Loading...When I earlier said that I thought my older view of the development of Christology was problematic, in that I had been imagining a more or less straight line of development from low to high Christology, I did not mean to say (as I may have mistakenly been understood as saying) that I have now given up the idea of a line of development. What I’ve given up on is the idea that there was basically ONE form of Christology that developed from low to high. I now think that all Christologies ultimately go back to TWO different forms, that originated separately from each other, with one being earlier than the other, and both developing separately from each other, until they were finally fused together.
I realize I’m more or less giving away my book at this point, but I’ll just sketch out the basic idea and leave its full exposition for the print version.
Here I’ll say something about the oldest Christology, as I understand it. This was what I earlier called a “low” Christology. I may end up in the book describing it as a “Christology from below” or possibly an “exaltation” Christology. Or maybe I’ll call it all three things.
The basic idea behind this Christology (by the way, Christology simply means “understanding of” or “teaching about” Christ) is that Jesus was understood to have been a human – a full flesh-and-blood man – who came to be exalted and glorified by God and so raised to the rank of the divine. And so the Christology starts out *down here* among us mortals with a human being (so it is a “low” Christology) who then comes to be divinized (and so “exalted” – thus an exaltation Christology).
Along with lots of other scholars, I think this was indeed the earliest Christology.
I do not think that Jesus or his disciples, during his public ministry, understood him(self) to be anything other than a human being. They (including himself) may have seen him as a great teacher (he was) or as an important prophet. And I will argue in my book that Jesus probably did understand himself in even greater terms, that he thought that he was the one whom God would appoint as ruler of the future kingdom when it arrived in power with the coming of the cosmic judge of the earth that Jesus called the Son of Man. To that extent, and in that way, I think that Jesus did understand himself to be the messiah – the future king of God’s kingdom. But he did not think of himself as a political messiah, or as the coming son of man, or as God. All of this, of course, I will have to demonstrate in my book, but I already have argued such things in my earlier work, including Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN! OR YOU MAY NEVER KNOW!!!
Very nicely expressed. Who first developed this idea of a ‘Christology from below’? I’m aware of it theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg, but do not know of the roots of this terminology, if perhaps it predates Pannenberg.
Great question! I don’t know!
Dr. Ehrman,
Could you list a couple of the main sources you used to develop the notion that the two most primitive christologies originated separately.
Also, what do you think was the ostensible cause for these two primitive chrisologies to fuse together?
Yup, I’ll be getting to that!
The synoptic gospels don’t seem to go as far as you explain here with their celebration (or lack thereof) of Jesus as the “true” son of God. Only John does that. Correct? If so, what if there were a schism in the immediate aftermath of the crucifixion of Jesus. Some disciples believed those who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus and others, with crushed spirits, maybe just went away in disgust after he was crucified like a common criminal. This could explain why there was such a long period of time between his death and the first known Christian writings— assuming that the fact that non-scholarly people just didn’t write much down isn’t a good enough reason! Maybe the authors waited until the eyewitnesses who didn’t agree with them had died before their wrote their version of events. Obviously this doesn’t take into account the earlier theorized gospels of Q, M, etc. I’ve just always wondered why the gospels went to the trouble of naming 12 disciples and then after the Ascension we hear nothing more of over half of them.
No, that’s the tricky part. The Synoptics definitely see Jesus as the son of God. The question to ask them is in what *sense* he was the Son of God.
12 apostles: the number itself appears to be what matters.
Ok, I had forgotten you had previously mentioned here or in one of your books that the number of apostles was the important part. I still wonder though just how into the new religion his followers were. Some (most?) were obviously drinking the kool-aid, but surely not all of them? But, I suppose there’s no way to know that with the present written works we have.
“The disciples came to believe that he was not here – even though he had been raised from the dead – because he had been exalted up to heaven itself, where he currently was, with God.”
This is an interesting point and the crux of the argument of course. I can only think of two places in the Gospels that hint at this-in the fake ending of Mark and in John where Jesus tells Mary it hasn’t happened yet. Both very late sources. Would this argument apply to the twelve or to successive generations of disciples, primarily?
My sense is that the earlier view is that Jesus was taken up to heaven not in an ascension but immediately upon being raised.
You probably cover this elsewhere I’m sure… but this seems to possibly explain why none of the four canonical gospels mention the post-Easter ascension… because they would necessarily not have an ascension after the resurrection if they both happened simultaneously… and only Acts needed to address the ascension issue because it dealt with the time when the church transitioned from pre-Easter to post-Easter (which begged the question where/when/how did Jesus ascend exactly?) and it seems possible that Acts is using the ascension of Elijah and subsequent power transition to Elisha to illustrate Jesus’ transition to the Church… which would also explain Acts’ unique explanation of the ascension (unique if compared only to the four gospels… including, interestingly, Luke)… this also explains Paul’s vision of Jesus being the same *kind* of vision the likes of Peter and John had (according to 1 Cor 15)… so my scattered question (sorry) is: does any/all of this match the consensus of 21st century critical scholarship?
I think it’s one of the most interesting subjects in biblical studies… I’ll buy “How Jesus Became God” for more details… but a quick reply letting me know if I’m on the right track would be helpful. Thanks!
Yes, I think you’re on the right track.
One question that I can’t satisfactorily answer is explaining John 20:17: “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”
Yet in other passages we see others (e.g. Thomas) touching him… what do you think is going on here? Is John saying Jesus appeared only to Mary before his exaltation?
Whatever it is, it seems that Jesus ascended after this appearance and before the other appearances (which means the resurrection and the ascension did not take place at the same time in John’s view)… this seems to align more with Acts’ idea that Jesus rose, walked the earth, and then ascended… even though John doesn’t actually record the ascension and has Jesus walking the earth for a much shorter duration than Acts… Any insight on this passage would be much appreciated…
right! It’s always been a key question about that verse. Did Jesus go up to heaven and return by then? Or do the two passages come from two different sources that the author has not reconciled?
From your answer I’m gathering that you don’t think there’s enough evidence either way to know for sure (and I’m sure you’re correct). My guess is either John wants to honor Mary Mag. as seeing a special first appearance, or John is mixing a later source with earlier ones that don’t actually make sense (this seems most likely considering chs. 15-17, 21 are probably later additions—maybe 20:17 also got mixed in there somehow).
1. Are there any other NT passages (apart from Acts and John 20:17) that imply Jesus wasn’t exalted at the same time he was resurrected?
2. What’s the best resource for more info on this *specific* subject (that covers all the pertinent passages about the resurrection-ascension-exaltation complex and how most NT authors see this as a singular event)? I’d really like to learn more about this… scholarly work preferred… but trade work is fine too…
1. Not that I know of; 2. Nothing comes to mind off hand, I’m sorry to say.
Interesting that subject isn’t focused on very much (seems rather interesting to me). I dig this blog because it brings up questions like this that are fun to research… thanks.
I’m fascinated by the story of jesus leaving this physical universe by rising to heaven after his resurrection. This appears to be rooted in a pre-scientific cosmology, such as the one communicated in Genesis, where it says there is a firmament above the earth. Here’s my question, Bart. In addition to the failed apocalyptic prophecies of the New Testament, including the sayings of Jesus, I think the tale of the ascension, which is obviously communicating a false cosmology by implying that one can leave this physical universe if they fly high enough above the earth, is a HUGE giveaway and clue that the resurrection story is completely mythical and not historical, even though many people at the time and now believe it was a historical event. Hell, I’m sure the writer of Luke (you and the harper collins study bible informed me that the ascension in Luke is not in many earlier manuscripts) and Acts thought it was historical, but they were communicating myths without knowing it, because they too probably had the same false cosmology.
Bart,is my thinking and assessment of this situation accurate? Or am I off?
Yes, it is rooted in an ancient mythology. But most of the authors of the NT do not think of Jesus as physically ascending.
Bart, you said, “But most of the authors of the NT do not think of Jesus as physically ascending”
Then in what sense did they think Jesus ascended? The tales of Jesus ascending in Luke and Acts appear to me to be a description of Jesus physically acending to heaven. Am I wrong? Am i missing something? Please clarify. Thanks.
The physical ascension is narrated only in Acts. The other authors appear to think that God took Jesus up to heaven at the resurrection.
OK, thanks for the clarification.
Regarding the letter of Romans, this was probably Paul’s last letter (~late 50s or early 60s) and reflected his most up to date understanding. During his life he had some contact with Peter, John and Jesus’ brother James. In the AV version of this letter, Romans 1.3 reads “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh”.
From the Greek, does the word for “seed” clearly imply the product of (human) semen of the family line of David? I guess what I’m asking is if from the Greek reading this verse implies that Paul didn’t question that Jesus had a human father (he hadn’t heard of the virgin birth from anyone he encountered). Thus his conclusion is summarized in verse 4 as per your post. I also gather that the idea of Jesus preexistence (as God) never came up on his Damascus road experience otherwise he would have likely introduced it in his writings.
Yes on both scores, I think.
Very intriguing! But…I’m puzzled as to how the first handful of people who came to believe this managed to convince a significant number of other people.
Those first few believers, Jesus’s disciples, were probably illiterate. There’s no reason to think any of them were gifted preachers. They must have had to lie low for a while, after what had happened to Jesus. And even *reaching* significant numbers of people would have been difficult in that era.
“Jesus rose from the dead. But you’ll never be able to see any evidence that he did, because he’s already ascended to Heaven.” I know some (many?) of the disciples’ contemporaries accepted that, but I’m perplexed as to how it came about.
It’s the key question!
Real quick… sorry… but when the questioner says:
———–
“‘Jesus rose from the dead. But you’ll never be able to see any evidence that he did, because he’s already ascended to Heaven.’ I know some (many?) of the disciples’ contemporaries accepted that, but I’m perplexed as to how it came about.” Then you say “It’s the key question!”
———–
I agree it’s the key question, but isn’t the answer: “The reason ‘it came about’ was that multiple people (e.g. Peter, James, Paul, et al.) claimed Jesus appeared to them after his resurrection/ascension—and so their eyewitness testimony is the evidence by which they accepted their beliefs? I’m not asking if this proves the claims are true… I’m asking, based on the best historical evidence, eyewitness claims are the evidence for why/how ‘it came about’—isn’t that basically right? In other words, without these eyewitness claims, it’s hard to even explain how Christianity began in c. 30 CE.
Yes, that’s my view too. But it is still a key question!
From your books, I knew these fragments, but the way you intend to piece them together is quite illuminative. Please start writing your book in earnest!
” but only Jesus had actually been physically raised from the dead never to die again”. What about the story of Lazerus? I guess he had to die a second time. bummer.
Where I’m coming from: I think that showing “how Jesus became God” has to begin with showing how significant numbers of people came to believe he’d been “resurrected.” And it seems to me that even if he really had been resurrected, that should have been extremely hard to do, given the lack of evidence. (Yes, millions of people today believe in the Resurrection. But they’ve been indoctrinated, taught from childhood to believe in it.)
It might actually be easier to convince gullible people of such a thing in today’s world. If there’d been TV in Jesus’s time. everyone in Palestine would have known his face and voice, if only from snippets during newscasts. They might, before his death, have come to “know” and trust some of his disciples. And then they would have heard them making impassioned claims.
But ideas couldn’t be spread that way 2000 years ago. I’m thinking, is it possible that there were very few believers at the outset – but they then went off to preach in distant communities, and gave people there the impression that way more people back in Jerusalem believed the story than actually did? Thinking many other people had accepted what the disciples were saying might have induced their listeners to take it seriously.
Interesting, as your writing usually is. Keep going. I understand the term “low Christology” better than the other two terms.
I’m a little late in the game, but I just read through all of your posts from this month on Christology so far. It’s been a real delight to read, and I am looking forward to the coming posts. Just from reading this post several questions came to my mind. If the concept of Jesus being the Son of God is post-resurrection, does this mean Jesus never understood himself as the Son of God even in a very Jewish sense? In what sense was Jesus considered “divine” in the exaltation and incarnationist Christologies and how in the world did this fit into the early Christians’ worldview of Jewish monotheism? Did all early Christians come to see Jesus as having been or become divine in *some* sense (what about the Ebionites?). Why did the disciples come to believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead, as opposed for example to the Docetic view that he did not really die, or the view that he appeared to them in the form of an apparition? You said you would answer some of these questions in your upcoming posts, so I am really looking forward to it.
Also, I think in your book you should note that there is a disagreement—even among scholars who affirm that Jesus was an apocalypticist—over whether or not Jesus understood himself to be the Son of Man. It is always useful to know whether or not something represents the consensus of scholarship, or simply the opinion of the individual scholar, while considering the evidence put forward.
These are all good questions — but too many and too involved to answer here! On two of them, yes, I think Jesus did think of himself as the Son of God in some sense, since I think he thought he was the future messiah; and no, not every Christian thought Jesus was divine — some thought he was a human, without remainder.
Bart, some Christians refer to Jesus forgiving sins as evidence for Jesus having been, or being, God indeed. The logic being that only God can forgive sins (Mt 9:2 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Have courage, son! Your sins are forgiven.” 3 Then some of the experts in the law said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming!”).
But John makes it sound like forgiving sins is simply an ability that can be given, by God and via the Holy Spirit, to those that he sends: John 20:21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. Just as the Father has sent me, I also send you.” And after he said this, he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained.”
Aren’t therefore those Christians wrong? Forgiving sins is NOT an exclusive right or ability of God himself. It can be given to others.
Great point! I’d never thought of relating the two passages before, but it’s a very effective response (If jesus can allow other humans to forgive sins, why couldn’t God allow Jesus to do so? )
Exactly. It seems like forgiving sins is an ability that can be shared with other: someone who has the authority to forgive sins can give this authority to others as well (God > Jesus > Apostles > … ).
Yes. From the Westminster Confession of Faith:
Chapter 30 Of Church Censures
The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.
2. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins….
🙂
“I do not think that Jesus or his disciples, during his public ministry, understood him(self) to be anything other than a human being.”
So what is the earliest attestation of a higher Christology than the low Christology that Jesus and his disciples themselves taught and believed? I know it did not start at the Council of Nicea like many have incorrectly assumed.
OUr earliest author Paul thinks Christ was a pre-existent divine being (see Phil 2:6-10), but it was almost certainly what the very first believers thought once they came to believe in the resurrection.
In other words you are saying that the very same disciples who believed Jesus was nothing more than a human prophet were the same ones who ended up believing in a higher Christology right after they believed he was resurrected?
I think they thought he was the future messiah; when they came to believe he was raised, they still thought so, but that he would now come from heaven to rule.
Paul also says that there many gods and many lords but for Christians there is One God, the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ. Even if he did believe Jesus was divine in a pre-incarnate form, could it be that he also believed Jesus was still a created being in other words among the Father’s creation and not in any way a creator god himself?
I think he certainly thought Jesus was created and not the One Ultimate God.
Were there any early Christian groups that subscribed to modalism? What is the earliest attestation to the Modalist view of Jesus that we have?
There weren’t any social groups whose main distinguishing feature was modalism, no. Modalism was a widely held view among lots of different kinds of Christians.
Dr. Ehrman, would Rom. 1:3-4, as an example of one of the earliest Christologies, be a good example for the illustration that I asked you about in a recent e-mail (Jan 9, 2022)?
I don’t remember what yuo asked in your email, but it is certainly one of the early Christologies and seems to embrace an adoptionistic christology that Paul himself, if pushed, would have found problematic.
One thing I’m very curious about was what were the 12 Apostle’s views on the crucifixion? Did they believe Jesus died for the sins of mankind as Paul did or did they have some other explanation?
My view is that the remaining eleven came to that view before Paul, as soon as they came to think that Jesus had been raised from the dead.
Are there any books or articules you would recommend where I could do some further reading on why they believed Jesus died on the cross for our sins or were they just using the logic that he must have taken the burden of our sins because he died on a tree which meant he was cursed? If so, what evidence did you come across that led you to this belief?
I talk about it a bit in my book How Jesus Became God. I don’t think it had to do with the verse in Deuteronomy about one hanging on a tree being cursed. It has to do with their sudden realization that Jesus died according to God’s plan. But why would God want a person to die a bloody death? Esepcailly the one he favors? It couldn’t be because of any wrong *he* did. So maybe it was like what happens with sacrifices: the animal hasn’t sinned. The death of the animal atones for the sins of others. They thought that God demanding a bloody death then is to be thought of in sacrificial terms.
What do you think of Matthew 21:16 which quotes Psalm 8 which is about God and is said in reference to Jesus? Does that mean that Matthew understood Jesus to be equal with God?
I think it’s pretty clear in Matthew that Jesus is not equal with God, and there’s actually nothing there to suggest he existed before his virginal conception/birth. But Matthew clearly does see Jesus as God’s representative on earth and so is in *that* since divine with divine authority.