he shall be a son to me (2 Sam. 7:12-14).”
It appears that the earliest Christology, probably the belief of Jesus’ immediate disciples, was a form of what’s called Adoptionism. Because of his righteousness and special status as Messiah, Jesus was a human being who had been adopted and made divine at his resurrection by God. By the time of the writing of the gospel of Mark, this moment of divine adoption had slipped back to the baptism of Jesus. This is where the idea of the Son of God came from; Jesus had been adopted as god’s son and now possessed all the powers and privileges bestowed upon him by that adoption.
Even Paul with his admittedly much higher Christology occasionally makes statements (quotes?) that reflect this adoptionist view.
… the gospel 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 NRSV
…It is almost unthinkable that both Matthew and Luke would share a virgin birth story if they didn’t get it from a common source, just like the two genealogies that just magically seem to appear for the first time in Matthew and Luke…
And yet this is highly disputed because these nativity accounts and genealogies don’t agree on a single detail. It’s hard to see what that common source would be. This lack of agreement would also seem to mitigate against either Matthew or Luke knowing each other. It could just be that the idea of a miraculous birth was fairly widespread and these are just two of what might have been many independent stories floating round. These two just got written down.
There is another interesting hypothesis. Many scholars think that Luke originally began with Chapter three and lacked a nativity episode altogether. Chapter three does sound a lot like the beginning of a book. And Luke definitely has adoptionist tendencies. Maybe the original Luke didn’t have a nativity episode and it got added later.
I think the Christology in the Gospel of John is not as far from the other Gospels as it may seem at first. Yes, there is a lot of high-Christology talk: In the Gospel of *John* Jesus does, repeatedly, claim a divine status for himself: “I and the Father are One,” “Before Abraham was, I AM,” “If you have seen me you have seen the Father,” and so on.
But I think there are good reasons for believing Jesus is portrayed as “subordinate” to God in the Gospel of John:
1. I think in the Gospel of John Jesus presents himself as being subordinate to God. We read:
“So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upwards and said, ‘Father, I thank you for having heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.’” (John 11:41-42).
The phrase “you sent me” seems to be Jesus’ way of identifying that he is in a subordinate position to God.
2. Jesus says it is God’s name, not Jesus’ name, that is to be glorified by his mission. We read:
“Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say, ‘Father save me from this hour’? No it is for this reason that I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.” (John 12:27-28).
3. I think making Jesus an object of worship equal to God takes away from the selflessness of his mission and the fact that he wanted the glory to be on God. Chapter 17 of John’s gospel is the longest prayer of Jesus recorded in any of the gospels. In this chapter Jesus consecrates himself to the task that lies ahead, not for his sake, but for ours. This prayer of Jesus brings us to a closer understanding of the mind of Jesus, his relationship with God, and his selfless love of those, like us, in his care.I think in this regard, Jesus’ prayer life in the Gospel of John provides a window into what John thought of his Christology. Jesus in his prayers is in petition and supplication before God, not equal with God.
One point in all the Gospels seems very clear to me, that is
Jesus felt God was his Father.
Another point seems almost, but not quite, as clear
Jesus taught his followers/disciples, they could develop just as close a relationship to God as he had.
There are verses in Gospel of John that could be used to argue against that.
I dont think I even buy into Jesus, himself, believing this ‘adoptionist’ theory.
Now Jesus told his disciples that after he was baptized, he heard God say “You are my son, and I am well pleased with you”.
a) the only way this story could have originated is if Jesus himself related it to his disciples (Do you think everyone else at the Jordan heard this message as a group vision? If so he probably would have had many more disciples before he went looking for Peter et. al. at the Sea of Galilee; I doubt that even John the Baptist heard it.).
b) the revelation was not that Jesus was ‘adopted’ because of some special reason or other. Jesus had done nothing as far as we know to deserve the merit of adoption. Yet that is not unexpected, a father may say to their son ‘I am pleased with you’ even if that son has done nothing to deserve it, read parable of the prodigal son!
c) so why would Jesus tell his disciple about his revelation form God that “he was God’s son”? was it to boast and ask for their obeisance? Nothing in Jesus remarks imply that to be in Jesus’ character (other than a few verses in Gospel of John). Nor would the disciples be likely to have believed him were he merely saying “Hey I had a revelation God is my Father, so all of you sinners must follow me to avoid damnation”. I contend Jesus told related this ‘son of God’ message, along with the message they too were sons and daughters of their Heavenly Father, and that they should feel for their Father (God) was he did. That message really is consistent with all Jesus teachings.
This isn’t exactly the teaching of Paul . . .
I think that the text of the “voice from heaven” at the story of the baptism of Jesus comes from Psalm 2:7.
It is my current view that much if not most or even all of the Jesus stories are created by folks looking back at the Hebrew scriptures for words to put into the character’s mouth, and even to construct the plot of the character’s life.
Cheers! Rich
On the other hand, if someone’s preconceived belief is that “even all” stories about Jesus life are made up, then it is just as easy for that person to “look back at Hebrew scriptures” discover some correspondence and site such similarity as evidence for their hypothesis.
Most scholars take Jesus baptism by John as authentic, why would the baptism story be handed down as tradition unless it were accompanied by the purported vision? John baptizing was so commonplace one of the gospels says “all Jerusalem” were baptized by him.
I think you can probably find examples in the gospels of all these scenarios. Both pre-existing stories that were then shaped by reference to the Hebrew Bible and stories that were invented to reflect the Hebrew Bible. All made necessary by the need to explain how Jesus could be both Messiah and condemned criminal. A scholarly commonplace.
The figure of John the Baptist is an interesting one. And his story in the NT is probably shaped by reference to the Hebrew scriptures. But nevertheless there is compelling reason to think his relation to Jesus is historical. Why?
The first question to ask is, why is John even in the gospel to begin with? He plays absolutely no part in the later events of Jesus’ ministry or his death and resurrection. The gospel writers could easily have left him out. And if the mythicists are right and the whole thing is invented then why include John and create unnecessary problems for yourself? Mark’s early audience would have assumed that the one who baptizes is the spiritual superior of the one being baptized. And so you have this rationalization about John being the forerunner of Jesus. But if it’s all made up it can being anything you want. Why go through all this rigmarole?
The simplest explanation is that Mark had a solid and undeniable tradition that Jesus was associated with John that he had to account for. In that day John was the famous one – not Jesus. (See Josephus.) Mark included John because he had to. And he has John say that he looks forward to Jesus because he had to explain the relationship that everyone knew about. Mark included the vision stuff because his theology was that Jesus was adopted as God’s son at the baptism. Notice that to Mark the vision is a private one by Jesus only. Matthew and Luke copied and adapted Mark.
The relationship between Jesus and John was historical. The details of the Baptism were secondary and came from Mark.
I find the vision more interesting than the baptism.
and somewhat related (I think); my wife was explaining to me the other day about Jesus’ fast and temptations in the wilderness, I got to wondering, how did this story come about?
But the wilderness story is closely tied to the baptism and the vision.
In both cases (vision and temptations) either,
a) they were witnessed by someone (other than Jesus), or
b) they were invented by someone (other than Jesus),
c) Jesus himself reported them.
now a) is unlikely in the case of the vision, and impossible in the case of the 40 days alone in the wilderness.
invented (b) by someone other than Jesus is also is problematic
Could one of his disciples invent these stories?
No otherwise they would have claimed that these events occurred after Jesus called them rather than prior
Invented by Mark, possibly, but why at the baptism? The vision could have occurred anywhere, why juxtapose it with John, who has minimal impact on the rest of the story of Jesus. The baptismish adoptionist view came subsequent to the vision claim; it didn’t precede it. Better invent a story similar to the voice heard by Samuel when he was (seems like) 10 years old and mistakenly thought it was the high priest calling him. You mention in Mark’s gospel it was a private vision, if you are inventing a story better make everyone at the Jordan hear it, as did Matt and Luke. And is there any relation to the wilderness temptations??
That Jesus told these stories to his disciples (c) seems most reasonable to me. Certainly his reporting these events would not be anything out of the ordinary. e.g. Paul’s vision or Peter John and James vision of Moses and Elijah meeting with Jesus, etc. Fasting in the wilderness unusual? no, not at all, John did that.
Rather fasting and visionairy experiences are exactly the claim a holy man will produce as evidence that the message he has to proclaim is true. But I am not claiming Jesus made up these experiences (that is a different discussion). Most importantly some type of ecstatic experiences of this type exactly help explain Jesus’ attitude and conviction. If, as seems clear, Paul’s vision set the stage for his prophetic/missionairy life, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to believe, an occurrence in Jesus life had a similar impact .
tompicard said
I find the vision more interesting than the baptism.and somewhat related (I think); my wife was explaining to me the other day about Jesus’ fast and temptations in the wilderness, I got to wondering, how did this story come about?
But the wilderness story is closely tied to the baptism and the vision.
In both cases (vision and temptations) either,
a) they were witnessed by someone (other than Jesus), or
b) they were invented by someone (other than Jesus),
c) Jesus himself reported them.
now a) is unlikely in the case of the vision, and impossible in the case of the 40 days alone in the wilderness.
invented (b) by someone other than Jesus is also is problematic
Could one of his disciples invent these stories?
No otherwise they would have claimed that these events occurred after Jesus called them rather than prior
Invented by Mark, possibly, but why at the baptism? The vision could have occurred anywhere, why juxtapose it with John, who has minimal impact on the rest of the story of Jesus. The baptismish adoptionist view came subsequent to the vision claim; it didn’t precede it. Better invent a story similar to the voice heard by Samuel when he was (seems like) 10 years old and mistakenly thought it was the high priest calling him. You mention in Mark’s gospel it was a private vision, if you are inventing a story better make everyone at the Jordan hear it, as did Matt and Luke. And is there any relation to the wilderness temptations??
That Jesus told these stories to his disciples (c) seems most reasonable to me. Certainly his reporting these events would not be anything out of the ordinary. e.g. Paul’s vision or Peter John and James vision of Moses and Elijah meeting with Jesus, etc. Fasting in the wilderness unusual? no, not at all, John did that.
Rather fasting and visionairy experiences are exactly the claim a holy man will produce as evidence that the message he has to proclaim is true. But I am not claiming Jesus made up these experiences (that is a different discussion). Most importantly some type of ecstatic experiences of this type exactly help explain Jesus’ attitude and conviction. If, as seems clear, Paul’s vision set the stage for his prophetic/missionairy life, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to believe, an occurrence in Jesus life had a similar impact .
Marks version simply refers to a period of fasting and temptation and may be a lightly embellished version of a historic event, an initiation practice required by John’s community. This makes sense if Jesus started as a disciple of John.
The expanded versions in Luke and Matthew come from Q and is according to Géza Vermes pure Jewish midrash on Jesus’ ability to resist Satan and to be totally subservient to God.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)