a satiety of these things, get restive like cattle, and become stiff-necked, and discard the laws of nature, pursuing a great and intemperate indulgence of gluttony, and drinking, and unlawful connections; for not only did they go mad after other women, and defile the marriage bed of others, but also those who were men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature, and though eager for children, they were convicted by having only an abortive offspring; but the conviction produced no advantage, since they were overcome by violent desire; and so by degrees, the men became accustomed to be treated like women, and in this way engendered among themselves the disease of females, and intolerable evil; for they not only, as to effeminacy and delicacy, became like women in their persons, but they also made their souls most ignoble, corrupting in this way the whole race of men, as far as depended on them” (133-35; ET Jonge 422-23)
I think Paul is to early to have been directly influenced by Philo.
Could they both have been quoting – or paraphrasing anyway – someone else? The passages seem too similar to be coincidence?
My sense is that it was a “teaching” that was around, that people subscribed to, and both Paul and Philo expressed.
Gotcha. Thanks for the replies.