Richard Carrier slams Ehrman's latest book

[Peter Kirby]

'something pre-existing taking on flesh'? If so, this doesn't seem to include Mark, Matthew and Luke.

Why not canonical Matthew and canonical Luke? Is it the 'pre-existing' bit? We're to suppose that the authors of canonical Matthew and Luke had, or could have, a belief in the creation of Christ ex nihilo (from no previous Christ or Son of God) in the womb of Mary? Is that the suggestion, or is it something else?

While that may be (or ... may it?), it's not too especially relevant to my point (or doesn't seem to be) about the strangeness of Paul, then Mark, then Matthew/Luke/John, such as it is (as it was presented in the last post).

Looks like 'incarnation' should also be on the ban list. Nobody seems to know what everyone else means by it.

Also, I think all of us seem to be importing a lot of assumptions into the Gospels (myself included). Worthy of a fresh thread.

[maryhelena]

I can't be the only one who thinks it's weird that "Paul" supposedly has the "born of a woman, born under the law" thing but "Mark" has the descending from heaven with a dove and God's proclamation thing. But of course canonical Matthew and canonical Luke have infancy narratives once again (muting what we are calling "adoptionist" or "exaltationist" views, going back to "incarnational" ones), while canonical John makes a whole great big thing out of it in the prologue, and then "Ignatius" (whoever that is) is huffing and puffing and swearing up and down that "incarnational" views are the correct ones (born of Mary, son of David, etc.) and blast to hell all those who don't acknowledge this.

IIUC, isn't Ehrman's "incarnation" view that 'something pre-existing taking on flesh'? If so, this doesn't seem to include Mark, Matthew and Luke.

Interestingly, according to the following reviewer, Ehrman sees in Paul both "exaltation" and "incarnation" Christologies: http://cruxsolablog.com/2014/05/05/ehrm ... pt4-gupta/

• Ehrman begins his chapter by noting that we don’t know what Christianity was like until Paul started writing in the middle of the century. So, we have no actual documents from that earliest period (33-48). But Ehrman believes that we can unearth some early Christian beliefs by discovering and examining “pre-literary traditions” in the New Testament. Using his go-go-gadget tradition finder, he points to texts like 1 Cor 15:3-5, Rom 1:3-4, and Acts 13:32-33. Looking esp at the latter two, he suggests that these earliest hymns/traditions point to an “exaltation” Christology – Jesus was exalted (only, primarily) after his death (see 224).

The reviewer is not overly convinced by Ehrman.

The reviewer looks to be a fundamentalist Christians i.e. a Christian holding to an incarnation christology.

There is basically nothing new in Ehrman's book that has not been said before. What Ehrman has done is relabel the 'high' and the 'low' christological positions as 'incarnation christology' and 'exaltation christology' . Perhaps more importantly he maintains that these two positions are not in a hierarchy but are simply alternative views of the NT Jesus figure.

Lloyd Geering outlined a similar position in 1998: 'How Did Jesus Become God—and Why'

• The time was overdue for the process of deconstructing the affirmation of Jesus as the only-begotten Son of God. Reimarus (1694–1768) began the process. Further significant steps in the process were taken by David Strauss (1808–1874), Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965), and Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976). Most recently the process of deconstructing the glorification of Jesus and of recovering the historical human figure behind the process has been undertaken by the Jesus Seminar.
  
  http://www.westarinstitute.org/resource ... ecome-god/

The modern approach is to view 'incarnation christology' for what it is - theology. As such it is not a tool for research into the history of early christian origins. Ehrman's book is inline with liberal NT scholarship. Carrier, with his 'Jesus.... was originally .....a celestial deity' is confining his research to a fundamentalist approach to the NT story.

[Ulan]

'something pre-existing taking on flesh'? If so, this doesn't seem to include Mark, Matthew and Luke.

Why not canonical Matthew and canonical Luke? Is it the 'pre-existing' bit? We're to suppose that the authors of canonical Matthew and Luke had, or could have, a belief in the creation of Christ ex nihilo (from no previous Christ or Son of God) in the womb of Mary? Is that the suggestion, or is it something else?

I think that it is our modern knowledge how this works with the bees and the flowers gets into our way here. The old idea was that a seed (semen) was placed into the womb of a woman, which means the woman was more or less an incubator for that seed. So, for the question we are looking at, it only matters where the seed comes from. As Matthew and Luke don't really go into details, it's somewhat difficult to say whether they considered the seed pre-existing or not. Which means that they won't help in a question regarding incarnation. So, regarding incarnation, John is clearly implying this, Matthew and Luke may or may not, and for Mark it is important to define what incarnation actually means to you. Mark sees Jesus as vehicle for the spirit, but that's kind of a "double occupation" thing, similar to how Paul describes it in Romans 8 for every believer. Mark's Jesus starts a nobody and dies a nobody. He harbored the "Spirit of God" for the time of his deeds, and his own spirit gets elevated after death, similar to Paul describes it in Romans or 1Cor.

Looks like 'incarnation' should also be on the ban list. Nobody seems to know what everyone else means by it.

True. If you just use "incarnation" in the sense that the divine spirit takes on a fleshy body, Mark fits the definition of "incarnation". However, I don't think that this is what is normally meant by "incarnation", so it doesn't really help here.

Also, I think all of us seem to be importing a lot of assumptions into the Gospels (myself included).

Very true.

[maryhelena]

'something pre-existing taking on flesh'? If so, this doesn't seem to include Mark, Matthew and Luke.

Why not canonical Matthew and canonical Luke? Is it the 'pre-existing' bit? We're to suppose that the authors of canonical Matthew and Luke had, or could have, a belief in the creation of Christ ex nihilo (from no previous Christ or Son of God) in the womb of Mary? Is that the suggestion, or is it something else?

There is no pre-existence, re Ehrman, in the birth narratives of gMatthw and gLuke.

• Ehrman: How Jesus Became God. from page 243
  
  Whether this is the case or not, I should stress that these virginal conception narratives of Matthew and Luke are by no stretch of the imagination embracing the view that later became the orthodox teaching of Christianity. According to this later view, Christ was a preexistent divine being who “became incarnate [i.e., “human”] through the Virgin Mary.” But not according to Matthew and Luke. If you read their accounts closely, you will see that they have nothing to do with the idea that Christ existed before he was conceived. In these two Gospels, Jesus comes into existence at the moment of his conception. He did not exist before.
  
  Whether or not Matthew’s tradition originally coincided with Luke’s view that Jesus was conceived by a virgin without sexual intercourse so that he was literally the Son of God, this view, as most pronounced in Luke, is a kind of “exaltation” Christology that has been pushed back just about as far as such a view can go. If an exaltation Christology maintains that a human has been elevated to a divine status, then there is no point for that to happen earlier than the moment of conception itself. Jesus is now the Son of God for his entire life, beginning with . . . his beginning. One could argue, in fact, that this has pushed the moment of exaltation so far back that here we no longer even have an exaltation Christology, a Christology from “down below.” For here, Jesus is not portrayed in any sense as beginning life as a normal human who because of his great virtue or deep obedience to the will of God is exalted to a divine status. He starts out as divine, from the point of his conception.
  
  Ehrman, Bart D. (2014-03-25). How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (pp. 243-244). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

It seems to me that Ehrman has got a development from 'exaltation christology' - re baptism and resurrection - plus, re the birth narratives, a dose of mythology - leading to gJohn and an 'incarnation christology'. Interesting position; mythology the bridge between an 'exaltation christology' and a pre-existence 'incarnation christology'....In other words; the birth narratives are neither 'exaltation christology' nor 'incarnation christology'.

[Bernard Muller]

Why not canonical Matthew and canonical Luke? Is it the 'pre-existing' bit? We're to suppose that the authors of canonical Matthew and Luke had, or could have, a belief in the creation of Christ ex nihilo (from no previous Christ or Son of God) in the womb of Mary? Is that the suggestion, or is it something else?

"Matthew" and "Luke" definitively did not have any pre-existent Christ or Son of God.
"Luke" even denied that entirely:
Lk1:32a "He will be great and will be called the Son of the most high"
Lk1:35b "So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God"
And even more obvious:
Ac17:31 "For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.".

As for "Mark", he acknowledged Jesus had a human mother, blood brothers & sisters. And Jesus was "son of man", which would indicate his father is human (even if he is never mentioned in the gospel).
However, despite the above, in conclusion, I think "Mark" did not completely close the door to the belief of Jesus pre-existence.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

1) Galatians 4:4 and any other verse that supposedly has "incarnational" views in the letters of "Paul" could be later additions. This saves the arc of development (non-"incarnational" Paul -> non-"incarnational" Mark -> incarnational Gospels).

The problem here is that Gal 4:4 clinches a long & complicated argument, as explained here:
http://historical-jesus.info/18.html
I concluded: Paul used the common knowledge Jesus had been an earthly man (from a woman) and a Jew (as descendant of Abraham) in order to clinch a long & complicated argument. If the existence of Jesus on earth was not accepted or even doubted, then the argument would simply not work.

Paul was likely non-"incarnational" first, then adopted incarnation.
Of the gospels, only gJohn is "incarnational".

2) Galatians 4:4 is authentic enough, but it's referring to a whole different mythological space; things get retold in the first version that takes place in first century Palestine, in the Gospel of Mark. This gives a different arc of development (heavenly-"incarnational" Paul -> earthly-adoptionistic Mark -> earthly-incarnational Gospels).

I would rephrase that as such:
heavenly-"incarnational" Paul -> earthly-non-"incarnational" Synoptic gospels -> heavenly-"incarnational" gJohn.

That only shows not everyone adopted all of the avant-guard concepts of Paul or/and Apollos.
Christianity development was not linear and varied according to locations, audiences and time.

And there is two types of incarnations:
Type A: heavenly then being born from a human mother.
Type B: heavenly then becoming human (or like human) instantly in a body of choice. That's the Docetic way.

Paul, the author of 'Hebrews', gJohn all agree on Type A.

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

"Matthew" and "Luke" definitively did not have any pre-existent Christ or Son of God.
"Luke" even denied that entirely:

• Lk1:32a "He will be great and will be called the Son of the most high"
  Lk1:35b "So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God"

And even more obvious:

• Ac17:31 "For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.".

As for "Mark", he acknowledged Jesus had a human mother, blood brothers & sisters. And Jesus was "son of man", which would indicate his father is human (even if he is never mentioned in the gospel).
However, despite the above, in conclusion, I think "Mark" did not completely close the door to the belief of Jesus pre-existence.

Mark "acknowledged"?? 'acknowledged' someone else's assertion?

The canonical gospels were likely redacted over time to align with the belief that their central character had been a man. The people doing the final redactions would not have known what really happened a century or more before.

[MrMacSon]

... Paul used the common knowledge Jesus had been an earthly man (from a woman) and a Jew (as descendant of Abraham) in order to clinch a long & complicated argument ...

"common knowledge"?? How do we know it was common knowledge? If so, where?

If the existence of Jesus on earth was not accepted or even doubted, then the argument would simply not work.

What argument? What "long & complicated argument"? This? -

"the promise, on the principle of faith of Jesus Christ, should be given to those that believe." (3:22), allowing Paul's Galatians to be God's sons & heirs and (by "adoption"?) seed of Abraham (3:7, 29) ...

... "but when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, come of woman [as an earthly human], come under law [as a Jew would be], that he might redeem those under law, that we might receive sonship. But because you are [Greek present tense] sons ... So you are [present again] no longer bondman, but son ..."

So Paul was thinking about an earthly "flesh & blood" mother! And Christ had already come and gone (1:1)!

http://historical-jesus.info/18.html

"thinking about" is not sound or "common" 'knowledge'.

[Charles Wilson]

'something pre-existing taking on flesh'? If so, this doesn't seem to include Mark, Matthew and Luke.

Why not canonical Matthew and canonical Luke? Is it the 'pre-existing' bit? We're to suppose that the authors of canonical Matthew and Luke had, or could have, a belief in the creation of Christ ex nihilo (from no previous Christ or Son of God) in the womb of Mary? Is that the suggestion, or is it something else?
...
Also, I think all of us seem to be importing a lot of assumptions into the Gospels (myself included). Worthy of a fresh thread.

Wow! Are you ever correct here, PK. Follow the trail from your Post to this one.

Nicholas of Damascus creates a "Vanity Genealogy" for Herod's father Antipater for the purpose of allowing Herod to hold both Kingship and High Priesthood if he so desired. It has the family of Herod coming through the Babylonian Captivity and... BEHOLD!!!, Matthew's Genealogy has "Jesus' family" coming through the Babylonian Captivity! What a Bayesian coinsidenance!!!

So, without considering that the "Genealogy Construction" of Matthew may be a connivance of someone for the purpose of sucking up to (while monitoring) an Interloper Royal Family, we've got a Psychoanalysis of groups of people who may not have even existed 2000 years ago.

Great. Wonderful.

CW

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

"common knowledge"?? How do we know it was common knowledge? If so, where?

How do we know it was not common knowledge? Yes, it was common knowledge because Paul could not have use that to clinch an important argument if it was not.

What argument? What "long & complicated argument"? This? -

So you found Paul's argument short & simple? Good. So now you know that Gal 4:4 is the clincher.
But there is more to "This" than what you posted: http://historical-jesus.info/18.html
Do not misrepresent me.

The canonical gospels were likely redacted over time to align with the belief that their central character had been a man. The people doing the final redactions would not have known what really happened a century or more before.

How do you know all that, or is it unevidenced suppositions?
And do you think the gospels were retrofitted late with a human Jesus when, at the beginning of their writing, their Jesus would not have been an earthly human?
And if gMark was written around 70 AD, that would be still in a time when "Mark" and his congregation remembered what eyewitnesses had been saying, even if those were likely dead by then.

"thinking about" is not sound or "common" 'knowledge'.

OK, I'll replace "thinking about" by "writing about".

Cordially, Bernard