Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

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:


(skip ahead to 34:00 for Ehrman)

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.

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. 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. 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

The underlying sources of gMark are EARLIER than Paul, so Ehrman is indeed right all the more obviously. Ehrman got himself into hot water with his newspaper comments on his book against Jesus Mythicism, Did Jesus Exist?, in which he implicitly supported the radically early views of Crossley and his mentor the late Maurice Casey..

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?

I don't think that the trend is that described by Ehrman (since some scholars doubt that Mark is the oldest Gospel).

But in any case I think that his trajectory fits at least partially the Doherty/Carrier paradigm if you see the tradition recorded in Acts 13:33 (the exaltation of the Son at his resurrection) already reflected in the hymn to Philippians (2:6-8), where the Son receives the name above all the names only after his resurrection.

If that is the case, then the problem is : who introduced the mere man Jesus the Nazarene adopted by God only in a second moment of his life?

My solution:
The introduction of a man who was only adopted by God in Mark could already reflect a first timid compromise between those who completely denied the humanity of Jesus (and thus denied the goodness of the creator god, too) and those who preferred to save the dignity of the creation (and therefore of the creator god). By adopting a man at his baptism, God manifests that his creation is not so bad, after all, as a mere just man is at least worthy to serve as a humble vessel of the spirit of Christ. I realize though that my solution works best if the Gospel of Marcion was the older one.

Ken, can I know your present opinions about historicity ?

I'll be corrected if I have overlooked something in Ehrman's book/debate, but my recollection is that Ehrman traces his trajectory in its earlier stages through the different presentations of Jesus in the canonical gospels -- Yet, yet -- all of that was a good twenty to forty years after Paul. Paul begins with the Christology that only concludes with the canonical gospels.

Besides, Ehrman's thesis is based on the unsupported assumption that the gospel narrative from the first (empty tomb, resurrection appearances swinging the views of the disciples) was based on history -- assuming a theological tale, the foundation of Christian faith, coincided with historical events. -- Which historicity is itself part of the faith.

But Paul ... . Does not Ehrman's trajectory founder on the reef of Paul?

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).

My views are quite different than Ehrman.
The first and fourth phases were already in the Pauline seven epistles and 'Hebrews' (but Jesus is described as fully human in these epistles).
Because the two canonical Corinthians epistles are made up of three letters each (http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html), and the three occurrences of "Son of God" in the earliest ones (at 1 Th 1:10, 1 Cor 1:4-9 and 1 Cor 15:23-28) appears to be part of interpolations (http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3xx.html#1th1:10, http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#ada, http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#add), it looks that Paul reluctantly adopted Son of God only in his last epistles (where "Son of God" occurs eleven times) (http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html).
However Paul adopted the pre-existence earlier, as in 1 Cor 8:6 & 10:4.

All of that because of the influence of Apollos of Alexandria's preaching (I take Apollos as the author of 'Hebrews', written 54 CE) (http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html).

That does not mean 1st century Christians accepted right away these premises. Actually the three Synoptic gospels either ignore the pre-existence (gMark) or even deny it (gLuke & gMatthew). Only gJohn went along with the pre-existence of the Son of God.

I do not think these views ares going to help the historicist cause, but the Pauline epistles (1Corinthians, and more so Galatians & Romans) and 'Hebrews', despite invoking a pre-existent "Son of God" (1 Cor: pre-existence only), testify also of a fully human Jesus, having lived on earth in the near past.

Cordially, Bernard

Barth? Kent are you sure that's his name?

Ken Olson wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg4Tc1j4Qwo[/youtube]

The tag wants the code after the v=



Nobody gets it right though; maybe it could be changed...

neilgodfrey wrote:I'll be corrected if I have overlooked something in Ehrman's book/debate, but my recollection is that Ehrman traces his trajectory in its earlier stages through the different presentations of Jesus in the canonical gospels -- Yet, yet -- all of that was a good twenty to forty years after Paul. . . .

I have to make that correction. While Bart bypasses Paul in his description of the steps towards the high christology in his debate he does begin with Paul in his book -- chapter 6. He cites Paul's reference to pre-Pauline passages. The debate was an over-simplified presentation of his views.

Still, is it not odd to see the steps up the ladder towards the high christology reflected in each of the gospels so long after Paul?

neilgodfrey wrote: ... my recollection is that Ehrman traces his trajectory in its earlier stages through the different presentations of Jesus in the canonical gospels -- Yet, ..all of that was a good twenty to forty years after Paul. Paul begins with the Christology that only concludes with the canonical gospels.

That

• 1. assumes the Pauline literature as we know it today was in the same form early as it is later/today (ie. it assumes it was not redacted);
  
  2. assumes the current Pauline literature really was 20-40 yrs before the current canonical gospels.

Are these views which you (& others) developed before or despite the recently proposed views that the canonical gospels developed out of mid 2nd-century milieu centered around the Marcionite texts?

Joseph B Tyson (2006), in 'Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle', University of South Carolina Press, makes a case for Luke & Acts being written or developed as a response to Marcion, rather than Marcion's gospel being a rewrite of Luke.

Matthias Klinghardt (2008), in 'The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion' Novum Testamentum; 50(1):1-27, deduced that the 'Gospel Marcion' influenced the formation of both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.

Vinzent M (2014), in 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' (Studia patristica supplement 2) Leuven: Peeters, asserts that Marcion’s Gospel preceded all the canonical Gospels.

Judith M. Lieu (2015), in Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century, Cambridge University Press, covers "a wide range of controversial issues: the nature of God, the relation of the divine to creation, the person of Jesus, the interpretation of Scripture, the nature of salvation ..."

Matthias Klinghardt (2015) Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien
Band I: Untersuchung | Band II: Rekonstruktion, ÜberSetzung, Varianten. (German) Perfect Paperback. Francke a Verlag, publisher

• title translation:
  The oldest gospel, & the emergence of the canonical Gospels: Volume I: Investigation | Volume II: Reconstruction, Translation, Variants
  
  Volume 1 contains Klinghardt's investigation that determines the relationship between Luke and the oldest gospel [Marcion's], and a model for the development of the Gospels up to the canonical four gospels book designs.

eta: Now we have an interesting dimension -

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
I'd like to add a post by our Tenorikuma “Has the Q Source Been Under Our Noses All Along? Luke, Matthew, and the Didache”

Ben C. Smith wrote:I really think that Didache 16 (or something like it) preceded Mark 13 and Matthew 24.

It is also my impression that parts of the Didache or something like it preceded Mark.

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 064#p48064

Ken Olson wrote: ... Michael Bird, for instance, argues that all the evangelists held an incarnational christology. 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. 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.

Michael Bird says, from ~1:40 in that video, after ref to Mk 1:11,

• "the gospel of Mark is regarded somewhat as an innovation in the chronology of when and how Jesus became the 'son of God' ... there was a tendency in 'the tradition' to project Jesus's 'sonship' earlier & earlier and Mark represents that phase where it is being projected from the resurrection to down to his baptism, and scholars place Mark within this evolving process of where 'divine sonship' is being put gradually earlier and earlier."

This seems to imply or indicate gMark is late in the evolving process of the narratives about Jesus (not early or primary), or was redacted later.


Bird also makes some interesting comments from ~1.28 on a few other things, such as (from 1.35 onwards) how, in relation to the notion of adoptionism, in the Imperial Roman cult in those times, when a Roman Emperor died and was deified the heir, the Emperor's son, was 'adopted' as the 'son of God' eg. "the son of the divine Augustus".

Bird goes on to say (1:36 onwards) we have to remember the titles 'son of David' and 'son of God' were designations for Israel's messiah, as rooted in the old Testament; and refers to "Jewish inter-Testamentary literature which looks forward to a coming 'son of David' ... "

.