So, a very simple observation on my part. What comes to my mind is the use of these various anointed figures in such NT writings as the writer of Hebrews’ description of the risen Jesus as such of one as Melchizedek the ultimate priest; in Matthew the role of the ultimate prophet and in both Luke and Matthew the ultimate King in the line of David.
Thanks for such an informative and detailed reply!
That statement: “If he is not a lier or a lunatic, he must be the Son of God.” annoys me because it tends to LIMIT others to those options.
The writings we have in the NT are written by others. Perhaps THEY were “liars” or just exaggerating what they’d observed, or passed on the word-of-mouth stories.
I’d say he is a rebel who was a great teacher – basically teaching the same premises as other great teachers who came before.
Hi I was just wonderiny if anyone could help
me with this question I asked Bart but was also curious for your views:
“Hi Dr Ehrman apologies if I’ve completely misunderstood bur when reading your book recently (which i’ve just started) how Jesus became God. Would it be right in saying you think that Matthew and Mark (and maybe luke?) have an exaltation view of Jesus in that they think he was exalted at his baptism or his ressurection. Yet I think it was in your lectures you did where you may have also said that Jesus is doing miracles beforehand so this obviously raises the question of how can Jesus be doing miracles if he’s not God? Which is why I think you said in John the author has higher Christology of him to solve this issue where he is the prexsistent God incarnate yet (providing I’ve not completely misunderstood what you have said.) If Matthew and Luke did create this dillema by claiming that Jesus was exalted to divinity, whivh John then tries to solve with his higher christology. surely Matthew, Mark (and possibly Luke) would have noticed such a blatant plot hole (if thats the write terminology) in their gospel when writing it even if we do (which I do) reject the inerrancy of scripture?”
It seems likely that Jesus did expect to become a king like David or Solomon after an imminent apocalypse, when, like them, he might be considered to be the ruling son of God on earth. During his lifetime, however, it seems more likely that he was promoting the idea that everyone should consider themselves as sons of God. This is the basis of the Lord’s Prayer, for example. It was also in total opposition to religious authorities.
I think Mark had something like a combination of exaltation and adoptionist christologies, ‘though I don’t think we would have clearly defined his views as such. Adoptionism is really later terminology. Matthew, Luke, and John all maintained elements of Mark’s exaltation christology.
———–
Not to forget Paul’s idea of adoption writing in Romans:
15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, “Abba![l] Father!” 16 it is that very Spirit bearing witness[m] with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children . . .
[m] Or a spirit of adoption,
by which we cry, “Abba! Father!” The
Spirit itself bears witness
johnt72
Jesus can only be
1 Son of God
2 Lunatic
3 Liar
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction
1 Son of the tribal god/local god of Ancient Israel
the tribal god / local god whose men of authority conspired to have him killed
the tribal god / local god who couldn’t come through on the promise of Jewish Apocalypticism
the tribal god, who like Josephus and Paul attached himself to the Roman Empire–all three of them turned coat to the Roman Empire.
“I cannot do this anymore. The Roman Empire with its pantheon of Gods not one of its client kingdoms without Herod the Great wins.”
2 A lunatic is
Definitions from Oxford Languages
lu·na·tic
/ˈlo͞onəˌtik/
noun
noun: lunatic; plural noun: lunatics
a mentally ill person (not in technical use).
Similar:
maniac
an extremely foolish or eccentric person.
“this lunatic just accelerated out of the side of the road”
In the gospels, Jesus is not portrayed as a lunatic.
3. What is the claim that makes Jesus a liar?
“I think Mark had something like a combination of exaltation and adoptionist christologies” Hi Robert was just curious how it was possible to have a combination of Christologies and also what was the difference between exaltation and an adoptionist Christology as I’d only ever heard of the incarnation christology and then the christology where Jesus is exalted to divine status which is what I thought the exaltation christology was but when I did some research on what an adoptionisr christology it also sounds like an adoptionist christology?
“ Just as his execution is the ultimate evidence against his special status, the resurrection is his ultimate exaltation. The baptism is only a preview for the readers.” if I’ve understood your saying in Mark he was exalted at his baptism and then at his crucifixtion but how can he be exalted twice even if his baptism is a lesser exaltation?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert