Loading...Just about everyone agrees that the understanding of who Christ was developed significantly over the years (and if they don’t, they should!). The views Jesus’ own disciples had right after his death around 30 CE were not the same as those that had been developed by very sophisticated thinkers around the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 CE; and two centuries later these Nicean views had been refined and deepened. Views of Christ developed over time.
But how, and why? I used to think that the changes were fairly “linear,” that is, that followers of Jesus at one time thought “A” and then later came to realize that instead it was “B” and eventually came to think “C” etc, — one view leading to another, as everyone changed their minds. This scenario, I now realize, is far too simplistic: different people believe different things at the same time, some people hold on to older views when others move to newer ones, and some people who come to believe newer views later change their mind and accept again the older views, etc. Changes in belief are not a straight line. It’s a very important point and I want to stress it.
But even so, the earliest followers of Jesus believed *something* about him at his death. What was that, and how / why did it begin to change?
Here I’ll say something about what appears to have been the oldest Christology, the oldest (known) “understanding of Christ.” Scholars have traditionally called this a “low” Christology in contrast to a later “high” Christology. These scholars arranged Christologies from “low” to “high” based on how exalted a view of Christ they contained. If some of Jesus’ followers saw him mainly as a very good human who was favored by God — not himself God, not pre-existent, not the creator of the world, but a HUMAN whom God favored, that would be “low,” putting Jesus down here with the rest of us mortals. Others (at some point) came to think Christ had always been a DIVINE being who had existed before his birth, who created the world, and had always been himself God in some sense. That would be “high,” placing Christ up there with God himself.
I do not think there was a linear/straight-line development from one of these views to the other. I think there were lots and lots of views competing with each other most of the time. Even so, along with lots of other scholars, I think that the earliest followers of Jesus who believed in him immediately after the resurrection indeed did have a low Christology. They thought he was a human God had exalted after his death.
It gets interesting here: what did Jesus think about himself? And why did the disciples come to think something different? Join the blog and you can keep on reading!
You may be interested in “Mistakes were made… but not by me.” The authors talk about a study of a cult where the leader predicted the end of the world on a certain date, and how the members justified their continued loyalty when – surprise – the world did not end. Sounds very similar to how the members of the “Jesus cult” would have felt when their leader suffered a shameful death.
Is there not some thought that perhaps Jesus was a charismatic personality, with great insight into the human condition, who also had delusions of grandeur (i.e., mentally ill)? Based on the types of scholarship you report, it seems that his constellation of behaviors (symptoms) could support such a diagnosis. Being mentally ill doesn’t preclude having a strong intellect or great people skills.
My sense is that it is flat-out impossible to psychoanalyze a person from this kind of distance. Most of the time it’s virtually impossible until you spend many, many hours over a protracted time talking with them.
Didn’t Jesus believe himself to be immortal? He was to be the king in the coming Kingdom of God, where there would be no death. If an immortal being is killed, that is about as “radically disconfirming” as you can get.
I mean this respectfully, but I have wondered if Jesus saw himself as fully God, it would have lessened the sacrifice of his horrible death. Not much reason for the intense scenes in the garden of olives.
Where do you think that Paul’s conception of Jesus in Philippians 2:6 – 11 fall in this low to high Christology continuum? How do you think that Paul came to such an exalted view of Jesus? I believe that scholars think that this section was a pre-existing poem that Paul was quoting in his letter so it may even had a genesis prior to this letter.
I”m getting to that one!
Hi Bart
Great post as ever. It would be great if some authentic Ebionite scrolls turned up soon. Is it fair to say that we have a largely Pauline view of Jesus?
Dominic
I don’t, but I suppose most people do!
Hi Dr. Ehrman, my question is not related to your article but it came to my mind while reading it.
How did you deal with Acts 1:9 in your days of being a newborn Christian?
I understand the view from 2000 years ago that God’s realm was above the clouds but now we know God is not there, just planes, then satellites, then other planets etc…
While reading Acts 1:9 I can’t stop thinking of Superman flying up in his red cape… And in my Christian days I was pretty sure whoever wrote that, he was lying….
Early on I thought it was literal (god is in some snese “up there”) and then later as accomodational: the disciples didn’t know God wasn’t “up there” so Christ ascended to make them realize that he was going to God….
“Resurrection” changed everything! Thanks for clarifying this transformation within the earliest communities.
I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt Paul’s claim that he was preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.
Shouldn’t we take it from Paul that the very earliest Christians believed Jesus had originally been in the form of God and humbled himself to take on the form of a servant in the likeness of man?
“The earliest Christians”? No, I’d say Paul never attributes this view to them.
But Paul says he presented the gospel he preaches to James, Peter and John to make sure he wasn’t running his race in vain. And that they added nothing to his message.
Paul’s gospel had a pre-existent Jesus.
Yes he did. But the gospel message he was referring to was his message that gentiles did not need to follow the Jewish law to be followers of Christ.
Dr. Ehrman,
Someone had an interesting take; saying that 1 Cor. 15:7 is not necessarily a group appearance, but just saying that everyone who is serving as an apostle was someone who had seen the risen Jesus, do you agree? In 1 Cor. 9:1 Paul does seem to indicate that seeing the risen Jesus was a needed qualification to be an apostle, is that correct?
1. It doesn’t seem that wway, no — he is referring to a sequence of appearances to specific people and groups 2. It is usually taken that way but I”m not sure it necessarily needs to be.
According to Paul, Jesus is supposed to be the “first fruits “ of the resurrection; however, according to Matthew’s passion narrative, at the time of Jesus’ death, “many bodies of saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went on into the holy city and appeared to many” (Matt. 27:52, 53) This is probably off topic but I always found this passage a bit curious if not bizarre.. Would these saints have shared a similar if not equal status to Jesus , according to this tradition in Matthew?
I think the idea is that these others died again later, not that they were glorified with immortal bodies. In any event, my guess is that Paul did not know this (rather odd) tradition.
Dr. Ehrman,
I’ve identified 4 early, pre-Pauline items, are these correct? Any that you would add or take away?
1 Cor. 15:3-7
1 Cor. 11:23-26
Philippians 2:6-11
Rom. 1:2-4
The Romans one is almost certanily just vv. 3-4. Otherwise, yet, those are normally seen as the key ones. A number of others could be considered — 2 Cor. 8:9, e.g. And once you get out of the undisputed Paulines there are still others, e.g., Col. 1:15-20; 1 Tim 3:16 e.g.
Ok given that the earliest form of Resurrection belief was probably an apotheosis rather than a resuscitation, and the “appearances” were validations of that divinization, just how interested would the original believers have been in the fate of Jesus’ corpse?
thanks
Very, I’d say. As Jews they didn’t believe a spirit could live on apart from the body so if the body wasn’t raised, the person had not come to life. Apotheosis requires a body to be taken up in that context.
Dr.Ehrman,
If I remember correctly, I have read that after Jesus was baptized in water, he became god’s son. Thoughts?
Matthew 3:17
“This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Also,do you think the gospel writers used Psalm 2:7 as some sort of prophetic verse in reference to Jesus water baptism?
“He said to me, “You are my son;
today I have become your father.”
Thank you, for all of the hard work and effort you put forth.
YEs, that’s partly what I’m trying to show in this thread. I’ll be saying a few more things about it anon.
I think I understand the theological symbolism behind the crucifixion.
In the Garden of Eden there were two trees – the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life.
Adam and Eve picked down the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge which led to the Fall. The Tree of Knowledge became a yoke, symbolically, to carry for mankind ever since. Just as the Israelites had carried the Egyptian yoke for 450 years.
Christ changed this. He hung this old yoke up on the Tree of Life. The trunk of the Tree of Knowledge was the horizontal beam, and the trunk of the Tree of Life the vertical beam. In this way, the action appears as a Crucifixion.
Christ hung up what Adam and Eve had picked down, but now on the right tree.
This explains why it is said in some places that Christ hung on a tree, and not on a cross.
It also explains the name of Golgotha as Adam’s Skull where the cross was placed on top.
The apocryphal scripture “An Encomium on Mary Magdalene” tells us that Adam and Eve were placed in Paradise in the Third Hour, on the Sixth day of creation, which is Friday.
From the Third Hour until the Sixth Hour Adam was; «Joyous in good things; for three hours he was naked». Then, in the Sixth Hour, the Fall occurred.
And in the Ninth Hour his exile from paradise happened.
This Christian understanding of the Fall is unmistakably similar to the events of the crucifixion – only reversed.
Jesus was lifted UP on the cross in the Sixth Hour, just as Adam picked DOWN the fruit in the Sixth Hour. Jesus was first clothed but now stripped naked – Adam was first naked but now he became clothed. Jesus did not want to drink the bitter wine – Adam ate the bitter fruit.
In the Ninth Hour, Jesus died and the curtain of the Temple was torn. In the Ninth Hour Adam was taken into exile. Jesus opened the way back to Paradise, which Adam had closed.
Another known parallel between the crucifixion story and Adam and Eve in Paradise, is when God creates Eve out of Adam’s side.
When a woman is about to give birth, blood and water flows out of her. Blood and water are a well-known sign that a birth is underway. Adam gave a symbolic birth to Eve through his side.
So, when blood and water came out of Jesus’ side as he hung on the cross, it could theologically suggest a form of a birth – a new creation. And, just as the name Eve means Life, Jesus was now about to create a new Life.
John 19:28-30 After this, knowing that everything had now been accomplished, and to fulfill the Scripture, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” A jar of sour wine was sitting there. So they soaked a sponge in the wine, put it on a stalk of hyssop, and lifted it to His mouth. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.”
This is the fulfillment of at least four prophecies.
Psalm 69:21 But instead, they give me poison for food; they offer me sour wine for my thirst.
Hyssop. In resemblance with the first Easter.
Exodus 12:22 Take a cluster of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin, and brush the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe.
Jesus overturned the sin Adam brought, by not drinking the bitter drink.
Genesis 3:6 So she(Eve) took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it, too.
Everything was back to normal. “God saw that everything was good.”
Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good(It was finished!) And there was evening, and there was morning–the sixth day.
Dr. Ehrman,
One question I’ve had for a while around this Christological development is that yes, the disciples believed that Jesus was to be the king of the future kingdom on earth but unfortunately he was crucified as you mentioned. However, Jesus knew he was going to be crucified and he foretold it. It’s not like he had no inkling and he was swept up one day by the romans. (Assuming we believe the Gospels). If Jesus knew that he would be crucified, wouldn’t they have questioned Jesus while he was alive on the theological meaning of this because it would fly in the face of cwhat Jesus taught them about himself.
I do not think that the historical Jesus predicted his crucifixion. He certainly does in the Gospels (repeatedly!). But I do not think the “passion predictions” can be established as historical. And you’re right, if he did spend so much time talking about it, certainly they would not have been much surprised!
Hello Dr Ehrman,
Do you think you’ll ever write a book focused solely on what teachings and beliefs the REAL historical Jesus taught to his followers in the early first century AD? I’ve discovered that many Christians, especially evangelicals, know very little about what early first century Jews like Jesus actually believed and taught, and strangely, they don’t seem to care to know. They falsely assume to know the teachings and beliefs of first century Judaism, by reading Christian gospels that were written by gentiles, who spoke a different language and who living in a different country. Of course, I argue that’s like reading the Quran and assuming to know everything about Christian beliefs.
Thank you,
Marc
Yes, that was the subject of my first trade book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.
Prof Ehrman,
Q1. What then are your thoughts on Jesus’s messages concerning his death and resurrection? Do you consider them historical or a later invention?
Q2. Can you cite any references of the Son of man in the Jewish Scriptures?
1. I do not think Jesus predicted his coming death adn resurrection, no.
2. The references are probably to Daniel 7:13-14
Dr. Ehrman,
When we see the words exalted and resurrection in the early traditions quoted by Paul, Should it be taken to mean that the way God exalted Jesus was via his bodily resurrection?
That’s right: the resurrectoin is being raised, made immortal, and taken up to God in heaven — all in one.
Quite excellent, professor! Clear, concise and (IHMO) compelling.
But it strikes me as conspicuously lacking any hint of the doctrinal sine qua non of salvation — that God sent His own Son into this world as (the only acceptable) sacrifice to Himself to absolve all humanity of the “Original Sin” committed by the first man’s fruit pilfering from Yahweh’s Eden Orchards.
Admittedly, that Christological understanding would require illiterate peasants to have made a centuries-wide leap forward over dauntingly high, intellectual hurdles. (Except for Paul, of course.) But isn’t orthodox doctrine Eternal Truth? As beyond dispute as it is bereft of exceptions?
It seems the disciples never even recognized, much less embraced, the very foundation of the Christian faith — that it was the suffering and death of the Messiah that brought them once-and-for-all atonement for Adam’s death-worthy transgression.
If the disciples never “accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and personal savior,” doesn’t it perforce mean that they all ended up facing their Maker without ever having been “covered by the blood”? Wouldn’t this bode an eternal reunion for Judas with all of his former compatriots?
“Look at all my trials and tribulations — sinking in a gentle pool of wine…”
What’s that in my bread? It’s gone to my head…
Dr. Ehrman,
I know you have iffy feelings about 1 Cor. 15:6, but if it is legitimate, do you picture it being like Matt. 28:16ff, where Jesus appears to be standing on a mountain?
I’m not sure what you’re saying about my view of 1 Cor 15:6? I think it’s absolutely something Paul wrote.
But we don’t know in any detail what he had in mind with it; he doesn’t allude to any of the details that come at the end of the Matthean account. (e.g., 15:6 — the 500; also “all the apostles” is obvioulsy a problem if he means the eleven surviving disciples)
Dr. Ehrman,
What I mean is do you think that’s the way Jesus’ followers saw the risen Jesus in the resurrection appearances; Jesus’ feet on the ground and on the Earth? and NOT e.g. a figure in the sky…
Yes.
Dr. Ehrman, What about the idea that Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins? When and why this idea arose?
If Jesus did not suffer because of any wrong *he* did, he must have suffered for the wrongs of others; God forgave others because of what Christ suffered for them.
Dr. Ehrman—I heard a claim today that Jesus learned breathing techniques, etc. in India that allowed him to appear dead/survive the crucifixion. Seems like a strange theory to me, but have you ever found any evidence to support this idea of the historical Jesus? Do you know if this was a belief in any early followers, or something that came much later?
Thank you.
No, it’s must a modern myth. Jesus never went to India. There are some modern forged “Gospels” that claim he did, but they are nineteenth century forgeries. I talk about them in the final chapter of my book Forged. They’re fascinating, even though completely fabricated.