In a recent podcast, Professor Ehrman said that the author of Luke redacted-out all the references to Jesus’ death being critical to salvation; he said we would be saved anyway and the crucifixion was just a crime.
Then how to explain Luke 19:10 (“For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost”)?
Thanks…
Bart’s point is specifically about a sacrificial atonement type of salvation…
Might this also give credence to my own surmise that Mark is a diaspora Jew? Might this difference in orientation be because Luke is a pagan convert and Mark is comfortable with the traditional Jewish idea of sacrifice? See the work of ** you do not have permission to see this link **. To the pagans sacrifice was a matter not of atonement but of reciprocity. And in paganism for the common folks sacrifice was largely bloodless, i.e., cakes, fruits, incense, and libations. Animal sacrifice was confined to larger, public ceremonies. Might all this have contributed to Luke’s not being comfortable with the idea of what would basically look to a pagan like a human sacrifice?
Robert said
On the other hand, some see Luke’s view of forgiveness and salvation on the basis of repentance rather than a blood sacrifice as a much more mainstream Jewish view. Bart and I both agree on this, with Bart perhaps more explicitly linking this back to the preaching of repentance by John the Baptist and Jesus. Some would even see Luke as potentially Jewish or, more likely in my opinion, perhaps a gentile proselyte to Judaism. That’s not to deny that the sacrificial view found in Paul and the other gospels did not also arise from within a Jewish matrix.
That is interesting. Perhaps Luke was not the outlier. In both Jewish and pagan religious contexts animal sacrifice had largely been removed from normal daily practice. But then in the apocalyptic Jewish view that John and Jesus would have inherited there is always the expectation that the temple cult will be purified and restored. Perhaps the response to Jesus’ death caused Paul and Mark to reach back to earlier, darker times?
sberry said
In a recent podcast, Professor Ehrman said that the author of Luke redacted-out all the references to Jesus’ death being critical to salvation; he said we would be saved anyway and the crucifixion was just a crime.
Then how to explain Luke 19:10 (“For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost”)?
Thanks…
I propose one theory, which has to do with Dr. Ehrman more than with ancient documents. Dr. Ehrman at times reads sentences in the biblical canon so literally that viewing his process is almost like watching a distorted, or even converse, image of a fundamentalist interpretation. For instance, in his book How Jesus Became God he takes a single passage from Galatians 4:14. Dr. Ehrman concludes, against a wealth of contrary voices, that Paul thought of Jesus as an angel.
The problems are numerous: 1) on a conceptual level, Dr. Ehrman does not define what “an angel” means; he seems to think the definition is so commonplace that nothing more is needed. The fact is that the conception of “angels” has over the centuries changed several times. I think it is safe that Dr. Ehrman means a “created being” and would therefore have support Arius, but none of this is clarified. 2) Dr. Ehrman does not answer the obvious objection, that Paul is not equating Christ to an angel but is rather writing rhetorically, what we might call “upping the ante”: i.e., “you received me as an angel, nay, as Jesus Christ himself!” No one who knows the Greek would say that Galatians is written “calmly and with clarity”. To base any theory on a single sentence from Galatians is already questionable historiographical practice. 3) Dr. Ehrman provides a footnote to his assertion: a footnote that notes how unpopular his view is and gives only two sources that may or may not support him. (I have looked into some of Dr. Ehrman’s supporting citations and found them quite irrelevant to the strong assertion he makes on their backs)
(Perhaps it’s time to start asking other questions???)
Dr. Ehrman concludes, against a wealth of contrary voices, that Paul thought of Jesus as an angel.
He is not alone. This is hardly a wild-eyed view.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Stephen said
Dr. Ehrman concludes, against a wealth of contrary voices, that Paul thought of Jesus as an angel.
He is not alone. This is hardly a wild-eyed view.
Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence
Michael and Christ: Michael Tradition and Angel Christology in Early Christianity
Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John
I notice you only included the views supporting his thesis, which is hardly overwhelming.
If you read the Greek from start to finish, without pausing to over analyze each sentence, it is very difficult to arrive at Dr. Ehrman’s conclusion. He is banking his banking his thesis on the grammar of a single sentence in the Pauline corpus. What classical historian of Plutarch, Cicero, Lucius, would applaud such a biblicist approach to historical documents?
Connor, Robert has aptly expanded on the point I was making. What has come to be called “Angelomorphic Christology” is not a fringe view. And it is based on much more than the reading of a single verse. But no idea is beyond critique. I am familiar with the response by Larry Hurtado. Who are some others of this “wealth of contrary voices” you spoke of?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)