I just joined so go easy on me guys. As a preamble,I’ve had this long running email debate(40 yrs) with my old Philo prof, who left teaching to become a (now retired) Lutheran pastor. Like Bart, i too am agnostic and ex-born again evangelical,speaking in tongues,the whole nine yards.Iwent on to degree in philosophy. The pastor has impressive academic credentials& background (MA; MA/ST)
He contends that Bart is NOT doing “historical analysis” in his “How Jesus Became God”,but some form of liberal theology. He cites his conservative scholarly influences like Hurtado,Gieschen,Bauckham etc… to say that the early Christian followers already believed that Jesus was God much earlier in the NT,and not what Bert claims,much later during the Nicea Council. He also questions that Mark was first Gospel and says those that do, base it on Higher Criticism and that the methodology is far too speculative to overturn the early Christian manuscript evidence that Matthew was first. Bart also mentions Philo as exalting Moses as a divine being or god and wanted to know where references to this claim could be found.
He maintains that the disciples always thought of Jesus as God and he cites (JOHN 1:1,2 PHIL. 2,) and that it is not true(as our friend Bart says) that Jesus becomes the Son Of God and a divine and exalted being. Jesus never “becomes ‘ God, my friend claims and he states that John is very explicit on this point as is Paul. That idea was coined by later day theologians,not the apostles writing at the time. He claims the disciples always thought of Jesus as divine and that he did not generally exercise his Divine power when he took on flesh and became a man. It was only later that he was exalted back into heaven. So in other words, he was divine before his incarnation and during it. All this he says is supported by Scripture.The notion that Jesus was viewed as Son of God already at his baptism, but this doesn’t mean it just began there and that that notion (that it is the beginning of his Sonship) is again a product of liberal theologians, like Ehrman.He always argues with me that liberals like Bart often claim to be doing ‘historical”analyses when in reality he is doing Higher Criticism. So Bart’s last debate really was an exercise in Higher Criticism and not a historical inquiry or question as Bart himself said at the very outset of his talk.
How do i respond to these right-wing conservative guys who seem to be living in the dark ages and find guys like Bart a threat to their religious manhoods??
How do i respond to these right-wing conservative guys who seem to be living in the dark ages and find guys like Bart a threat to their religious manhoods??
Well unfortunately it just may be that at some point you’ll realize you’re wasting your time. I have relatives who are hardcore fundamentalist Southern Baptists. Last Thanksgiving I was treated over dinner to a completely serious discussion as to whether or not Obama is the Antichrist. I was a guest in their home and I was getting a free meal out it so I just clammed up and didn’t take the time to point out how completely batshit crazy the whole idea was.
I guess you can point out that Higher Criticism and historical analysis are not mutually exclusive endeavors. You can ask him why he’s not simply doing “conservative” theology. Point out that Prof Ehrman stipulates that both the Gospel of John and Paul have an early high Christology but then ask your friend why the synoptics don’t seem to agree.
Lastly having a prior faith commitment colors everything. Anything that seems to contradict their faith position will be rejected or rationalized away. The Church has had 2000 years of practice at mental kung fu and they’re dang good at it.
Welcome to the forums.
If you’ve got Bart’s books and/or you’ve read the forum posts then you’ve already got the answers to most of your questions available to you. You’ll never convince a Christian he’s wrong about the Bible and no one who intelligently decides that they’re an agnostic or atheist will be convinced by any rationalization made by Christians. It’s in the best interests of the Christians who are against Bart to try to denigrate what he says so of course they’re going to try to pick apart what he has to say. That said, let’s go through your questions one at a time and I’ll point you to where Bart addresses each of them.
1) Regarding Bart’s historical method you should get his textbook. In my opinion it’s one of his best books. In it he addresses various historical methods of examining the Gospels. I don’t know what “liberal theology” means, but it sounds like something Donald Trump would say. Liberals are of the debil.
2) If you read today’s blog post you’ll see that the very point you raise about the Council of Nicea was raised. As Bart says, the Council of Nicea was not to decide if Jesus was the Son of God, but in what sense was he the Son of God, ie what was the exact relationship of God to Jesus. This is a subject that had been debated for centuries. The attendees were at the Council to finally come to an agreement on this question that had been around for far longer than any of them had lived. Of course it didn’t just pop up at the Council of Nicea!
3) Some of us believe Mark was first and some don’t. Even some secular scholars have doubts that it was first. I believe it was first, but someone else on here might not. To me it’s not worth worrying over. It’s a matter of perspective and deciding on if Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. I think there’s very little debate though that John was assembled last (although parts of it might be older than Mark). That said, to say that those of us who decide Mark was first do so on speculative “Higher Criticism” grounds and not historical are simply being dismissive of facts that they find inconvenient. There are excellent historical grounds for deciding Mark was first. What “early” Christian manuscript evidence is there for Matthew being first? Papias? Even Eusebius found him untrustworthy.
4) Of course the disciples in John had an elevated view of Jesus. It’s the one Gospel that has an exhalted Christology of a Jesus who pre-existed the world. Nothing surprising there. Compare the view of Jesus found in the synoptics. In Mark Jesus is so down to earth that he can’t even perform a miracle to heal a blind man on the first try! Mark’s Jesus in 8:22 lacks confidence in himself and has to take the man aside to heal him in private. He rubs spit in the man’s eye and says “can you see now?” The man replies that the people are blurry and look like trees. Jesus tries again and says “can you see now?” Only after the second attempt can the man see. Also, look at the baptism of Jesus in Mark. The story made it sound like Jesus was second to John and that he was unclean or a sinner and needed to be baptized by John. Also, the dove secretly says to Jesus that “you are my beloved son”. Luke tries to clarify things to make it appear that Jesus was not subordinate to John. Matthew goes a step further by having John tell Jesus “you should be baptizing me!”. Then of course when we get to John and its high Christology John is proclaiming Jesus was the Lamb of God and would baptize with the Holy Spirit. The Gospel of John treats Jesus completely different from the other Gospels.
5) The claim that the disciples always knew Jesus was the Son of God: I would counter with the question “in what way did they see him as the Son of God?” Bart writes a lot about this question on the blog though. Use the search function to look for his posts. Bart has also written extensively on the blog in recent months that the disciples did NOT see Jesus as divine until after his death.
6) I skipped the question about Philo by accident. I have Philo’s complete works, but I don’t really know much about him or what he wrote. Sometimes I pick the book up and read wrote he wrote about giants in the Bible but that’s about it 
. At any rate, I suppose you’re asking about what Bart wrote in “Hoe Jesus Became God”. Bart gives the references right there on the page to which sections of Philo he’s referencing. On page 81 for example he references Philo’s work “The Worst Attacks the Better” (short name for “That the Worst is Wont to Attack the Better”. I don’t know if the passages are called “verses” in Philo, but in Bart’s book he references “passages” 161-162 in The Worst Attacks the Better. Philo’s works are available online for free so your friend can easily look up these passages.
Stephen said
How do i respond to these right-wing conservative guys who seem to be living in the dark ages and find guys like Bart a threat to their religious manhoods??
Well unfortunately it just may be that at some point you’ll realize you’re wasting your time. I have relatives who are hardcore fundamentalist Southern Baptists. Last Thanksgiving I was treated over dinner to a completely serious discussion as to whether or not Obama is the Antichrist. I was a guest in their home and I was getting a free meal out it so I just clammed up and didn’t take the time to point out how completely batshit crazy the whole idea was.
I guess you can point out that Higher Criticism and historical analysis are not mutually exclusive endeavors. You can ask him why he’s not simply doing “conservative” theology. Point out that Prof Ehrman stipulates that both the Gospel of John and Paul have an early high Christology but then ask your friend why the synoptics don’t seem to agree.
Lastly having a prior faith commitment colors everything. Anything that seems to contradict their faith position will be rejected or rationalized away. The Church has had 2000 years of practice at mental kung fu and they’re dang good at it.
I should have said what you did, but I’m too verbose 
bigalster said
Bart also mentions Philo as exalting Moses as a divine being or god and wanted to know where references to this claim could be found.
If you feel like getting your head around all the philosophical nuances in Philo – have a look at this article by DAVID LITWA:
THE DEIFICATION OF MOSES IN
PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA
INTRODUCTION: Crispin Fletcher-Louis once remarked that “It is well known that in the
second Temple period Philo deified Moses.”1 In fact, Moses’s deification in
Philo is a deeply contested issue. Depending on which passages one
highlights, Philo seems to both clearly assert and strongly deny Moses’s
deification. In his Questions on Exodus, for instance, Philo says that Moses
was “divinized” (2.40), “changed into the divine,” and thus became “truly
divine” (2.29). Moreover, ten times Philo calls Moses “(a) god” (θεός) in
accordance with Exod 7:1: “I [God] have made you a god to Pharaoh.” In
On the Sacrifices, for instance, Philo says that God appointed Moses as god,
“placing all the bodily region and the mind which rules it in subjection and
slavery to him” (§9).2 In an influential study, Wayne Meeks stated that “the
analogy between Moses and God implied by this title θεός is taken so
seriously in this passage [Sacr. 9] that it approaches consubstantiality.”3At loggerheads with these passages are those wherein Philo presents
God as utterly unique (Leg. 2.1; Sacr. 92), and where he strongly attacks
polytheism, idolatry (Decal. 65; Spec. 1.28), and the self-deification of rulers.4
In The Worse Is Wont to Attack the Better, Philo writes that God, as Being
itself, IS in truth (§161). The very fact that Moses is made a god in Exod 7:1
shows that he is fixed in the realm of becoming. Moses is thus not a god in
truth (πρὸς ἀλήθειαν δὲ οὐκ ἔστι θεός, §162)—nor technically “IS” he
anything in truth since he is an entity in the sphere of becoming. The
apparent nail in the coffin of Moses’s—or anyone’s—deification in Philo is
the oft-quoted passage in Embassy to Gaius 118: “Sooner could God
transform into a human than a human into God.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
From Michael Bird’s blog:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Conclusion
I cannot prove that no one never in the early decades had an adoptionist christology; I’ve never said that I could demonstrate that. But what I think I can say, is that the texts and groups associated with adoptionism do not express a real adoptionist christology. The first real adoptionists were a chapter of the Theodotians in Rome around 200 AD who think Jesus was deified/adopted at his resurrection.
I have a short book on this which I’m sending out to some friends for comments and currently shopping it around with publishers. Hopefully, for those interested, you’ll be able to read a full length treatment soon enough!
—————————————–
I think this is Bird’s strongest argument:
”Second, when Bart talks on his blog about cultural adoption, all of the examples are Roman. There is a reason for that. Adoption as a way of extending one’s dynasty was not generally practiced in Palestine. What is more, I stand by my point that the Jews were generally allergic to notions of deified humans (though Ehrman contests this, see 2:03:45 in the debate). Yes, Jewish authors could be believe that some figures ascended to heaven and were described as “equal to the angels” and like, but no one – not even Enoch in 1 Enoch if you ask me – is given a position that rivals God. As Jimmy Dunn points out, if we bring Josephus and Philo together in their critiques of deification, then “Jewish writings tend to be more scrupulous and less free in their attribution of divine sonship and divinity to men.” For case in point, see Jewish responses to Caligula’s claim to be divine, esp. Philo, Gai. 200-3; Josephus, Ant. 18.257-58.”
my bolding
And the way out of that for Jews? The gospel Jesus is a composite literary figure. A literary figure that could be ‘deified’ whereas a historical flesh and blood Jew could not. Yes, Ehrman is right – the early christology in the gospel story is adoptionist/exaltation christology – but the figure being adopted/exalted is not historical but literary.
maryhelena said
I think this is Bird’s strongest argument:
”Second, when Bart talks on his blog about cultural adoption, all of the examples are Roman. There is a reason for that. Adoption as a way of extending one’s dynasty was not generally practiced in Palestine. What is more, I stand by my point that the Jews were generally allergic to notions of deified humans (though Ehrman contests this, see 2:03:45 in the debate). Yes, Jewish authors could be believe that some figures ascended to heaven and were described as “equal to the angels” and like, but no one – not even Enoch in 1 Enoch if you ask me – is given a position that rivals God. As Jimmy Dunn points out, if we bring Josephus and Philo together in their critiques of deification, then “Jewish writings tend to be more scrupulous and less free in their attribution of divine sonship and divinity to men.” For case in point, see Jewish responses to Caligula’s claim to be divine, esp. Philo, Gai. 200-3; Josephus, Ant. 18.257-58.”
my bolding
And the way out of that for Jews? The gospel Jesus is a composite literary figure. A literary figure that could be ‘deified’ whereas a historical flesh and blood Jew could not. Yes, Ehrman is right – the early christology in the gospel story is adoptionist/exaltation christology – but the figure being adopted/exalted is not historical but literary.
That makes no sense. To the writers of the synoptics Jesus was a historical figure. This was certainly true for Mark since it’s the earliest known writing that described the life of Jesus and for Mark his sources were oral so he was not describing a literary figure. For them Jesus was as flesh and blood as anyone living. Matthew and Luke got the adoptionist portion of their Gospels (the baptism story at least) from Mark with little substantive addition (i.e. the subtle changes in each to make Jesus seem less subservient to John). You can only incorporate a “literary” figure AFTER there is actual literature about him.
Queue the appeal to a made up composite figure….
Greg Matthews said
maryhelena said
I think this is Bird’s strongest argument:
”Second, when Bart talks on his blog about cultural adoption, all of the examples are Roman. There is a reason for that. Adoption as a way of extending one’s dynasty was not generally practiced in Palestine. What is more, I stand by my point that the Jews were generally allergic to notions of deified humans (though Ehrman contests this, see 2:03:45 in the debate). Yes, Jewish authors could be believe that some figures ascended to heaven and were described as “equal to the angels” and like, but no one – not even Enoch in 1 Enoch if you ask me – is given a position that rivals God. As Jimmy Dunn points out, if we bring Josephus and Philo together in their critiques of deification, then “Jewish writings tend to be more scrupulous and less free in their attribution of divine sonship and divinity to men.” For case in point, see Jewish responses to Caligula’s claim to be divine, esp. Philo, Gai. 200-3; Josephus, Ant. 18.257-58.”
my bolding
And the way out of that for Jews? The gospel Jesus is a composite literary figure. A literary figure that could be ‘deified’ whereas a historical flesh and blood Jew could not. Yes, Ehrman is right – the early christology in the gospel story is adoptionist/exaltation christology – but the figure being adopted/exalted is not historical but literary.
—————————————————————————————–
That makes no sense. To the writers of the synoptics Jesus was a historical figure.
Saying so does not make it so….
This was certainly true for Mark since it’s the earliest known writing that described the life of Jesus and for Mark his sources were oral so he was not describing a literary figure. For them Jesus was as flesh and blood as anyone living. Matthew and Luke got the adoptionist portion of their Gospels (the baptism story at least) from Mark with little substantive addition (i.e. the subtle changes in each to make Jesus seem less subservient to John). You can only incorporate a “literary” figure AFTER there is actual literature about him.
The literature is right there. It’s called the gospel story….
Queue the appeal to a made up composite figure….
Queue the appeal for a historical Jew to become deified…..
Comment below from Michael Bird’s blog
The problem for Bart’s adoptionist/exaltation christology is that it is highly improbably that the Jews would elevate a human flesh and blood man in this manner. As for Moses – no historical evidence for historicity.
For those that hold to an atheist/agnostic perspective then the whole incarnation christology is simply preposterous. The use of this christology in the gospel story is an indication that the story is not dealing with physical reality. The gospel story contains both incarnation and adoptionist/exaltation christologies. If one aspect of the ‘parcel’ is deemed preposterous – then so too is the other part of the ‘parcel’. One aspect of the ‘parcel’ is unscientific. The other aspect would be deemed preposterous by Jews. The whole ‘parcel’ is contaminated i.e. it contains elements that are not related to flesh and blood, historical, physical reality.
And that sums up a big problem for the Jesus historicists i.e. those who reject the incarnation christology and yet cling on to an adoptionist/exaltation christology for a historical Jewish man. The gospel story does not support a premise that would be viewed as being non-Jewish – indicating, of course, that the gospel story should not be viewed as history but as a literary construct designed to reflect a political allegory.
(One can view incarnation christology in a philosophical context – just as one can view adoptionist/exaltation christology in a philosophical context. i.e one can find meaning in these gospel concepts outside of a physical, flesh and blood, context. )
For the historicist vs ahistoricist debate – theology and philosophy should be set aside and a history book opened….it is within Jewish history that the gist memories of the gospel story are to be found…
bigalster said
How do i respond to these right-wing conservative guys who seem to be living in the dark ages and find guys like Bart a threat to their religious manhoods??
As a rightwinger, I think you need to stop worrying about things like whether people are liberal or not. As if this is some indication of intelligence.
He contends that Bart is NOT doing “historical analysis” in his “How Jesus Became God”,but some form of liberal theology.
Great have him walk you through it! As a philosopher, does he really think arguments
like, “he’s doing liberal theology” have merit? Is Liberal theology inherently deceptive or wrong? How is insinuating error, a valid argument? Sounds to me like the only one doing some ideological tuning is the guy that makes that sort of argument.
Of course, someone who discounts sources because they’re “conservative” isn’t doing much better.
He cites his conservative scholarly influences like Hurtado,Gieschen,Bauckham etc… to say that the early Christian followers already believed that Jesus was God much earlier in the NT.
And Ehrman’s question is, in what sense did they mean that Jesus was god. I’m pretty sure this is one of his driving theses(though maybe the prof wasn’t paying to much attention to what he was reading. The problem is, if “early Christian followers already believed that Jesus was God” why did he bother asking them who they thought he was? Why was Peter the only one who was even close? Were the other apostles just messing with him? Did Jesus stutter? Apparently some folks got the idea that he was John The Baptist, Elijah or Jeremiah.
Was Mark distracted all those times he heard Peter recount these stories? Apparently, not only did Mark not put the stories in order, but didn’t quite get the details right either. Blessed be the cheese makers
Have a look at ** you do not have permission to see this link **
for a little ammo
maryhelena after all this torrent of words I’m still waiting for you to make the case that Jesus was a composite literary figure. Even if you are successful at punching holes right through the historicist position you still haven’t come within light years of making your case. Your position requires that you describe the circumstances under which this composite figure could have been created and a mechanism whereby it might have been accomplished. At most what you’ve done is highlight historical problems that everyone acknowledges (Prof Ehrman has spent half his career writing about them) but that’s not enough to substantiate your position.
What compelling evidence do you have to present that would make a reasonable person think that Jesus was a composite literary figure?
Stephen said
maryhelena after all this torrent of words I’m still waiting for you to make the case that Jesus was a composite literary figure.
Stephen – you know that I put up a chart detailing the historical figures that are reflected in the gospel composite figure of Jesus. I noticed that you did not reply to that thread at all!.
(as for a ‘torrent of words’ – I’m way behind number of posts per day of the top poster at this forum ..…..)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Even if you are successful at punching holes right through the historicist position you still haven’t come within light years of making your case.
It’s the same with the historicists is it not? Knocking holes in the ahistoricist position does not validate their own historicist position…..Interestingly, yesterday, Bart responded to a comment on his blog and acknowledged that ‘Did Jesus Exist’ ? did not do well compared to his other books…….The Ehrman book with the biggest ‘punch’ against the Carrier mythicists is ‘How Jesus Became God’ i.e. the whole christology debate…and the subject of this thread….
Your position requires that you describe the circumstances under which this composite figure could have been created and a mechanism whereby it might have been accomplished. At most what you’ve done is highlight historical problems that everyone acknowledges (Prof Ehrman has spent half his career writing about them) but that’s not enough to substantiate your position.
Historical problems – yet Bart is so definite, almost dogmatic, that Jesus did exist!
What compelling evidence do you have to present that would make a reasonable person think that Jesus was a composite literary figure?
Check my chart in the thread linked to above.
Bart, in his new book, is arguing for ‘gist’ memory being reflected in the gospel story. The chart details that ‘gist’ historical memory that the gospel story reflects. i.e. the chart deals with history not assumptions of what that gospel ‘gist’ memory is.
If it’s the issue of a composite figure, in and of itself, that concerns you – then consider other literary examples.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Indeed, re Bart’s new book, memory, gist memory, is important for understanding the gospel Jesus story. But for gist memory to be important for a historical search for early christian origins – then it has to be validated by historical events. Gist memory is not the ‘savior’ of the historicist position – it’s more like Bart has shot the historicist position in the foot….
The more I read of your book, the more I found myself actually sympathizing with those scholars out there who say that ** you do not have permission to see this link ** at all. That he is pure fiction. And yet you insist, throughout the book, that Jesus did exist. Why? What is your best evidence?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I think many readers of Bart’s new book are going to be expressing similar thoughts. However, when one has opted out of the historicist position that is not the end of the road – it’s only the first step on a very long road ahead…..Saying that the gospel Jesus is a mythical type literary figure can stop one in ones tracks – it’s a dead end as far as searching for early christian origins is concerned. Yes, it’s an easy stopping place – no hassle. But history requires that one gets ones feet well and truly dirty as one tramps over minefield after minefield (Josephus being by far the biggest and dangerous of the lot…). It is the gospel story and it’s gist memory that indicates that the gospel figure of Jesus is a literary composite figure. The gospel story is not history – it’s a story with a gist memory of historical figures relevant to the writers of that story. i.e. it’s a political allegory, a political allegory upon which is built a theological or philosophical superstructure.
maryhelena wrote…
you know that I put up a chart…
Yes, and you seem to think that your chart proves something. Your chart is an assertion. And an assertion is not evidence. You have to make an argument for your position. You have to demonstrate a relationship not merely claim one.
It’s the same with the historicists is it not? Knocking holes in the ahistoricist position does not validate their own historicist position…..
Of course! And if that’s all historicists did your claim would be perfectly valid. But in Prof Ehrman’s book he spends but a few pages on Mythicism, acknowledging it and going over some of its tenets, and then spends the vast bulk of his 350 pages laying out the evidence for the historicist position. Once again, an assertion is not evidence. And the weakness of your opponent’s case doesn’t validate yours. You have to make YOUR case.
If it’s the issue of a composite figure, in and of itself, that concerns you – then consider other literary examples.
I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of a composite literary figure. But once again you’re asserting that JESUS was such. Make your case. The fact that you can show that other composite characters exist doesn’t do that. (Although interestingly this kind of thing seems to be a modern phenomenon. Can you think of another composite literary figure from antiquity that can be clearly demonstrated to be such? The problem of course is that we have no access to the thought processes and motivations of ancient authors. Another weakness in your point of view is that it largely relies on assuming that we do.)
The gospel story is not history – it’s a story with a gist memory of historical figures relevant to the writers of that story. i.e. it’s a political allegory, a political allegory upon which is built a theological or philosophical superstructure.
I’ll say it as many times as I have to – this is an assertion, NOT an argument.
maryhelena make your case. I for one would be totally fascinated to hear it. If you are unwilling or unable to do that then I think we can all agree this back and forth is pretty much a waste of time.
Stephen said
Yes, and you seem to think that your chart proves something. Your chart is an assertion. And an assertion is not evidence. You have to make an argument for your position. You have to demonstrate a relationship not merely claim one.have to make YOUR case.
Now, Stephen
Stop being such a bully!
Stephen said
maryhelena wrote…The gospel story is not history – it’s a story with a gist memory of historical figures relevant to the writers of that story. i.e. it’s a political allegory, a political allegory upon which is built a theological or philosophical superstructure.
I’ll say it as many times as I have to – this is an assertion, NOT an argument.
maryhelena make your case. I for one would be totally fascinated to hear it. If you are unwilling or unable to do that then I think we can all agree this back and forth is pretty much a waste of time.
The premise of my argument is that Hasmonean/Jewish history is reflected in the gospel story. The demonstration of that premise, the argument, is in the chart I put up on the threat: Historical chart of Hasmonean/Jewish history as reflected in the gospel story. If you think the chart does not present an argument for a reflection of Hasmonean/Jewish history within the gospel story – then so be it. The gist memory reflected within the gospel story has to be historically validated. If you think differently – then by all means attempt to create a historical chart for the gospel gist memory that Bart has identified in his book. Assertions – no – the chart demonstrates the gist memory of the gospel story. Assertions can be made re the importance or the impact or the consequences of the material in the chart. The chart is not making assertions – it is simply stating historical facts alongside elements of the gospel story.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As to biblical writers creating composite figures – without historical records there is no way to know how the OT writers created, for example, their Moses figure. We are fortunate that we do have historical records related to the figures mentioned in the chart – historical figures relevant to the gospel story.
As to the NT story itself – – what is a god-man but a composite figure of god and man…..thus, the idea of a composite figure, a mixture of two entities, is not out of sights for the gospel writers….nor for the fundamentalist NT scholars…..
Stephan, you have not dealt with the material in the chart – hence I find your wanting to call discussion of my position a waste of time rather illogical….
Actually, Stephan, when you do want to discuss the chart – the other thread, not this one, is the place for such a discussion.
Actually, Stephan [sic], when you do want to discuss the chart – the other thread, not this one, is the place for such a discussion.
Actually maryhelena when you want to make an argument I will read it in any thread you prefer. Until that point this is not really interesting to me anymore. So I’m moving on.
Stephen said
Actually, Stephan [sic], when you do want to discuss the chart – the other thread, not this one, is the place for such a discussion.Actually maryhelena when you want to make an argument I will read it in any thread you prefer. Until that point this is not really interesting to me anymore. So I’m moving on.
Stephen, my apologies for the misspelling of your name. 
As to the issue of what thread to discuss my chart – forum moderators normally shift posts that are off-topic to a new thread. It really makes no sense to have all threads as open threads. Threads are best served by staying on topic. That this forum just runs on it’s own has it’s good and bad points….
maryhelena said
I think this is Bird’s strongest argument:
”Second, when Bart talks on his blog about cultural adoption, all of the examples are Roman. There is a reason for that. Adoption as a way of extending one’s dynasty was not generally practiced in Palestine. What is more, I stand by my point that the Jews were generally allergic to notions of deified humans (though Ehrman contests this, see 2:03:45 in the debate). Yes, Jewish authors could be believe that some figures ascended to heaven and were described as “equal to the angels” and like, but no one – not even Enoch in 1 Enoch if you ask me – is given a position that rivals God. As Jimmy Dunn points out, if we bring Josephus and Philo together in their critiques of deification, then “Jewish writings tend to be more scrupulous and less free in their attribution of divine sonship and divinity to men.” For case in point, see Jewish responses to Caligula’s claim to be divine, esp. Philo, Gai. 200-3; Josephus, Ant. 18.257-58.”
my bolding
And the way out of that for Jews? The gospel Jesus is a composite literary figure. A literary figure that could be ‘deified’ whereas a historical flesh and blood Jew could not. Yes, Ehrman is right – the early christology in the gospel story is adoptionist/exaltation christology – but the figure being adopted/exalted is not historical but literary.
a composite literary figure partly composed of historical people
maryhelena said
Stephen said
maryhelena after all this torrent of words I’m still waiting for you to make the case that Jesus was a composite literary figure.
I make the case that Jesus is a composite figure. Some who compose this composite figure are Julius Caesar; Dionysus from the play The Bacchae; Izates, son of Queen Helena; and Emperor Vespasian from whom the Star of Bethlehem/Star Prophecy sign was taken from Jesus and attributed to Vespasian.
See:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
What I gathered, and correct me if I am wrong, is that Jews did have a tradition, not necessarily approved of by most but still a certain persistent strand within the community who did not fear using incredibly audacious language for certain figures. Certain figures in the Old Testament are exalted with very audacious Godlike language although most Rabbis even then would be likely to affirm that these praises are metaphorical.
Even Philo himself does not belief Moses is literally divine. In any case, these terms of exaltation son of God and Lord are not unknown to Jews.
As for Romans, they would in fact not just exalt their loved dead kings but deify them as well. They really were worshiping their dead kings.
What appears to be the case is that this early community of Jews, at least some of them if not most, ended up actually deifying Jesus. How they reconciled their belief in one God to themselves and other Jews is not something we know of. How other Jews reacted to their pronouncement is also something we don’t have any knowledge of. We have to admit it-there is a blackout period of which very little is known. It has to be emphasized, repeated and maintained-we don’t have a very good idea of what happened in the formative period after Jesus.
Through some inference and literary analysis, we can apparently determine that sometime within the first twenty years, possibly within a few years or months or even days after the events, some, or most of this community had started to worship Jesus.
In doing so they made a very remarkable break from contemporary Jews.
Anyways, according to Bart, their belief that he was exalted to the right hand of God in heaven was what guided their belief that he had been made divine. It also probably didn’t hurt that they were likely traumatized at his loss and felt guilty and perhaps felt the need to compensate for their guilt by making incredible claims about him. We know without a doubt he touched their lives in a way most can’t comprehend.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert