Loading...So far in this series of posts dealing with How Jesus Became God, I have maintained that in the very early years of Christianity, soon after the disciples came to believe in the resurrection, there were two forms of Christology that emerged. And I have discussed only one of these two forms, one that considered Jesus to be a full flesh and blood human being(as he considered himself!), and nothing more than a man, until at some point God exalted him and made him his son, the ruler of all, the messiah, the Lord. I am calling this kind of “low” Christology (low because it stresses that Jesus started out as a human and not divine) a Christology “from below” or an “exaltation” Christology.
I have also argued that this kind of Christology can be found in some of the earliest materials in the New Testament, that in fact it is imbedded in quotations of earlier pre-literary sources found in various writings of the NT. In my previous post I talked about how scholars have isolated some of these pre-literary traditions over the years. Now, in this post, I will give an example. It is Romans 1:3-4.
Romans was the final letter that Paul wrote, possibly around 60 CE or so (1 Thessalonians was his first, around 49 or 50 CE). But even though it is his last letter, it contains a pre-Pauline fragment, that is, a quotation of an earlier source that Paul inherited, in just these verses, chapter 1 verses 3-4. As with his other letters, Paul begins this one (1:1) by introducing himself and saying who he is, before mentioning the “gospel” (which will be the overarching theme of the letter). He then says that the gospel concerns God’s “son” and then he says this about the son:
Who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead.
I have a particular fondness for this passage. It was the topic of the first PhD term paper I wrote – a thirty-pager, devoted to just these two verses, and in which I could only scratch the surface. Here I will scratch it even less.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN NOW!!!!
This certainly seems convincing! Until recently, I never would have dreamed that the New Testament could be so interesting – or that there are things in it that conflict with what many Christians have been taught, and never question.
Fascinating. So, how do evangelicals and fundamentalists view those verses? My thoughts, before reading the rest of what you wrote, on seeing those verses, especially this part: “designated Son of God…by his resurrection from the dead” was ah ha! it says right there that he was elevated to the divine Son of God at his “resurrection”. Would evangelicals and fundamentalists just whitewash this by saying it’s merely flowery speech that simply confirms what was already prophesied in the Old Testament (or something to that effect)?
I think the normal evangelical view is to interpret it as saying that the resurrection *confirmed* what was already the case. But I’m not sure the Greek really allows for that; another option is that Jesus laid down his power to become human and was reinstated with power at the resurrection. I’m not sure anyone has argued that, but they probably should! (If they don’t want to go with the idea that it was at the resurrection he was exalted).
Dr. Ehrman,
I just finished reading Matthew 16: 13-20. This passage appears to identify Jesus as the Son of God before the crucifixion and resurrection. Is this an instance of “Son of God” in the sense that Jesus was of the Davidic line or in the deified sense? I’m curious because there are instances in each of the gospels where Jesus was called the “Son of God.” I’ve several of your books, but I don’t remember everything I read. I suspect, however, that the title represents the Davidic line of thought. I recall that Jesus was announced as the “Son of God” at his baptism as well as the resurrection. So, in what sense was he the “Son of God” before the resurrection? Also, do you think this passage in Matthew is part of the original gospel or could it be an instance of a quote from another source?
Yes, it’s part of the original text. I’ll be getting to what these authors meant by “Son of God” eventually on the blog….
Can’t wait to read it!
Professor, you write that this well formed creed reflected a tradition so well known to the Romans that they “both knew it independently and Paul surmised his readers would know it”. In your new book I hope you spend some time explaining just how, within a period of only thirty years, such creeds could become so highly developed and refined and so well known, so far from their presumed point of origin, given the significant limitations on communication and travel. The bigger question is how did all these different “Christianities” go so far and so fast and become so widely disseminated (if not widely accepted) so soon after Jesus’ death ?
I think the short answer is that there was a lot of traveling around in the Roman world; letters, communications, and people could cover vast distances in relatively short times thanks to sea travel and the like.
Galatians 4:4 says “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law”. This verse seems to indicate to me, Paul thought Jesus had a normal human birth, but says Jesus was sent not designated as he was in Romans. What do you think of the Christology of this verse?
Yup, I think there he is emphasizing that Jesus was very much a human. It’s an interesting verse: why would he need to emphasize this? It’s a key question!
So can I assume that this creed in Romans had been preached in Rome by Peter? But where did
Paul get the high Christology attributed to him in Philipians?
That too is an earlier fragment. I’ll say more about it later on the blog.
Let’s see if I have this straight.
The vision(s) of Cephas and the others listed in1Cor15 had post-Resurrection vision of Jesus. They regarded Jesus to have not merely been raised from the grave (or from Sheol), but raised to heaven and divine status. You’d need to set the stage for this by describing the range of beliefs in 1st century Palestinian Judaism, to show this is plausible in the context of the time and place. It would help if you could relate this to other instances in which Jews assumed others had been raised to a divine status, which I noticed Alan Segal did a bit of in his book about Paul. I assume you’ll also keep N.T. Wright’s arguments in mind, in which he argues that the many unique qualities of the movement imply (he claims) it’s true.
You might read 1 Enoch and see if this provides the example you are asking for.
In the final compilation of these various compositions, all of which were almost certainly known to the Palestinian Jesus Movement, Enoch was not the Son of Man early on, but is chosen to be given cosmic secrets. In the end Enoch himself is revealed as the Son of Man (by many interpreters).
HOWEVER, Dr. Ehrman might tell us this is not a good example of what you ask to be shown.
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.”
I was wondering how we don’t know that this is an interpolation?
Lots of reasons. Mainly: There are no manuscripts that lack it. And it does not coincide well with later theology of scribes. And the passage flows better with it than without it. So not much doubt about it.
I feel like a broken record, but “fascinating” and “thank you”!
Are there reputable critical scholars who think that it is plausible Jesus himself taught a high christology comparable to Paul’s?
There are plenty of conservative Christian scholars who think that! Not too many scholars who aren’t in that camp think so, though.
Where was David Flusser (no evangelical, of course) on the topic of Jesus self-understanding? Couldn’t we think of Flusser as a non-evangelical who credited Jesus with an “high” Messianic self-understanding (I’m not sure Christology is the time-appropriate term, is it, when discussing Jesus’ self-understanding?).
I don’t recall!
Replying to who might attribute pre-resurrection-exaltation divinity to Jesus (which could serve as the foubndation of the creed), from Rabbi Daniel Boyarin:
According to the Mishna, Sanhedrin 7:5, it is mentioning the name of God that constitutes blasphemy. Both Josephus and the Community Rule of Qumran precede the Mishna in this determination. I contend, therefore, that it is most plausible to understand Jesus’ “I Am” as being the name of God, hence the blasphemy. Many scholars deny this argument, contending that “I Am” is merely a declarative sentence and not a predication of the name of God to himself (see Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, ed. Harold W. Attridge, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007], 704–6). The blasphemy, then, has to be understood differently, namely, in connection with Philo’s definition of blasphemy, which is, as she says, somewhat less stringent than that of the Mishna, Josephus, or Qumran (see Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14:64,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26, 4 [2004]: 379–401). In my view, an interpretation of the text that is closest to the other Palestinian views of the matter is preferable, but Yarbro Collins may, of course, be right. In support of her view is the verse in Mark 2 discussed above where Jesus is accused of blasphemy for having arrogated to himself the divine prerogative to forgive sins. However, even on Philo’s account, blasphemy consists of imputing divine status to oneself or to another human, so my point that the blasphemy consists precisely in Jesus claiming divine status for himself stands. Even if eigo eimi is innocent, Jesus’ further allusion to himself as the Son of Man and coming with the clouds of heaven certainly, according to the high priest’s reaction, constitutes blasphemy and thus a claim to divine status. Compare also John 8:57–58: “Then the Jews said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?’ He said to them, ‘Truly, truly I say until you, before Abraham came into being, I Am [eigo eimi].’ They then picked up stones that they might cast them at him.” This is precisely the same as what happens here in Mark. Jesus in both Gospels is understood as claiming divine status through naming himself as YHVH names himself. Since stoning is the biblically ordained punishment for blasphemy, the people seek to stone him. This is precisely the same blasphemy for which Stephen was stoned according to Acts 7:56, although there the blasphemy consisted in implying the divine status of Jesus, not, of course, his own. To my knowledge, this is the only place in which “Son of Man” is used of Jesus by someone other than Jesus himself; it shows how charged was the claim to be the Son of Man, which only makes sense if it is a claim to divinity.
Boyarin, Daniel (2012-03-20). The Jewish Gospels (Kindle Locations 2132-2146). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
The day of attributing this perspective to those bad-ol’-evangelicals just might be ending!
Thanks for this. Which perspective are you saying has been attributed just to evangelicals?
Earlier you responded:
“There are plenty of conservative Christian scholars who think that! Not too many scholars who aren’t in that camp think so, though.”
I assume “conservative” is equivalent to evangelical.
My point is that the scholarship is starting to show signs of diversification, so the idea that Jesus held “high christology” [anachronism alert!] is no longer just conservatives, or evangelicals.
We can say it includes (in some sense) Jewish Professor David Flusser and Rabbi (Professor) Daniel Boyarin.
I still am not sure what you’re responding to! When I said that plenty of conservative scholars think “that” — what is the “that”
And with respect to your quotation from Daniel Boyarin: correct me if I’m wrong. But isn’t he talking about what the Gospel of Mark was saying about Jesus, not about what Jesus himself thought? It looks to me like he is giving an exegesis of the trial before Caiaphas in Mark 14 rather htan talking about what really happened, historically. But I don’t have the full context of his remarks.
You wrote: And with respect to your quotation from Daniel Boyarin: correct me if I’m wrong. But isn’t he talking about what the Gospel of Mark was saying about Jesus, not about what Jesus himself thought?
His book is filled with exegesis, arguments, citations, etc. to demonstrate Jesus’ self-understanding was high, something not out-of-place in that period. He’s discussing Mark in the cause of his proposition, and distancing himself from the consensus view. As I read it, Boyarin believes the accusation of blasphemy was an appropriate (and historical at some level) charge for someone like Jesus who claimed divinity. Boyarin’s book is really worth reading if you haven’t read it already … I imagine it will take you 1 hour because you can follow his citations and arguments so much faster than me. I interpreted it as a “next phase” of scholarship from the work of David Flusser, Alan Segal, Jim Charlesworth, Israel Knohl, Boyarin’s own earlier work, and etc.
And then there’s Flusser … I cannot imagine he would agree with your “low christology” .. and he’s no conservative Christians, or evangelical.
And “that” was your “that” that I thought I was discussing (at least I thought so when I wrote … I now realize you might not have the earlier posts in front of you when you answer): I understand your idea was that usually only conservative scholars hold to Jesus’ high self-understanding (Messiah, Son of God, etc) and others put those ideas to his followers, post-Easter. My response is that the exceptions to your assertion (as I understood it) are increasing.
It’s very hard to be accurate and specific in response to you via blog posts. In good faith I believed I got the gist of your comments, and I have read a lot of your publications for context of these posts. I was hoping I could get across the gist of my comments on your posts, but maybe not … I’m not trained professionally, not a skilled writer, and blog exchange is just too cumbersome to permit me to clarify my stumbling words expressing unrefined thoughts. If I can’t get across effectively what I’m trying to communicate, then I’ll just have to be content to be a legend in my own mind without any possibility of persuading you! : -)
Forgive my ignorance.. but wasn’t Paul a Greek and wouldn’t he has been influenced by Greek thinking/philosophy?
Possibly yes, to some extent, though there’s nothing to indicate he was well trained in philosophy.
Wasn’t Tarsus a “center” of Stoic philosophy (B. Chilton)? I am truly asking, I don’t know anything about this.
If yes, would that give Paul some exposure to Greek philosophies, both Stoic and those who debate against Stoics?
Only if he was raised and educated in Tarsus! (He never says so — it comes from Acts; and I can imagine Luke having a reason for locating Paul there; it’d be like a biographer locating an English thinker whose credentials needed to be established in Cambridge….)
Interesting post. Where can I find your views on the Ascension of Isaiah, the last section on Jesus’ descending into incarnation? I’m interested in your view of its provenance (Palestine?), date (no later than Bar Kochba Revolt?), author (a Jewish Christian in Palestine)? Is there any clue in this later composition, pointing to an earlier tradition, early enough to shed light on the lack of pre-existence within the meaning of this creed (in your blog topic)? If you don’t mind pointing out where to look for your view (or someone’s view with whom you concur) I’d like to read up on this. I can’t imagine a Palestinian Jesus Movement tradition evolving much from 30 to 130, absent the influence of Paul, but that’s just a shoot-from-the-hip thought.
Also, have you published a review or reaction to Daniel Boyarin’s new book, which reminds us of the messianic, exaltation, two-powers, etc. ideas during the early first century. I’d like to read your thoughts about his assertion.
” … designated the Son of God in power?” or ” … designated the Son of God in Power? Is it possible this Power has some inference of hypostasis? If yes, pre-existence is presumed, isn’t it?
I discuss it in my new book Forgery and Counterforgery. A hefty volume, but with a good index!
Yes, got it, doesn’t appear to be any comment about whether the creed discussed in your blog post might infer “Power” (hypostatic) instead of power.
I’m curious …
I took a quick look through the book … it discusses Jewish pseudepigrapha, characterizing it as “forgery” with the intent to lie and deceive.
Within the final chapter, Lies and Deception in the Cause of Truth, you have two subsections: Lies and Deception in Early Christianity; and, The Morality [inferring, Immorality?] of Christian Forgery. Yet there is no similar discussion of “Lies and Deception in Second Temple Judaism,” or The Morality [inferring, Immorality?] of Jewish Forgery.
What guided you in making this selection?
The reason I talk about Jewish pseudepigrapha is to set the context for what hte book is about — the CHristian pseudepigrapha (I talk about the Jewish in the context of the phenomenon in the Greco-Roman world more broadly; you really need ot read the first five chapters to get the full sense of it all, including why the practice was understood to be a form of lying, literary deceit). The reason at the end I talk about lies, deception, and morality with respect ot Christian, but not Jewish, pseudepigrapha is because the book is about Christian pseudepigrapha, not Jewish.
I will read the whole work, and especially those chapters.
I’m not equipped with the requisite scholarship to do this justice, but it seems you have drawn a (arbitrary?) line between Jewish pseudepigrapha and Christian pseudepigrapha. Without abandoning the point you made in your reply above (you are dealing with Christian texts), it really seems like something important is missing from your moral discussion when you overlook (in the sections I cited) that the 1st century Chrisitan composers and editors adopted the lying and deceiving practices of their Jewish mentors.
I recognize that in this work of scholarship you go easier on the criticism of Christian pseudeipgrapical practices, but your message still clearly emerges: they used immoral practices to advance a theological agenda. The apparent omission I find curious is: why did the Christians adopt lying and deception, knowing it was criticized and even despised when others did it; and, did they believe lying and deception was justifiable since their Jewish mentors were doing it? Another point of curiosity is: why did the Christian composers and editors pass over the opportunity to expose the lying and deceit of their Jewish competitors?
By not asking these questions, it seems the reader of your these sections of your work is left to assume Christian writers and composers naively accepted the authenticity of Jewish pseudepigrapha, believing they could adopt the dishonest and deceptive practices of non-Christian forgers to advance their religious agenda.
As you suggested, I need to read your entire book but in scanning it I don’t see these issues being addressed.
Thanks for your replies!
I don’t think I’m drawing a line between Jewish and Christain pseudepigrapha, except to say that the former were written by Jews and the latter by Christians. I do not think, though, that the Christians were mentored by Jews. Virtually all of our Christian forgers came from pagan, not Jewish, roots, so far as we can tell. In any event, I never, ever indicate or suggest or even hint that Christians were more immmoral than anyone else who perpetrated a forgery. That’s more or less the point of my first five chapters. So happy reading!
It seems you are comfortable that the Ascension of Isaiah was composed and edited in Palestine by, let’s say, the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Its message reflects trinitarianism, and Jesus’ pre-existence and divinity are prominent themes. Can we assume these ideas (as they appear in the Ascension) are non-Pauline? Can we assume little changed in the theology within the Palestinian Jesus Movement from 30 to 130 (e.g., Paul was not there to nudge change)? Can we reasonably believe it is plausible that the foundational idea of Jesus’ pre-existence and divinity, in accordance with the traditional understanding of the creed, and as discussed in your blog post, could have existed before Paul wrote out the creed? If yes, then a resurrection-exaltation understanding of the creed becomes only one, less likely, possibility, is that right?
I wouldn’t say the Ascension subscribes to what we today think of as trinitarianism; there’s some good scholarship on this if you want some references, but it is generally thought to be rather unsophisticated in its theological views. As to the Palestinian Christians — how we wish we knew!!
Dr Ehrman –
I was reading How Jesus Became God, and it sparked a question regarding the early credal hymn. The question is perhaps obtuse: what in the hymn itself suggests the belief that the term ‘Son of God’ stretches beyond that of the (human) kingly sense?
Clearly the Messianic interpretation that Jesus held special favor and was therefore resurrected by God (and was the atoning sacrifice) reshapes the purpose of the Messiah (from deliverer of the people from foreign oppression to deliverer of people from sins). But, it’s just not clicking for me from the passage itself (in English, which may be part of the problem) why the credal statement strictly presumes divinity for Jesus. The holy spirit designating him Son of God doesn’t seem to do it, nor does the ‘in power’ (especially if that’s a Pauline insertion, per How Jesus Became God). Later Christians came to stretch the meaning of Son of God to something more divine than “just” the kingly meaning, but why is it clear that the earliest Christians did in this hymn? Given the backdrop of first century Jewish expectations, it would seem that the lower sense of Messiah would still work well in the context – incredibly special yet still human.
Thanks for the help – I’m sure it’s something obvious I’m missing.
Are you referring to Romans 1:3-4? The reason for thinking Son of God doesn’t simply mean “king” is that it is something that happens *after* death (dead people do not become kings; but they do sometimes become divine beings). That’s probably why he qualifies it by saying he became the son of God “in power”
Excellent – thank you.
Is there any way to tell where on the human-to-God divinity continuum this creed puts Jesus for these pre-Pauline Christians? Divine person, angel, arc angel, God?
Thanks a ton!
It looks like they put him down as a human who was made into a divinity.
Awesome, thanks.
And if Paul is willing to quote it (to your point in HJBG), plus Paul himself counts Jesus as a particularly special angelic being (also your point in HJBG), it would seem to suggest that the metaphysics of the pre-Pauline creed (as well as Paul himself) stops short of identifying Jesus as God per se.
Does this make sense, or too hard to pinpoint with that level of specificity?
NB – I went to find the Garrett book (No Ordinary Angel), but only in physical copy, so will have to clear out other books first…
It depends. It’s hard to know whether they would equate “Son of God” with “God,” or would see it as a secondary level of divinity; but in either case, it is an elevated identity, above humans, to *some* level of divinity.
Fantastic – thank you!
I am wondering if you think a few posts about the history of Christian creeds might be worthwhile.
Ah, interesting idea!
Q; you mentioned Romans being the last of Paul’s authentic letters. where would you place Philippians assumed it was later than Romans maybe written in Caesarea , I must admit all my information about Paul and his travels comes from his letters and acts
I don’t think it was later than Romans, since I think Romans was the last one. I usually date it to the late 50s.
Bart,
I’m curious what you think of the following hypothetical. The 1 Cor 15:3-5 creed ended with just the appearance to Peter, and Peter passed the creed on to Paul at their initial two-week meeting together (Gal 1:15-19). Paul then later hears of an appearance tradition to the twelve (and to the 500 and to all the apostles) during his travels, accepts them as true, and incorporates them into his preaching. My guess is that you would say this is plausible, but wouldn’t Paul have wondered why the creed he got from Peter had only one appearance in it and thought these other appearance traditions might be false? Do you have any other thoughts on this hypothetical?
You’re right — I think it’s possible but that there’s no way to know. Most scholars who have thought that the entire passage is rooted in a traditoin Paul heard think that the original form ended wiht “to Cephas and then to the twelve.” To some extent that makes good sense since it seems that this would be a very *early* tradition (the twelve) since later ibn the tradition surely everyone knew about Judas. Or did they?
I suppose Paul could have picked up the 1 Cor 15:3-5 creed from the Christian community in Antioch. Do you agree that this is one possibility, and can you think of any others?
Yes, it’s a possibility. Or that he got it in Damascus, Arabia, Jerusalem, Tarsus, or … name your city!
Bart,
Do you think it’s accurate to say that the origin of the belief that Jesus was resurrected up to heaven — motivated by a bereavement vision in your view — was a novel combining of two already existing ideas: 1) resurrection back to mortality (like in the OT), and 2) bodily translation up to heaven like Enoch and Elijah (which automatically included immortalization of the body)? I’m just trying to identify what the thought process might have been for Jesus’ followers when they had a bereavement vision of Jesus who was obviously not around after he appeared and nobody else was resurrecting like expected at the general resurrection.
Yes, the combination came about because of the apoclayptic view held by Jesus and his followrs (but not by the OT authors) that “resurrection” was the return of a body to live in a glorified immortal state to live with God forever.
Isn’t it more accurate to say that “resurrection” is just plain and simply the return of a dead body back to life again, regardless of whether the body is left mortal (like in 1 Kgs 17:17-24; 2 Kgs 4:17-37) or made immortal (like in the case of Jesus)? My point being that *something* caused Jesus’ followers to conclude that Jesus’ resurrected body was made *immortal* instead of left *mortal*, and it couldn’t have been because Jesus’ followers thought the general resurrection had arrived because obviously nobody else was resurrecting (so the apocalyptic beliefs don’t seem very relevant here). Do you agree with the following portrayal of your hypothesis: Jesus’ followers didn’t believe the soul could live separately from the body, so when they had a bereavement vision of Jesus they concluded he was resurrected, but since Jesus wasn’t around in the normally continuously present way, Jesus’ followers concluded that Jesus was translated up to heaven and was appearing from there, which meant his body must have been made immortal, and then subsequently they concluded that Jesus, an immortalized and resurrected person, was the first fruits, a special prelude to, the general resurrection.
That “something” was the widespread apocalyptic idea htat resurrection of the dead would come at the end of time, the restoration of bodies to life never to die again. If someone was brought back to life by God, it would be via “resurrection,” and that would show that the resurrection has now begun. That’s why Paul calls Jesus the first-fruits of the resurrection.
You seem to think “resurrection” always meant the general resurrection to immortality. As far as I can tell, this isn’t true. What do you make of the resurrections in the OT (1 Kgs 17:17-24; 2 Kgs 4:17-37; 13:21), and what do you make of Heb. 11:35, which uses “resurrection” to refer to resurrection back to mortality and again to refer to the general resurrection which includes immortality?
They aren’t called resurrections. Since you’re deeply interested in this topic, you may want to read my book How Jesus Became God. Also, John Collins books on apocalypticism.
I think you might be mistaken here. As Steven Harris points out in the 2018 International Journal of Systematic Theology and 2019 Journal of Theological Interpretation, “[It] is common in biblical and theological scholarship to refer to these [resurrection back to mortality] events as ‘resuscitations’ rather than resurrections,” but Harris emphasizes “the importance of insisting on resurrection-language and -theology for interpreting these events.” Harris is referring to the resurrections in the OT (1 Kgs 17:17-24; 2 Kgs 4:17-37; 13:21) and those performed by Jesus in the NT, the most obvious being Lazarus who had a stench because he had been dead for four days. Just to be clear, are you saying these aren’t resurrections? If not, what are they? Also, is there some special Greek word reserved for Jesus’ resurrection that isn’t used for these other people?
As I’ve repeatedly said, they are not resurrections. The son of the widow of Zaraphath and Lazarus etc. were not made immortal. Jesus is the “first”. According to the NT itself. I’m not sure what the difficulty is? Lazarus was brought back to life but he died again later. Are you saying that Harris thinks Lazarus was made an immortal being?
Harris is saying the three instances in the OT of people brought back from the dead and all the cases of Jesus doing the same to various people in the NT (as well as those performed by Asclepius) are all “resurrections” and scholars are incorrect to use this term only when the resurrected body is made immortal, like you seem to be doing. It’s a modern and incorrect notion that is not supported by any of the various terms for resurrection (e.g., egeirō and Anistēmi) that are applied to both Jesus and others. Thoughts?
I see. OK, that’s probably fair enough, thoughI havne’t been able to look up the Greek. It would be roughly like saying “crucifixion can refer to a mode of execution , but if Christians say “the crucifixion” brings salvation they mean that this particuoalar crucifixion was both like and sseriousl unlike any other. So too when apocalyptic Jews referred to “the” resurrection they meant “the resurreciton to come at the end of this age” and when Christians referred to “the resurrection” they could mean *that* and/or “the resurrection of Jesus” — both of which, unlike th e others in the ‘bible or elewhere, were not resurrections to immortality/eternal life. My point is that this is the technical meaning in apocalyptic srouces but ont in the other bilbical accounts.
Terminology examples: Egeirō used for resurrection back to mortal life of widow’s son at Nain (Lk. 7:14-15), Jairus’ daughter (Mt. 9:25), and possibly others (Mt. 10:8; 11:5), and same word used to refer to Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor. 15:4). Anistēmi used for resurrection back to mortal life of Tabitha (Acts 9:40), and same word used for general resurrection (Jn 11:24; see too Jn 11:23-24).
Because resurrection doesn’t automatically imply immortality, I think missing from your explanation for the rise of the belief that Jesus was resurrected up to heaven is *why* Jesus’ followers thought from a bereavement vision of Jesus that his resurrected body was made immortal. It couldn’t have been because they thought the general resurrection had begun because obviously nobody else was resurrecting. So I’m thinking it *first* had to be the fact that Jesus was appearing and disappearing out of thin air so Jesus followers concluded Jesus must be in heaven, which meant his body was made immortal (like Enoch, Moses, and Elijah), and *then* they could conclude Jesus was the first fruits, a special prelude to, the general resurrection. I’m interested in the *thought process* of Jesus’ followers (based on your bereavement vision hypothesis). Thoughts?
I don’t think I need to say this yet again, but I will for the last time: Apocalyptic Jews thought that “the” resurrection wsa to immortality. Jesus’ followers were apocalyptic Jews.
I’ve never questioned that apocalyptic Jews thought that “the” resurrection was to immortality (as did virtually every other Jew who believed in “the” general resurrection). But like most Jews, apocalyptic Jews also believed God could resurrect someone back to *mortality*…right? If so, then what was the thought process of Jesus’ followers after they had a vision of Jesus that led them to think Jesus was resurrected to *immortality* instead of just *mortality*?
What am I missing here? Is it accepted among scholars that apocalyptic Jews only believed in a future general resurrection to immortality; they did not also believe that God occasionally resurrected people back to *mortality* (like in 1 Kgs 17:17-24; 2 Kgs 4:17-37; 13:21)?
Yes, of course they believed that people were brought back from the dead. But those were not connected with “the future resurrectoin of the dead.” Jesus’ resurrection was the first of *that* resurrection (which is what Paul explicitly says in 1 Cor. 15).
Ok, so we both agree that apocalyptic Jews believed that God would in very rare cases raise people from the dead back to *mortality*, and these were unconnected to the future general resurrection where people would be raised to *immortality*. Given this, why did Jesus’ followers conclude from a bereavement vision of Jesus that Jesus was resurrected to *immortality* instead of just resurrected to *mortality*? There had to be some thought process involved because obviously nobody else was resurrecting, and it can’t be because they thought the gen rez had begun because that would be circular reasoning.
For one thing, he wasn’t raised by a human but by God. And they did not think he was raised to come back to earth, as the others. The idea that he ascended much later is found only in Luke. The oldest idea appears to be that he was taken from the grave up to heaven to be made divine. His appearances then are his returns from heaven temporarily (as is suggested by Paul who suggests that his vision of Jesus years later was just like th eothers)
The resurrections back to mortality in the OT are accomplished by God; they are just *officiated* through an intermediary religious leader. Also, if God were going to resurrect his own Messiah to mortality, would any Jews be surprised if God dispensed with the subordinate intermediary? Also, in the NT, Jesus resurrects multiple people back to mortality and, at the general resurrection, to immortality (1 Thess. 4:16), so God could do both. Also, God accomplishes resurrections back to mortality with no intermediary in 1 Enoch 25:4-6, cf. 22:13; 1 Enoch 51:1-4; and 2 Baruch 50:2–51:12 where, at the gen rez, God resurrects people to a greatly extended but *mortal* life, or temporarily to mortal life before being destroyed or made immortal. Do you still think the absence of an intermediary for Jesus’ resurrection would have led Jesus’ followers to conclude from a bereavement vision of Jesus that his resurrected body was made immortal? IMO, a more logical answer is the appearance/disappearance of Jesus’ body out of thin air, so Jesus’ followers logically concluded Jesus was in heaven and appearing from there, which automatically meant his body was made immortal. Thoughts?
The followers of Jesus believed that Jesus was taken up to heaven by God, and that was not like the resuscitations recorded in the OT and NT otherwise.
The OT/NT stories do *not* intend “resuscitations” as you say; they convey *real resurrections* from a truly dead state as you already agreed: “of course they [Jews] believed that people were brought back from the dead.” The widow’s son at Nain (Lk. 7:14-15) and Jairus’ daughter (Mt. 9:25) were both “egeirō” just like Jesus (1 Cor. 15:4). As Steven Harris pointed out in 2018 and 2019, “[It] is common in biblical and theological scholarship to refer to these [resurrection back to mortality] events as ‘resuscitations’ rather than resurrections,” but Harris emphasizes “the importance of insisting on resurrection-language and -theology for interpreting these events.” Given this, why in your view would Jesus’ followers conclude from a bereavement vision of Jesus that Jesus was resurrected up to *heaven* (which would entail *immortality*) instead of resurrected on earth (which would entail *mortality* without seeing everyone else resurrecting at the same time signaling the gen rez)? The answer seems pretty simple: In your bereavement vision scenario, the appearance/disappearance of Jesus’ body out of thin air must have led Jesus’ followers to conclude Jesus was appearing from *heaven*, hence immortal, hence firstfruits. If this wasn’t the thought process, then what was the thought process?
The early followers of Jesus were apocalyptic Jews. Apocalyptic Jews thought “the” resurrectoin was to immortality. These followers of Jesus did not think his resurrection was like the raising of the dead by Elijah and Elishah. They saw it as the beginning of the end. OUr earliest authors explicitly say so. I’ve said this repeatedly, and I don’t see any need to continue saying it. Let’s move on to some other topic.
Dear Ehrman,
As far as I know, it is stated unequivocally in the letters Paul wrote that Paul believed in the divinity of Jesus. However, one person I trust told me that James D.G. He stated that Dunn thought differently. According to Dunn, Paul did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. This was surprising information for me.
I want to ask you. Are there any academics in the academy who argue that Paul did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, or is this view nothing more than speculation?
You probably need to look closely at what Dunn actually says. I’d bet a case of Chateauxneuf du Pape that he says Paul understands Jesus as divine. He probably says it in a way that your friend misunderstood. In particular, your friend is probalby misinterpreting Dunn’s interpretatio of the Philippians Hymn. He does indeed think that it is referring to Christ (in the opening lines) being in the “form of God” not as a pre-existent divine being but as an Adam figure. But that wouldn’t mean that Dunn claims that Paul doesn’t think Jesus is a divine being at all.
Dear Ehrman,
Thank you for your response. Are there serious scholars in academia who argue that Paul did not see Jesus on a divine basis? Or is this claim entirely speculative?
I’m not familiar with any who do, but I would imagine there are!
Dear Erhman,
If you permit, I would like to ask two very brief questions:
From an academic perspective, when do you think Paul started to believe that Jesus was God? Did he already hold this belief before meeting the disciples?
If Paul believed that Jesus was God before meeting the disciples, in my opinion, this proves that the disciples also saw Jesus as God. We do not see a discussion like the one in the Letter of Galatians. This suggests that the disciples and Paul were in agreement regarding the nature of Jesus, as there was no dispute. Am I thinking correctly?
1. As soon as he believed he had been raised from the dead and taken to heaven. 2. Yes, they did too, when the believed he had been raised from the dead and taken to heaven.
But just because two Christians agree jesus is divine does not mean they mean the same thing by it. That’s one of the major points I show in my book How Jesus Became God. One always has to ask: In what SENSE is he God?