Loading...So far in my posts on Christology I have talked a bit about pagan views of the divine realm and its relationship to the human. There is a lot more that could be said about that – in particular with the various ways that humans could be thought of as in some sense divine in the pagan world. But a lot of readers may be wondering what any of this has to do with Christianity since obviously the original followers of Jesus were Jewish, not Gentile, and their views of divinity in relationship to humanity would have been guided by Jewish traditions, such as those of the Old Testament.
Fair enough! So before going any further, I thought I should make some posts about divinity in relationship to humanity in the Christian Old Testament.
If God could look like a human in the OT, is that what’s going on with Jesus? Was he God, but only looked human? This entire thread will be dealing with that kind of question. Interested? Join the blog!
Sorry, if Gen. 2-3 is 5th c BCE and Gen. 1 is 10th c. BCE, how can the anthropomorphic deity be the older view?
Gen 2-3 is the J source, usually dated to 10th c; Gen 1 is the P source from the 5th.
PROF, Do you believe in the historical existence of the following:
1. Noah
2. Abraham
3. Isaac
4. Jacob
5. Joseph and his brothers
6. Moses
7. David
8. Solomon
Thank you
Just David and Solomon. I think the others are mainly legendary.
Not to mention God sometimes acted like a human. Take Genesis 6.6 “The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart”. Why would god be sorry about something that he should have foreseen and never allowed to happen in the first place? Maybe if he was human and could not have anticipated how bad things would get this would make sense. But it does not make sense for an omniscient god.
Did you mix up the P and J sources at the end of the third paragraph? Looks like maybe a typo there.
Apparently so: others are pointing that out! I better change it!
I’m confused by this: “These two sets of stories come from two different sources, of course – the anthropomorphic portrayal of Gen. 2-3 from the P source (possibly 5th c BCE) and Gen 1 from the J source (possibly 10th c. BCE). In other words, the anthropomorphic deity is much the older view.” It seems like the anthropomorphic deity is actually five centuries newer.
Sorry — typos. I’ve changed it.
“In other words, the anthropomorphic deity is much the older view.” Did you mean “the much newer view”, or are the dates preceding this sentence scrambled?
Scrambled! I’ve now changed it.
Did you mean that Genesis 1 is the newer (P source) and Genesis 2 and 3 is older (J source)?
“These two sets of stories come from two different sources, of course – the anthropomorphic portrayal of Gen. 2-3 from the P source (possibly 5th c BCE) and Gen 1 from the J source (possibly 10th c. BCE). In other words, the anthropomorphic deity is much the older view.”
Yup, mistyped it all. I”ve changed it.
Dr. Ehrman, speaking of pagans, I have a *very* urgent question: do you still live next door to your “pagan” of a neighbor? I’ve been listening to some Great Courses of yours (again), and he seems to be a favorite (or not favorite). I’ve heard as much about him as I have say, Apollonius of Tyana…
Yeah, and like Apollonius he is mainly legendary.
And the stories are probably much better for it!
“These two sets of stories come from two different sources, of course – the anthropomorphic portrayal of Gen. 2-3 from the P source (possibly 5th c BCE) and Gen 1 from the J source (possibly 10th c. BCE). In other words, the anthropomorphic deity is much the older view.”
I got confused here. If P is from 5th c BCE and J from 10th c BCE, is not J around 500 years older?
Sorry, I confused it when typing. I’ve corrected it now.
If P is from 5 BCE and J from 10 BCE then anthropomorphic portrayal of God is not an older view.
Sorry, mistyped it. I”ve corrected it now.
Hello Bart – Something I’ve been curious about for a long time now: why is the Genesis 1 account considered Priestly (P) over Elohist (E)? It appears in Genesis 1 account, Elohim (plural, going as far back as the Sumerians) is the creator, and in Genesis 2, Yahweh (the much later Hebrew god) is the creator. There would be no line of Aaron in the first account. There is no explicit mention of sacrifices or ritual in the first account. I also wonder if the construction of Yahweh was a driving factor behind the split in the northern and southern houses of Israel…
THere are lots of reasons that are very compelling, but one is that the entire account of ten stages of creation has been squeezed into six, to allow for a seventh, the “day of rest” for the Creator, that is the “sabbath.” In other words, it has been written to embody a sacred, calendrical concern, justifying a holy day — i.e., a priestly concern.
Some conservative Christians interpret the accounts of divine epiphanies in Genesis 3, Genesis 16, Genesis 18, Exodus 3, as appearances of the Second Person of the Trinity. I know, it is highly anachronistic. I would like to hear how you would respond to Christians making this interpretation.
I”d say it’s highly anacrhonistic. 🙂 Or in plainer language, it ain’t what the author was saying.
Bart, you wrote, “These two sets of stories come from two different sources, of course – the anthropomorphic portrayal of Gen. 2-3 from the P source (possibly 5th c BCE) and Gen 1 from the J source (possibly 10th c. BCE). In other words, the anthropomorphic deity is much the older view.” There’s some sort of mixup in that statement, since the anthropomorphic deity can’t be the older view if it’s from the more recent fifth century BCE.
I typed it incorrectly. It’s changed now.
I loved Jack Miles’ book God: A Biography in which he follows God as the protagonist in the Old Testament and shows how he changed.
I, too, loved that book. It changed my life by starting my deconversion. Gotta love ex-Jesuits.
I think there is the same problem like in the case of kurios, used by different people in different books. Almighty is just an interpretation, one of many for El Shaddai presented in the Bible about 50 times – El is El – but second part is absolutelly unclear . For Jews, for some Jews, Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Omniscience is an Aristotelian input to the scripture
It would be nice if Bible authors could also go back and fix their typos. Ēl ʻElyōn has always struck me as a good surname for a drug addict.
Don’t think that one is a typo….
Hi Bart,
I saw this today, about an ancient connection between psychedelics and early Christianity. Any thoughts?
Excerpt.
Brian Muraresku [book author]:
I refer to the Temple of Eleusis as the spiritual capital of the ancient world. It exists from about 1500 BC to the fourth century AD. It calls to the best and brightest of both Athens and Rome for close to 2,000 years. And I sometimes say it’s like the real religion of the ancient Greeks.
SOURCE: VOX article, The Psychedelic Roots of Christianity, March 4, by Sean Illing
~eric @ MeridaGOround dot com
Yes, I know Brian. I haven’t read his book, but frankly it would take a *lot* to convince me of the psychedilics bit. I don’t know what he means about “the real religion of the Greeks.” What would be an unreal religion of the Greeks?
Professor Ehrman, I am a neophyte and an agnostic, so my question will sound very pedestrian. My apologies to you and others on this site. I have heard it said that Paul was the real architect of Christianity and that without him, it would have remained an unappealing local Jewish heresy in Jerusalem . Do you share this view? Secondly, what is the scholarly view regarding the genesis and authorship of John’s gospel which seems remarkably more sophisticated compared to the synoptic gospels. Can we attribute it to one individual or possibly a received view among a small group of individuals? Could it have been Paul’s interpretation, although he was put to death some 25 years before John was supposed to have been written, but was somehow persuasive enough to have become part of the traditions of Christ in circulation in this early Christian period? Given your assertion that the majority of early 1st century Christians were of humble origins, do you think the “Hellinised” ideology implicit in John, suggest its source was outside Judaea? Possibly you might point me to some of your work which covers this question. Many thanks. Michael
My view is that it is much more complicated than that. I do think that Paul’s Gospel is very different from that of Jesus; but he did not invent the idea that Christ died for sins and rose from the dead and became a divine being. His innovation was to argue that followers of Jesus could be gentiles and *not* convert to Judaism. I would agree without that perspective, Christianity would never have taken off. I have a chapter on this in my book The Triumph of Christianity. As to John, *someone* put together what we now have, but it is based on a earlier sources, some of which are uncomfortably patched together. But no, John’s views are very different from Paul’s in just about every way. (Including their understanding of the significant of Jesus and the nature of salvation/eternal life)
Bart, just above, you wrote, “John’s views are very different from Paul’s in just about every way. (Including their understanding of the significant of Jesus and the nature of salvation/eternal life).” I’ve not astute enough to see this clearly. Do you cover it in one of your books or could you post an explanation on the blog? Could you please summarize here?
John thinks that eternal life is *NOW* for anyone who believes; there is not a future apocalyptic moment where God will destroy the forces of evil and bring in the kingdom here on earth. Those who now believe now have eternal life and when they die they will go up to live with Christ in heaven. Paul does not think that. For him faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus will bring salvation when God destroys all that is set against him here on earth and establishes his kingdom with Christ as its ruler, here. Only believers will escape the wrath to come; all will be raised bodily and enjoy the kingdom here on earth.
I have to disagree with Bart’s approach, which represents actually a bias evident in early Christianity.The middle eastern concept of the “sent representative” who acts and speaks in stead of the Sender is key in deconstructing the “God appears as man” theory. Just like an individual American ambassador today conceptually and legally represents the collective of the Federal Republic of the US citizens of different genders, ethnicities and political orientations,a Hebrew Malak (sent one),whether spiritual or human,could represent God,conceptually and “physically”. For example,YHWH anointed Saul in 1Samuel 10:1,however it is the man Samuel who physically lifts the flask and pours oil on Saul’s head.Was Samuel YHWH himself? Well, if you consider that he named one of his sons Abijah (my father is YAH) one could argue that the Bible depicts him as a manifestation of YHWH (if you have a Christian-like agenda of finding human manifestations of YHWH on earth). However, the representative theory is more plausible from a Jewish perspective. Not only Jewish.
Even in the Quran, when believers unite their hands with the Prophet’s hands in a covenant,the Hand of God is on their hands.No Muslim believes the Prophet is a human manifestation of God,simply a human representative.
Even though I find a lot of the Hebrew Bible stories probably symbolic, I agree with Bart that there could have been a physical approach to a direct devine apperence through a human. This also occures in certain branches in Islam, like for example you have the Alawites which the ruling family of Syria belongs. The Alawites who claim to be of a Shia Islamic branch, are heavily influenced by both Christianity, Christian gnosticism, and neo platonic thoughts of the soul descend and ascend. For them (many of them) God in its purest essence (Ma’na) was incarnated as 7 human throughout time (Abel, Seth, Joseph, Joshua, Asif, Peter, and Ali the early Shia Imam). Their propeths works as concealers who they believe were Adam, Noah, Moses, Jacob, Solomon Jesus and Muhammed.
So, yes, there are muslims (at least the Shia muslims accnowledge the Alawites to be a branch) have human manifistation of God. And I believe that there could a Jewish understanding of a physical apperance of God through a human incarnation as mentioned in this post.
My point was the 7th century Quran was the only foundational text which excludes any concepts of a hierarchy of multiple divinities, incarnation or divine sonship of any form (angel, deified human).
It totally breaks up the ambigous Judeo-Christian tradition which somehow accepted there could be lower gods (stars-angels, the devil, Jesus).
Yes, I see your good point.
The origins of the Qur’an and Islam are a bit more complicated and in my opinion probably related to Byzantine Christianity. And for the Qur’an in the eighth century, there is none left, not even when Uthman claimed to have collected it in 652 from oral sources. The first we have is from a much later date, and even the Hadith is from a few centuries after Muhammad.
When we talk about different goddesses in the Qur’an itself, it at least refers to Dushara, which is similar to Ilaha, which is a kind of Nabataean pagan deities, and its mention deities like Al-Lats or Al Uzza. This was a deities used by the Nabataeans up in Petra (close to the border of Israel), the very same place where some archologies claim all the early Mosque Quibalas pointed towards until almost 100 years after Muhammad’s death, and then changed the direction to Mecca.
One could probably assume that this place were essential in their tradition then
Well, I’m not a Muslim and can probably not defend any of their apologetic views on this.
And by the way, you have this quite beautiful Sufi traditon (s) that can be dated back to at least the early 900s that has a LOT of similarities with other esoteric views from other religions. This also points in a way towards a kind of union with the reality of God. Even one of its early leaders was executed when they interpreted him to say that he was in oneness /part of God
So, in my mind there are traditions that point in the direction of not being categorical for how they understood the religion in the first centuries after Muhammad.
I was refering only to the text we have today (which 7th-8th century manuscripts demonstrate is almost identical to whatever was considered the official version by the 7th century community). It is essentially the only text which consistently denies the existence of sons or daughters of God (either angelic or human), and never uses terms like “father” or hints in any way to human manifestations or incarnations of the Deity. Even the devil is “stripped” of its New Testament descriptions as a god of this world, or as having power over death, but is reduced to an “influencer” whose activity is limited to whispering or suggesting (destructive) ideas.
The text itself is in sharp contrast to Byzantine theology and later mystical Alewite or Sufi traditions, which probably reflect influences of Christianity and Hinduism.
If you read about the early development of Islam, you may be surprised at how little it was resolved. There was basically no established orthodoxy until after the millennia, and before there were different groups, often with quite different interpretations of some doctrines.
The interesting part is that the first movements, or even if you like the first “schools”, were based on reason, rationality and intellect and were quite dominant before the “traditionalist” came, with more focus on the Qu’ran and Hadiths where the last was written centuries after Muhammad’s death). The first “schools” even rejected the Hadtihs and doubted their authority.
You seems to differentiate what you think is the old Islam and some of them are “offspring” such as Alewite and Sufi traditions. This is not correct. Sufi tradition thrives in early Islam and yes, it is similar to Hinduism and Gnosticism. In addition, there was a movement(s) that focused more on understanding theology derived from Greek traditions / philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle (Falsafa tradition), and this was not at all an exclusion of doctrinal theology (Kalam). Early in Islam, there were quite blurred lines between them, and other traditions.
So if you are talking about early Islam, you need in my mind to accept a much broader understanding of what was theology that at that time. You will see that it was different to what later up to contemporary times evolved into a more litteral, and less abstact understanding of the theology.
So, within this context, there were different ideas about the unity of God, and from the philosophical branch, and the Sufi Branch, you will find thoughts that everything is God, and basically is one with God. There is nothing outside of God, and human existence is only an illusion of it. Then again, I think there are definitely Islamic thoughts (like Falsafa, Sufism) a closer relationship between man and God, even a “unity of being” (read the wonderful poems of the great Sufi Sheik, Ibn el Arabi), and from that a human expression is taken from God. So, yes, the differense of human and divinity was not far, and some saw them as one being (Ibn el Arabi),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and all that in the early centuries in Islam
The way I’ve seen it described is that in most Near Eastern cultures, there were (roughly) three kinds of gods: The high god(s), who created things, but mostly didn’t intervene in human affairs, the gods of a city/people, who took personal care of a community, and personal gods, the god that was your specific god who looked out just for you. The Hebrews basically collapsed those tiers into one — there was one God, who was both the impassive creator God, the god of Israel, and the personal God of Abraham (and his descendants).
Hello Dr. Ehrman, was Jesus prejudice in any way? He tells the parable of “The Good Samaritan” (Luke 10:25-37) and talks With a Samaritan woman (John 4:4-26); however, he calls Canaanite Woman a dog (Matthew 15:21-28) and also says “ I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Mathew 15:24). Was it his mission to save the Jews only or gentiles too?
My sense is that the historical Jesus was taking his message to Israel. You’re right, there do seem to be conflicting reports about his attitude toward non-Jews.
Too bad that the Bible says that two of the three men who appeared to Abraham were angels. It could have been the first manifestation of the Trinity!
“God can sometimes appear as an angel or as a human, and when humans encounter a divine angel or a human, it may in fact be God himself”.
Perhaps at Judges 13: 15-23; we have the ‘Angel of of the Lord’ being confused with an ordinary ‘angel’; but generally the appearances seem to be distinct; Hagar is not under any illusion that she has been talking, not with an angel, but with the Lord himself.
Is this really the Lord ‘appearing as an angel’; or is it rather that interaction between the Lord and humans is being expressed in ‘angelomorphic’ language, as a convention preserving Yahweh’s transcendence?
Moreover, although the narrative of Genesis 3 clearly originated earlier than that of Genesis 1, that should not be taken to imply that an anthropormophic discourse of God is somehow ‘primitive’ or pagan-like. The God who delights at walking in Eden in the cool of the evening is demonstrably the anthropomorphic God who delights in a joke shared with a woman of a certain age behind a tent flap (Genesis 18:15); leading to the Talmudic anthropomorphic God who delights in being beaten at his own game through human argument (Baba Metzia 59b).
The passage often pointed to is Exodus 3.
Indeed Bart; I think Exodus 3 illustrates the point well.
The narrator introduces the event; “the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush”. From the perspective of Moses – as described in the narrative – this is not a god appearing as an angel, but appearing as flame of fire. Consequently, Moses has no doubt that he is in the presence of a god – his question being; “which god?”; he never thinks he is talking with an angel.
I suppose is begs the question of what might constitute ‘appearing as an angel’; as distinct from ‘appearing as a god’. Is it something to do with standing, rather than sitting? Or flying with wings, rather than being pulled in a chariot?
In Greek, an ‘angel’ is necessarily an intermediary or messenger; but the Hebrew tradition of ‘the Angel of the Lord’ does not denote an intermediary at all; rather it appears a narrative device for presenting episodes, like Exodus 3, where humans interact directly with the Lord God of Israel, without compromising God’s transcendence.
I think the point is in the narrative sometimes it says “The angel of the LORD” is speaking but sometimes it calls him “the LORD.” It sounds like you’re saying that “the angel of the LORD” is actually YHWH himself, not his messenger? Interesting. But I would think that’s a rather unusual interpretation, and one would need to explain why it does not follow a set pattern.
Exactly right Bart; ‘the LORD’ and the ‘angel of the LORD’ are proposed here as having same referrant.
“The angel of Yahweh… is virtually a hypostatic appearance of Yahweh. the personified help of God for Israel.”
“Sometimes we cannot distinguish between Yahweh and his angel. When the reference is to Yahweh without regard to man. ‘Yahweh’ is used. When man observes him, the expression ‘the angel of Yahweh’ is used. This preserves Yahweh’s transcendence (e.g Gen. 18; Exod. 23: 20-23).” Hans Bietenhard in ‘The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology’ Vol. 1. page 101.
The German original is now over 50 years old; but the point still seems well made.
Dr. Ehrman,
Intrigued by the whole angel/deity concept, and based off the comment from the HarperColins note that there was no substantive difference between a deity and its agents:
If there is no substantive difference between the two (deity and agents), why would ancient Jews (and perhaps Christians) have accounts of angels being separate entities, interacting in much the same ways as some of the “lesser gods” of pagan understanding would interact with humans. Could it be extended, then, that some early Christians might have viewed Christ as an “agent” of the deity, which eventually led to the concept of there not really being a difference, and hence, Jesus IS God?
I’d say there were differences in terms of who / what they were, but not in the messages they delivered. The Angel of the Lord speaks the words of the Lord, and so the words are as authoriative from the angel as from God himself. I suppose maybe that’s what they mean.
Don’t the Jews have concept of divine agency where a human or angel is gods representative. like the angel of the lord in the bush for instance could he just be the vessel in which god portrays his voice
Yes, “angel” means “messenger”; it is the one who brings God’s message and does God’s will.
Hello Dr. Ehramn.
I wanted to ask you what you think of the following.
What did the writer of Exodus 4:16 meant when saying that Aaron would have Moses for God?
Thank you.
It seems to mean something like he is the ultimate authority.
Tom Hennell, you wrote, “ In Greek, an ‘angel’ is necessarily an intermediary or messenger; but the Hebrew tradition of ‘the Angel of the Lord’ does not denote an intermediary at all; rather it appears a narrative device for presenting episodes, like Exodus 3, where humans interact directly with the Lord God of Israel, without compromising God’s transcendence.”
Tom, that’s logical as you present it. The problem is that Hebrew is actually more like Greek than you’ve allowed for here. The Hebrew word מַלְאָךְ, “malach,” can mean “angel” or “messenger.” Therefore the phrase “Angel of the Lord” cannot be taken as a simplistic guarantee that the human present is confronting God directly.
In my discussions and debates with Trinitarians they often refer to these appearances of Yahweh in the OT, as proof of the “multifaceted nature” of God. But when pressured as to what member of Trinity is mentioned by each apparent theophany, they are dumbfounded. They can not come to a proper conclusion as to whether it is God the Father, the preincarnate Jesus or the Holy ghost.
I am especially amused as to how Genesis 19:24 is interpreted. Without going into too many details, if the following verse is proof for the Trinity , where is the third Yahweh?
I’ll be posting on that issue in a couple of weeks. There is only one Yahweh. Christ is his son in Xn theology.