Ehrman's "How Jesus Became a God" is now out.

[bcedaifu]

but the number 12 had a specific Jewish connotation....

I dispute this. That idea, 12 as unique to judaism, is absolute nonsense.

The Chinese zodiac calendar, based not on the "western" idea of the constellations, nor referring to months, but rather to years, as intervals of time, also uses this "magic" number, 12. Did it originate with genetic birth defects, children of an emperor/empress (cousins perhaps!) giving birth to a child with 12 fingers or toes?

Which came first, Hebrew/Torah, (oldest inscription = ~ 3000 years ago), or Chinese Oracle bones (oldest inscription about 3500 years ago--Shang Dynasty).

We know nothing of the Silk route, in those days, so, this is another chicken and egg situation, with the Hindus in the middle. Did the zodiac commence with the Egyptians? Did the zodiac commence with the Persians, or the Chinese, or the Hindus, or some other culture? Point is, the number 12, is not unique to, nor specific for, judaism.

My only question for Ehrman on this chapter would be that of Paul could have claimed to have experienced only a celestial Jesus, and still been credited as an authority, then why couldn't Cephas and James have also only experienced a celestial Jesus?

Clever!!! Well done.

[stephan happy huller]

why couldn't Cephas and James have also only experienced a celestial Jesus?

Doesn't James do exactly that in the Gospel according to the Hebrews and various Nag Hammadi texts written in his name. The Gospel according to the Hebrews:

Also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, lately translated by me into Greek and Latin speech, which Origen often uses, tells, after the resurrection of the Saviour: 'Now the Lord, when he had given the linen cloth unto the servant of the priest, went unto James and appeared to him (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour wherein he had drunk the Lord's cup until he should see him risen again from among them that sleep)', and again after a little, 'Bring ye, saith the Lord, a table and bread', and immediately it is added, 'He took bread and blessed and brake and gave it unto James the Just and said unto him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from among them that sleep'.

I don't understand the 'normal' (= white people) reading of this passage. James is sitting in the tomb with the servant of the high priest or on his own having a meal? Really?

There are only three possibilities here:

1. the story was made up by someone who knew nothing about Judaism
2. the meal did not happen at the tomb it was 'an appearance' somewhere else
3. the author and his community did not really believe that Jesus had died (or lived for that matter) so the tomb wasn't ritually impure.

Since dead bodies and graves are a source of ritual impurity, the Jewish cemetery is usually situated beyond town limits. The cemetery is also invested with a certain sanctity, and any activity therein that might tend to show disregard for the dead, such as eating or drinking, is forbidden. Out of respect for the dead, individuals are not walk on graves, except where it is impossible to get from one grave to another.

So what were Christians doing gathering in graves from the very beginning? There must have been the idea that Jesus was a supernatural being and so 'didn't really die' or the person who died in the tomb was made supernatural so the normal rules of impurity didn't apply. The fact that Christians CONTINUED to gather in graves and eat meals surely horrified Jews (especially if we imagine a large conversion from Judaism or among Jewish proselytes). Nevertheless a strong case can be made that some sort of 'nascent mythicism' is at work here - i.e. Jesus didn't really die because he never 'lived' (in the mortal sense) - if the place of the 'appearance' happened somewhere other than the tomb.

And if so, James had an appearance happen to him like that of Paul ...

[andrewcriddle]

He claims that the betrayal by Judas is "multiply attested all over the place," although I don't know where he finds anything independent of Mark.

Ehrman may be referring to 1 Corinthians 11:23

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed [delivered up] took bread,

although this doesn't explicitly mention Judas.

Andrew Criddle

[Diogenes the Cynic]

but the number 12 had a specific Jewish connotation....

I dispute this. That idea, 12 as unique to judaism, is absolute nonsense.

I didn't say it was unique to Judaism. just that it had a meaning within Judaism and that we have proof of concept from Qumran that conscious organizations of twelve individuals did happen in apocalyptic sects. I agree that the twelve tribes trope probably did itself originate from the 12 months of the year, and I'm not arguing for the historicity of twelve disciples of Jesus, but it's a number that would almost inevitably emerge when apostolic authority became envisioned as applying to a closed number.

Paul also makes reference to "the Twelve," so barring interpolation it must have had some kind of pre-Pauline meaning, though it is interesting that Paul never says the word "disciple" and does not appear to include Cephas and James as part of "the Twelve." That could well be an interpolation, though. I think the creed flows better without it. I suspect the 500 is interpolated too, probably based on some obscure local event the interpolator thought he knew about and wanted to advertize.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

He claims that the betrayal by Judas is "multiply attested all over the place," although I don't know where he finds anything independent of Mark.

Ehrman may be referring to 1 Corinthians 11:23

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed [delivered up] took bread,

although this doesn't explicitly mention Judas.

Andrew Criddle

I assumed that's what he referring to, even though (as you note) it doesn't really say "betrayed," but "delivered," "handed over," and the same word (paradidomi) is used by Paul in Romans 4:24 with a clear implication that the "deliverer" is God

"But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered hos paredothe for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."

I think 1 Cor. 11:23 is very weak evidence that Paul knew of a betrayal by Judas, especially in light of the fact that Paul says Jesus appeared to the whole twelve after appearing to Cephas, showing no awareness of the number ostensibly having been reduced to eleven after Judas either hanged himself or fell headlong into a field or got so fat he exploded.

[Blood]

Ehrman says it passes the criterion of dissimilarity because Judas is included among the "twelve" that Jesus is talking too, so Ehrman's argument is that it would not have been made up after Judas had already betrayed Jesus. Of course, one has to accept the betrayal (and indeed the existence of a Judas in the first place) as historical or this argument doesn't work.

It passes the criterion of dissimilarity because Ernst Käsemann specifically invented the criterion to do just that.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Chapter 6: "The Beginning of Christology: Christ as Exalted to Heaven"

An overview defining various types of Christology. A lot of this chapter is more 101 stuff - e.g explanations ofwhat "high and low" means with regard to Christology, what "adoptionist" Christolology means, etc. Ehrman shows how the Christologies evolve in the Gospels, from Marks' adoptionism to Christhood at birth or conception in Matthew and Luke to eternal preexistence in John (and I give Ehrman credit for his ability to explain this material at basically a sixth grade level. He is a good teacher). He then talks about what he argues to be pre-literary fragments in Paul and in Acts exposing pre-Pauline beliefs that Jesus was orginally thought to have been made the son of God only after the crucifixion (examples include Peter's speech in Acts and Paul's intro in Romans which Ehrman claims contains a pre-Pauline creed:

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:3-4)


Ehrman gives a variety of reasons for why Paul appears to be quoting an earlier creed here - it doesn't match his usual Christology, it's the only time Paul ever says "seed of David," or makes any reference to Jesus as a descendent of David at all, and Ehrman argues that the phrase, "πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ" ("spirit of holiness") is a Semitism (following a "noun - noun - of" construction) and is the only time Paul uses it that way as opposed to πνεῦμα ἅγιος, which he uses all the time). Ehrman believes this is a grammatical tell that the creed was originally Aramaic. Ehrman also points out that Paul is trying to ingratiate himself to his Roman audience in this letter because he was looking to touch them up for money to travel to Spain. He had never been to Rome and did not found the church there and apparently did not have a great reputation there, so he was trying to reassure them of his bona fides by dutifully citing the creed they would know (probably choking on the words as he dictated them).

Ehrman also quotes the speech Luke gives to Peter in Acts 2, again referencing an exaltation after the crucifixion (2:32-33).

Basically, Ehrman is making an argument that the first Christology was that Jesus had been made son of God and raised to Heaven after the crucifixion. Ehrman calls this an "exaltation Christology" and says he prefers that term to "low Christology."

Ehrman is not trying to argue for the existence of a historical Jesus in this book (he basically just presupposes it), but he does briefly make the claim that the phrase "seed of David according to the flesh" shows that Paul (and presumably Paul's source for the creed) believed that Jesus was a real person.

[stevencarrwork]

1 Corinthians 2:8 'None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.'

Did Paul think Jesus was the Lord of glory when he was crucified? Or only after he had been crucified?

[MrMacSon]

1 Corinthians 2:8 'None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.'

Did Paul think Jesus was the Lord of glory when he was crucified? Or only after he had been crucified?

If the Pauline texts were redacted, even just once, how would we know whether they reflect the original propositions or someone else's later ones?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

1 Corinthians 2:8 'None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.'

Did Paul think Jesus was the Lord of glory when he was crucified? Or only after he had been crucified?

I haven't written the specific chapter review yet, but Ehrman thinks that Paul believed Jesus was "the Angel of the Lord" (not just an angel but specifically "the Angel of the Lord" from the OT) incarnated as Jesus. That's basically the whole thesis of his book. So yes, Ehrman argues that Paul thought Jesus was already an angel when he was crucified, but in Romans he is reciting (according to Ehrman) an earlier creed which is actually counter to Paul's own Christology, but which he recites because he is trying to suck up to the (as yet) non-Pauline Roman church.