Loading...I am in the middle of a very long thread dealing with the question of where the doctrine of the Trinity came from. I started the thread on January 7, here: https://ehrmanblog.org/is-the-trinity-in-the-bible/ , and so have been at it for nearly two months, on and off (with a other things thrown in en route, obviously). And I have gotten nowhere near, yet, to answering the question.
So it goes in the world of complicated historical questions. (It is obviously a theological question, but I’m answering it historically rather than theologically). We are at a point where it would be a good time to explain where we are, why we have come this way, and where we are going. I need to begin by explaining why I have spent SO much time on the question of what it meant for early Christians to call Jesus God.
It’s very simple really. Christians over time developed more and more exalted views of Jesus, from being a human messiah, to being a human sacrificed for the sins of others, to being a human made into a divine being through exaltation to heaven, to being a divine being who appeared on earth, to being given a position and authority equal to the one God of all, to being the creator of the universe, to … well we are soon going to see to WHAT. It’s as high is it can possibly go.
This Christological progression was not strictly linear. It was not that at one moment all Christians thought one thing, then they started thinking something else, then they started thinking yet something else. It was not and still is not like that. Even today there are many, many different views of Christ, even among faithful Christians, even among Christians in the same denomination, even among Christians in the very same small community. So too in antiquity: lots of Christians with lots of different views all at the same time, with new views coming into play and lots of people preferring one view or another, especially older views instead of newer ones.
This Christological development is what eventually drove thinkers to a doctrine of the trinity. The logic is simple. Once Christians said Jesus was God, and they already knew that his Father was God, and they wanted to insist there was just One God — they had an obvious theological and logical problem on their hands. They had to explain it. The Spirit was eventually thrown into the mix, even though that was not nearly as central a component and is not actually discussed at ALL as much in our early sources, as we will see later. But the addition of the Spirit makes perfect sense, once one admits that Christ and God are both God yet there is one God. As we will see.
All that is why I’ve been trying to explain at such length how it is that Jesus became thought of as God. I have not finished. Not nearly. But we are at the key point for yet other serious developments to occur. Here, by way of quick summary is what we have seen so far, before I begin to build on it. If you are puzzled by any of these points, or have questions about them, simply look at the old blog posts going back to January 7. These are just the conclusions I have shown:
- The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught anywhere in the Bible, even if later theologians read it into the Bible. (As most Christians still do today.)
- It arises from the idea that both God the father and Jesus are God, and yet there is only one God.
- The key then is to understand why and how Jesus came to be thought of as God and what early Christians meant by it.
- It was not at all weird in the Greek and Roman worlds to think that a human had been born of a God and so was a demi-god, or that a God came to earth in human form, or that a mere mortal had become God. It is a well-documented phenomenon.
- And these views can (even more unexpectedly to modern readers) occur in Judaism as well.
- Jesus himself did not claim to be a divine being and his earthly followers did not see him as divine.
- The turning point occurred when they came to believe he had been raised from the dead.
- Jesus’ followers did not think merely that at the resurrection Jesus’ cadaver came back to life and he returned to earth; they believed, at the outset, that God had taken him (body and all) up to heaven.
- In ancient thought, anyone taken up to heaven was made divine: they live with the gods, or God, as an immortal being, no longer a mere mortal.
- Some of Jesus’ followers later came to think he had not “merely” been exalted to be divine, but that he was born as a divine being (his mother was a virgin whom God impregnated).
- Some later still came to think he existed before his birth and was a divine being with God who became human.
- Some thought that at his resurrection God had actually made him *equal* with himself in power and authority
- Some thought that as a divine being before his birth he had been in the beginning with God and created the universe.
- All of these ideas appear in the New Testament.
- But you cannot arrange the New Testament writings chronologically in order to see a clear linear progression from one view to the next. Ideas – of any kind (religious, political, economic, social, etc.) — almost never are strictly linear in their appearance and acceptance.
This is where we can pick up with key, fundamental developments that occurred after the writing of the books of the New Testament. And that is where the thread is going: how views of Christ developed later, leading almost inexorably to an explanation of how Christianity could worship different beings as God and yet insist there was one God, an explanation that eventually resulted in the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Quote – “from being a human messiah, to being a human sacrificed for the sins of others…”
Be interesting to see when the Messiah was first referred to in the Tanakh as coming from heaven to die for the sins of His people. Any ideas?
Soon after Jesus’ death, I should think. Paul surely thought that at the moment he converted, three years or so later, and he surely didn’t come up with it. I’d imagine it was a matter of weeks or months, not years.
I don’t think Paul intended that it be taken that the Messiah was to die FOR the sins of His people, but BECAUSE of the sins of the people. He came to “bear” our sins, as in to ‘bear with” our sins. If I went to somewhere hostel to Christianity, I would be risking my life to share my beliefs with them. In the same way, Jesus risked his life to help humanity. Paul even said in 1 Cor. 2:8, “8 None of the rulers of this age understood it [wisdom – a nod to the Wisdom of Solomon], for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” So here we can see that Paul was saying that crucifying Jesus was an unwise thing to do. To Paul, salvation came through the cross in that we could learn the lesson from it, that sin leads to death. We can use Jesus example (follow me as I follow Christ) to also live lives free of sin and malice like Jesus. It is only in this way that Jesus “died for us.” It was not seen as a replacement for righteousness on humanity’s part. (see Romans 6:2)
Bart: “Some of Jesus’ followers later came to think he had not “merely” been exalted to be divine, but that he was born as a divine being (his mother was a virgin whom God impregnated).
Some later still came to think he existed before his birth and was a divine being with God who became human.”
Except belief in Christ’s pre-existence is evidenced in our very earliest source, the letters of Paul, decades before Matthew and Luke penned their fabulous accounts of the virgin birth.
We know you believe there was an earlier traditional belief in the virgin birth that pre-dated the developed accounts in Matthew and Luke. Do you also believe it predated even the pre-Pauline belief and Paul’s own belief in the pre-existence of a heavenly or angelic Christ?
If not, then maybe drop the “later still” from the pre-existence bullet, especially since you don’t think any of this necessarily evolved in a linear fashion.
I imagine belief in a virgin birth could be fairly comfortably situated in the late 70s or early 80s at least; I don’t know of anything to suggest it was around before then, though it certainly could have been.
Two things: it’s really odd that Christians today, at least some of them, still see no problems with some sort of physical body “up” in heaven. Up where? The asteroid belt? Primitive cosmology, completely and totally at variance with reality, still manages to survive. That’s depressing. Like, grow up already.
And for the second thing, the Trinity is so darned perplexing, so weird, a book on the subject might not be a bad idea. These posts in this platform are already providing an outline. Impossible to explain something so profoundly illogical, but a history of the idea, presented in your typical engaging style, would be a really good read, and might get a lot of people to confront a very perplexing aspect of Christianity. The Trinity is part of the creed every Christian is supposed to accept, but it seems to be glossed over because it is so– counter-intuitive? Paradoxical? Insane?? At least people could learn the truth of how they got it and why they have it.
Do we know of any other itinerant preacher-theologians like Paul who wandered the Mediterranean founding churches at the time?
Christians? Not by name. Except possibly Peter, who according to Galatians 2 was doing so in Jewish communities (in Israel? hard to say)
Apollos perhaps; as at 1 Corinthians 3: 4-9?
“What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, as the Lord assigned to each”
I’m not sure Apollos was founding communities or providing instruction and support for those already founded.
I was thinking of the false prophets in Galatians but perhaps they also didn’t start their own communities but poached on others’.
Yup, that’s all Paul indicates about them.
As the church became more Gentile it also became more anti-Semitic. I can see where the Gentile Christians would want their Christian god Jesus to be equal to the Jewish god Yahweh. In your reading of the early Christian writings do you get the sense that this played a role in exalting Jesus into the Trinity? I.e., He wasn’t just a Jew who was exalted to the right hand of Yahweh, or even an angel, but was the true representation of God and even created the world before Abraham and Moses even existed.
You bring up an interesting point here. Anti-Semitism was already forming among early Christians, which we can see in the Gospel of John. In that sense, even Christian Jews began to see their non-Christian Jewish neighbors in a negative light. Eventually, they were not only seen as unbelievers but as the “Christ-killers”. I don’t know how the Gentile influence played into it, but I could see how that might be possible.
Great synopsis of the creation of a Jesus-god.
Dr Ehrman
Have you ever considered turning this into a book? This is where I parted company with Christianity. AS a Catholic I was taught that this was a mystery to be explained in heaven. I think the whole concept is a load of crap.
I did already! It’s in my book How Jesus Became God.
I will have to re-read How Jesus became God.
It makes nice birthday presents….
Dr. Ehrman, I have two quick (but unrelated to the article) questions:
Somebody pointed out to me recently that Jesus, as an apocalyptic Jew, seems to be very different from other apocalyptic Jews of his time, specifically regarding violence. Jesus’ message seems to have a strong pacifist bent, whereas the Essenes for example joined the violent insurrection against the Romans a few decades later.
First, is the characterization of Jesus as endorsing pacifism accurate, historically? Second, do we have evidence of others with a more pacifistic “God will do the overturning” bent from Jesus’ time? Basically, was Jesus very different from other apocalyptic Jews of his time regarding violence, or was it historically more of a spectrum among the Jews of his day?
1. There were other apocalyptic Jews who did believe in a violent insurrection on the assumption that God woudl then intervene. That appears to be the view of the Qumran community (Essenes).
2. Yes, I think Jesus did preach non-violence; it is found throughout the tradition on many levels.
3. Yes, there is no evidence, e.g., that John the Baptist, his followers, the pre-Christian Paul, the Pharisees, and so on were in support of violence against the state.
You write: “The turning point occurred when they came to believe he had been raised from the dead.
Jesus’ followers did not think merely that at the resurrection Jesus’ cadaver came back to life and he returned to earth; they believed, at the outset, that God had taken him (body and all) up to heaven.”
Bart,
1. Jews would not have that, when the general resurrection came, that would mean that any of the resurrected therefore would be taken by God up to heaven. Right? So why would they have thought that about Jesus?
2. What is the evidence that this belief rose “at the outset”?
1. The followers of Jesus came to think that because (a) they believed a resurrection of the dead was soon to come, as Jesus himself had stressed, possibly any day now and (b) they came to think Jesus did not remain dead. Their only conclusion could be was that he had been raised. And so they concluded the resurrection had started.
2. If this didn’t happen at the outset, the earliest followers would not have claimed he was the messiah. (He would have been dead)
I’m not getting it, Bart, so I’ll rephrase. So they came to think that he did not remain dead, that he had been raised. But his being raised implied that he was raised to Heaven, then when the dead were resurrected, it would imply it for them too. But, as far as I know, Jews did not expect the resurrected would go to Heaven.
Are you relying on Acts for information about what the earliest followers believed and when? Paul was the first to claim Jesus rose for he ran into him getting on the number 5 bus to go to the beach. Oops old Jewish joke (Myron Cohen). Paul “knew” that Jesus was in some sense still alive. But didn’t say so as far as we know until 49-50 CE. And Acts is from the 80s (or maybe even 120) so what do we really know about the first Christians?
That’s right. They saw Jesus as the exception. The resurrected will live on earth. And so will Jesus in the future. Why is he not on earth now for them? Because they know full well he’s not here on earth. They know he’s been raised. They know he’s not with them. So where is he? He is like Elijah, or Enoch, or others: he has been taken up to heaven. He is coming back from there to rule the earth, when all the other dead are raised, in a week or so. And no, I am definitely not even thinking about Acts for all this. It’s the only scenario that I”ve ever heard that makes sense of what we do know. The disciples thought the crucifixion showed Jesus was not the messiah. Then the started saying he was alive again and he really was the messiah. They knew he wasn’t with them. If he was raised he must be somewhere else. They immediately started talking about him returning as Son of Man. They knew then that he had been exalted to heaven and talked about him as the one who would initiate the general resurrection, when the Kingdom would arrive. This was their earliest belief as attested in our oldest sources, and I don’t seen how else they would have gotten there. (And I don’t see any holes in this line of thinking) (Sure wish I had come up with it myself!)
I understand both the Arians and the Nicene faction in the 4th century drew support from the New Testament for their respective doctrines, while Constantine found the distinction obtuse and inconsequential. Critical scholars would maintain that the NT does not explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity which involves concepts, language and affirmations which go way beyond those used in the NT. At the same time, there is no flat-out contradiction between Trinitarianism and the highest NT christology found in the Gospel of John – just a difference in stages of development of theological thought. From a historical-critical perspective, viewing the NT within the 1st century thought, do you think there is any contradiction between Arianism and Gospel of John? Can the phrase “in the beginning was the Word” be used to tilt the argument in favour either Arianism or Trinitarianism? Does the phrase “God’s only begotten Son” tilt in favour of Arianism? Or would you conclude the NT is under-determined regarding the Arian-Trinity debate?
No, I think both sides could appeal to John. What tilts toward Arianism in John and elswehre in the NT is the clear subordinationism of the Son to the Father. I don’t think the Arian debates were “necessarily” going to arise or necessarily going to come to one conclusion or the other.
I thought most Christians theologians today – all Trinitarians – maintain that the Son is functionally subordinate to the Father in terms of authority (e.g. the Son obeys the Father, not vice-versa), while they are equal in ontology (i.e. made of the same eternal substance). It seems to me, if Arians want to use the subordination passages in the NT for support (all those passages are about roles and authority), they need to argue that functional subordination implies subordination in ontology (i.e. the Father created the Son in the distant past before creation of the world, hence they aren’t made of the same eternal substance).
I”m not sure that those with an economic view of the trinity (as it has traditionally been called) would use the term “subordinate.” If I’m wrong, it won’t be the first time.
Having recently read a few works of the two Cappadocian Gregories, it’s striking to me that for them, some form of subordinationism is essential to orthodox Christology (and pneumatology).
For the Cappadocians, the eternal generation of the Son is the reason that the Son is BOTH less than the Father and equal to him. Because the Son is begotten, his existence is explained by another, making him less than his Father in rank (‘taxis’). The lower rank of the Logos then explains his filial obedience in the economy of the incarnation. However, since an offspring is of the same species as its parent, so the Son and the Father have the same ‘ousia’, same powers, and of the same worth.
The Triple Goddess (Virgin, Mother and Crone) was a long held concept in Pagan Religions. There are statues with a goddess with three faces to support it. Considering there were such temples all over the region and even parts of Judea, perhaps even downtown Jerusalem, its not hard to see that, if a religious tradition worked, it would be modified and added to the christian canon.
Interesting. Where do you find a Triple Goddess in pagan writings?
The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myth And Secrets by Barbara G Walker under Trinity. Large handy reference with good bibliography. There are enough examples given to assume it was a wide spread concept even with male examples.
I don’t know of any ancient examples. If she provides some ancient writings that talk about it, I’d love to know what they are. If she doesn’t then, well, then I think I know why she doesn’t.
I haven’t dug that deep but when a I see a reference to the (three faced) goddess Mut I wonder if there is Egyptian text to support the claim. Much of what we have are three faced statues and the odd comments. My questioning is what were the changes to Early Christian theology to make Pagans more comfortable with Christian theology and make it popular in Europe beyond well known Point of the Sword.
Clair: a place to start deeper research might be this Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Goddess_(Neopaganism)
A really helpful summary Bart; thank you.
Your final bullet point stands out. There is no linear progression apparent; in the latest books of the New Testament (Gospel of John; Acts of the Apostles) we find both ‘high’ and ‘low’ Christolgies; just as we do in the earliest books (the epistles of Paul). Whereas in some other bullets you maintain that ‘pre-existence before the universe’ came ‘later’. But Jewish tradition had a well established logical space for such pre-existent divine persons – as in Proverbs 8. I see no grounds for assuming that none of the followers of Jesus could have interpreted their ‘resurrection’ experience in these terms; at the same time as others found ‘exaltation’ ideas fitted better.
One question though; what about the letter to the Hebrews? Does this not present an incarnational Christology; that is substantially different either from that in Paul, or from that in John. In particular; as Hebrews presents Jesus as a ‘priestly’, rather than a ‘kingly’ Messiah?
Christian tradition has tended to ‘mark’ Christological statements in the New Testament, purely as to how ‘Trinitarian’ they could be interpreted. No need for us to do the same.
I would say that Hebrews has a very complicated Christology that is not easily categorized, with a wide range of views expressed, largely in order to show that he was superior to everything in Judaism (angels, Moses, Joshua, priests, sacrifices, etc. etc.)
Totally unrelated to this post, (I’m just hoping you see this and respond) but I’ve been watching all your YouTube videos lately, and I fell asleep and dreamt I met you at a cafe. I asked you what scroll or writing you think Athanasius should’ve included when he organised the bible. Anyway you answered me “The gospel of Mary”, I was like cool. And walked away. Then I woke up and I thought, I wonder if he actually thinks this?
Sorry for the weird reply. Great post Professor, as usual.
No, but it’s an interesting dream! And it’s a terrifically interesting book. Athanasius would have absolutely hated it….
Thanks to Dr.Erhman fo clarifying how the gradual elevation of Jesus’s status to being God led to the idea of at least two members of the Trinity. I’m still somewhat confused , however, about how the Spirit came to be included to form the three person Trinity.Could this be made clearer?
Yup, I’ll be getting to that one down the line. I’m going step-by-step, and there are a lot of steps!
We know that Paul founded some churches and other did so too, e.g. Rome. As you have noted, we also know that there is a diversity of opinion over Jesus’ divine status. Have we been able to tie any of these opinions to specific Christian communities? Were there certain Christian communities that were more prominent than others in defining how Christianity evolved? If we have this kind of insight into early Christianity, that would make an interesting post on your blog.
Scholars have tried to do that, but it can’t work. The problem is that virtually everywhere we have evidence of, say, Marcionite or Gnostic Christian groups, we have evidence of other groups as well, proto-orthodox. So it does not appear to have been arranged geographically. Or at least not consistently.
Even when I was still a Christian it seemed to me like the people who knew Jesus personally were struggling to figure out what level of divinity, if any, to assign to him – his hometown apparently decided none.
To me there appears an Ocean between these two verses:
Why call me good ? No one is good but God alone
to
Before Abraham was, I am !
Do you think once people who actually knew the historical Jesus had begun to die off this “escalation” so speak became more and more tempting as a way to grow the movement ?
TY!
I don’t know if they had all died off, but those who came up with the newer views almost certainly didn’t ask the opinions of people who knew Jesus.
You said something yesterday during the Q&A after your Zoom lecture that was so “simple” yet I couldn’t believe I had never heard it put this way, and unfortunately had to leave right after you said it: “I don’t consider myself a Christian, but I do consider myself a follower of Jesus.” Is my interpretation correct that you don’t think the historical Jesus was “The Christ” but that that doesn’t nullify the value of his teachings? That’s how I feel, so I didn’t want to misunderstand you due to my own perspective. Thank you again.
Yes, I don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God (since I don’t believe in God) who died for the sins of the world. But I take his major ethical teachings to be guideposts for how I want to live my life. He, of course, did not invent the Golden Rule, or the command to love your neighbor as yourself, or to help those in need, but he encapsulated such teachings.
Thanks again! I’ve an unrelated follow-up: I’ve been spending some time going back to the beginning of the blog, which working from home has allowed ample time for, and of course I find myself with questions upon questions upon questions upon… if I had one on about a post from 2013, say, would it still be seen that far back, or would I better off finding a newer post with more relevance?
Ah, it makes no difference! Go ahead and ask it, but make the question self contained so it’s clear what you’re asking about without me or others haveing to read the post itself (since that ain’t gonna happen)
Dr Ehrman, if you want to follow Jesus, then it is the “Jesus of the text”, the “Jesus in the Gospel story”, you mean, because we can not be sure that anything in the Gospels came from the mouth of Jesus.
Dr. Ehrman,
do you think the so called «Council of Jerusalem» really took place; and if so, what do you think they agreed upon/decided there?
I don’t think there was an actual “Council,” but I do think that Paul went there to explain himself and managed to get the Jerusalem leaders to agree that it was OK to convert gentiles to be followers of Jesus without requiring them to convert to Judaism.
There were still other Christians after this event that continued to insist you had to become Jewish first to follow Jesus, right?
For centuries. Still today!
Bravo, and thank you, for the summary. Now as the immortal (and don’t anyone question it) Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck proudly sang, “Tonight what heights we’ll hiiiiit; On with the show, this is iiiittttt!!”
Bart, sorry if you’ve already addressed this in one of your books, but what do you consider to be the historical, rather than just the theological, implications of this development in Christian thought? Diarmaid McCullough, for example, has argued that the defeat of Arianism in the fourth century and the triumph of Nicene theology gave rise to a strongly ascetically-inflected Christianity in the West, dominated by the Roman church. Does that make sense to you, or do you think it probably wouldn’t have mattered which view of the Trinity predominated?
I don’t think the development of the trinity is what led to widespread asceticism; the Christianization of the empire did. Persecutions by outsiders were replaces by suffering inflicted by Christians on themselves, to show they were worthy, just like the earlier martyrs. (Note: asceticism began to rise precisely after Christianity was legalized, and at the point at which it was predominantly Arian! I’d like to see the evidence connected to the triumph of Nicene Christianity though). I’m not sure what social or political implications an Arian conquest would have entailed.
John 5:46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
If we read this literally then Jesus is described in the Pentateuch. As Paul said, “The Rock that followed them was Christ.”
The Exodus describes Yahweh who walks with the Israelites, saves the Israelites, argues with the Israelites and eats with the Israelites. A God who shows anger but repents. A God who is seen and heard. Is it that simple?
No! Although Yahweh introduces a magic rod – a “Stauros” – that separates the Red Sea, swallows the serpent (the old serpent) and gets water out of the rock, the story of Jesus’ suffering is a bit far-fetched.
In order to find out what really happened, the Spirit of Truth was needed. The spirit of truth was the power of God working through the prophets. The Spirit of Truth testified about Jesus, and filled in all the details missing.
Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about Himself.
«The Spirit then hears and glorifies the Son in the sense that He revealed Him to the prophets and apostles» – Ambrose (On the Holy Spirit).
Ambrose (On the Holy Spirit) «For as the Scripture called the Son of God the Right Hand of God, as it is said: Your Right Hand, O Lord, is made glorious in power. Your Right Hand, O Lord, has dashed in pieces the enemy; Exodus 15:6
Here Ambrose clearly makes a connection between Yahweh and Jesus. Jesus is the right hand of God from Exodus. That is why Jesus sits at the right hand of the Lord.
Bear with me, mr. Ehrman. I feel this is important.
When the Paraclete has come, Whom I will send to you from My Father, even the Spirit of Truth which proceeds from the Father, He shall bear witness of Me. John 15:26
After Jesus had left His body, the Spirit of Truth should bear witness of Him – through the prophets.
Therefore, Jesus was also baptized through the Holy Spirit. It was not enough to read the books of Moses. To understand, one must also read the prophecies, through the lense of the Holy Spirit.
Isaiah 61:1 «The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;»
The baptism of Jesus came through the prophets – through the Spirit.
It is an interesting story, but appears to assume that all the statements are true and inertpreted a certain way. Why shouldn’t we think that the writers of what we have for the New Testament just put the words in there to make a connection that THEY wanted?
And a lot of people make claims, so should we accept them all as true and look in the OT to find things that appear to fit? I’ll bet if someone claimed that Dr Ehrman was in the OT people could find verses and make the case for it too!
Dr. Ehrman. How do theologians explain that if Jesus is God, but also the only begotten son of God, and God exists from eternity, how Jesus can be begotten? Did Jesus as God beget himself from eternity? Was he somehow begotten in time? I’m sorry if this sounds confused, but I am confused.
Ah, the nuances of theology get extremely nuanced. “Begotten” in later theolgoical contexts does not mean “come into being” but something like “as a son to a father” — and theologians developed the idea that he was “eternally begotten.” It did not happen in a moment of time.
Bart, and yet the famous Desert Fathers and Mothers were ascetics. And there has been a tradition of ascetism within Judaism https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/asceticism. I think it’s a tendency that humans have.. if less is good, even less is better. Locusts and honey and all that.
sorry, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Yes, asceticism is hugely important in a number of traditions. In Christianity it goes back to Jesus in many ways; but the serious ascetic strain begins in earnest only after the conversion of Constantine (which is when the desert saints start appearing.)
I have to belatedly respond to the very first comment, Poohbear’s from March 7th. He asked Bart, “Be interesting to see when the Messiah was first referred to in the Tanakh as coming from heaven to die for the sins of His people. Any ideas?”
I hope I’m not presumptuous in saying that I think Bart should have pointed out that NOWHERE in the Tanakh is the messiah described as dying for the people’s sins. The concept of a messiah dying as a sacrifice is NOT a Jewish one. Jewish messiahs, whether priestly or royal, are expected to triumph and reign immediately.
From a Jewish point of view, Jesus’s failure to do that, or to even quickly return to do that, are the essential and irrefutable proof that however fine a man he was, he was not the messiah. That’s why most Jews, at the time and since, have found it easy to decline the evangelists’ invitation.
The point you make can’t be repeated often enough or emphasized enough. Somehow it never, ever, gets through. Christian pastors and priests repeat the same mistaken things (dare I call them lies?) over and over, regarding a suffering, dying, messiah described in the Tanakh.
Thanks, Richwen90. They are, at the least, obtuse in repeating the fallacy rather than acknowledging it.
In 21st century terms, I think it’s fair to call Christianity history’s most egregious case of cultural appropriation. It not only borrows wholesale but claims to replace the original and then becomes more popular. It reminds me of what Oreos did to Hydrox. 😉
Jews are monotheists and consider the doctrine of the Trinity not just blasphemous but idolatrous as well.
Their God is one. How dare the Christians make a man equal with their God, and worship three Gods(Father,Son,Holy Ghost) and still claim to be monotheists.
“God the Father and Jesus are Gods”
What about Psalm 2?
As far as Jesus coming from heaven, in Psalm 2 we can see 2 YHWH’s. In verses 7-9 it says,
“7 “I will announce the decree of the Lord [2nd YHWH]:
He said to Me [YHWH of verse 2, the 1st YHWY (who is speaking here)],
‘You are My Son,
Today I have fathered You.
8 Ask it of Me, and I will certainly give the nations as Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth as Your possession.
9 You shall break them with a rod of iron,
You shall shatter them like earthenware.’”
So here in Psalm 2 we can see the first YHWH of verse 2 describing a time when another YHWH (Presumably his father) declared to heaven that the YHWH of verse 2 is his son. In Psalm 2, the YHWH that is the son of the Father YHWH is the main speaker, and speaks of his anointed, probably king David.
Dr. Ehrman. If we do a theological study of the events in the Book of Exodus against the events in the Book of Numbers, then we begin to find the core of the crucifixion story. After all, the story of manna from heaven and water from the rock can be found in both books. And just as the Israelites didn’t want to eat of the manna, so the Jews didn’t want to eat “the bread from heaven” – the body of Jesus.
Numbers 20 and Exodus 17 describes Moses beating his staff on the rock so that water flows out. Some apocryphal texts say that blood came out of the rock.
In the Exodus, the Israelites were attacked by the Amalekites.
Deuteronomy 25: 17-18 “Remember what the Amalekites did to you (…) attacked all who were lagging behind”
The Amalekites attacked the Israelites almost like snakes, biting their heels.
In Numbers, it’s Edom who attacks the Israelites. Let’s assume it’s the same event. Esau sold his birthright for a piece of bread to Jacob. This gives the assumption of Esau as Judas.
The next parallel between the events is Moses raising the staff over his head (Exodus 17) and Moses raising the brazen serpent(Numbers 21).
The fact that a Brazen Serpent could save the Israelites was on the verge of idolatry. The only one who could save was God himself. How could looking at the serpent have anything to do with salvation?
There had to be a deeper meaning behind this!
What if the serpent was just an outer shell clothed on Yahweh? What if looking at the serpent was really the same as looking at Yahweh?
What if Yahweh, who was completely without sin, had taken upon himself the original sin from the Garden of Eden? The sin that was inflicted on mankind through just a serpent?
Theologically, this must have been an appealing thought.
Yahweh clothed in sin, who saves the Israelites from nothing less than the original sin.
It was Yahweh himself who was lifted up on the staff of Moses – “the Stauros” of Moses – the cross of Moses.
When «the Advocate» then came – the Spirit of Truth – he could shed more light on the event through the prophets.
Then the picture was complete.
CS Lewis: “That Son exists because the Father exists: but there never was a time before the Father produced the Son…In the same way we must think of the Son always, so to speak, streaming forth from the Father, like light from a lamp, or heat from a fire, or thoughts from a mind. He is the self-expression of the Father—what the Father has to say. And there never was a time when he was not saying it. …And that, by the way, is perhaps the most important difference between Christianity and all other religions: that in Christianity God is not a static thing—not even a person—but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama. Almost, if you will not think me irreverent, a kind of dance. The union between the Father and Son is such a live concrete thing that this union itself is also a Person. …This third Person is called, in technical language, the Holy Ghost or the “spirit” of God. …. But this spirit of love is, from all eternity, a love going on between the Father and Son.” (CS Lewis, Mere Christianity, “Good Infection”)
Bart a good related question: Is there any real distinction with a big difference between Trinitarian doctrine and modalism? Every explanation that explains the difference seems to make a pretty small difference, like the three modes being separate in some way but not really discrete entities, which puts one back to modalism. The notion that the trinity is doctrine and modalism is heresy is non-sensical to me when they are so close.
Yup, big difference I’ll be talking about it eventually in the thread. (Modalism says there are not three persons; it is all the same person: God is father, son, and spirit more or less like I’m a father, son, and brother, at the same time; one of me, three modes of relationship)
Jesus did call God: “Father.” In fact IIRC you have observed that the Aramaic “Abba” is a familiarity better translated: “Papa” (which surely rankled Caiaphas & Co.)
He probably intended the appellation to convey the idea that one can — and should — have an intimate, loving relationship with the one, true God, as child with parent, rather than in ‘fear and trembling’ incited by the capricious, vindictive Yahweh.
But he would surely be appalled by the way his followers eventually seized upon this informality and ran off the end of the anthropomorphic earth with it.
Whether or not Jesus was the once and future “Son of Man,” claiming God as his “Father” perforce made him the “Son of God.” Further, he also spoke of a divine “Holy Spirit.” That makes THREE divinities — which is obviously problematic for a monotheistic theology.
But it is the apotheosis of hubris to deconstruct the nature of a Godhead that can only be assuredly described as “ineffable.”
Subdividing God into a “Trinity” of “Persons” (while simultaneously denying it) by resorting to blatant sophistries such as “eternally begotten, not made” and “of one being” and “proceeds from…” is comparable to pinhead rumination on the size of angelic dance troupes.
What is the theological basis for asserting that Jesus was “the ONLY begotten son of God”? In a world population of (even then) around 300 million, what made the Jews living in Palestine so special that the one and only time God would ever send His Son it should be to them?
Even from my, admittedly limited, familiarity with Buddhism, it appears to me that a case could certainly be made that “the Word became flesh” in the person of Siddhartha Gautama — some five centuries before Jesus in the Shakya Kingdom of India some 3,000 miles beyond the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire.
The fundamental and startlingly counterintuitive teachings of the “Awakened” and “Anointed” ones (i.e, eschewing all worldly attachments, having equally unbounded love and compassion for friend and foe alike, etc.) are strikingly similar, given their emergence from the entirely different theological roots of Hinduism and Judaism.
Has the “ONLY begotten son of God” assertion which dates all the way back to Nicaea ever even been questioned?
Maybe it’s cynicism, but the claim sounds to me like nothing more than preemptive, market-cornering by the Roman Catholic Church. (And, let’s face it — as churches go, this is the big one. 😉)
The term used in the New Testament, MONOGENES, does not mean “only begotten” in the sense of “the only one God has sired” but “unique” (mistranslated by people who misunderstood the etymology).
Thank you, professor, for that very illuminating clarification! Funny, but in 12 years of Catholic education that crucial distinction just somehow never came up.
There was “Papal Infallibility.” They did have that. And “Bible Inerrancy.” I’ll grant you that Papal Infallibility and Bible Inerrancy (at least, until the Galileo unpleasantness) are two things that the Roman Church DID have.
And John 3:16.
Obviously, John 3:16. I mean, the Gospel of John goes without saying, doesn’t it? That’s where the Preexistence Christology came from.
But apart from Papal Infallibility, Bible Inerrancy and John 3:16, what evidence does the Roman Church have that the only time God EVER sent His Word of salvation was into 1st century Palestine?
If Jesus of Nazareth was the one and ONLY “Son of God,” that’s certainly Good News those Jews could use. But there were hundreds of millions of people in Africa and Asia and Australia and BOTH Americas! And that’s just to mention the As. What of everyone else from everywhere else in every when else? Does the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving “Father” not give a barren fig tree for any of them?
Not a problem. Most scholars don’t know it either!
How far back does this apparent inconsistency go: 1) Belief that Jesus (body or spirit) was lifted into heaven to sit at the right hand of God. 2) A Christian should get to “know Jesus,” as a personal deity who is providing companionship and guidance to his followers. I think the Trinity and the continual presence of Jesus are contradictory ideas held among conservative and liberal Christians I hear today, almost like the Second Coming has already happened. When in church history did Jesus leave God’s side?
1. Goes way back 2. Well, that has a very modern ring to it but I suppose it also goes way back. But I don’t think the ida is that Jesus has left heaven but that he is omnipresent.
Your excellent and illuminating explanation of the historical evolution of Christology over the three centuries following Jesus’ death and resurrection seems to turn entirely on preserving the earliest and most fundamental of all Christian doctrines: Substitutionary Atonement.
If the earthly mission of the Word was not about the words but rather to serve as a blood sacrifice to appease the wrath of Yahweh over the Original Sin committed by Adam and finally expunge the grudge the Jewish god held against all of the first man’s progeny, how can this be reconciled with the progression from a low to a high Christology?
Either an Exaltation (at the resurrection) or Adoptionist (at the baptism) Christology STARTS with a mortal heir of Adam. This would seem to be the sine qua non for atonement by the transgressor (setting aside, of course, the peculiar notion of a “Divine Justice” that bequeathed guilt to ALL of his innocent descendants.) Whereas, either an Incarnation (at birth) or Pre-existence (from eternity past) Christology, instead, makes God — in some mode or person — the substitute.
How did apologists manage to circumvent this obvious conundrum to get from whatever kind of low to whatever kind of high Christology?
Most people who developed and then embraced these views were not high level intellectuals concerned with maintaining complete consistency with earlier traditions — or at least they didn’t see that their views were inconsistent with them. Just as people today, including some incredibly smart ones, hold a variety of inconsistent theological views all at once.