“No but it was possible to claim to be yahweh by claiming “I AM” as your name.”
and what happens in the gospels when you claim to be “i am” ? you get stonned and hated( gospel of john). so many people who will be misled and promoted a “false i am” were most likely hated because their followers (also hated) promoted “false i am”
I am going based on your understanding
I do not believe “i am he” means divine identification.
Robert said
No, not exactly. The Johannine Jesus does seem to use ‘I am’ in a way that evokes Yahweh’s self-identification, as I illustrated above, but I do not see anywhere in the gospel where Jesus says that his name is Yahweh.
I’m not saying Jesus says his name is yahweh in either mark or john. I’m saying Jesus claims I AM as the divine name of the lord fir himself in both Mark and John.
You agree that the Markan jesus also seems to use ‘I am’ in a way that evokes Yahwehs self identification in Mark 14:62? Why not see the same thing in 13.6? What do you think the difference is?
Do you accept that Mark believes “jesus as lord will save at the end those who were hated because of his name”?
Sure, something like that.
So at the end-times the lord will save those who were hated because of his name. Are we not talking about the ‘name of the lord’? Is Jesus not claiming the ‘name of the lord’ for himself?
jakejones said
“No but it was possible to claim to be yahweh by claiming “I AM” as your name.”
and what happens in the gospels when you claim to be “i am” ? you get stonned and hated( gospel of john). so many people who will be misled and promoted a “false i am” were most likely hated because their followers (also hated) promoted “false i am”
I am going based on your understanding
I do not believe “i am he” means divine identification.
Mark doesnt say what will happen to the deceivers – he just says dont follow them. The disciples will be hated on qccount of Jesus’ name.
I’ve often wondered if early Christians would have been concerned with the nuances of these differing christologies. Paul can write both Philippians 2 and Romans 1:4 without batting an eye! There is no evidence that differing christologies were a factor in Paul’s controversies with the Jerusalem church. The first christology that seems to have freaked people out when it appeared was the view that Jesus was not a real human being. (A point to remember when you’re having discussions with mythicists.)
Robert said
It’s evocative, rather subtle, partially hidden in a structural observation that only the author himself would be aware of, if in fact it is what the author intended. On the surface it’s part of a larger view that Jesus will be exalted to the heavenly Son of Man, seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven. It is certainly not an explicit reference to Yahweh refusing to give his name to Moses saying, “I will be who I will be,” translated in the Septuagint as “I am the one who is.”
But is this your attitude to the ‘I AM’ statements in John as well? That its only evocative of yahwehs self identification, or that John is going further and having Jesus claim the divine name for himself?
You’ve already said in this very post: “I’m not saying Jesus says his name is yahweh in either mark or john.” Look up what it means to ‘come in the name of someone’.
Yes in neither mark nor john does he claim the name yahweh – but in both he claims the divine name of the lord as his own. Necessarily as in both he claims to be the lord of the cosmos.
Stephen said
I’ve often wondered if early Christians would have been concerned with the nuances of these differing christologies. Paul can write both Philippians 2 and Romans 1:4 without batting an eye! There is no evidence that differing christologies were a factor in Paul’s controversies with the Jerusalem church. The first christology that seems to have freaked people out when it appeared was the view that Jesus was not a real human being. (A point to remember when you’re having discussions with mythicists.)
I’m particularly curious about this. It seems that the hymn attributes to the disciples can be read as promoting a Davidic son of God vs Paul’s more Augustan notion of that.
Paul seems less concerned with his followers taking Jesus as a God than he does making sure they accept his sacrifice is what they believe in for salvation. God has changed by taking a child (who doesn’t change upon becoming a parent) and soon now the world will change
The disciples poem seems to me to have the same explanatory power if its kept as a davidic son of God with fewer problems.
Regarding theological debates, all Paul seems to reference are debates with either the family(james) and first man(cephas) of Jesus or the other preachers. My guess-the term son of God was widely adopted initially, but its meaning taken differently by disciples and various converts. Roman religion was diverse so its likely converts and new preachers in the early era brought that diversity with them to the terms son of God and salvation. This would go a good ways in explaining why christological diversity seems preserved and lasting all the way to the johanine/Lukan era
The question is, how was an ostensibly lesser matter (debates over the law and salvation) the big debate in the early era? It seems intuitive to me 2 things happened
1) what people meant by God and son of God was variable enough for people to perhaps assume unwarranted agreement when there was none. Peter and James are 2 impoverished, endangered, illiterate jews with no connections and not exactly the best mobility. They do have to also find a way to keep their identity as the real James and Peter in the ancient era which lacked strong ID. So its very possible they don’t really detect son of God in the Roman sense from gentile converts but what does catch their eye and does become very obvious is that Paul is preaching the law is abolished.
2) the very fact that they seem to, despite their pretty crappy condition, put as much effort as they did into fighting back Paul to his dismay and whining, and despite the presence of probably numerous other preschers, does seem to me to indicate they were quite alarmed by him eventually albeit not as much initially to go to the lengths they did with their very finite power and resources. It also seems to me, for whatever reason when they do confront his converts they basically keep winning and beating him back.
But i have a lot of deficits in my knowledge of the earliest era and the evidence of exactly what happened is itself very sparse. These are just my lay impressions. Its also very possible there’s a quick widespread agreement across the land among new believers that Jesus is the son of God in a non davidic but very divine sense although there are easily 500 different ways to be a divine son of God. But early diversity is probably the best bet to explain preserved diversity.
Robert said
Yes, and the word ‘Power’ is a circumlocution to avoid saying Yahweh or God.
It seems to me the view of subordination was strong for a really long time. Jesus had to be divined initially beyond merely davidic kingship then more godded and godded until the view of subservience to Yahweh was weakened.
This does support the notion that Christianity did not start out with a divined Jesus though the early era could have been a very heavy mix. Coequal takes a while to replace subordination even as Jesus becomes more and more of a god.
Robert said
The realm of the divine was wide-ranging and rather fluid in these ancient contexts. Today, we tend to think of divinity in terms of strict philosophical monotheism, but not so in ancient times. There were lots and lots of divine beings without there being any presumption of co-equality. This was true not only among gentiles but alao within Judaism as well.
Which makes trying to classify what part of the spectrum Jesus was on for different groups extraordinarily challenging BUT also has the effect of showing how early and later views could be so diverse that this becomes the tremendous debate later on.
Its kind of like trying to explain why ecological diversity is so big in some areas and the annoying but not wrong answer is, its just been that way for a while!
Robert said
John’s use of the “I am” statements is more obvious, but I would not say that John’s Jesus ever claims the divine name for himself. In John’s gospel, Jesus uses the ‘I am’ statements to claim pre-existence, in such a way that he is to be stoned presumably for blasphemy,* to claim that he has come down from heaven, and in such a way that these simple words cause soldiers to fall down.
But you do know this is contrary to Bart Ehrman’s view?
“I would point out that only in John did Jesus say such things as “Before Abraham, I am” (8:58; taking upon himself the name of God, as given to Moses in Exodus 3); his Jewish opponents knew full well what he was saying: they take up stones to stone him.” ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Unusual that I’d be defending his view against yours.
*See not only Jn 8,58-59 but also 10,30-37. This is more direct than at Mk 14,62 since the ‘sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven’ could be construed as blasphemy quite apart from the ‘I am …’ part of 14,62.
I don’t think 14:62 is particularly obvious. Its Mark 13:6 that’s more obviously speaking of the divine name than John.
Are you saying that “Lord” is “the divine name of the Lord”? ‘Lord’ is not a name. And where do you think that Jesus claims to be the “the Lord of the cosmos” in the gospel of Mark?
No, ‘lord’ is a title not a name. But the lord has a name. And in claiming to be lord one necessarily claims the name.
He is the lord of the end-times who has the power to cut them short. He will come on the clouds with great power and glory. He commands the angels and gathers his elect from the end of the earth to the end of heaven.
He describes himself as the “lord of the house” when describing his own return to earth.
Robert said
I don’t always agree with Bart, but I don’t think we really disagree about this point. I think I’m just not yet sure what you mean by Jesus claiming the divine name for himself. If all you mean is that Jesus used ‘I am’ in the gospel of John in such a way that he would be accused of blasphemy, I obviously agree with that.
No, I’m claiming that in John Jesus is god and claims the name of god. Just as Bart does
“Until a year ago I would have said – and frequently did say, in the classroom, in public lectures, and in my writings – that Jesus is portrayed as God in the Gospel of John but not, definitely not, in the other Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I would point out that only in John did Jesus say such things as “Before Abraham, I am” (8:58; taking upon himself the name of God, as given to Moses in Exodus 3); his Jewish opponents knew full well what he was saying“
“For John, Jesus was a pre-existent divine being – the Word of God who was both with God and was God at the beginning of all things“
I agree about Mk 14,62, but not about Mk 13,6 being more obvious. Are there any critical scholars who agree with your view on Mk 13,6? Or is that uniquely your own view?
No I think its uniquely my own view. I asked Bart about it, he didn’t seem to have ever heard the suggestion before.
The Markan Jesus says,
“Pray that it may not be in winter. … And if the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut short those days. … But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
You would interpret this as the following?
“Pray to me that it may not be in winter. … And if I had not cut short those days, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom I chose, I have cut short those days. … But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, not even me, the Lord of the Cosmos who has cut short those days, but only the Father.
Seriously?
You can argue that Mark is a bad writer if you want, but that is what he is saying.
Mark 13:20 “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.“
Marl 13:26-27 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect“
They are his elect he has chosen them. He is that lord.
The fact that he doesn’t know the hour but only the father does just leads to the conclusion that there is someone else who is divine.
You might as well conclude from the statement “He said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.”” that Jesus is not the son of man.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)