'Pauline incarnation' v 'Synoptic exhaltation' Christology

[MrMacSon]

.
Thus, Ehrman has a Pauline incarnation Christology and a Synoptic gospel exaltation Christology [see next post to elaborate on this]. Methinks he will not be persuaded, any time soon, to drop either of these two positions. A point that Carrier would do well to take notice off: There are two Jesus stories in the NT. A Pauline story and a gospel story. Two very different stories that need to be considered on their own merits. Attempts to run with one story and drop the other, as though one story has priority over the other - is to shortchange research into early christian origins.

I HAVE READ, PONDERED, researched, taught, and written about the writings of Paul for forty years, but until recently there was one key aspect of his theology I could never quite get my mind around. I had the hardest time understanding how, exactly, Paul viewed Christ. Some aspects of Paul’s Christological teaching have been clear to me for decades— especially his teaching that it was Jesus’s death and resurrection that makes a person right with God, rather than following the dictates of the Jewish law. But who did Paul think Christ was?

One reason for my perplexity was that Paul is highly allusive in what he says. He does not spell out in systematic detail his views of Christ. Another reason was that in some passages Paul seems to affirm a view of Christ that, until recently, I thought could not possibly exist as early as Paul’s letters, which are our first Christian writings to survive. How could Paul embrace “higher” views of Christ than those found in later writings such as Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Didn’t Christology develop from a “low” Christology to a “high” Christology over time? And if so, shouldn’t the views of the Synoptic Gospels be “higher” than the views of Paul? But they’re not! They are “lower.” And I simply did not get it, for the longest time.

But now I do. It is not a question of “higher” or “lower.” The Synoptics simply accept a Christological view that is different from Paul’s. They hold to exaltation Christologies, and Paul holds to an incarnation Christology. That, in no small measure, is because Paul understood Christ to be an angel who became a human.

Christ as an Angel in Paul

Many people no doubt have the same experience I do on occasion, of reading something over and over and not having it register. I have read Paul’s letter to the Galatians hundreds of times in both English and Greek. But the clear import of what he says in Galatians 4: 14 simply never registered with me, until, frankly, a few months ago. In this verse Paul calls Christ an
angel. The reason it never registered with me is that the statement is a bit obscure, and I had always interpreted it in an alternative way. Thanks to the work of other scholars, I now see the error of my ways.

In the context of the verse, Paul is reminding the Galatians of how they first received him when he was ill in their midst and they helped restore him to health. Paul writes : “Even though my bodily condition was a test for you, you did not mock or despise me, but you received me as an angel of God, as Jesus Christ.”

I had always read the verse to say that the Galatians had received Paul in his infirm state the way they would have received an angelic visitor, or even Christ himself. In fact, however, the grammar of the Greek suggests something quite different. As Charles Gieschen has argued, and has now been affirmed in a book on Christ as an angel by New Testament specialist Susan Garrett, the verse is not saying that the Galatians received Paul as an angel or as Christ; it is saying that they received him as they would an angel, such as Christ. By clear implication, then, Christ is an angel.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2014-03-25). How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (pp. 252-253). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Yes, the issue wider issue of Christology was also discussed in the session on How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee

[MrMacSon]

.

Ehrman: "Paul has an incarnation and exaltation Christology"

Ehrman: "the reason I differentiate between incarnation and exaltation Christology is precisely because Paul does both"

and, Ehrman talked about "adoptionism and exaltation Christology"

[MrMacSon]

There were addition comments

Ehrman's dismissal of Son of Man sayings - or at least his interpretation that Jesus is referring to someone else who judges the world, not to himself

[MrMacSon]

The problem with…the term low Christology – is that it speaks of this view of Christ in a rather condescending way, as if it were an inadequate understanding …
I do not think we should overlook just how amazing this view was for the people who first held it. For them, Jesus was not “merely” adopted to be God’s son. That is the wrong emphasis altogether. They believed that Jesus had been exalted to the highest status that anyone could possibly imagine. He was elevated to an impossibly exalted state.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2014). How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (pp. 231-232)

[cienfuegos]

.
Thus, Ehrman has a Pauline incarnation Christology and a Synoptic gospel exaltation Christology [see next post to elaborate on this]. Methinks he will not be persuaded, any time soon, to drop either of these two positions. A point that Carrier would do well to take notice off: There are two Jesus stories in the NT. A Pauline story and a gospel story. Two very different stories that need to be considered on their own merits. Attempts to run with one story and drop the other, as though one story has priority over the other - is to shortchange research into early christian origins.

I HAVE READ, PONDERED, researched, taught, and written about the writings of Paul for forty years, but until recently there was one key aspect of his theology I could never quite get my mind around. I had the hardest time understanding how, exactly, Paul viewed Christ. Some aspects of Paul’s Christological teaching have been clear to me for decades— especially his teaching that it was Jesus’s death and resurrection that makes a person right with God, rather than following the dictates of the Jewish law. But who did Paul think Christ was?

One reason for my perplexity was that Paul is highly allusive in what he says. He does not spell out in systematic detail his views of Christ. Another reason was that in some passages Paul seems to affirm a view of Christ that, until recently, I thought could not possibly exist as early as Paul’s letters, which are our first Christian writings to survive. How could Paul embrace “higher” views of Christ than those found in later writings such as Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Didn’t Christology develop from a “low” Christology to a “high” Christology over time? And if so, shouldn’t the views of the Synoptic Gospels be “higher” than the views of Paul? But they’re not! They are “lower.” And I simply did not get it, for the longest time.

But now I do. It is not a question of “higher” or “lower.” The Synoptics simply accept a Christological view that is different from Paul’s. They hold to exaltation Christologies, and Paul holds to an incarnation Christology. That, in no small measure, is because Paul understood Christ to be an angel who became a human.

Christ as an Angel in Paul

Many people no doubt have the same experience I do on occasion, of reading something over and over and not having it register. I have read Paul’s letter to the Galatians hundreds of times in both English and Greek. But the clear import of what he says in Galatians 4: 14 simply never registered with me, until, frankly, a few months ago. In this verse Paul calls Christ an
angel. The reason it never registered with me is that the statement is a bit obscure, and I had always interpreted it in an alternative way. Thanks to the work of other scholars, I now see the error of my ways.

In the context of the verse, Paul is reminding the Galatians of how they first received him when he was ill in their midst and they helped restore him to health. Paul writes : “Even though my bodily condition was a test for you, you did not mock or despise me, but you received me as an angel of God, as Jesus Christ.”

I had always read the verse to say that the Galatians had received Paul in his infirm state the way they would have received an angelic visitor, or even Christ himself. In fact, however, the grammar of the Greek suggests something quite different. As Charles Gieschen has argued, and has now been affirmed in a book on Christ as an angel by New Testament specialist Susan Garrett, the verse is not saying that the Galatians received Paul as an angel or as Christ; it is saying that they received him as they would an angel, such as Christ. By clear implication, then, Christ is an angel.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2014-03-25). How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (pp. 252-253). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Yes, the issue wider issue of Christology was also discussed in the session on How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee

Ehrman's way out of the maze is needlessly complicated. In fact, an exaltation vs. incarnation theory cannot clearly be separated out in Paul's writings. For example:

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Ehrman admits that Paul views Jesus as a celestial being who at some point was incarnated on earth. Yes, there are different views of Jesus in the Bible. Is it a coincidence, then, that Jesus of Nazareth came along who seems to have accreted to himself the trappings of celestial Jesus?

A lot of these arguments from Ehrman appear to me to be mental gymnastics designed to preserve his view that there undoubtedly was a Jesus of Nazareth. Nothing more or less.

[MattMorales]

I would not call gMark a low Christology at all. The Holy Spirit (possibly synonymous with the Christ Spirit) that enters into Jesus at his baptism and drives him into the wilderness is pre-existent. Jesus casually floats over the water, passing by his disciples, as they witness dumbfounded from their boat. His true Heavenly nature is first recognized by demons and then fully revealed on the mountain of transfiguration. It's also my opinion that many of the Son of Man sayings do refer to Jesus being an angelic deliverer. Just because the gospel lacks a Hellenistic birth narrative does not make its Jesus (or at least the Spirit at work in him) any less divine.

[Blood]

Pauline theology is starting to actually kind of make sense. The bad news for Ehrman is that it proves Carrier's thesis, not his, is the correct one.

"Christ Jesus" is an angel (Gal 4:14) who appears to select individuals ("brothers of the Lord") in visions. Paul "completes what is lacking" in Christ's suffering (Col 1:24) because angels cannot feel pain but supposedly real people like Paul can. Paul has been crucified with Christ (Gal 2:20), i.e. has "died in Christ" thereby gaining immortality. "We preach Christ crucified" refers to a mystery religion initiation rite of immortality, not a recent execution of a rabbi in Jerusalem during Passover.

Mark was the genius who took this mumbo-jumbo and historicized it into a plausible sounding "history" of the life of Jesus, a rabbi executed in Jerusalem during Passover.

The rest is history.

[MrMacSon]

Pauline theology is starting to actually kind of make sense. The bad news for Ehrman is that it proves Carrier's thesis, not his, is the correct one.

I think these debates emphasis what others have said - Pauline theology is different to the Synoptics, and they likely have different origins.

It seems Ehrman is seeing a celestial/angelic Jesus in the Pauline texts; as have others.

It creates problems for the [orthodox(?)] doctrine that Paul founded or cemented Christianity on the basis of preaching Jesus the resurrected good-guy: esp. if Jesus was already a heavenly being, and only an angel.

[outhouse]

"Christ Jesus" is an angel (Gal 4:14)
.

Sure if you quote mine the gospels.

In context Paul is rhetorically building himself up, that statement is all about Paul not Jesus.

Not only that you have no idea the context of "angel" in Pauls statement.

Mark was the genius who took this mumbo-jumbo and historicized it into a plausible sounding "history" of the life of Jesus, a rabbi executed in Jerusalem during Passover.

The unknown author of gmark was not that bright or skilled in his art. He was no genius.


He compiled multiple pre existing traditions in his geographic location. Traditions which differed from Pauls communities and the Johannine traditions.

[MattMorales]

Pauline theology is starting to actually kind of make sense. The bad news for Ehrman is that it proves Carrier's thesis, not his, is the correct one.

I think these debates emphasis what others have said - Pauline theology is different to the Synoptics, and they likely have different origins.

It seems Ehrman is seeing a celestial/angelic Jesus in the Pauline texts; as have others.

It creates problems for the [orthodox(?)] doctrine that Paul founded or cemented Christianity on the basis of preaching Jesus the resurrected good-guy: esp. if Jesus was already a heavenly being, and only an angel.

Paul preaching the Cosmic Christ over the Galilean preacher is nothing new in NT studies. This has no bearing on the historicity of said preacher. It's just now Ehrman can classify this Christ as an angel rather than just a big question mark. We knew he was highly exalted in Paul's mind but also subservient to and not fully God, as John's Gospel implies. Remember, Enoch was thought to be a human being before he was exalted to angelic status. You can have it both ways.