Ehrman's Adoptionist Theory and Christ Mythicism

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Ehrman's Adoptionist Theory and Christ Mythicism

Post by Ken Olson »

Giuseppe asked:
Ken, can I know your present opinions about historicity ?
Ok, first let me say that the question I asked was genuinely a question and that I'm curious about what people in this forum think on the issue. It wasn't a set-up for me to launch my own pet theory. Not that I'm above doing that--I'm just not doing it this time. Thanks to everyone who responded. I hope there will be more.

I am personally not a mythicist if that means thinking there never was a man named Jesus who was a/the founder of a religious movement that developed into Christianity. I think it more likely than not that there was. I might perhaps best be described as a minimalist. That said, I don't have a knockdown argument against mythicism, and I don't think mythicists have a knockdown argument either. So mythicism remains a possibility. I don't think mythicists are crazy. Well, actually I think some of them may be, but that's not by virtue of their being mythicists.

I do think modern historical Jesus scholarship is vastly overoptimistic and there are several areas where I agree more with the mythicists than with the HJ scholars, such as: (1) the non-Christian evidence for the historical Jesus is unhelpful and (2) the criterion of multiple independent attestation as employed by Ehrman and others does not work because it presupposes source-critical judgments that I think are mistaken (e.g. Matthew and Luke are mutually independent, John is independent of the synoptics, etc.).

I think the mythicists are correct in thinking the early Christians used a lot of creativity in developing the Jesus tradition recorded in the New Testament and particularly in the gospels, but I have problems with Doherty and Carrier's reading of Paul. I would grant that the "rulers of this age" in 1 Cor. 2:8 may well refer to supernatural beings (as a good many NT scholars think) and the "brother" in Gal. 1.19 may refer to a fictive kinship relationship (as the other uses of the word in Paul do). I am much more skeptical about Rom. 1:3 and Gal. 4:4 referring to events taking place in the celestial realm. It seems to me Paul is talking about an earthly man. The argument that he is referring to events in the celestial realm seems too strong. Works don't normally contain explicit statements saying they refer to events on earth rather than in the celestial realm.

I've used a lot of "I think" and "it seems" here, so I'm not claiming I can prove any of this. Most of my work has focused on attempting to establish my points (1) and (2) above, on non-Christian and Christian sources, as the least unlikely hypotheses. I hope I haven't derailed my own thread here by introducing the topic of what I think about mythicism.

Best,

Ken
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Ehrman's Adoptionist Theory and Christ Mythicism

Post by toejam »

^I agree with just about everything you've said here, Ken. Ehrman's historicist and Chritological views are not as solid as is often implied, but the Doherty/Carrier view doesn't make things any clearer, with the biggest question mark hanging over their thesis being their reading of Paul. I lean toward minimal historicist as well.

I'm not a big fan of the 'ladder' model of Christology, where there are clear cut steps between beliefs of Jesus being a man, to an adopted-at-resurrection man, to an adopted-at-baptism man, to incarnated spirit man, to pre-existent angel, to God. I tend to see more chaos in early Christology, with people believing all sorts of different things about Jesus' nature right from his the time of his ministry.

If, in its early days, you pulled out members from People's Temple for a one-on-one interview with them about the 'nature' of Jim Jones, my guess is that you would have had different members with different understandings - some thinking Jones was simply a man with a gift from God, others some incarnational view, others some view that he was possessed by Jesus, or whathaveyou. The assumption that a consistent Christological trajectory existed to be found might be the biggest misstep in the whole historical process. The injection of more chaos into Christology has implications for both evangelicals, Doherty/Carrier mythicism and the Ehrman/Raymond Brown thesis.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Ehrman's Adoptionist Theory and Christ Mythicism

Post by Giuseppe »

Thanks, Ken, for this full answer. I like it and precisely this point:
I am much more skeptical about Rom. 1:3 and Gal. 4:4 referring to events taking place in the celestial realm. It seems to me Paul is talking about an earthly man.
I agree with you about Rom 1:3, whereas I have no problem to remove Gal 4:4 as anti-marcionte interpolation.


My partial problem with Mark is that, while it is possible, even probable, that Paul would be preserved by proto-Catholic hands (the winner being the proto-Catholic church) because he was not a heretic in the strict sense (the only 'fault' of the letters would be the absence of an historical Jesus, not the presence of a heretical christology or even of an hatred against the god of the Jews), what I find unlikely is the idea of Carrier & Doherty that the author of Mark was a 'mythicist' insider selling his gospel for ignorant 'historicist' outsiders. If Mark is a gospel preserved by the winner (the nascent proto-catholic church), then Mark needs to reflect their ideas and so the author of Mark must be truthfully historicist (since the essentia of the nascent proto-catholicism is sincere historicism).

if Mark was a gospel written by mythicist insiders and/or heretics, the proto-catholics would have never canonized it.

In a nutshell, I blame the mythicists because they want the cake (a Paul unaware of a historical Jesus) and eat it too (a clearly proto-catholic Mark as the first Gospel).

Aehm: ''the cake and eat it too'' is not the proverb I would have used. I would have used something like 'the cask filled with wine and the drunken wife''.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Ehrman's Adoptionist Theory and Christ Mythicism

Post by MrMacSon »

.

... the author of Mark must appear to be 'truthfully historicist' ...

'the mythicists' you refer to are not uniform - do you "some mythicists"?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Ehrman's Adoptionist Theory and Christ Mythicism

Post by MrMacSon »

toejam wrote: I'm not a big fan of the 'ladder' model of Christology, where there are clear cut steps between beliefs of Jesus being a man, to an adopted-at-resurrection man, to an adopted-at-baptism man, to incarnated spirit man, to pre-existent angel, to God. I tend to see more chaos in early Christology, with people believing all sorts of different things about Jesus' nature right from his the time of his ministry.
I'd say
  • " ..[there's like to have been] more chaos in early Christology, with [different] people [in different communities] believing all sorts of different things about Jesus' nature right from the [alleged] time of his [alleged] ministry ..."
I think a 'historical Jesus' is as likely to have been mid-late 1st C or early 2nd (with the Temple narratives in the NT about 'him' being fictive), as having been in the early 1st C as is commonly believed today (The NT Jesus narratives may be based on several characters, such as the Egyptian Prophet).
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Ehrman's Adoptionist Theory and Christ Mythicism

Post by maryhelena »

Ken Olson wrote:I imagine many board members are familiar with Bart Ehrman's theory that incarnational christology developed out of an earlier exaltation christology, either from Ehrman's book How Jesus Became God, or from his recent debate on the subject with Michael Bird:

Ehrman's thesis is that the divinization of Jesus developed in stages. First, it was believed Jesus was exalted to be the Son of God at his resurrection (the tradition recorded in Acts 13:33), then that he was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism (Mark 1), then that he was born the Son of God (Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2) and finally that he was god and with God from from the beginning and before creation (John 1.1-2).

If Ehrman is correct this would seem to favor the theory that there was an historical earthly Jesus, however much later mythologized, against the mythicist theory proposed by Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier that Jesus was originally (e.g. in the letters of Paul) held to have "lived" and been crucified in the celestial realm.
Ehrman needs a historical Jesus before he can start his exaltation christology. He does not have historical evidence for that.....Even if, for the sake of argument, there was a historical Jesus, of some variant, then Ehrman would have to demonstrate that the Jews would seek to euhemerize a carpenter come apocalyptic preacher. Resorting to OT figures, Moses, does not add to his argument - no evidence that Moses was a historical figure. Of course, on the surface Ehrman's euhemerism argument (for that is what his exaltation basically is) looks a simple explanation of the gospel Jesus story. The problem is that it falls on the first historical hurdle...

It is, of course, possible to think that Ehrman is simply wrong and the New Testament does not contain exaltation or adoptionist christologies . Michael Bird, for instance, argues that all the evangelists held an incarnational christology.
Michael Bird's argument is irrelevant in any discussion over historicity....


It is also possible that the exaltation or adoptionist christologies are later developments (Mark is, after all, later than Paul) and Ehrman is wrong about the chronology of the development.
Ehrman is saying that there are early credal statements in Paul i.e. Paul is not the originator of these statements. Thus, the Jesus story preceded Paul.

One could even propose that Jesus was a "man" who was crucified in the celestial realm and was then exalted to the status of "Son of God" there. Or one could suggest that Jesus was originally held to be an earthly man, but that man was a myth. I'm sure there are other possibilities.

So what I'm wondering is: what do people think of Ehrman's case and how does it interact with the mythicist theory as proposed by Doherty and Carrier?

Best,

Ken
Ehrman's view that there are early credal statements in the Pauline epistles, credal statements that are exaltation in nature, is a challenge to the Carrier mythicist position. Ehrman's position is bottom up and Carrier's position is top down. Carrier has all his eggs in a Pauline basket. Ehrman has pre-Paul credal statement in Pauline writings. Thus, a huge difference between the two approaches. Ehrman's position allows for history to have relevance for the gospel story. Carrier's position denies any relevance for history. Carrier's position is all in the mind. Ehrman's position attempts to hold on to physical, earthly, reality.

As to the low or high christology issues. I don't think there is conflict here. It's more a matter of context than conflict. Obviously, if one runs with the idea of a historical Jesus then early christian views of Jesus are all over the place; chaos, disorder and confusion. If, on the other had, one opts for the ahistoricist position, then instead of chaos one can find order. i.e. the Jesus story has been composed by very intelligent people with the aim of preserving, in symbolic or allegorical form, the history which they deemed to be relevant to their ideas of 'salvation'.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Ehrman's Adoptionist Theory and Christ Mythicism

Post by MrMacSon »

maryhelena wrote: .... Ehrman would have to demonstrate that the Jews would seek to euhemerize a carpenter come apocalyptic preacher.
You've misused euhemerize --- You mean apotheize ie. to deify.

To euhemerize means *to give a god in a narrative human attributes* --- 'to anthropomorphize a previously mythical god'.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
maryhelena wrote: Resorting to OT figures, Moses, does not add to his argument - no evidence that Moses was a historical figure.
Yes; it seems Moses was euhemerized.

maryhelena wrote: Of course, on the surface Ehrman's euhemerism argument (for that is what his exaltation basically is) looks a simple explanation of the gospel Jesus story. The problem is that it falls on the first historical hurdle...
Erhman's exaltation argument is about a figure perceived to have been human - it doesn't matter whether that figure really had existed as a human or was human in the narrative.

where Ehrman's argument may fall short is if the Jesus-Christ figure was anthropomorphized later in the narrative - if the process was not step-wise as Ehrman proposed/asserts.


This is valid -
maryhelena wrote: It is, of course, possible to think that Ehrman is simply wrong and the New Testament does not contain exaltation or adoptionist christologies . Michael Bird, for instance, argues that all the evangelists held an incarnational christology.
as is this -
It is also possible that the exaltation or adoptionist christologies are later developments (Mark is, after all, later than Paul) and Ehrman is wrong about the chronology of the development.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Ehrman's Adoptionist Theory and Christ Mythicism

Post by MrMacSon »

maryhelena wrote: Ehrman's view that there are early credal statements in the Pauline epistles, credal statements that are exaltation in nature, is a challenge to the Carrier mythicist position. Ehrman's position is bottom up and Carrier's position is top down. Carrier has all his eggs in a Pauline basket. Ehrman has pre-Paul credal statement in Pauline writings. Thus, a huge difference between the two approaches. Ehrman's position allows for history to have relevance for the gospel story. Carrier's position denies any relevance for history. Carrier's position is all in the mind. Ehrman's position attempts to hold on to physical, earthly, reality.
Yes, Carrier has all his eggs in a 'Pauline basket'. But, you'll need to elaborate on why you think "Carrier's position denies any relevance for history" and why "Carrier's position is all in the mind." (Theology as it was espoused than was "all in the mind")
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Ehrman's Adoptionist Theory and Christ Mythicism

Post by maryhelena »

MrMacSon wrote:
maryhelena wrote: .... Ehrman would have to demonstrate that the Jews would seek to euhemerize a carpenter come apocalyptic preacher.
You've misused euhemerize --- You mean apotheize ie. to deify.

To euhemerize means *to give a god in a narrative human attributes* --- 'to anthropomorphize a previously mythical god'.
MrMacSon, I've no intention of getting into a debate with you re the definition or understanding of euhemerism. The topic has been debated a number of times on this forum and I've really no more to say on it - at least for now. Carrier is misusing euhemerism. Deal with it. Attempting to support his misuse is not helping his mythicist theory.

What Is Euhemerism?


Tim Widowfield

''To think of euhemerism as something other than this specific method of rationalization and demythologizing is to misunderstand its proper usage and to misrepresent its well-documented history''.

http://vridar.org/2016/01/25/what-is-euhemerism/


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by maryhelena on Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Ehrman's Adoptionist Theory and Christ Mythicism

Post by maryhelena »

MrMacSon wrote:
maryhelena wrote: Ehrman's view that there are early credal statements in the Pauline epistles, credal statements that are exaltation in nature, is a challenge to the Carrier mythicist position. Ehrman's position is bottom up and Carrier's position is top down. Carrier has all his eggs in a Pauline basket. Ehrman has pre-Paul credal statement in Pauline writings. Thus, a huge difference between the two approaches. Ehrman's position allows for history to have relevance for the gospel story. Carrier's position denies any relevance for history. Carrier's position is all in the mind. Ehrman's position attempts to hold on to physical, earthly, reality.
Yes, Carrier has all his eggs in a 'Pauline basket'. But, you'll need to elaborate on why you think "Carrier's position denies any relevance for history" and why "Carrier's position is all in the mind." (Theology as it was espoused than was "all in the mind")
It is up to Carrier to demonstrate that his mythicist theory is dealing with history. Until he does that there is nothing to discuss. If searching for and understanding early christian origins is what we are attempting to do - then playing mind games is a distraction that can cause one to loose focus.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Post Reply