Loading...As we have seen, the New Testament in places seems to indicate that of Christ was a human being who, in some sense, had been adopted by God and so made into the Son of God, a divine being. There were groups of Christians who continued to believe that for centuries. (Some still do!) Others had an opposite view, that Christ was completely God, so much so that he was not actually ever a full flesh-and-blood human being. There were lots of variations within these views, and there were other views as well, including one I call “separationism.”
A separationist view is especially prominent among certain groups of early Christian Gnostics. (For a basic introduction to what Gnostics were all about, check out the lecture in the previous post OR do a word search for “Gnosticism” on the blog). Here is what I say about separationist Christologies view in my book How Jesus Became God, using as an example one of the most fascinating Gnostic writings to come down to us from antiquity, The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter.
******************************
Rather than thinking that Christ was completely divine but not human, most Gnostics appear to have thought that Jesus Christ was two entities, a human Jesus who was temporarily inhabited by a divine being. For them, there was a “separation” between Jesus and the Christ. We might call this a “separationist” Christology.
Want to read more? Members get the entire posts — and posts like this five times a week, every week. There’s a small membership fee, but all of it goes directly to charities helping those in need. So why not Join? Click here for membership options
I remember reading somewhere that the young men wearing a linen garment who flees naked (in Mark 14:51-52) is a symbol of the divine Christ leaving his body, the human Jesus, behind. The same young man comes back in Mark 16:5 with a new white robe.
Do you think this interpretation has merit?
It would to a Gnostic living 80 years after Mark, but doesn’t make much sense in a first century context.
I always enjoy your comments Nicolaus. We seem to ponder on many of the same symbolical things, though with some differences. Bless you both. 🙂
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth offers a similar view, does it not? To what century do scholars most commonly date it?
Early 3rd century or so.
I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Richard Rohr, but he recently wrote a book called “The Universal Christ”. Where would that idea fall on this spectrum of Orthodox and Gnostic? I read it a while ago, but from what I remember the idea is that the Christ inhabited the person of Jesus BUT I believe he would say (and I could be wrong) that Jesus the Christ died on the cross and Jesus the Christ was resurrected from the dead.
Forgive my ignorance if that’s a dumb question. I was raised Evangelical and very much along the lines of the Orthodox tradition you mention above and although I’m about 5 years removed from that and rethinking it all, this is mind-bending stuff as the old ideas are very deeply ingrained … just when I think I grasp something new like this, I feel like I lose it again 🙂
Thanks!
I’m not sure really what he says, but it maybe the 2nd century categories would not be very relevant for his theology….
Glenn,
I get Rohr’s daily emails plus have read some of his books, When I looked on his website I found this :
“Don’t think of Christ as a religious concept. Think of it as a descriptor for every thing. Every thing we can see. Every visible moment of this creation is a manifestation of the eternal Christ that existed since the beginning of time.”
So Christ is everything. But to me that’s God, or Spirit infill, and not Christ. I’ve also had difficulties with the Cosmic Christ idea who sounds like God also.
So… Glenn.. although I am much closer to Rohr’s Catholic tradition, it’s confusing to me also.
https://universalchrist.cac.org/
This link has Bourgeault’s and Finley’s (I am a fan of both of them) take on this on. I’d appreciate hearing what you think about all three views. Maybe you’re not as puzzled as I am?
It’s definitely puzzling. Growing up I was taught that ‘Christ’ referred to ‘Messiah’ and that was pretty much the extent of it. But from what I gather from Rohr, Bourgeault, and Finley is that ‘the Christ’ is the breath of God or the energy of the Divine or whatever that runs through and can be seen in everything. It’s not so much that everything is God, but that God can be found in everything? And that essence or breath of God is what took up residence in the person of Jesus. I guess on the spectrum of “orthodox” and “gnostic” they fall somewhere in the middle, but definitely closer to Gnostic. Thanks for sharing the link, I’ll definitely take a closer look.
Glenn, I was looking up the Jewish response to suffering (thinking about Bart’s interview with Sam Devis ) and ran across this…
https://www.reconstructingjudaism.org/article/if-god-good-why-do-pain-and-suffering-exist
In which God sounds like the Rohr idea of the Cosmic Christ and that “sounding alike” reminded me of Phyllis Tickle :
“For centuries, Christianity has been pleased to teach that there was a mighty tree or root that was Judaism, … thereby obviating the old tradition from which it grew. This is known as the doctrine of Supersessionism. But Emergence, more and more, are having none of that, choosing instead to suggest a position for which the better metaphor is that of a tuning fork. The two arms of this fork arise from a common base, and the place of their separation from one another is 70 CE with the destruction of the Temple (thereby scattering everybody) and the coming, as a result, of rabbinic Judaism and Pauline Christianity. The two tracked side-by-side until 70, Jewish both, until they gradually separated. This separation, post-Shoah, is healing rapidly. The tuning fork that may emerge in the near future is one in which both tines vibrate, and the music happens only when they vibrate (once again) together.”
https://auburnseminary.org/voices/phyllis-tickle-interfaith/
When skeptics discuss this, they point out that if it didn’t suffer or die, then all that was offered was Jesus’ body – literally a meat offering. Bart, in your opinion, according to orthodox teaching, in what way did Jesus’ divine spirit suffer or die (or not)?
I don’t think there’s a single opinion about that.
where does it say this anywhere? Was this found in the ancient greek texts?
This is an off-topic question. What would Revelation 20v10 look like in the Greek if the word translated “they will be tormented” was instead the noun “basanos” used in its original meaning of touchstone, changing the translation from “they will be tormented” (day and night forever and ever) to “they will be a touchstone” [in the figurative sense] (day and night forever and ever)? Have you ever seen a manuscript with the Greek written that way? Would “basanos” have even been used as a figurative “touchstone” in the 1st century Middle East?
An on-topic question: Did people back then believe in original sin, i.e. that Adam had been created perfect but because of his choice, became a sinner, passing that sin-nature on to his offspring (all humanity)?
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. If the verb in the sentence was a noun then it wouldn’t be a sentence any more (the subjects would not have a verb). The doctrine of “original sin” as it has been passed down to us today was formulated by Augustine some centuries later.
Dr. Ehrman. Perhaps the most important Psalm associated with the crucifixion is Psalm 22, which opens with «My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?»
Psalm 22:6-7 «But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by everyone, despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads.»
Could Christ hanging on the cross in any way be compared to a worm or a serpent?
As it turned out; there was an incident in the book of Numbers where Moses hung a serpent on his staff, and where this serpent led to salvation for the Israelites. Or; was it really true that the Lord thought a serpent would save the Israelites? There certainly must have been some hidden theology in this story, which was not written in the book of Moses, but that Psalm 22 might illuminate?
Perhaps this can explain what is being said in the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter: «he whom they crucified is the first-born, and the home of demons, and the stony vessel in which they dwell»?
Dr. Ehrman. After Yahweh had given the law to the Israelites, when the people of Israel were marching to go around Edom, they murmured against Yahweh. It was then Yahweh asked Moses to set up the Brazen serpent.
The Israelites had sinned against the law, but now they received salvation by looking at the body on the stake. Something that may have appeared to be idolatry, but which Yahweh nevertheless had commanded Moses to do.
Romans 8:3 For what the law couldn’t do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh;
How prevalent was the belief that Simon of Cyrene died (instead of Jesus) on the cross among the Gnostics? Was it a majority or minority position?
Very minority.
I’ve heard you suggest that Paul thought of Jesus as an incarnation of an angelic being, but not of God Himself. So, was Paul really that influential in this early debate about the nature of Jesus, or was it that people mistakenly interpreted his writings as saying that Jesus was God in the flesh? Just wondering if we overestimate Paul’s influence in the development of Christian doctrine, or at least the Trinity doctrine.
what article?
See post of June 7, 2014
Did the historical Jesus actually say the quote in Mark 27: 27 – 28? “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath, therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the sabbath.” On the one hand, I’ve heard you mention that the logic doesn’t make sense in Greek (or English), but it does in Aramaic, which has one word (“Barnesh”) that can mean either man or son of man. If you plug in the exact same word in the three relevant places, the two verses suddenly do make sense. And so, the saying is likely authentic, right? On the other hand, this saying appears to be a case of Jesus referring to himself as the Son of Man. And I believe you’ve said elsewhere that you don’t think Jesus ever did refer to himself that way — that was the sort of thing Christians would later put on his lips. So, was the context here different than Mark says and Jesus was actually referring to the coming Son of Man rather than himself? I’m confused and hope you will clarify your position on this. Thanks.
Yes, I think the saying is original to Jesus. But he was *not* referring to himself as teh son of man. My point is that barnash does not mean “the Son of Man.” In this context it means “human being” So humans are the lords of the sabbath. He’s not speaking here of The Son of Man (or even of himself at all)
Oh. That makes so much more sense to me now. Thank you.
What might be the sources of this strange idea that the “Christ” names a spiritual being who entered into the body of Yeshu’a ha-Notzri?
I say it is strange because there seems to be an enormous leap from thinking of the “Christ” as the title of the promised future Davidic deliverer of Israel, to thinking of it as the name of this kind of “body-possessing” spiritual being.
How did “Messiah-language” end up getting applied to this diversity of ideas?
It’s rooted in the Gnostic world view which cannot allow a divine element to be a material being.
The 1933 movie Gabriel Over The White House illustrates this type of belief. A corrupt US President is inhabited by the angel Gabriel, who institutes a dictatorship in order to rid the nation of corruption and bring peace to the world.
An Eastertide query if I may please.
I was reading a bible commentary where the ending of Mark was mentioned. The writer said that Mark 16:8 finishes in mid-sentence with the words ‘for they were afraid of…’ and translations generally tidy up the language to say, ‘they were afraid.’
I have never before thought that that was the case and I understood that there was a complete and natural end at that point. Please can you say if the Greek indicates that the final sentence was or was not completed?
It’s debated. In Greek, the word for “for” — GAR — is postpositive. THat means, by the rules of Greek grammar, it cannot be the first word in a sentence. But that means, that necessarily, the verse ends with the word GAR and the debate is over whether someone would end a book with a *conjunction*! Some say no; others point out there are analogies. But it is NOT an incomplete sentence. It’s complete, in the way it would be in English. “For they were afraid.” Or better, tie it to the preceding sentence: “They did not say anything to anyone, for they were afraid.”
In answering your article’s question (with a question) weren’t Jesus and Christ two separate beings in that Jesus was an actual man who lived on earth and Christ was a “deity” that was created in the minds of those who thought that Jesus was raised from the dead by God? The two are linked but Jesus was not ever the Christ in reality or in his mind.
Yes, that’s one way to look at it. But it’s not the way any early Christians we know of looked at it…
Dr. Ehrman,
As a practicing Roman Catholic here in Pittsburgh, Bishop David Zubik, head of the Archdiocese of Pittsburgh, made a profound statement at Mass today. He opined that the Book of Hebrews is the ONLY book of the New Testament in which the AUTHOR is unknown! There are more, is this not true?
Yes indeed.
KingJohn: I don’t think it would be that hard to retrofit preaching in the RC church to be in sync with biblical scholarship.. I have made my own peace with it from a Catholic sensibility. I’m sure that priests (and bishops) have some form of continuing education. So there is a window of opportunity…
“Because the man Jesus was so righteous, a divine being from the heavenly realm came into him at his baptism. That is why the Spirit descended upon Jesus and – as Mark’s Gospel literally says – came “into” him at that point (Mark 1:10). And that is why he could begin doing his miracles then – not earlier – and to deliver his spectacular teachings.”
This may have been what Gnostics believe but it doesn’t look like what GMark indicates (that human Jesus “was so righteous”). Everything in GMark indicates Jesus was just a regular guy:
1) Nothing is written of Jesus pre Spirit.
2) Jesus goes to a baptism for repentance.
3) His homies are amazed at his teaching.
4) His family thinks he has lost it.
5) His homies think he was just a regular guy.
6) Nothing is written of Jesus post Spirit.
Thinking that pre Spirit Jesus was righteous in GMark is anachronistic.
Opinion Professor Ehrman?
http://skepticaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/
I”d say that Mark doesn’t talk about Jesus prior to the baptism, so we don’t know what he thought about him.
There are Christian sects that do not believe Jesus was divine. One is the Russian dissident sect, the Doukhobors, many of whom immigrated to Canada at the end of the Nineteenth Century.
Peter is understandably confused and asks Christ,
“What am I seeing O Lord? Is it you yourself whom they take?”[1] His confusion increases because then he sees yet another Christ figure above the cross, and asks in his dismay: “who is this one above the cross, who is glad and laughing? And is it another person whose feet and hands they are hammering?” (Apocalypse of Peter, 81).
He was laughing in the Gospel of Judas well? Barbelo!
Your talking about the Ebionites?
Is this one where the Guard was mentioned, the apocalypse of Peter?
THe guard is mentioned in Matthew and especially in the Gospel of Peter.
That’s right. The Gospel of Peter I was thinking of.