Paul believed that Jesus was divine and had a status equivalent to God or Son of God, but did the disciples ever share this belief rather than considering that Jesus was just a human Messiah or messenger from God who had been resurrected?
Some arguments against the proposition that the disciples shared Paul’s belief:-
Jesus supposedly resurrected several ordinary people and even Peter did it [Acts 9:36-43] so being resurrected or having the power to resurrect people did not necessarily imply divine status.
The disciples were brothers or close friends of Jesus who had lived with him for years. If he had become divine as a result of resurrection, it meant that they had not previously realized his true nature. How could they have accepted that they had not noticed this?
The idea that gods could come down to earth and live there disguised as ordinary humans was familiar to Greeks, Romans and diaspora Jews, which included Paul, but it was blasphemous to orthodox Jews to suggest that their God might do so. It is evident that the disciples were orthodox Jews from their disputes with Paul over diet and circumcision.
Paul’s conversion experience was separate from that of the disciples so his conclusion about the status of Jesus was independent from theirs.
When Paul first met the disciples after his return from Damascus, they should have all greeted him enthusiastically as a fellow convert if they shared his beliefs. Instead, he only met Peter and James, only stayed for 15 days and then went straight to Syria and Cilicia, bypassing the rest of Judea.
Paul says that he agreed with the disciples that he would go to the Gentiles while they went to the Jews but in Colossians 4:11 he complains that none of the disciples work with him. It seems that a fundamental difference between the two groups kept them from working together.
On the other hand, what evidence exists to support the proposition that the disciples shared Paul’s belief that Jesus was divine?
One non-fundamentalist scholarly reading sees the earliest Resurrection view was as a kind of apotheosis validated by appearances of some sort to the disciples. This interpretation would hinge on an Adoptionist Christology. Jesus was made divine. Under this view the disciples reverenced Jesus as the Messiah of God’s imminent kingdom but did not consider him personally divine until after the Resurrection appearances.
Blackwell said
Yes, one scholarly view is that the disciples believed that Jesus was made divine by his resurrection. (See Bart Ehrman’s post on 20th January 2021)Unfortunately, we have no record of the disciple’s beliefs, so what evidence supports this scholarly view?
There are places in the NT where writers seem to be referencing early credos and faith statements about Jesus. For example-
…concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord…
-Romans 1:3-4
…he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you…’
-Acts 13:33
These are just a couple examples. Clearly some form of Adoptionism was in the mix of available early Christologies. The argument that it must have been the earliest is a bit more complicated. I can’t do it justice in a post but you’d be better served by reading actual scholars discuss it anyway.
Prof Ehrman has a nice long treatment of the issue in his How Jesus Became God.
Multiple attestations of Jesus healing the blind near Jericho are discussed on Wikipedia ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
If 1. assuming physical healing of blindness is impossible and 2. some spiritual form of “healing the blind” was experienced among the followers of Jesus and 3. some such healing had to do with calling Jesus “son of David” and 4. “son of David” was in some sense a divine status as argued by Ehrman ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Then the healing of the blind near Jericho stories might be evidence that Jesus was in powerful sense “seen” as in some sense “divine” by some followers during his lifetime.
Paul likewise may have used the word “God” in the sense of an anointed king? For more on this click to ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The NT, including the examples given above, was written by Paul and his followers so reflects their belief that Jesus was divine. It does not follow that the disciples shared this belief.
In “How Jesus became God”, Bart Ehrman says that Jesus “thought he was a prophet predicting the end of the current evil age and the future king of Israel in the age to come” (Chapter 3 : Did Jesus claim to be God?) He then explains why it is very unlikely that Jesus ever claimed to be divine and then follows with the statement “Belief in the resurrection is what eventually led his followers to claim that Jesus was God” (Chapter 4)
What is the justification for this statement?
Other people were supposedly resurrected but were not considered to be divine. I suggest that Paul had an additional reason resulting from his conversion experience which led to his belief that Jesus was divine but this did not apply to the disciples. The reference to “his followers” also implies that the disciples had the same beliefs as Paul whereas the epistles suggest that the two groups were antagonistic.
Bart Ehrman also mentions Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 15:3-8 which lists the most important things that he had received but the only certainty about this statement is that it reflects Paul’s views when it was written, some ten years or more after his conversion.
There is no basis in “How Jesus became God” for the conclusion that the disciples believed that Jesus was divine.
In my own personal view, I don’t think we can be sure exactly what Jesus’ earliest disciples believed about a divine status of the resurrected Christ, or even if all of them adopted belief in the resurrection (Mt 28,17 οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν, but some doubted/hesitated)
Hello Robert
There are some who have said that the doubt is about “worshiping” that which is before them, not that the doubt is in the resurrection , which seems like a claim which doesn’t sound convincing.
in the book of acts, the gentiles are given a list of following
19 Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled[** you do not have permission to see this link **] and from blood. 21 For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.”
“abstain only from things polluted by idols”
what does this mean? nowadays neither a muslim or jew would eat meat sacrificed to an idol and if he/she is in market place , they would surely inquire how “kosher” or “halal” the meat is, is this what the gentiles were instructed to do in the book of acts?
edit: if for example a muslim or a jew finds out that his local “halal/kosher” butcher is butchering to an idol, then i am sure the community would be warned against such butcher.
Robert,
As you say, Paul does not mention any difference with the disciples over Jesus’s divine status but this is hardly surprising since he wanted his followers to think that the disciples agreed with him.
Paul does say (2 Cor 12:1-5) that “he had been caught up into paradise and heard words so secret that human lips may not repeat them” so he believed that Jesus had spoken to him directly from heaven and was therefore divine. On the other hand, appearances to the disciples had all been on earth so they did not have this reason. Why would they believe that Jesus was divine just because he had been resurrected? Other people had supposedly been resurrected but were not considered to be divine. It seems to be a standard assumption that the disciples believed that Jesus was divine because of his resurrection despite the lack of supporting evidence.
Where this matter becomes significant is in the debate between historicity and mythicism. A fundamental proposition for the mythicist hypothesis is that Christianity started with a group who worshipped a celestial Jesus. They were persecuted by Paul but after conversion he became a promotor of their faith. If there were actually no pre-Pauline people who believed in a divine Jesus then this hypothesis is invalid.
I think and most scholars think there is no conflict between Paul and Jerusalem church pillars about Jesus’s divine status ( and anything else)
Even his final letter ( Romans ) Paul says he will visit pillars of Jerusalem church.
Paul vs Jerusalem church conflict purely Ebionite fiction ( after 70 Ce)
See: Paula Fredriksen- Paul : The Pagan’s Apostle
Are you trying to make the case that “there were actually no pre-Pauline people who believed in a divine Jesus”?
I do think that this is a reasonable conclusion and that a possible scenario is as follows:-
1. The disciples did not believe that Jesus was divine before his death. They thought he was a Messiah predicting an imminent apocalypse.
2. The disciples did not conclude that Jesus was divine because of resurrection but rather thought that it signaled that the apocalypse was about to begin and would result in the restoration of the kingdom of Israel.
3. Paul believed that Jesus had spoken to him directly from heaven and was therefor divine. Paul believed that he had been specially chosen to receive this secret and had been given the task of revealing it to everyone else
4. When Paul returned to Jerusalem for the first time, the disciples were skeptical of his claims and told him to stay away from Israel but agreed that he could preach elsewhere.
5. Paul hoped to persuade the disciples and their followers to accept his beliefs and made several visits to Jerusalem, providing financial support with this in mind. Some people were sympathetic but most remained with the group which eventually became known as Ebionites.
6. Paul’s followers in the Jewish diaspora became the foundation for Christianity whereas the group in Jerusalem died out.
This scenario is contrary to the traditional view that Christianity began with the disciples’ belief that Jesus was divine as a result of his resurrection but it is more compatible with the evidence. It also explains why disciples (except Peter) never accompanied Paul on his missions and why Paul avoided visiting groups in Judea.
I agree with the common view that Paul cites previous expressions of belief in a divine Christ.
In chapter 4 of “How Jesus became God”, Bart Ehrman provides an extensive commentary on the passage in 1 Cor 15: 3-8 and notes that since Paul says that he “received” this information and had previously handed it over to the Christians in Corinth, it must go back to the founding of the community in about 50CE. So, did it originate with the disciples?
The disciples are supposed to have been illiterate peasants from Galilee and Paul had only met two of them during the 14 days that he had spent in Jerusalem a decade previously whereas he had written to his followers many times since then. Why suppose that the statement to the Corinthians had been composed by the disciples rather than by one of Paul’s literate followers?
The same consideration applies to the passage in Phil 2:5-11 where Paul says of Jesus “the divine nature was his from the first” and “God raised him to the heights”. Did the disciples believe this or did they just believe that Jesus had been resurrected, signaling an imminent apocalypse?
Bart Ehrman says “it is believed far and wide among New Testament specialists that Paul is indicating that this is a tradition already widespread in the Christian church, handed over to him by Christian teachers, possibly even the earlier apostles themselves” but no other evidence is provided to support this belief.
With the actual texts available, it is not possible to determine what the disciples did believe, let alone what they did not believe, but overall I consider that it is most reasonable to conclude that the belief that Jesus had become divine originated from Paul and then became the belief that he had been divine all along.
Robert said
If there were pre-Pauline expressions of belief in a divine Christ, then how would the belief that Jesus had become divine have originated with Paul?
The expressions of belief had been composed by one of Paul’s followers before Paul quoted them, but the belief originated with Paul who then passed it on to his followers.
I don’t think Bart or anyone else would claim that any of the content of 1 Cor 15,3-8 was written or composed by the first disciples, whom Bart definitely considers to have been illiterate.
Who then is supposed to have composed these expressions of belief if not followers of Paul?
With respect to the Philippians poem, Bart does not think this was composed by the first disciples or that the first disciples believed in the divine pre-existence of Jesus. Rather, he thinks they believed in the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus as a kind of an adoption into a divine, heavenly status.
I consider that it is unlikely that the disciples believed in the exaltation of Jesus to a divine status. There was no reason for them to do so according to the accounts of their resurrection experiences in the Gospels which took place on earth. On the other hand, Paul thought that Jesus had spoken to him directly from heaven.
When Bart writes that “it is believed far and wide among New Testament specialists that Paul is indicating that this is a tradition already widespread in the Christian church, handed over to him by Christian teachers, possibly even the earlier apostles themselves,” he is specifically speaking of the tradition related in 1 Cor 15,3-8, not the Philippians poem.
My understanding of Bart’s words is that it was the belief that Jesus was divine which was the tradition. I think we agree on this point.
The gospel accounts were also written by Paul’s followers so passages suggesting divinity do not necessarily come from the disciples.
What I note is the contrast between the Gospel accounts where the resurrected Jesus is described as a real person and Paul’s account where there are bright lights and a disembodied voice.
We have no direct records from the disciples about their beliefs but if they really thought they had met with a live but wounded Jesus after his crucifixion then it is reasonable to suppose that they also thought that someone was caring for him. They just did not know who or where but believed that he would return to them as soon as he had recovered and then the apocalypse would begin.
This is a message which could have enthused his supporters during the first summer after the crucifixion more so than vague talk about him being exalted to divine status.
The gospel accounts were also written by Paul’s followers…
Not really. Mark is thought to have Pauline influence but even that is debated. Their soteriologies are similar but their Christologies diverge considerably. I suspect Matthew and Paul would have despised each other. Acts is full of stories about Paul but the author doesn’t seem to know Paul’s actual ideas so in what sense can he be described as a “follower” except chronologically? Does the writer or writers of the Gospel of John show any evidence of knowing Paul? (That’s not a rhetorical question.)
What I note is the contrast between the Gospel accounts where the resurrected Jesus is described as a real person and Paul’s account where there are bright lights and a disembodied voice.
Yet in the famous passage in 1 Cor 15 Paul equates his experience of the risen Jesus with the disciples’ experience. There is no account of his vision from Paul. Paul’s vision is being recorded in Acts which was written by someone who knew about Paul but did not know him personally and who records multiple contradictory accounts.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)