I would now like to wrap up this rather long thread on where the Trinity came from. When I started the thread, sometime back in the 19th century, I had imagined it would take three or four posts. But then I realized that it would give me an opportunity to talk about all sorts of important things: the early Christian idea of God, the divinity of Christ in relation to the Father, the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, and so on. But now I will try a one-post synopsis.
The earliest Christians inherited a strict monotheism from Judaism. Not all Jews were monotheists. Over history, some worshiped other gods; others worshiped the one God of Israel but acknowledged other gods existed (making them henotheists or monolatrists) ; others said there was only one God and the other gods simply didn’t exist. Most Christians came to take that view – or at least to say that the other gods, if they existed, were demons.
Jesus himself appears to have been a strict monotheist. As were his followers. Jesus taught that the end of the current age was at hand; the forces of evil that controlled this age – the devil, his demons, and all the other nefarious powers making life miserable, including all the humans who sided with them, in particular those who were rich, famous, influential, and powerful – all these forces would soon be destroyed by a cosmic and decisive act of God, when he intervened in this corrupt world and returned it to the glorious Paradise for his chosen ones that he had originally designed.
Jesus thought that God was soon to send a cosmic judge from heaven, the Son of Man, who would set up God’s kingdom on earth. Jesus believed he himself would be made the king of that kingdom. In that sense, he was the messiah. His twelve disciples would be rulers of the kingdom serving under him. Those who followed his teaching and did what God wanted them to do would be brought into the kingdom. All others would be left outside and eventually destroyed.
Those followers of God who had already died would be physically raised from the dead to enter that kingdom, brought back to life in the body to enjoy Paradise here on earth forever. This was to happen within Jesus’ generation.
Jesus proclaimed this message to Jews in his part of the world, rural Galilee. He then decided to take the message to the heart of Judaism, Jerusalem, at the busiest time of the year, the Passover Festival. While there he proclaimed his message, but the Jewish and Roman leaders did not take kindly to it, since a central part of the message was that they were among the forces of evil soon to be destroyed; fearing a riot, the Jewish leaders handed Jesus over to the governor Pontius Pilate who charged him with claiming to be the (future) king of the Jews (which he did claim) and crucified him for insurrection against the state.
That ended the disciples hopes that the kingdom soon to appear, that all people would be raised from the dead, that Jesus would be the king in Jerusalem, and they would rule under him.
But some time later they came to believe Jesus himself had been raised from the dead, based on visions that some of them saw or believed they saw. The disciples immediately drew two sensible conclusions (sensible from their apocalyptic point of view, which they had shared with Jesus himself):
- The resurrection of the dead has now started. It was to happen at the very end of time; someone has been raised; and so the resurrection has begun. Therefore: the end is now here. All history will be brought to a crashing halt and the kingdom will soon arrive.
- Since Jesus was raised but was no longer with them, he must have been taken up to heaven to live with God. Throughout ancient cultures – Greek, Roman, and Jewis – it was believed that if someone was taken to heaven he was made into a divine being. And so right off the bat, virtually as soon as they came to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead, his followers concluded that he had become God, in some sense. He was obviously not God the Father. But he was a divine being
The movement toward a doctrine of the Trinity begins with the earliest Christian belief among Jesus’ strictly monotheistic followers that Jesus was in some sense God, but that God the Father was God, and yet there was only one God.
As time went on and Christians thought about it more and more, they elevated what it meant to say that Jesus was God, developing “higher” Chrisstological views.. These developments did not happen all at the same time or in the same way; different Christians thought (and still think) different things, at the same time. But some Christians came to believe that Jesus became divine not at the resurrection but at his baptism; others thought it happened at the point of his conception; others thought that he had been divine before coming into the world. All these views are represented in the New Testament itself.
As more time passed, yet “higher” Christologies became popular, including the idea that Christ actually was God the Father, in a different mode of existence (just as I’m both a father and a son at the same time, but am obviously just one person). This view, and many others, came to be declared a heresy.
By the early fourth century virtually every Christian on record believed that Jesus was God, that he was distinct from the Father, and yet here was only one God. Debates about how it worked came to a head at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, where one group of leading bishops, backing the teacher Arius of Alexandria, argued that Christ had been begotten as the Son by God the Father at some point in eternity past and was a subordinate deity who then had created the world and later became incarnate to bring salvation; the other side backed Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria,, who argued that there never was a time when Christ did not exist – he was co-eternal and equal in every way with the Father, of the very same “essence” or “substance.”
Alexander’s side prevailed at the Council of Nicea, though the debates raged on for decades. That, though, became the orthodox view.
While the debates about Christ were happening, lesser debates were going on about the Holy Spirit. These debates were not as heated or seen as so central. It had long been thought by Christians that there was another divine force in the world, far greater than the angels, a representation of God himself in some way, yet not identical with either the Father or The Son.
The Spirit was originally understood to have come upon the Christian community in fulfilment of the prophecies of Scripture (esp. Joel 2). The New Testament itself highlights the importance of the Spirit of God as God’s presence among his people during Jesus’ absence, from Paul, to Acts, to the Gospel of John. The Spirit became increasingly important over time, as the return of Jesus in judgment was more and more delayed. Since the church was apparently to be here for a period of time, it was thought that God had not abandoned Jesus’ followers after he had left but had provided them with another divine presence in the person of the Spirit, who empowered the church to do its mission, supported them in their sufferings, and instructed them through the authority of both the Father and the Son.
Since the Spirit was also sent by the Father, to be “another” Paraclete (= helper/advocate/counselor/supporter) in Jesus’ place, it came to be thought that he must be equal with the Son who was equal with the Father. God was three persons all of whom interacted with the world and the people in it.
By the fourth century it was understood that all three were equally God. The Trinity is not a hierarchy. No one is subordinate to the other. The three persons are all distinct; they each have a different function; but they are “one” in their will, views, knowledge, power, eternality, and even essence – in every way equal. But not identical.
And so there are three persons, all of them distinctly God. But there is only one God. That’s the doctrine of the Trinity. There aren’t three Gods. But there are three persons who are God. And those three are one.
If you think that’s not logical following the Hellenistic forms of logic that we’ve inherited as developed in the West and handed down to us in refined forms from the Enlightenment, you would be right. Then again, a lot of reality doesn’t seem logical on those grounds. Believers tend to believe the doctrine and say it’s a mystery. Unbelievers tend to scratch their heads.
“est Pater, qui generat, et Filius, qui gignitur, et Spiritus Sanctu, qui procedit” What it means is certainly a mystery. But then again, it is not supposed to make sense, it is mysticism, it divulges hidden knowledge to the initiated, the chosen few. Hence the need for negative theology of describing the godhead of what he’s not. Problem is it is not possible to distinguish a being who is only described in terms of negative attributes from no being at all.
I have to admit my unscholar head are not able to comprehend it from a rational and «external» point of view.
Adjusting it to a more inward point of view past theologicans as Hildegard Von Bingen, or at least Meister Eckhard expressed their view of the trinity is more comprehandable for me at least. The trinity in such concepts are not only a revelation of God, but at the same time of man. Meister Eckhard relates his Godhead to the supreme, the incomprehendable, the inaccessible and the untouchable scilence, God, which he calls «the ground» where all emanated from and where all return. From this the emanation is a internal boing which emanated the trinity.
Well, some of his quotes was questioned by the 1200 CE church after his death,,,,,,,, but anyway,,.
His 1200 CE view seems not to be a new invention, but probably influenced by other philosopical ideas, and can easily be compared with both Hellenistic views, as it can with Zoroastrian and in perhaps in particular with the Hinduistic Atman concept.
And, even in Jewish traditions, in Isiah 44 and 45 the king of kings, the Zoroastrain persian king Cyrus was called «the shepard and the anointed one by God. Even the Zoroastrain Cyrus probably had a much more inward theology about the creation, and apokatastasis redemption of man, but also the emanation of God.
As I have understood it, the concept of God eminated from this “oneness” and to use the prase from Eckhart, boiled from within into other eminations, or persons, but still “One” was or could have been around through the more ancient hellenistic, zoroastrianism and hinduism religious concepts.
Whatever,,,,,thank you for a great serie of posts!
It seems like a new god pops up whenever things don’t work out the way that the Christians thought it would. God is about to bring about his new earthly kingdom with Jesus as king. Maybe not. Jesus is dead. Oh wait Jesus was resurrected and now he is a deity. He is going to come back soon and bring about the new kingdom. We have the spirit of god in the meantime. OK Jesus is late to his own party. So the stature of spirit of god rises as it becomes the substitute for the earthly kingdom of god. Wait three gods! How did this happen? OK let’s go with this convoluted trinity that no one understands. Does that sound about right?
I’d say it was a bit more cautiously reasoned than that… 🙂
To me, one striking characteristic of the emerging Christology of the first couple of centuries is that when theologians were offered a choice between differing rational explanations, they always chose the more mysterious route somewhere in the middle.
I mean, we can understand what it means if Jesus was born a man who through his exemplary actions won the approval of some super being and was given special powers. Conversely, we can kind of understand what it means if Jesus was just some emanation of a divine power, like a hologram or something, but was never really a human being. The first generations of the church fathers were offered those choices.
What they chose, however, was a mysterious combination of both.
Hmmm, maybe all the head-scratching I’ve done over this question explains why I don’t have any hair left up there.
I gave this 5 stars right off the bat, just by reading the title. Then I confirmed it’s an instant classic post from the 19th century joke.
But jokes aside, I would like to ask you, Mr. Ehrman, if you could recommend to me a couple of books especially on the nuances of this particular debate between Arius and Alexander and their stalwarts.
It depends on how deep you want to get into it. If you want the hard core stuff, look at the work of Lewis Ayres. Another option is Richard Norris, The Christological Controversy. It’s older, but more accessible.
For bible/religion non-scholars (I qualify), highly recommend as well “The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason” by Charles Freeman. The book is not without controversy, so I suggest any interested to consider: http://www.bede.org.uk/freeman.htm
Thank your for the summary Bart; this is really helpful to have stated together.
One further question though; is the issue of which of the three *special* divine forces active in the should properly be invoked in worship?
My impression in these fascinating posts is that, although the Spirit is experienced by the earliest communities that we are aware of, as a power from God, promised through Jesus; nevertheless we have no indications of any early community invoking the Spirit in worship ‘as God’?
So the power of one God is experienced in early communities three-ways.
Whereas, even in the earliest post-resurrection traditions that we appear able to access, the risen Jesus appears to be regarded as properly to be invoked ‘as God’; or at any rate invoked in terminology that in the Hebrew bible was reserved specifically for the worship of the God of Israel?
So the worship of one God is invoked two-ways.
If the persons of the Trinity come eventually to be constructed conceptually as equally God; with no distinctions of subordination or dominance, when do Christians begin to invoke the Trinity in worship? Indeed when do Christians begin to invoke the Spirit in worship?
It’s an interesting point. Christians worshiped *through* the Spirit, but off hand I can’t think of an instance of them worshiping the Spirit. I wonder if Hurtado deals wiht that in Lord Jesus Christ (which is all about how Christology wwas really about worship…)
Hurtado – in his book on ‘God in New Testament Theology’ – does make the point that there is “an undeniable two-ishness to the devotional life reflecte in the New Testament”; in that “God and Jesus feature as distinguishable and yet uniquely linked subjects and recipients of reverence in the setting of corporate worship”.
But equally “if we focus on the discourse about divine actions in New Testament writings, a three-ishness is readily apparent, with frequent references to “God”, “Jesus” and the divine Spirit”.
But Hurtado does not – so far as I can see – track through these alternative constructions applied to Christian experiences expressed through New Testament traditions; into the systmatic theologies of following centuries, where both ‘dvine action’ and divine devotional life become “three-ish”.
So, he does not pin down when this further development may first be seen.
As in many favourite old hymns.
‘Come down o Love divine’
‘Come Holy Ghost our souls inspire’
‘O thou who camest from above’
‘Thou whose almighty word’
‘Eternal Father strong to save’.
Tom, I find the study of theology expressed in music pretty interesting.. my hypothesis being that music has a different entry to the soul than head-knowledge or theologizing. For many Christians I know, it’s more about the experience of God/Spirit than theological details.
I did a quick search on Google Scholar for “theology hymnody” and there were a variety of interesting papers. I like the way Guthrie explored it in his dissertation https://www.proquest.com/openview/f1bcfb12514d6750ced3b9ee51ee2380/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
by looking at the various hymnals.
One other intriguing observation – though it is an argument from silence, and so not robust; is that although Paul acknowledges the ‘gifts of the Spirit’ operating amongst the Corinthian community (including speaking in tongues at chapter 14), he does not associated these experiences with that of the apostles. Which contrasts with Paul’s account of his own experience, and that of the other apostles, in encountering the appearing risen Christ.
So, Paul is silent on the events of Pentecost, as narrated by Luke in Acts chapter 2; and the indeed many characteristics of ‘speaking in tongues’ at Pentecost ,as described in Acts, differ from the ‘speakings in tongues’ that Paul has encountered amongst the Corinthian community – though not all, both phenomena appear to be readily confused with drunkenness.
One possible significance of this is that the ‘outpouring of the Holy Spirit’, as a shared experience in early communities of followers of Christ, may have been both slightly later, and less specific to the apostolic leadership, than had been appearances of the risen Jesus. Which in turn could imply that rationalised understandings of the Holy Spirit arose from rationalisations of these, unexpected, prior shared phenomena.
My sense is that Paul did not believe in anything like a general outpouring of the spirit as suggested in John 14, 16 and narrated in Acts 2, but believed that the Spirit came to the individual at baptism. That’s when they “received” teh Spirit that empowered them and provided them with the gifts…
Question for Dr. Ehrman: Is there an annotated English Bible that you use or recommend, especially for teenagers? I had one as a teen, but it just had kinda dopey trivia about Bible stories from a theological point of view. Is there one that takes the “academic” point of view?
I’ve also thought of buying a fresh one and annotating myself as I read this blog, and wondered if you had any similar practice.
My preferred one is THe HarperCollins Study Bible. Very good indeed. Another one scholars like is the New Oxford Annotated Bible. Both would be fine for mid to late teens if they are serious about wanting to know….
Thank you, I’ll check them out.
Are you convinced that Jesus thought the cosmic Son of Man was somebody other than himself? If yes, then why?
Yes, I’ve written about that at length, in books and on the blog. Look up “Son of Man” on the blog and you’ll find some extended discussions. Or see my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.
Great, I can access your 1999 “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium” Ebook at NC Live. I will put that on my to-read shortlist.
I read some of that view way back when before 1999. I did not agree with it but have no notes about my readings for reference. I then supposed that historians cannot definitively prove whether or not Jesus identified himself as the cosmic Son of Man. And I supposed that it is reasonable to hold to one of the sides of the debate despite insufficient historical evidence.
This is a great final summation!
” Jesus believed he himself would be made the king of that kingdom.”
This seems like such a delusional thought. I imagine most apocalyptic believers did not think that they personally were going to be the future king. What do you think caused Jesus to think that he himself from little old Nazareth would be made the king of God’s kingdom on earth?
He was a holy man who believed God had called him for a special purpose. One of many I suppose.
1. So John the Baptizer saw himself as a holy man, correct?
2. Do we have any writings that indicate that John the Baptizer thought he would be King of God’s earthly kingdom?
3. We believe that Jesus was a student/disciple of John, correct?
4. Did Jesus think of himself as the future king after John’s death?
1. Probably, yes. 2. No. 3. Yes. 4. Probably.
Regarding the issue of logical consistency, my friend From grad school, Christopher Hughes, employing the tools of modal logic and possible world semantics, devoted his remarkable philosophical talents to trying to find some coherent interpretation of the trinity. No luck. Good review of his book here: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/216988496.pdf
Thank you! My question is more related to the part about the end being near according to Paul.
Do you think 1 corinthians 7 where Paul says that it is better to NOT marry than to get married, is a reflection of the urgency around this soon to come kingdom? Or is it unrelated to the coming kingdom and more to do with the value of chastity and making sure that people didn’t feel forced to get married?
Yes, I think it’s the urgency of the situation; he speaks of his views in light of the crisis that is soon to come. No need to change one’s social status given the imminent crisis. Preach instead!
Did the Jewish apocalyptic view develop when the Israelites were in Babylonian captivity?
They thought that God would redeem the Jewish people from the Babylonian captivity which later then became God would redeem the Jewish people from Roman power and set up his kingdom on earth in Jerusalem for the Jewish people to live in forever?
It first appears around 200 BCE, some three centuries after the excile.
What was the Jewish situation in 200 BCE? Were they under foreign control?
At that point they were ruled by the Syrians. A few decades later came the Maccabean revolt.
I’ve read, I believe it was Rivkin, that it started after Antiochus Epiphanes crusade to Hellenize the Jews? Just about everything the Selucid ruler did irritated the Jews, appointing a non Aaronide high priest in particular.
It used to be thought so, but 1 Enoch (the first part, chs. 1-36, the Book of the Watchers) was written before Antiochus’s rule.
Do you think that the book of Zechariah could be categorised as apocalyptic? It narrates a heavenly vision mediated by an Angel that predicts judgment upon the enemies of Israel and a promised restoration of the Kingdom – which seems to fit the standard pattern of apocalyptic literature.
The opening 8 chapters are said to be written around 60 years into the exile, c520 – which I think would make it the earliest apocalyptic Jewish text?
Portions of it (so-called 2 Zechariah) are often thought of as proto-apocalyptic, as are other passages in teh prophets, such as Isa 24-27 (a later addition to 1 Isaiah)
You did an excellent job with this series. I understand now how it unfolded. But I’m in the head scratcher camp. 3 is not 1. “Greater than I” (John 14:28) is not equal.
Bart,
Believers think it is mysterious, unbelievers scratch heads. Sounds like a case for someone who knows.
Don’t you agree that accessing an experienced adept would be useful? Please be aware, there have been coming to this world perfect living Masters who are living incarnations of the Father and Son so many puzzle over. They themselves — NOT JUST ME — say that never is the world without at least one of these saviors to show the Way to the ready. Think about that!
John the Baptist, Jesus (if he existed) and James were all Masters. That’s why Jesus and John praised each other. John wanted his followers following HIS SUCCESSOR. Jesus said John was greater than all because John was HIS Master. (John 1:1-13 are all about JOHN, not Jesus!!! This from A MASTER.)
Gnostic James succeeded Jesus in a series of events later narratively inverted by the authors of the NT Gospels into a betrayal of Christ, because the nascent church of the Paulines needed to clear the deck of countervailing authority. I and Dr. Robert Eisenman have proven these things! I’ve seen living Masters, the only part of this that Dr. Eisenman misses.
Seems, I am still a head scratcher. 🙁
A brilliant thread and a masterful summation. As a Christian, I too scratch my head over the logic of the Trinity. I think, like one previous guest has said, my personal Christology tends to be a fairly low one.
If you gave a Trinity survey to members of different Christian denominations, I wonder how many would put a check by 1. agnostic on the details and 2. the details don’t matter to my spiritual life.
As an outsider to Christianity, it will never make sense to me. How much easier if they had declared Jesus to be a divine representation of God, an ultimate guide for man and even keep the title Messiah rather than what they came up with. The Holy Spirit isn’t as hard to understand. The Jews had the Shekinah of God already. It’s a short jump from the Shekinah to the Holy Spirit. The importance they placed on three persons in one being? They would have made better inroads to convert the Jews. Oh well, they never asked me!
I realized how they decided that Jesus was God, I’m still unsure why they needed to. Was it more important for Jesus to be God amongst the Pagans? Because it sure hurt amongst the Jews. The Pagans had no problem with quickly naming Saints that they ask for intercession. Jesus could have been the king saint and still be prayed to for intercessions to God. Just thinking out loud here…
“The earliest Christians inherited a strict monotheism from Judaism.”
1) During the time of Jesus there was no religion called Judaism. There were three religions. (a) They were followers of Jesus and all the prophets of God which believed in strict monotheism . This great religion mentioned briefly by Jesus in Mat. 7:21 “…he that does the will of God which is in heaven.” In Arabic language, this stands for ISLAM.
(b) The enemies of Jesus who plotted to kill Jesus which much later came to be known as Judaism. Judaism rejected Jesus.
(c) The many pagan religions.
2) The followers of Jesus were definitely never Christians nor followers of Judaism.
3) Christianity was never the religion of Jesus. Christianity came into existence decades after the ascension of Jesus started by Saul who invented new religion. Christianity is surely different to that of the religion of Jesus.
4) There is not even an atom weight of evidence to prove Christianity was the religion of Jesus.
“All these views are represented in the New Testament itself.”
Did Jesus approve the 27 books of the NT. and told his followers to accept it as the word of God?
Maybe, Bart, you could cite Jesus saying “my kingdom ON EARTH” and bodies resurrecting physically. I doubt you can. He never says that. In fact, JUST THE OPPOSITE — John 18:36.
This is a great summary. Would you say that this is a fair representation of the consensus of biblical scholars? Are there elements that would be considered controversial?
In broad outline it’s fairly standard. But there are always controversies. Till Kingdom Come, there will be conservative scholars who insist that Jesus taught something very like the Trinity.
Another thought on the divinity of Christ.. I was thinking about the Divine Spark which each of us contains (according to later (?) Judaism), and thinking that Jesus had more, or it shone more brightly or, a greater percentage. So I found this interesting quote online: “Yes, G‑d is one. But, to share an analogy from the Maharal of Prague, from a simple point an infinite number of lines may be drawn through infinite dimensions.”
So it isn’t just Christians who have one God with different (expressions? Personifications?) Here’s the link. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/676238/jewish/Individuality-and-the-Divine-Spark.htm
“Alexander”=Athanasius?
No. Alexander was the bishop of Alexandria at the time of the Council of Nicea; Athanasius was a young man at the time, and became bishop only later.
Professor – I think that is an excellent succinct account from the First Century onward. But for the Synoptics themselves, I am inclined to think that Jesus after the resurrection remained “a man attested . . . by God” – as Peter describes him in Acts. I believe Daniel Kirk makes persuasive arguments to that effect in his book by that title (“A Man Attested by God”).
I think that Larry Hurtado makes some interesting points about “worship,” but I find James Dunn’s more nuanced (and shorter) approach in “Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?” to be more satisfactory. I hesitate to try to summarize this, but at one point he says we’re asking the wrong question. However, he then does say, no they didn’t worship Jesus, they worshipped in and through Jesus.
Thanks again, and keep up the good work and interesting blogging!
The Trinity concept seems more muddle than mystery. A clear attempt to try and avoid the embarrassment of being lumped in with polytheists. Great thread though. Very informative.
There is another Trinity of Greater Religious Truth:
1) Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah
2) Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the head of the church on Earth
3) Baptists don’t recognize each other at the liquor store or the strip club.
Sorry sometimes I can’t help mysel!
Ha! Good one. I can attest to the liquor store. But, well, not the strip club.
So you say that it was understood, sometime in the fourth century, that all three persons of the Trinity were equal God. Well who come up with that idea?
As with most ideas, we don’t know the name of the person who first articulated it.
When did Jesus start to think of himself as chosen by god – is there any evidence that this was a gradual process or a sudden revelation?
There’s no way to know. Older scholarship used to claim it was at the baptism, but we don’t know *historically* when it might have happened , since it woudl have been a mental process….
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
Is the Trinity pagan? I see lots of videos around arguing that, but they mostly draw from Egyptian or Babylonian triads, sometimes they put the Greek goddess Hecate or the Roman goddess Diana or the Zoroastrian triad (you have a post negating Zoroastrian influence of Early Christianity); I can see all of those in some way, but most of the time those cults are not active during the first few centuries of Christianity let alone in First Century Judea/Galilee. Sometimes they even laughably throw in Hindu trimurti or Northern European goddess Matronae.
I understand that the number parallel, but is there any hard evidence of direct influence of *any* pagan triads on the Christianity concept/theology of the Trinity?
Thank you for your work Dr. Ehmran.
-Rob
I’ve been trying to explain where the idea came from within Christianity in this thread, but no, I do not think that it came from pagan thinking of a Trinity at all. It’s the natural result of having three divine beings but wanting to continue being monotheist.
Do we have written evidence that OTHER Messianic wannabes’ followers had ‘visions’ of seeing THEIR crucified ‘messiah’ alive, and so their movement continued (for a while)? I know there are still some modern-day sects that say they are followers of John the Baptist, but they don’t claim he was the messiah, nor that he was raised from the dead or would return. But I’m curious if there’s any record of messianic followers of other ‘messiahs’ engaging in similar behaviors as Jesus’s disciples.
Within Judaism? Not from the ancient period, no.
Bart: “… yet ‘higher’ Christologies became popular, including the idea that Christ actually was God the Father, in a different mode of existence (just as I’m both a father and a son at the same time, but am obviously just one person). This view, and many others, came to be declared a heresy.”
This condemnation of modalism as a heresy is a constant refrain of in this long thread on the Holy Spirit/Trinity and elsewhere. Fine. But two of the greatest orthodox theologians of the 20th century (Karls Barth & Rahner) have basically rehabilitated modalism. They would say that only chronologically successive modalism was ever condemned by church councils. They represent the monotheistic pole of trinitarian theology, as opposed to the opposite tendency toward communitarian tri-theism of Jürgen Moltmann and some communist liberation theologians.
As an agnostic/atheist I’m not really sure why I still care about these theological disputes, but apparently I do! Theology is still mythological expression of basic human and political perspectives writ large.
Do you also still think about and even strongly prefer some particular theological perspectives and discussions even though you don’t actually believe in God? Or am I the only weird one here?
Oh yes, I”m not making any comment about modern theological views per se. I’m talking about antiquity. Once you hit Hippolytus and TErtullian, modalism was decidedly on the way out. I am interested in various debates, but not intensely, at least for today — except insofar as they might show that modern thinkers continue to be attracted to older views.
The one (maybe only) thing that erudite scholar, Dan Brown, got right is that Christian doctrine completely abandoned any hint of feminine nature in the Godhead. The RCC somewhat filled the void by elevating the mother of Jesus to something approaching the level of goddess (much to the great and ongoing annoyance of prods everywhere.)
Clearly the “Let us make God in our image, after our likeness” hubris of western theologians — who obsessively anthropomorphize what their eastern counterparts long recognized as the inherent ineffability of the divine — can scarcely be overstated.
A literal “Father” and “Son” are, of course, innately and inescapably male. So wouldn’t casting the Holy Spirit in the role of “Mother” have effected a more natural Trinity?
Further, what little is said about the role of this most enigmatic person of the Godhead suggests such unmistakably feminine attributes as “comforter” (gospels) and even “Giver of Life” (Nicene Creed.)
Perhaps most dispositive is the fact that the Hebrew word for the Holy Spirit, “rûaḥ,” is (according to sources identified by the Oracle of Mountain Hill) a “Feminine Noun.” (!)
So how did the Holy Spirit end up becoming a third “he” in a unisex Ménage à trois?
I have a Question. In the 10th century Soudias Greek Lexicon Volume 2 Page 330, it defines one of the meanings of the Greek “Kletos” as “glorified”. Do you know if that meaning is also one of the meanings of “Kletos”? and not just the meaning of “to Call”
Are you sure you’re spelling that right? Is the e an epsilon? NO such word in Greek so far as I know; An eta? There’s a rare word that means “invited”, “chosen” or “summoned.”
I’ve been reading both this thread on the Holy Spirit and the thread on Gehenna. Fascinating! What I’m wondering, is there any connection between, on the one hand, the Spirit phenomenon as it was meant in the prophecy of Joel and in it’s later development by the NT-writers, and on the other hand, the “spirit” of a person as understood in ancient Judaism/apocalypticism, as that what makes it possible that a deceased person’s body can be given back it’s soul in the resurrection of the dead? (so that only if álso a person’s spirit is destroyed, one is definitively dead)
If I understood it right, the spirit (of a person) is not conscious, but rather more like Elon Musk’s dream in which the neural data of a person can be downloaded and stored awaiting a scientific breakthrough in which this data could be loaded on a newly created platform or synthetic body. Might it be that analogous to this the Holy Spirit also isn’t a conscious entity, but the undead version of the person of Jesus, and this is what enables the resurgence the soul of Jesus in the communal “body” of believers, or in the body of a single believer?
I”d say there’s no direct relation of Joel’s Spirit (which is God’s presence on earth) and the later Jewish apocalyptic and Xn view of the human spirit that enlivens the body, except to say that in some sense it too comes from God.
I’m not sure ancient people who believed in the spirit of a human worked it out the same way a modern person would. It was the animate part of a person who was not a person without the animate spirit that enlivened the body.
Dear Ehrman,
Let me ask you a question about the biblical term “Paraclete”.
Traditional scholars interpret the term “Paraclete” as “Holy Spirit”. But John 16 can be interesting.
” he will speak only what he hears” (John 16:13)
“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18)
According to one scholar, John 16:13 and Deuteronomy 18:18 are linked. Notice that Deuteronomy 18:18 is said for a human being.
Second, there is a phrase at John 16:8.
“ When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment”
This expression may also have been said for a human being.
The claim is that:
“Jesus did not promise the Apostles the Holy Spirit. He promised the coming of a human(like Deuteronomy 18:18). He also used the term “Paraclete” for this man. This term evolved in oral tradition and became the Holy Spirit as in John 14:16-17. But John 16: At 8 and John 16:13, some information specific to the original expression has been preserved.”
Dear Ehrman, Could you please give your opinion on this view?
Kind Regards
Jesus explicitly identifies the Paraclete as the Holy Spirit (John 14:26), not as a future human to come.
Dear Ehrman,
Couldn’t John 14:26 be the result of evolution in the oral tradition? Perhaps this expression is not original.
I think every saying in John is a result of evolution in the oral tradition. It’s almost certainly original to the Gospel though.
Dear Ehrman,
First of all, thank you very much for your valuable answers. It’s a great opportunity that talks to a professor like you. Thank you for starting this blog.
Dear Ehrman, according to the Gospel of John, Jesus promises the Apostles the Holy Spirit. He says that after he is gone, the Holy Spirit will come and he will send the Holy Spirit. Notice that according to the Gospel of John, the Holy Spirit is presented as something “NEW” coming to Earth.
But when we look at Luke 1:67, it says that Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit. According to our oldest Gospel Mark, David speaks by being inspired by the Holy Spirit (Mark 12:36), etc.
Dear Ehrman, Did the early church believe that the Holy Spirit was came to some important persons before Jesus’ death (as David, Zechariah, John the Baptist) or did they believe that the coming of the Holy Spirit was something new?
YEs, Jesus is not indicating that the Spirit had never been present before. He is telling them that it will be their constant companion once he leaves and will be standing in for him after he ascends to heaven.
Greetings Dr.Ehrman. a follow up question about the Paraclete if I may,
In John 16:8-9, Jesus says “and when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin, Righteousness and Judgment. Concerning sin, because they do not believe in me”
Now the Greek verb used can also means to “Expose”, so the verse becomes like this
“When he comes, he will expose the world concerning…concerning sin, because they do not believe in me”
Now does this imply that the “world” here in the Passage are people who claim to believe in Jesus but Actually don’t? Since Jews and Pagens cannot be exposed of that since they admit they don’t believe in him.
Thank you.
It’s a complicated verb, which can have a range of nuances (and so is translated in various ways). It can mean “scorn” “treat with contempt” “cross-examine” “find fault with” “convict” “refute” “conduct a judicial inquiry” “prove/demonstrate” “show that someone has committed a crime” etc. etc. But yes, the “world” in the Gospel John refers to the “outsiders” who do not believe in Jesus. The Spirit shows that they are wrong in that.
Yes but I am asking about “expose” specifically. Doesn’t it imply the “World” claims to believe in Jesus hence can be exposed of not believing?
Also, it means to “Prove/Demonstrate” as you have mentioned, noone needs to prove Jews or Pagans don’t believe in Jesus.
No, it more likely means that they are convicted for not believing when they should have.
Just one more point, why can’t the “world” here in John 16:8 be the same people Jesus talks about in Matthew 7:21-23? It makes perfect sense when we translate the verb in John 16:8 as “Expose” or “prove”.
It’s a standard rule of biblical interpretation among historical scholars that the way one author uses a technical term is not necessarily the way another author does; to see what “world” means in John the best approach is first to see how he uses the world elsewhere, rather than how someone years earlier in a different part of the world whom he didn’t know and hadn’t read used it. See what I mean?
What matters most is the context of the Passage. Let me explain.
As I said, the verb implies they claim to believe in him. Even “convict” doesn’t just imply it Judicially, in Vincent Marvin’s commentary from studylight.org (famous Christian website), it states:
“the preposition implies more. He will convict the world as respects these three; that is, will convict it of
ignorance of their real nature.”
So it also implies convicting them of their ignorance of the real nature of the sin of not believing in Jesus, hence they can be exposed. Expose and convict are similar.
Moreover, in the EXB (Expanded bible) translation on John 16:10 it states:
““concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you will no longer see me; probably
means the Spirit will convict the world of its empty righteousness because Jesus is no longer present to
model true righteousness”
This is clearly alluding to Matthew 7:21-23 so that when Jesus comes back, he will show them his “true”
righteousness as he says, “I never knew you, you evildoers”.
Jesus says in Matthew 7 “Many will say to
me….”, and he says “The world” in John 16:8 implying large number of people in both.
the definition of the Trinity Bart gives here is I think a bit misleading. The eastern orthodox church, following the example of the Cappadocian fathers for instance, maintains the monarchy of the father – recognizing him as the fountain of divinity, the only unbegotten one, and that the Son and Spirit are functionally subordinate to him by their one will, although still upholds their ontological equality.
This distinction was somehow lost in the Western tradition.