That “progression” idea is old hat. (That’s an oversimplification of Ehrman’s viewpoint.)
Yeah, but it is an oversimplification that he has sometimes, at least, occasioned.
E.g., in ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
At ** you do not have permission to see this link ** he says the earliest Christians thought Jesus became divine at the resurrection (he goes on to defend this by pointing to pre-literary passages in Rom. 1 and Acts 13).
At ** you do not have permission to see this link ** he gives an overview of the backwards movement of Christology: exalted at the resurrection (seen in pre-literary fragments), exalted at the baptism (Mark), exalted at conception/birth (Lk/Mt), then incarnation christology where he was divine before he was human. Notably, he makes this a general statement: “what ends up happening in Christological thinking in the early church is that the time of Jesus’ divinity is pushed backwards, repeatedly.”
At ** you do not have permission to see this link ** he lays the progression in the gospels out again in the Q&A.
He does ** you do not have permission to see this link **–he admits it is a very high, early, pre-Pauline Christology; but it is treated as a mere intro to incarnation Christology and Jn 1. He doesn’t address the elephant in the room that this (being both a high, incarnational christology and an early, pre-Pauline Christology) seems to undermine the thesis of a chronological backward movement of Christology that he spent the lecture developing and emphasizing: this preliterary high-Christology, which presents Jesus as preexistent and somehow divine (as a quasi-divine angel) before he was man, is of comparable vintage to the primitive, low, exalted-at-the-resurrection view.
brenmcg, by way of the Christology evidenced in his writings, Justin Martyr was what has come to be called a “Monarchical Subordinationist”. This seems to be the dominant christology of the early church fathers of the second century. MS is just a highfalutin’ way of saying that God the father was supreme. The Son and the Spirit were divine but created by and subordinate to the Father.
The online Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy has a nice description.
Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165) describes the origin of the logos (= the pre-human Jesus) from God using three metaphors (light from the sun, fire from fire, speaker and his speech), each of which is found in either Philo or Numenius (Gaston 2007, 53). Accepting the Philonic thesis that Plato and other Greek philosophers received their wisdom from Moses, he holds that Plato in his dialogue Timaeus discussed the Son (logos), as, Justin says, “the power next to the first God”. And in Plato’s second letter, Justin finds a mention of a third, the Holy Spirit (Justin, First Apology, 60). As with the Middle Platonists, Justin’s triad is hierarchical or ordered. And Justin’s scheme is not, properly, trinitarian. The one God is not the three, but rather one of them and the primary one, the ultimate source of the second and third.
Justin and later second century Christians influenced by Platonism take over a concept of divine transcendence from Platonism, in light of which
no one with even the slightest intelligence would dare to assert that the Creator of all things left his super-celestial realms to make himself visible in a little spot on earth. (Justin, Dialogue, 92 [ch. 60])
Consequently, any biblical theophany (appearance of a god) on earth, as well as the actual labor of creation, can’t have been the action of the highest god, God, but must instead have been done by another one called “God” and “Lord”, namely the logos, the pre-human Jesus, also called “the angel of the Lord”.
I would call it “proto-trinitarian” since it does describe the members later included in full blown trinitarianism. Justin’s view, like the rest of the second century church fathers, was a step on a path that led to the development of trinitarian views ultimately winding up at Nicaea.
We can derive some interesting conclusions from all this:
The doctrine of the Trinity developed over time.
It was impossible without the direct and deep influence of Greek philosophy.
Nicene Trinitarianism, a child of the Fourth Century, was itself an innovation, quite literally the “new kid on the block”. Arianism was a variation on what was in fact a much older viewpoint.
Porphyry it appears that a very high Christology appeared early in the development of Christianity. A reasonable conclusion is that there were divergent views existing more or less simultaneously throughout the first century. However this doesn’t really contradict the idea that the earliest view of Jesus’ immediate disciples was that Jesus was adopted by God and made divine at his Resurrection. Of course they would probably have expected an almost immediate Parousia. The old idea of a “progression” was that the dominant view went from a simple christology and preceded ever higher and higher. That’s what is “old hat”.
I’ve always suspected that Paul and other early Christians were blind to some distinctions we make as a matter of course. Paul quotes adoptionist language and incarnationist language and doesn’t seem to realize that he is describing what we would assume to be differing christologies. Early views were messy and inconsistent. I don’t think Ehrman would dispute that.
Yes, I don’t think I would disagree with any of that, Stephen.
I just meant to point out that the oversimplified understanding (that lead to this thread) is one that Bart himself has at times contributed to in his popular work: Bart pretty clearly endorses (in the talk I linked to) the thesis that, historically, early christology developed by pushing the moment Jesus became more than just a man earlier and earlier in his life: In the preliterary tradition, he was exulted at the resurrection; later he was exulted at the baptism; later still, he was exulted already at his birth; and finally we get incarnational Christology where he preexisted in some superhuman state.
But that thesis plainly doesn’t work with what Bart himself acknowledges about Phil 2: the poem in Phil. 2 is both preliterary and incarnational.
Sorry to be going on and on but this is one of my favorite subjects.
Robert wrote
You’re speaking of third Enoch or perhaps Qirqisani’s version of b Sanhedrin 38b, correct? Or some earlier text? I do think early high christology is correct in Paul, and I’m willing to consider with Bart that even the very first disciples believed Jesus to be divine in some sense once they came to believe that he had been raised up to heaven from the realm of the dead, but I don’t think this happened while Jesus was still alive. I don’t think you do either, Stephen, correct?
My point about Metatron was just that these figures were not alien to the Jewish milieu. As an educated and literate Jewish thinker, even if not the full blown Merkabah mystic some want to find, Paul would nevertheless have adapted his vision of Jesus into an already internalized apocalyptic context.
Jesus’ immediate disciples would have had a triumphalist Messianic context available to them. It seems logical to assume that was the framework in which they acted. Would Peter, James and john have recognized the Jesus of Paul’s vision(s)? There is an important side of the story we will never know. This should give us pause.
Oh, yes the name Metatron is late, but the idea of divinized humans like Enoch and pre-existent divine beings goes back much further. No, I doubt very seriously that in his lifetime the disciples thought Jesus was a pre-existent divine being. Jesus was their beloved teacher who gave their lives meaning and purpose and rescued them from a life of emptiness.
Porphyry, we’re not really disagreeing here. What distinguishes scholarly from popular language is exactitude. There were already present exalted categories available to interpreters of Jesus right from the beginning. We might want to reexamine the concept of “preliterary” however. (See my ongoing “review” of Prof Walsh’s book.)
When you write a popular science book, you are immediately dishonest, regardless of your will. Because formally, in a popular book, almost every sentence should begin with the words: it seems, it would seem, some arguments indicate, we can assume. No one would buy a book written like this. That’s why nobody writes like that – you choose exciting topics and give exciting answers without explaining that these are only selected interpretations.
Christology as a modern concept is of little importance. In such a Mark, adoption ideas are mixed with Mark 5:7, which shows Jesus as YHWH Himself.
The marketing ploy of releasing two books simultaneously – How Jesus Became God and How God Became Jesus is absolutely brilliant. Great fun that doesn’t explain anything. Because the purpose of the game is not to explain anything. Just fun.
When you write a popular science book, you are immediately dishonest, regardless of your will. Because formally, in a popular book, almost every sentence should begin with the words: it seems, it would seem, some arguments indicate, we can assume. No one would buy a book written like this. That’s why nobody writes like that – you choose exciting topics and give exciting answers without explaining that these are only selected interpretations.
Christology as a modern concept is of little importance. In such a Mark, adoption ideas are mixed with Mark 5:7, which shows Jesus as YHWH Himself.
The marketing ploy of releasing two books simultaneously – How Jesus Became God and How God Became Jesus is absolutely brilliant. Great fun that doesn’t explain anything. Because the purpose of the game is not to explain anything. Just fun.
@Stephen * – Justin’s triad is hierarchical or ordered. And Justin’s scheme is not, properly, trinitarian. The one God is not the three, but rather one of them and the primary one, the ultimate source of the second and third.-*
This is same as Nicene trinitarianism. God the father is maker of heaven and earth, the son is begotten of the father and the spirit proceeds from the father. The son obeys the father and is made flesh for the sake of men in accordance with the scriptures. You have to make a case for how Justin is different from Nicene trinitarianism, or new testament trinitarianism.
*- no one with even the slightest intelligence would dare to assert that the Creator of all things left his super-celestial realms to make himself visible in a little spot on earth. (Justin, Dialogue, 92 [ch. 60]) -*
Justin’s whole point is that the nameless God did indeed speak to Moses from the bush but it was clearly not the Father. “it will not be the Creator of all things that is the God that said to Moses that He was the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Diaglogue c60)
The is the God who said to Moses “I am the god of Abraham the god of isaac the god of jacob…”. But it was not god the father.
First Apology “And all the Jews even now teach that the nameless God spoke to Moses”. Justin agrees with them, but they don’t understand that it was the son speaking, not the Father. “because the Jews knew not what the Father was, and what the Son, in like manner accused them; and Himself said, No one knows the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and they to whom the Son reveals Him.”
“But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, And the angel of God spoke to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe.”
This is what Nicene trinitarianism is – and it’s what the new testament teaches.
*- It was impossible without the direct and deep influence of Greek philosophy. -*
Possibly, but that influence is already in the new testament. Paul was a reader of greek philosophy. And Paul spoke about his faith to James, Peter and John.
“So Justin Martyr says christians in the second century were baptised by the ineffable name of god and by this name alone. And that this name of god is shared by the father the son and holy spirit”
When matthew 28 says f, s and hs, which scripture says :
“You can only baptize in gods name” ?
jesus is also baptized. under whose name and authority?
neither matthew, mark , john or luke were trinitarian .
Edit to add:
The phrase to onoma tou (“in the name of”) modifies each entity named separately not collectively. To onoma tou patros kai tou huiu kai tou hagiou pneumatos is basically the same as saying “in the name of the father, and in the name of the son and in the name of the Holy Spirit.” This would be understood by the audience, and it was actually standard in magical incantations to stack gods or other entities in this kind of formulation. There are preserved pagan magical formulas which call on a laundry list of deities or powers in this way. Some of them even include the name of Jesus alongside pagan deities. They liked to cover all their bases. It’s not a grammatical construction that is intended to imply every one on the list has the same name but to include every name on the list.
all three titles, not a single name. If there were no conjunctions and it were simply the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, this would point to a single name. The conjunctions slow the reader down and separates the three. Matthew would have caused great confusion if he intended the three to be a single name.
A good example of this would be the difference between these two sentences.
“Your mother picked up your books, laundry and toys.” “Your mother picked up your books, and you laundry, and your toys.”
You can see from the second sentence that there is emphasis on each individual item in the list. It’s not just all three being one, its each individual thing. This shows that your mother had to do all this work. The first sentence doesn’t have this emphasis or this meaning necessarily. Polysyndeton in Matthew puts the same amount of emphasis on each individual person in the formula.
In contrast, the opposite of Polysyndeton is asyndeton. It lumps everything together. Quintilian uses the phrase acervatio dissoluta “loose heap” to refer to it. The most famous example is veni, vedi, vici, I came; I saw; I conquered. Caesar did all three in quick succession. Everything he did was as a whole. We get the impression from the phrase that it was easy and quick, without much of a struggle. If the Author of Matthew wanted to emphasize that the name of all three persons were Jesus, asyndeton would have done this. He would have had to eliminated the conjunction kai.
“all three titles, not a single name. If there were no conjunctions and it were simply the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, this would point to a single name. The conjunctions slow the reader down and separates the three. Matthew would have caused great confusion if he intended the three to be a single name.”
You see the reason why matthew isnt causing great confusion is because matthew didnt think 3 is identical to 1.
@rickgill
*- The phrase to onoma tou (“in the name of”) modifies each entity named separately not collectively. To onoma tou patros kai tou huiu kai tou hagiou pneumatos is basically the same as saying “in the name of the father, and in the name of the son and in the name of the Holy Spirit.” This would be understood by the audience -*
Thats not how the Didache and Justin Martyr understand it.
Didache 7 “And concerning baptism baptize this way Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if you have not living water baptize into other water and if you can not in cold in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”
and then Didache 9 “But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord”
So according to the Didache those who have been baptised in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit have been baptised in the name of the Lord.
Justin Martyr First Apology “For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.” ” the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God”
So according to Justin Martyr the name of god alone is called upon those who are being baptised, which is the name of god the father and of Jesus christ and the of holy spirit.
“So according to the Didache those who have been baptised in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit have been baptised in the name of the Lord.”
///////////
CHAPTER 7
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;
7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
////
9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:3 And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.
9:4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.
9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.
////
this is identifying a single person . its not saying that “lord” is identified as three distinct persons.
if you replace lord with “son”
////
9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the son, for of a truth the son hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.
clearly then dedicae is treating them as separate non-identical beings. there is actually no scripture which says “you can only be baptized in the name of god”
“this is identifying a single person . its not saying that “lord” is identified as three distinct persons.”
Its identifying a single Lord and a single name. Its this single name that followers of the way are baptised into. And this single name is shared by the father and the son and the holy spirit.
“clearly then dedicae is treating them as separate non-identical beings.”
Yes it treats them as non-identical but so does the nicene creed. the trinity wouldn’t be true if they were identical.
“there is actually no scripture which says “you can only be baptized in the name of god””
you can be baptised in whatever name you want – but the new testament calls on you to be baptised in the name of the lord, which is the name of god, which is the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit.
brenmcg, I hate to say this but I dont think the problem is just that you dont understand Justin, but that you dont really understand Nicene Trinitarianism. What do you think Athanasius’ position actually was?
Friends Im aware of the arguments but we shouldnt discount the possibility that Paul had a touch of poetry in his soul and composed the so-called Christ Hymn himself.
@Stephen “What do you think Athanasius position actually was?”
Anthansius agreed with the council. (as Bart Ehrman says ** you do not have permission to see this link **) “Everyone at the council – all 318 bishops (if that’s the correct number) – every single one of them *agreed* that Jesus was divine. They all called him God. The only question was “in what *sense* is he God.”
He was opposed to the views of Arius and agreed with the council and emperor when speaking of Arius and his adherents that
“his impious opinion should be anathematized, with all the blasphemous expressions he has uttered, in affirming that the Son of God sprang from nothing and that there was a time when he was not. He said moreover that the Son of God, because possessed of free will, was capable either of vice or virtue, and he called him a creature and a work. All these sentiments the holy synod has anathematized, having scarcely patience to endure the hearing of such an impious opinion—or rather madness—and such blasphemous words.”
Anthanasius believed Jesus was God – that he was in no sense a lesser god or a created god. But was in and had always been a divine union with the Father.
“this is identifying a single person . its not saying that “lord” is identified as three distinct persons.”
“Its identifying a single Lord and a single name.”
which belongs to a single person who said “do not give that which is holy to the dogs”
” Its this single name that followers of the way are baptised into.”
like you find in acts. identifying one person.
” And this single name is shared by the father and the son and the holy spirit.”
where is the holy spirit identified as “lord” in dedicae?
all the thanks in dedicae are given to the father .
why are you saying “shared” ? cannot persons with non-identical essence have same name?
“clearly then dedicae is treating them as separate non-identical beings.”
“Yes it treats them as non-identical but so does the nicene creed. the trinity wouldn’t be true if they were identical.”
the creed says they are of the same essence. names cannot tell you if x, y and z are of the same essence.
“there is actually no scripture which says “you can only be baptized in the name of god””
“you can be baptised in whatever name you want”
was jesus baptized in johns name?
“– but the new testament calls on you to be baptised in the name of the lord”
it never says that the lord is identified as father, son and holy ghost.
“, which is the name of god,”
incorrect.
“which is the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit.”
which verse?
brenmcg in your reply to my question you’re really just saying that Athanasius rejected the views of Arius. Well, yeah. But what were the views of Arius that Athanasius rejected? What were they arguing about? Which view most nearly resembles that of Justin and the other subordinationists of the second century? Is Athanasius really saying what Paul or the gospel writers are saying?
If you start with the assumption that all these folks – except for the heretic Arius! – are saying the same thing then of course you will be blind to any evidence to the contrary. The sad part is that you are blinding yourself to an immense intellectual – and spiritual? – revolution that resonates still. The idea of the Nicene Trinity is an utterly brilliant solution to a problem created by the church itself in interpreting Jesus. A solution that required centuries of thinking and was only at last made possible by a philosophical vocabulary provided through Middle Platonism.
The ironic aspect of all this for me is that I only really became interested in the issue after I stopped being a believer. Before, I accepted it without thinking about it. Now that I am able to view it as part of an intellectual process I have the distance required to consider it usefully. Another irony! Consider religious faith, not as a method of illumination, but as a distorting mechanism. This is why surgeons are not allowed to operate on their own family members. They’re too close to the problem. They care too much to have the necessary dispassion.
Sooo…a non-believer’s guide to the usefulness of the idea of the Trinity. Many have pointed out that every almost attempt to explain it has resulted in a heretical movement. It’s usefulness lies in the very fact that it frustrates understanding. Like a Zen Buddhist koan. A paradoxical riddle or anecdote designed to help the devotee transcend reason using the mechanism of reason. What is the sound of one hand clapping? What was your face like before you were born?
The idea of the Trinity is not a fact like gravity or continental drift but a way to approach a divine mystery. Here reason is a path that leads to the non-rational. Another irony! Those who cannot reason in the first place (those that think the Trinity is a fact) are forever barred from approach.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)