(31 votes, average: 4.90 out of 5)
Loading...In my past couple of posts I have claimed that the earliest understanding of Christ was a kind of “low” Christology, one that considered Jesus to be a full flesh and blood human being (as he considered himself!), and nothing more than a man, until at some point God exalted him and made him his son, the ruler of all, the messiah, the Lord.
But “claiming” something is not the same as showing it. I realize a lot of people today don’t really care about “evidence” or “proof,” but are happy simply to believe what someone tells them, so long as it’s someone they like for one reason or another. But I have to admit, I’m an evidence guy. I want to have *reasons* for what I think, and not simply agree with someone because they are saying what I want to hear. What then is the *reason* that I share the widely held view I’ve so far only “claimed”?
In my previous post I talked about how scholars have isolated some of these pre-literary traditions over the years, in which authors quote earlier sources in their writings without telling their readers they are doing so, presumably, most of the time, because their original readers would have recognized the quotation(s) and understood what they, the authors, were doing. Now, in this post, I will give an example. It is Romans 1:3-4.
Romans was the final letter that Paul wrote, possibly around 60 CE or so (1 Thessalonians was his first, around 49 or 50 CE). But even though it is his last letter, it contains a pre-Pauline fragment, that is, a quotation of an earlier source that Paul inherited, in just these verses, chapter 1 verses 3-4. As with his other letters, Paul begins this one (1:1) by introducing himself and saying who he is, before mentioning the “gospel” (which will be the overarching theme of the letter). He then says that the gospel concerns God’s “son” and then he says this about the son:
Who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead.
I have a particular fondness for this passage. It was the topic of the first PhD term paper I wrote – a thirty-pager, devoted to just these two verses, and in which I could only scratch the surface. Here I will scratch it even less.
Wanna see what my scratching yields? Blog members can! Not one of those proud elites? It’s easy to join and costs very little. And every penny goes to charity. So what’s to lose?
This seems like a different message than Philippians 2:6-11, which talks of a pre-existent being incarnating as a human. Does Paul give a clue as to how he reconciles the two?
He never explicitly speaks of how to reconcile them, so the interpreter has to figure out the options and work out which of the options works best.
Thank you Bart Ehrman. Also in the letter to the Romans ( Chapter 15) he says that he will visit Jerusalem church for helping poors in there
I think if there was no conflict between Paul and Jerusalem church in Paul’s last letter , the so called Pauline vs Jerusalem church conflict is a Post 70 Ce Ebionite fiction ? What do you think ?
Romans 15: 25 Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the serviceof the Lord’s people
there.
26 For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem.
27 They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.
He was raising money for the poor believers suffering in Jerusalem, and it appears it was precisely to illustrate his point that in CHrist Jews and Gentiles were equal. But the controversy he was having with the leaders of the church was over a slightly but significantly different issue, whether gentiles had to keep the Jewish law or not. THey thought yes, he thought no — or at least that’s how he reports the matter in Galatians 2.
And one more Question:) What language do Paul and Jerusalem Church leaders talk each other ? Aramaic I guess
If so , Paul must know Aramaic why he uses Septuagint( Greek) especially instead of Aramaic or its relative Hebrew?
I don’t think Paul knew Aramaic, so I doubt if that’s the answer. I would assume they had some kind of interpreter. Paul shows no real evidence of knowing anything but Greek.
Quote – “But “claiming” something is not the same as showing it. I realize a lot of people today don’t really care about “evidence” or “proof,” but are happy simply to believe what someone tells them, so long as it’s someone they like for one reason or another. But I have to admit, I’m an evidence guy. I want to have *reasons* for what I think,”
Strange you should write this..
Job 19:25-27 declared his Redeemer was alive in his day and would one day ‘stand upon the earth.’ Redeemer is someone who pays the price. And after Job died he said he would see God. Interesting that Job mentions an afterlife. He also mentions the Redeemer and he mentions God, as if they are separate entities. These thoughts are alien to many Jews and materialists.
I”m sorry to report that the Hebrew of Job 19:25-27 is notoriously difficult and no one can agree on what it probably means, except that critical Hebrew Bible scholars are virtually united in thinking that the King James translators’ guess (I know my Redeemer liveth… etc.) cannot be right.
Would you say a bit more about the contemporary understanding of the “Spirit of holiness” as used in this passage since presumably it does not refer to an early formulation of the Trinity? Have your studies revealed what the early Christians understood the “Spirit of holiness” to be?
God’s spirit shows up already in Genesis 1, as the agent God uses (or God’s agency) to get things done. This is the Spirit, for Paul, who indwells the believers in Jesus, and is the Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead. Paul does not explain what the relationship of the Spirit to God is, apart from the fact that it appears to represent God, do his bidding, is itself a divine being, but is not the Faterh. One can see how that would lead to speculations about a Trinity.
Paul, though, has other things on his mind and plate, and so never deals with the issue.
Not the point of your post, but do you think “from the seed of David” might be part of the same tradition seen in the genealogies of Jesus in Luke and Matthew? Or is it independent of them?
It’s independent of those genealogies, but it’s making the same point. Jesus is the Jewish messiah sent from David. For this passage in Paul, that’s what he is as a mere human, but he has been made the Son of God at his resurrection.
Interesting and very plausible. On another topic, would you comment on why scholars think I Thess. is Paul’s earliest letter? And beyond that, how and why his other letters are fit to a time frame?
It’s a long and unusually complicated story. I know scholars who have spent their entire academic careers trying to establish the chronology of Paul’s life and career and letters. SHort story: for part of it, they use Paul’s statements about what has happened leading up to the time of the letter to decide when it was written in light of other letters, including where he had been, with whom, in relation to where he went next. When you do all that, 1 Thessalonians usually looks to be earlier than the other letters, and written around 50 CE. I have to admit, it’s not an area of scholarship I’ve ever found very appealing, but it’s a personal taste, and we’re grateful to the people who throw themselves into it!
Help me out…I thought your view was that Paul viewed Jesus as a divinity (angel, or something similar) who became human, then was exalted to fully devine status at His resurrection. Is this accurate? Thanks.
Yup!
Excellent post, as always.
I have a question about the phrase “Spirit of holiness”.
Do we know what the original author meant? Or what Paul meant?
Are they talking about the Holy Spirit? (In the sense later Christians would understand.)
Or does it mean that Jesus was designated Son of God because of his (Jesus’s) great holiness?
(With no mention of the Holy Spirit, at least not in any trinitarian sense.)
Perhaps the phrase “Spirit of holiness” is a poetic way of saying: “Jesus was a very very holy man!”.
Yes, it’s the way “Holy S[pirit” would be said in a Semitic language. Just like the way you say “the right path” in a Semitic language could be something like “the path of righteousness”
Amazing work, excellent post! Συγχαρητήρια!
Apologies if I have asked this before but why wasn’t Paul denounced as a heretic at the time of the Council of Nicea, as later leading Christians were, eg Origen, even though their understanding of Christology was much closer to the Nicene one than Paul’s. Surely later Christian scholars (4th or 5th century) could have reached similar conclusions to us, as to the precise nature of Paul’s understanding of the Incarnation?
Because everyone understood that his books were sacred scripture and they interpreted his books to support their Christology , not as a contradiction to it. (Kind a like people today quote the Bible firmly believing it supportas their views when it doesn’t support anything *like* their views. You probably know people like that!)
Dr. Ehrman,
Why don’t you have a debate with Dr. Gary Habermas? He has written a MAMOTH work on the Resurrection which will soon be published. He is the only one you have not debated; however, you and Dr. James Tabor (which I’m sure you know) would be interesting as well. Any thoughts? If I thought anyone could get you, it would be Dr. Craig Keener; however, I was saddened by his performance with you and alongside Dr. Licona at the Defenders Conference! You beat all those guys! HANDS DOWN! I would love to see you and Dr. Tabor do something together, even on this blog!
Actually, I haven’t debated most of the over 7 billion people on the planet, including the over 2 billions Christians, most of whom disagree with me. Tabor, by the way, has done guest posts on the blog.
Yes, I meant amongst MAJOR Biblical Scholars such as yourself. As I know you are probably certain, Dr. Habermas has accrued quite a lengthy contention as to EVIDENCE on the Resurrection; you debated Dr. Licona on this, I would just like to see you do one with Dr. Habermas. It would, I believe, make an interesting evening!
It may well do. I’ve never been invited to do so; offhand I don’t now if he argues anything much different from Licona and William Lane Craig, both of whom I’ve debated….
Dr. Ehrman,
Is there a way for me to purchase a digital copy of the latest edition of your work “The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings”?
Great question. I actually don’t know! THat probably seems weird, I realize.
But I really don’t.
Are we sure that “spirit of holiness” refers to the Holy Spirit, or could it be referring to Jesus’ “holiness”, i.e., His supremely righteous nature that led God to raise him from the dead and exalt him? In the Philippians hymn it says God exalted him because of his complete obedience with no mention of the Holy Spirit.
That’s the common way of making an adjective in a semitic language; if you wwant to say “the right path” you say “the path of righteousness.” The Spirit of Holiness appears to be a figure different from Jesus because it acts upon him to raise him from the dead. Paul himself, of course, uses the term Holy Spirit, but it’s becausee he’s writing and thinking in Greek (not Hebrew or Aramaic)
I understand why you said that history is no science.
I mean, are there any independent sources of the same time that confirm those verses being an early creed? Or are there any sources at all?
Paul’s letters have been forged, interpolated, glued together. If I am not mistaken, we don’t know even if he wrote them with his own hands or dictated them, or even if he could write. This early belief looks like some kind of post-expressionist “collage.” How can we be sure that those verses, so different from any other wording survived, are not the fruit of an inspired Paul enjoying his wine?
Truly an apostle,
This heart knows nothing,
Spreading lies.
No, there are not any ancient sources that talk about these verses at all. The evidence scholars use is of a different kind. But whn you look at it, it’s really quote persuasive, and from a number of angles shows that Paul probably didn’t write the verses.
Dr. Ehrman, do you think that the above quote from Paul in his epistle to the Romans would imply that early Christianity was already spreading among the Greeks and Romans before the arrival of Paul and his mission? It has been my understanding that it was Paul who initiated the process of proselytizing to the gentiles.
It’s a good question, but no, Idon’t think so. Romans was written near the very end of Paul’s career (it’s the last letter of his we have), and so what the quotation shows is that Christianity was spreading outside of his influence by other missionaries (since he did not start the church in Rome and did not write this little creed) — but that could well have been *while* he was doing his mission himself. It woudl be hard to show that it had been going on before his mission, since his mission started just a few years after Jesus died.
What bothers me about Paul in the earliest texts, is that he is already persecuting the early followers of Jesus. Its as if Pilot summoned the Romano Jewish officials the next day and ordered them to hunt down the remaining followers. Makes me wonder which teachings and messages most were responding to as we know how the century ended for the Jews.
It appears that Paul and other Jews found the claim that Jesus’ was the messiah completely offensive, not treasonous (as the Romans did); my guess is that Paul heard followers of Jesus saying this, thought they were either crazy, blasphemous, or both, and tried to silence them. Possibly violently.
Bart: “… by his resurrection from the dead.”
I do not disagree with your insertion of the word “his” here. It does seem to be implied by the preceding context.
But the English translation here hides an interesting aspect of the Greek. The ‘dead’ is plural here, literally ‘the dead ones‘. We should not be surprised that in this very letter, Paul will speak of Jesus as “the firstborn among many brothers” (Rom 8,29). Or, in 1 Cor 15,20, he said ‘Christ has been raised from the dead ones (again plural), the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep (plural). But the focus here in (the tradition cited in) Rom 1,3 is not really on the future plural resurrection of the dead. But nor is the focus here really on the resuscitation of Jesus’ singular dead corpse, but rather on his return from the realm of all the dead. Eerie.
This is a common expression used also for the resurrection of John the Baptist (Mk 6,14 par) or Lazarus (Lk 16,30 & Jn 12,1.9.17) being raised from the dead (plural).
How would you try to capture this nuance in an English translation? Perhaps “… his resurrection from [the realm of] the dead”?
Blog Readers: Apologies while Robert and I do some scholar-speak. I think the issue is that teh creed doesn’t make sense unless the Spirit of holiness is acting upon Jesus himself somehow (“appointing? him as son of God; the contrast, of course is w. descendent of David) and vindicating him; i.e. it is not demonstrating aparticular apocalyptic doctrine. The genitive “of the dead” of course could be construed a number of ways (love those genitives! Break out your Smyth!) (I never, ever like Blass-Debrunner-Funk…), but I completely agree on the importance of the plural. It does not have to be a subjective genitive though — which would make no sense here. My views is that it means something like “raised from the realm of those who were dead”
Bart: “…. The genitive “of the dead” of course could be construed a number of ways (love those genitives! Break out your Smyth!) (I never, ever like Blass-Debrunner-Funk…), but I completely agree on the importance of the plural. It does not have to be a subjective genitive though — which would make no sense here. My views is that it means something like “raised from the realm of those who were dead”
Thanks. I never would have even considered the possibility of a subjective genitive here, but you raise an interesting question? What kind of genitive do you think it is? Do we really need to consult a grammar? I would think it is merely a genitive required by the preposition ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν. Am I being too simplistic here?
Yup! The preposition is governing ἀναστάσεως, resurrection which itself then is modified by νεκρῶν. If that’s an objective genitive it means what you suggest, the future resurrection that will occur to those who are already dead. If it’s something like a genitive of place/origin (the trees of the valley), then it would be a resurrection from the realm of those who are dead. Or so methinks.
OK, so we agree on the meaning, ‘from [his] resurrection [of the realm] of the dead’.
Recall, that was my suggested translation, and I did NOT endorse an objective genitive:
“the focus here in (the tradition cited in) Rom 1,3 is not really on the future plural resurrection of the dead … but rather on his return from the realm of all the dead.”
Insofar as one describes the grammar, however, I thank you for your articulation of the ‘genitive of place/origin (the trees of the valley)’. I am indeed a HUUUGE (à la Bernie) proponent (pace Daniel Wallace) of the genitive of origin as one of the most fundamental meanings of the genitive (hence the name of the case in Latin). Fathers possessed their children primarily because their children originated from their loins.
But, I still think this should already be obvious from the lexical component of the preposition (ἐκ) and appeal need only be made to the dying grammarians when the plain meaning of words is unclear to the living or disputed by those with a deathly grammatical axe to grind. Death to the grammarians. Long live the native speakers of a living language! So Robert Browning.
Pace Dan is OK by me. 🙂 But ἐκ can’t be controlling νεκρων; a preposition never governs two substantives in sequence (esp. in the genitive; the second is modifying the first).
Bart: “But ἐκ can’t be controlling νεκρων; a preposition never governs two substantives in sequence (esp. in the genitive; the second is modifying the first).”
Consider Smyth 1667b.
But I’m sure you must be right, especially if (pace Robert Browning) we don’t want to kill any lesser grammarians. But I learn by first being wrong so perhaps you can indulge me a moment longer.
I tend to sight read Koine by paying much more attention to the lexical ad sensum and only reverence grammarians when absolutely necessary, ie, when stuck.
Paying attention to how each writer writes, we can also discover stylistic idiosyncrasies of a given author’s own individual grammar.
For example, ‘John’ seems to believe prepositions can govern two substantives (eg, Jn 4,24 ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ).
So what about Paul?
In this very sentence περὶ governs both τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα as well as τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν …
Should we read Paul further to see how many times he’s more than willing to kill a few grammarians along the way? ἐκ γένους Ἰσραήλ, φυλῆς Βενιαμίν
Or maybe we should ask your brother or my son majoring in Classics?
Yes, that’s right. If the two substantives are separated by a copulative, the preposition can govern both. Or in subordinate clauses that are appositional. No need to ask my brother on this one, I assure you! Your final example doesn’t work either — in fact it makes my point: from the people “of Israel” — Ισραηλ is a second genitive following a first, and it is modifying the first genitive, it is not the object of εκ. The φυλης is also not the object of εκ; this is a series of personal descriptions: he is from a race and he is of a tribe; it is one of your beloved genitives of origin. As to Smyth, please look at 1667a; the example in 1667b has a copulative.
Bart: “… If the two substantives are separated by a copulative, the preposition can govern both. …”
That would be yet another new rule. I don’t think the copulative is necessary to understand the point of 1667b. That ‘resurrection from the dead (plural)’ is just such a single idea for Paul can be shown from similar language used frequently by Paul where he explicitly unites the preposition (ἐκ) with the second element of the complex (νεκρῶν):
Rom 4,24 τὸν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν
Rom 8,11 τοῦ ἐγείραντος τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ νεκρῶν
Rom 6,9 Χριστὸς ἐγερθεὶς ἐκ νεκρῶν
Rom 7,4 τῷ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγερθέντι
Rom 10,7 Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναγαγεῖν
Rom 10,9 θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν
Rom 11,15 ζωὴ ἐκ νεκρῶν
1 Th 1,10 ὃν ἤγειρεν ἐκ [τῶν] νεκρῶν
1 Cor 15,12 Χριστὸς … ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγήγερται … ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν
1 Cor 15,20 Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν
Gal 1,1 τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν
Phil 3,11 τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν (my favorite example)
Fitzmyer: The second ek is omitted, but the phrase should be understood as in 4,24; 8,11; 10,9
But you can see that none of these constructions is what we find in Romans 1:4. There’s a reason for that. 🙂
Bart: “But you can see that none of these constructions is what we find in Romans 1:4. There’s a reason for that. ?”
Of course. The point is to let the more obvious grammar and meaning of numerous simpler expressions inform our understanding of Paul’s more difficult expression here. Knowing how Paul thinks and expresses himself elsewhere helps us to see that in his mind, in his meaning world, in his ‘lexical syntax’, ἐκ doesn’t just relate to ἀναστάσεως but also to the larger expression which includes νεκρῶν. In fact, elsewhere when speaking of resurrection, ἐκ relates even more directly to νεκρῶν. How can one disagree with Fitzmyer?
Paul never read Blass, Debrunner, Funk (or Smyth); nor did he possess any Chomskyian innate syntactic knowledge of a universal grammar. ‘Lexical Syntax’ is my take-away from the Linguistic Wars of an earlier generation. Let’s start with the lexical world and grammar of each author and, where possible, make connections to the simpler form of grammar he may have learned. Dionysius Thrax, perhaps? Stepping off soapbox now.
OK. Don’t trip. 🙂
Bart: “Your final example doesn’t work either — in fact it makes my point: from the people “of Israel” — Ισραηλ is a second genitive following a first, and it is modifying the first genitive, it is not the object of εκ.”
My point was’nt about Ισραηλ.
“The φυλης is also not the object of εκ; this is a series of personal descriptions: he is from a race and he is of a tribe; it is one of your beloved genitives of origin.”
Both γένους Ἰσραήλ and φυλῆς Βενιαμίν are beloved genitives of origin. γένους Ἰσραήλ is immediately preceded by a prepositional marker of a genitive of origin, whereas φυλῆς Βενιαμίν, more remotely related to the preposition, is yet a further specification. They are both part of the same larger phase. The tribe of Benjamin is part of the larger people of Israel and, still more specifically, it originated from the patriarch Benjamin. This is a singular idea.
Grammarians are not needed here. It’s not that they’re wrong; they’re just unnecessary. That’s my point. Wallace and other grammarians can define any number of highly specific kinds of genitives, but they are all engaging in secondary abstractions remotely related to the language as spoken.
γἐνους is the object of a preposition; φυλῆς is not. It is a free-standing genitive of origins. The unit is not a phrase but a series of descriptives and each descriptive has its own syntactical structure. Notice the opening word of the following descriptive phrase: Εβραιος. A nominative. It is not a series of the same kind of phrase using the same syntax.
I COMPLETELY agree with “secondary abstractions.” My brother says his favorite is the “dative of the man walking by the door and looking in” 🙂
Bart: “γἐνους is the object of a preposition; φυλῆς is not. It is a free-standing genitive of origins. The unit is not a phrase but a series of descriptives and each descriptive has its own syntactical structure. Notice the opening word of the following descriptive phrase: Εβραιος. A nominative. It is not a series of the same kind of phrase using the same syntax.”
φυλῆς is not COMPLETELY free-standing. It is part of the same phrasing, of the same sentence, of the same idea that Paul is expressing here. And notice also that Εβραῖος is immediately followed by a repetition of the same prepositional marker for genitives of origin: Εβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων.
I call my approach Lexical Syntax, by which I try to bring the meaning of a text and words into an otherwise antiseptic abstract analysis of the grammar and syntax. I realize it is not standard grammar, but it really helps with some difficult texts.
Bart: “I COMPLETELY agree with “secondary abstractions.” My brother says his favorite is the “dative of the man walking by the door and looking in” ?
That is funny. So how can we get away from secondary abstractions back to Paul’s own grammar? Lexical Syntax.
Dear Bart, great post, as usual! However, how do you square your argument of Rom 1:3-4 being the oldest Christology in primitive Christianity with the very high Christology of Phil 2: 5-11, the famous (and wrongly called) “Christ hymn / poem”, another evidence of a pre-Pauline creed, as translated by you:
“Who, though he was in the form of God,
Did not regard being equal with God
Something to be grasped after.
But he emptied himself
Taking on the form of a slave,
And coming in the likeness of humans.
And being found in appearance as a human
He humbled himself
Becoming obedient unto death— even death on a cross.
Therefore God highly exalted him
And bestowed on him the name
That is above every name,
That at the name of Jesus
Every knee should bow
Of those in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth.
And every tongue should confess
That Jesus Christ is Lord
To the glory of God the Father.”
Philippians is thought to predate Romans (or does it?), so why would the Rom 1:-34 passage be the oldest Christology, and not Phil 2:5-11? Could both low and high Christologies have been competing and contemporaneous in pre-orthodox churches?
Yes, these are *both* pre-Pauline materials. That means you can’t date the statement in each based on when he wrote the letter that contains it — kind a like I might quote Abraham Lincoln in one letter but George Washington in another, but it wouldn’t mean that the Abraham Lincoln quote was therefore *older*. I’m posting on the Philippians poem now, as you’ll see. I do think it existed before Paul, but for reasons I’ve given about the similarities of the Christological views to what we know from earlier and then later traditions, it seems pretty clear that the Romans 1 is the earlier.
You’ll note, e.g., that it contains a semitism, showing it was probably composed in Aramaic.
Would Paul himself have believed this earliest Christology or did he hold a different view? If his view is different, what was it?
Paul agreed with it but his other writings shows that he would not have considered it adequate. See the Christ poem I’ve been discussing the past couple of days, e.g.
John Barton states, “In fact the passage is a bit equivocal: it speaks of Jesus as being designated Son of God with power, which might mean he already was Son of God but this only became apparent at the resurrection.” (History of the Bible, p. 171) You don’t seem to favor that particular possible interpretation, why is that?
I think that isn’t giving a strong enough translation of “designated,” which in Greek can means something more like “appointed” The word used refers to marking out a boundary to distinguish one area/thing from another, which is not recognizing a boundary but establishing it.
Fascinating Prof. Ehrman and plausible. In this view that you have presented, Christ was a human that God exalted after His resurrection. What would prevent Jews from believing in Him (Christ) ? Isn’t this everything the Messiah would be, according to Judaism, a human being given special divine powers from Yahweh ?
The main thing they found problematic/offensive is that CHristians were saying this about a crucified criminal. To say he’s an unlikely candidate for divinization would be an understatement…
Thanks Bart; really interesting that you wrote a term paper on Romans 1 3-4.
What then did you make of the point – later taken up by Paula Frederiksen – that verse 4 should be read not as;
” .. According to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead.”
But as:
” .. according to the spirit of holinerss by the resurrection of the dead”?
The key difference being “his resurrenction”; which was present in the Revised Standard Version; but not in the Greek (or indeed the New Revised Standard Version) . Hence, for Paula, the proposal that Jesus’s appointment as ‘Son of God’ is to be associated with the coming general resurrection of all. not specifically with his own, achieved, resurrection.
For Paul himself, I suspect, this would be a distinction without a difference; as Jesus’s resurrection is simply the ‘first fruits’ of the general resurrection – 1 Corithians 15 20. For Paul, Jesus’s resurrection was not a miracle, as it is inherent in the nature of creation that all will be raised.
But you are saying, and I agree, that these words are not Paul’s. So what might its originators jhave believed on this point?
Yes I see her point. But I think it somewhat misses Paul’s point — the creed is all about Jesus himself and what the Spirit of Holiness did to *him*, not about what might happen in the future at the general resurrection. It’s hard to see how Jesus would havre been made the Son of God because of some event that had not yet happened.
Since Paul nowhere mentions a separate and distinct ascension in his letters, do you think the earliest belief was that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection? In other words, he was heavenly exalted and *then* appeared to them “from heaven” as opposed to the later depictions of a physically resurrected Jesus on earth who ascends afterwards?
YEs, that’s exactly what I think. The idea of a separate ascension long after the resurrection cannot be found until the book of Acts. Paul, of course, never speaks of a bodily ascension.
Newbie here- I’ve seen some of your videos on youtube and prefer the ones where you’re having a discussion with someone of differing opinions. I’ve begun to re-read the bible as if I’d never seen it before, and I have no one to explain it to me. I call it “The deserted island bible student”. In reading the bible this way, I see it in a totally new light. Which brings me to Paul. I fail to see how Paul became elevated to a point, that in some churches, approaches that of Jesus himself. Paul is clearly a flip-flopper on important issues, and when he talks about “my gospel” I find myself saying outload, “what do you mean, YOUR gospel?” So my question to you is, “If Jesus returned today and visited Christian churches (at least in the US), would he even recognize what his religion became?”
Not a bit. None of them! Christian churches simply do not promote the Jewish religion Jesus did.
I understand the perspective you give of Paul repeating an earlier belief of Jesus as human until his resurrection. However, in your book, How Jesus Became God, you reference a passage in Galatians (4:14), where you argue that Paul believed Jesus was an angel before he became human. How do you reconcile these two passages? Thanks.
He thought he was an angel who became flesh as a descendant of David and then was exalted up to heaven.
I am looking forward to your fuller explanation of this; Bart.
In particular, how you might have chosen to follow a somewhat convoluted reading of an informal remark in the letter to the Galatians; when Paul appears (to me) specfically to propose in 1 Corinthians 1:30 that Jesus is to be identified with the (pre-existent) Wisdom of God.
“He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption”.
Moreover, at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 – Paul’s vision of the returning Christ – “the Lord”, “the archangel” and “the trumpet” appear to be clearly distinct:
“For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven”
Yes, he does believe all those things. I’m not sure where you are seeing a contradiction? The interpretation of the Galatians passage is based on the specific grammatical construction that Paul uses elsewhere exactly as here in Gal 4:14; (in English, where he says “but as X… as Y”). X and Y are both nouns. The second is not a *contrast* to the first but an elaboration of it, the same entity described differently. You can see how the construction works in 1 Cor. 3:1, e.g. Paul does not use the construction in a different way. And the other passages you’re referring to do not use that construction.
Thanks Bart; that is very helpful, especially in pointint the similar construction at 1 Corinthians 3:1.
In both constructions – as I read it – Paul is applying the construction “but as X… as Y”, as a rhetorical intensifier. In 1 Corinthians 30 the subject is the Corinthian brethren. Paul is not proposing that their status ‘as men of the flesh’ and ‘as infants in Christ’ are the same thing; but that the one is an intensification of the other.
Similarly, at Galatians 4:14, the subject is the previous hospitality of the Galatians towards Paul (and his unspecified physical ailments). In Hebrews 13:2, it is presented as a standard trope of Christian duty, that hospitality to fellow Christians should be shown “as to angels”. The Galatians, Paul asserts in gratitude, had done this and much more; receiving him “as Christ Jesus” himself.
But it does not at all follow from Paul’s proposition that “hospitality offered as to Christ” is an intensification of “hospitality offered as to an angel”; that Christ is simply an intense form of angel. The relation of intensity applies to the thing under discussion, not to its metaphorical counterparts.
Yes, my sense is that Christ was a very intense form of angel for Paul! 🙂
But for me; unlikely.
Almost everything Paul says on angels is worded as a warning:
Angels’ eloquence (without love) is as a booming gong (1 Corinthians 13:1); angels may preach contrary to the Gospel (Galatians 1:8); an apparent angel may be Satan in disguise (2 Corinthians 11:14); angels are liable to be provoked/incited to catastrophic action at the prospect of unveiled female hair (1 Corinthians 11:10).
Also for Paul, the time of angels is now over; as the time of Christ is now present.
This is clearly stated in Galatians 3:19-20. In the past age – the age of human childishness – angels served as mediators between us and God; as demonstrated, in the Law being provided through angels. But in the present age – the age of human maturity – those who are in Christ have no need of Divine mediators.
Essentially the same point is made at Romans 8:38-39. Paul envisages an entire range of now redundant ‘intermediary’ powers, including angels, seeking to separate believers from the love of God; but being unable to do so for those who are “in Christ Jesus our Lord”.
A clear distinction there, between how angels functioned then and Christ’s action now.
Is it your view that Paul thought God’s angels as a rule were bad?
Not ‘bad’; but having now no meaningful purpose, and so not to be obeyed as they once had been.
Paul has a favourite parable (Galatians 3 and 4) ; God had formerly acted through angels as ‘disciplinarians’ – like slave tutors maintained by an estate during a minority; with the function of raising the infant heir in proper behaviour. For the Jews, God had tasked these intermediary functionaries to provide the Law (3:19); for the Gentiles, they had acted on God’s behalf through the ‘elemental powers of the world” (4:3). There is a world of difference between God acting “through angels”, and acting “in Christ”.
As in another favourite parable; humans are like athletes, their activity following three stages. Firstly, training (under discipline); secondly the race itself; and thirdly, the prize. The race may be over in seconds; but those seconds are what gives meaning both to the discipline before, and to the exaltation to come. Just so for humanity, the starting rope has now cracked down and the race is on. We are not training any more; we do not stop to attend to our former trainers.
How prevalent was the use of lyrical forms to preserve and transmit creeds or other important sayings like this? One does see this in Greek, I’m not familiar with its use in other languages. It seems very useful for oral traditions … Are there scholarly resources on the subject you’d recommend?
You know I don’t know of anything recent; when I first did a graduate course on this just about eveyring was in German! I’ll have to think about that one.
Bart,
Quick question on early creeds. You have said in the past that there is zero evidence that the Twelve used the 1 Cor 15:3-5 creed. If so, when Paul picked up this creed during his travels, wouldn’t he have wondered why Peter, during their two weeks together (Gal 1:15-19), never mentioned the *collective* appearance by Jesus to “the twelve” (which included Peter)? In your view, did Paul simply *assume* the collective appearance to the twelve was true even though Peter never mentioned it?
I really don’t know what they talked about or what Paul thought about it. I wish there was a piece of evidence someplace. But generally I find people don’t think or ask what I think they should!
Bart,
Even without any direct evidence, does it really seem plausible to you that Paul could simply *assume* the collective appearance to the twelve that he picked up during his travels was true even though Peter (one of the twelve!) never mentioned it during their entire two weeks together? Is there a comparable example you can think of where a human being behaved like that?
Yes, it seems completely plausible to me. My view is they spent almost the entire time arguing about whether gentiles were to be required to follow the law (which is what Paul is referring to when he mentions the meeting) What I myself would have *expected* them to have talked about would be the experiences the disciples had with Jesus during his ministry. But given the fact that Paul doesn’t talk about such things, it seems likely they didn’t (much? at all?). So back to my view — I don’t think we can assume they talked about any one thing or another, even though it seems like they surely would have.
Bart,
So just to make sure I understand you correctly. You think Paul and Peter never mentioned their visions of Jesus to each other during their fifteen days together (Gal 1:15-19). Then Paul later hears a tradition from some other source that Jesus appeared to the Twelve (which includes Peter) at the same time and simply *assumes* it true without even writing a letter of inquiry to Peter. Do I understand your position correctly?
I think I’ve been saying I don’t know. But it does seem you are really pressing logic hard on a situation we don’t know anything about. We can’t be cross-examiners with witnesses on the stand that we can press down on a little detail. We don’t know what they talked about. We don’t know what was in Paul’s mind. We don’t know what he wanted to know. We don’t know how much they talked during those two weeks. We don’t know if they used interpreters. We don’t know if Paul was actually in Jerusalem for other things and spent time at, say, the temple instead of talking with Peter and James. We don’t know what Peter and James personally thought. Or what htey believed they had experienced. Or …. And so the kind of logic-chopping that we usually love (at least I know I do) just doesn’t work here, in order to show that a position makes no sense. See what I mean?
Bart,
You’re right, I am really pressing logic hard on a situation we don’t know anything about (Paul and Peter’s communication about visions during their two weeks together and how that relates to Paul’s later promotion of a legend about a collective appearance by Jesus to “the twelve”, of which Peter was a member). I suppose it’s possible that Paul and Peter never talked about visions of Jesus because other topics were of more interest and/or communication was difficult due to speaking different languages, so with no firm information from Peter to begin with, perhaps Paul did not doubt a later rumor that Jesus appeared collectively to the twelve. Thanks for your opinions on this. I still wish you would do a dedicated post on the appearance to “the twelve” in 1 Cor 15:5, especially why you reject a wide scholarly consensus (even by the likes of the Jesus Seminar and Gerd Ludemann) that the appearance to the twelve was part of creed in circulation within six years of Jesus’ death (list of people who support this in Licona 2010: 234).
Thanks. But I don’t understand why Licona would list people who think this as if that counts as evidence. Can you tell me what would possibly make someone think that the appearance to the twelve was in a creed by 36 CE??? Where do people come *up* these numbers? (Unless they just come up with a guess?)
Bart,
I don’t know all the arguments for dating the 1 Cor 15:3-5 creed within 6 years of Jesus’ death, but it seems likely to me that the early movement by the time Paul met with Peter and James had *some* kind of statement of beliefs that Paul heard about or was made aware of that included reference to *appearances*. Whatever that was, if it did not include a collective appearance to the twelve, and then Paul later ran into a creed that included a collective appearance to the twelve, then it seems likely to me that Paul would have at least sent Peter (one of twelve) a letter of inquiry asking him if it was true. It is noteworthy that even Richard Carrier thinks Peter passed the 1 Cor 15:3-5 creed on to Paul (https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11069). Thoughts?
You probably know my thoughts about Carrier. He is self-taught in this material and is not an expert. But even so, he and everyone else is just guessing.
Bart,
I think it is worth acknowledging that you are paving relatively new or at least not yet well defended ground to suggest that the appearance to “the twelve” in 1 Cor 15:5 is a *legend* that the twelve themselves were never preaching. There is a Christian apologist (PhD) who published a book last year with a respected publisher (open access pdf at https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/38236/9780367477561_text.pdf?sequence=1), who argues (pgs. 46-55) that there was a “network of close communication” that rules out your legend hypothesis. In an interview one month ago he mentions you by name and your legend hypothesis at the 13:55-14:40 point at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18BpNNp0HJs. He goes on to explain his “network of close communication” that would rule out your legend hypothesis at the 21:00-26:00 point, essentially repeating the points he makes on the page numbers in his book cited above. I know it takes time, but I think you would do a great service for a lot of people to debunk his arguments, which appear to me to be on shaky ground but are presented as basically completely ruling out your legend hypothesis (not only for “the twelve” but even the 500, but I think the twelve are the most critical).
I don’t really have anything invested in it. But as a rule I don’t think a Christian apologist (I don’t know who this is) is probably the most disinterested person to discuss whether the passage is extremely early or not. What would one *expect* him to say even before he says it? On the other hand, I don’t really mind much one way or the other. I just owould liek to know what evidence there is. I don’t know his arugment about “close communication,” but given the fact that Paul indicates that the situation involved anything *but* that, and that we have not a single piece of evidence that Paul ever wrote Peter, James, or any of the other apostles a letter, ever at all, I would think the communication was not particularly close…. My view is always: What’s the evidence. Where, by the way, did I say it was a legend?
Bart,
You asked me where you ever said that the collective appearance to the twelve (1 Cor 15:5) was a legend. I guess you never did! I just inferred that based on you saying that there is zero evidence that the Twelve used the 1 Cor 15:3-5 creed. But if the Twelve never used the 1 Cor 15:3-5 creed (with its claim that Jesus appeared collectively to the twelve), why *wouldn’t* you propose that the collective appearance to the twelve could be a legend?
My view is that if there is no evidence for a claim, that does not automatically make it’s opposite true. If I say that I don’t know of a shred of evidence that a deer ran through my yard last night, that doesn’t meant that I think or know that one did not. It just means I don’t know if it did.
Bart,
Ok, I get it, you are saying that you do not know *either way* if the Twelve were or were not proclaiming a collective appearance by Jesus to themselves, i.e., the Twelve (1 Cor 15:5). But there are only two options here, so can you please answer these two questions: 1) If the Twelve *were* proclaiming a collective appearance by Jesus to themselves, how do you reconcile this with your view that only three or four people had a vision of Jesus? 2) If the Twelve were *not* proclaiming a collective appearance by Jesus to themselves, then how else other than legend could this appearance tradition have possibly come about?
Ah, when you put it like that, yes, that clarifies. Things. I do not think it is a “legend” but an “incorrect datum.” A legend is a story, and I do not know if Paul knew a story about the twelve seeing Jesus or only a statement that they had. I do not think the twelve did. I’m not certain they didn’t, but I don’t know any evidence they did. If they did, it’s odd that there were 12 of them. And how would the incorrect datum come into existence? The same way thousands of other incorrect data from the early church came into existence, or rather one of the same ways they did. Literally thousands did, even in the NT. Jesus, in my view did not really walk on water, get tempted by SAtan to jump off the temple, or enter into Jerusalem on a donkey to the acclamations of the multitude. Where’d all that come from? Well, it’s pretty clear where they came from. Roughly the same place the stories of JEsus and teh walking-talking cross caem from!
Bart,
I’m 100% with you on all the NT events you just mentioned above being legends/“incorrect datums” and that a legend/incorrect datum about an appearance to the twelve could *easily* come about in the same way. However, if the collective appearance to the Twelve (1 Cor 15:5) was just an incorrect *datum* (i.e., no accompanying story), does it really seem plausible to you that Paul could go around proclaiming this datum without a lot of people asking what the twelve *actually saw*, prompting Paul to at least send a letter of inquiry to Peter who would have told Paul that a collective appearance to the Twelve never happened? Wouldn’t it be more plausible to propose that the collective appearance to the Twelve proclaimed by Paul (1 Cor 15:5) came with a *narrative* that Paul was able to relate to others and assumed was true, i.e., that it was a *legend* that Paul picked up somewhere?
Yes, that seems completely plausible to me. People say wrong things ALL the time, often without checking, or even after checking.
It happens many thousands of times every day. If you say that everything the Bible says someone said has to be true because it’s implausible they didn’t just ask someone, you would have to day that all the Gospel stories would have happened because surely the authos wuld have checked. Some people do think and say that. But I really don’t think so. I also don’t think that Paul can be trusted that 500 people saw Jesus at one time. (Or that resurrected bodies were wandering around Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection or that the author of 2 Peter was at the mount of transfiguration or that the author of Revelation saw what he described or lots of other tingsl.
Bart,
From my perspective you are sidestepping my question, but it is probably because I am not being clear enough. I’ll try again.
All of the gospel traditions you cite actually *do* have narratives, and the appearance to over 500 at one time may also have had a narrative, but even if the 500 didn’t have a narrative Paul could have told people that he did not know any of the 500 personally and so had no further details (though some are still alive if anyone wants to check it out). In contrast, Paul knew Peter *personally*, and surely a lot of people must have asked Paul what the twelve *actually saw* every time Paul preached that Jesus “appeared…to the twelve” (1 Cor 15:5). Paul had to get tired of saying “I don’t know” and then getting a blank stare in return. Do you really think it plausible *for this specific appearance tradition* that Paul would not write a simple letter to Peter asking him what they all saw when Jesus appeared to them so he could tell people every time they asked?
I don’t think that it’s at all certain that a single person asked Paul for details about what the 12 saw. It appears to sound completely commonsensical to you. If he was asked I don’t know what he said in response. He may have heard rumors about it and told the rumors. He himself never says what he saw. Maybe it was enough just to say he and they saw. He does seem to know that some of the 500 are still alive, so he was as likely to be asked about them as others. My view is that we just *don’t know*. I do get that you don’t think it’s sensible. ANd no, I don’t think there’s anyway in the world that Paul would write Peter a simple letter about it. There is simply not any evidence at all in any of Paul’s letters that this is the sort of thing he did. You need to recall that he appears to know almost nothing about Jesus’ actual life. That may defy belief, but really, he had other htings on his mind and plate, even though you and I would not have had. Sorry you don’t find that satisfying! It’s not. But history is like that. We just don’t know most of the things we really want to.
Bart,
Thanks for your opinion on this topic even though I find your view implausible. I get that “we just don’t know” a lot of stuff, but it seems to me we can still make reasonable judgments about human behavior. Your statement, “I don’t think that it’s at all certain that a *single person* asked Paul for details about what the 12 saw” seems way off base. I cannot see how that can possibly be true.
I agree. We should make reasonable judgments. The very big problem is that what we think is reasonable is always based on our experience and what we would do, and we’re talking about people who are in a *completely* different time and place with different backgrounds and assumptions and… And unless you know an unbelievable amount about them and their world, it’s just guessin’.
Bart,
It does not seem to me that we are left “just guessin'” how Paul’s audiences would respond to his claim that Jesus appeared collectively to the twelve. Beyond just basic human nature to wonder what the twelve saw, doesn’t Paul’s statement that some of the 500 “are still alive, though some have died” (implying that this tradition could be checked out) *unequivocally* tell us that at least *some* of the people that Paul was communicating with would ask a basic question like what the twelve (and the 500 as well) actually saw? Paul sure seems to think so.
Let’s say that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the Gospels as you suggest, and are based on various sources, such as “Q”. Then I read from various sources also other than scriptures in the Hebrew Bible that “the scribes” had an elevated position ( for ex in the Apocryphal book of Sirach, which I haven’t read).
Are there any clear indications that there were specific Jewish communities of scribes more or less at the same time as Jesus lived who wrote the stories found in the Gospels, such as the Essenes that were pious, litterate, apocalyptic and had an imminent expectation of a coming Messiah ? And if so, since the Gospels have clear theological differences, can there be more than one environment (source)?
No, no evidence at all. But it would be interesting if there were!
Though most Muslims don’t know this, this is the Christology the Quran support as well. There, God raised him up & cleared him of accusations by opponents (he was “cleansed” Q 3:55). This appears to be basically the same reason why early Christian’s appear to believe that he had been given an elevated status upon his resurrection. Namely that even though his death on the cross convinced his opponents that he was a false Messiah, God raised him and cleared him of their accusations.
Also, I still find it odd that the Roman Christians would have preserved and passed Paul’s letter around. Considering “Paul’s gospel” was different from what the Jerusalem movement had been teaching, it’s strange that they would have found his letter so convincing to not only have accepted it, but also preserved and spread it. Perhaps they were already familiar with it and/or had been visited by followers of his earlier? Or perhaps they just had more gentiles than Jewish members and thus found it more convincing and more appealing than Jewish group would have found it?
I’d say a lot of religious movements (and philosophical movements, and political movements) move away from what their “founders” said into something else.
How do you reconcile this Romans Christology with the Phillipians Christ poem or hymn which also appears to be early and Paul also quotes?
I think they embrace different Christologies, but not necessarily contradictory ones. The evidence is today: most Christians still accept both as true. So they aren’t *necessarily* at odds.
But this creed is the “gospel of God, promised of old in the holy writings about his Son.”
Surely the creed should be understood as saying that Christ was declared/shown to be God’s Son through the resurrection, rather than appointed at it?
Romans 16:25-26 says this gospel was a mystery hidden in ages past but now revealed. It can’t have been hidden in ages past if it only occurred at the resurrection.
Well, you might expect it to say that; but it doesn’t!
Ah, an “adoptionist” interpretation. Some great minds who i won’t mention have “adopted” that view, ha ha.
But can it not be understood as something like “decreed/delineated son of god in power according to the spirit … ”
so that he’s not actually being made son at the resurrection, just that’s when its revealed.
It could be understood lots of ways; but that is not what the Greek word means.
But the word can mean to designate, as in to state publicly an appointment.
I think it should be understood the same way as Acts 17:31 “because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead.”
The resurrection is giving proof of the appointment, its not the time at which it occurred.
I’m assuming you know that “fixed” is not the verb we’re talking about here (that’s a different word); it is the word “appointed.” Here to it means he has made this person something he was not before. When I appoint you to be the superintendent of schools, you were not the superintendent of schools before I appointed you.
Yeah its the same “appointed” as in Acts 17:31. He’s appointed final judge of the world.
But he can’t be said to have not been the final judge of the world before he was appointed to the position. The final judge of the world has always been the final judge of the world, despite the fact that he’s “appointed” to it.
The resurrection just brings assurance of that appointment.
Romans 1:4, The New Living Testament uses the word “shown” instead of “designated.” Is that a reasonable interpretation? It could change the meaning. “Shown” could mean that he already was the Son of God and it was just proven at that point.
AS you probably know, that is not a translation of the Greek. The author of the translation (Ken Taylor) did not know Greek. He was taking an English translation and making it readable for his children (literally: that’s why he originally produced it). I’m afraid the Greek were doesn’t really mean “shown” — it means more like “appointed”
Bart,
I am curious your take on something. Since the initial Christian resurrection belief was resurrection directly up to heaven, and the 1 Cor 15:3-5 tradition only states that Jesus was “raised” (i.e., nothing said about going up to heaven), do you think the 1 Cor 15:3-5 tradition was initially formulated only for *in-group* Christian community use (i.e., among those who *already* believed and knew that Jesus was translated up to heaven and not still hanging out somewhere on earth)?
Absolutely. I think all the early Christian writings/compositions were for in-group use.
Bart,
I am curious your take on something else. When Paul is trying to discredit “false apostles” (2 Cor 11:12-15), he never says that Jesus did not appear to them. Instead, Paul only says that the signs of a true apostle are “wonders and mighty works” (2 Cor 12:12). Do you think this means that the “false apostles” were probably claiming that Jesus appeared to them (otherwise Paul would have said that Jesus did not appear to them)?
I don’t think it necessarily means that, no. I wish we *did* know what they were claiming!
I have reached the section in _How Jesus Became God_ where this creed is discussed, and it is making me ponder.
In English it is rather clumsy. I trust that it is better in Greek (and perhaps even better in Aramaic but we don’t have that version). The “according to” in the second half is particularly strained in English. I can analyse why, but don’t want to dwell on it right now.
I am also pondering the disciples’ willingness to accept that Jesus was, in fact, descended from David, and, if Jesus himself believed he was descended from David, where he might have gotten that idea. (Local Nazareth legend?) For the most part we can’t do better than speculate, but such speculation should be grounded in knowledge of the culture we are talking about. Does anything in particular come to mind?
My sense is that the earliest follwors of JEsus who called him the messiah concluded that he must have been descended from David. But there is no way anyone would know. And so Matthew and Luke work out different genealogies, and anyone else would have just had to guess about it.