New mythicist book by N.P. Allen: The Jesus Fallacy

[Sinouhe]

Initially, Jesus was not considered to be a godman or in any way divine, until at least the second century C.E.

I don't understand how we can say such things when our first sources on Jesus, the pauline epistles, make Jesus a celestial and pre-existent figure, co-agent of creation of the universe with YHWH.
And then there is also the hymn to the Philippians which is either prior to Paul or the work of Paul himself…

[GakuseiDon]

Initially, Jesus was not considered to be a godman or in any way divine, until at least the second century C.E.

I don't understand how we can say such things when our first sources on Jesus, the pauline epistles, make Jesus a celestial and pre-existent figure, co-agent of creation of the universe with YHWH.
And then there is also the hymn to the Philippians which is either prior to Paul or the work of Paul himself…

I'm guessing he means that "not considered to be a godman or in any way divine" while on earth "until at least the second century C.E.". Arguably Paul also thought that Jesus was just a man until raised by God at the resurrection. Some argue that the Phil passage involves Adam Christology and has nothing to do with pre-existence (which I find convincing). I haven't read anything by Allen so just my conjecture.

[Sinouhe]

Initially, Jesus was not considered to be a godman or in any way divine, until at least the second century C.E.

I don't understand how we can say such things when our first sources on Jesus, the pauline epistles, make Jesus a celestial and pre-existent figure, co-agent of creation of the universe with YHWH.
And then there is also the hymn to the Philippians which is either prior to Paul or the work of Paul himself…

I'm guessing he means that "not considered to be a godman or in any way divine" while on earth "until at least the second century C.E.". Arguably Paul also thought that Jesus was just a man until raised by God at the resurrection. Some argue that the Phil passage involves Adam Christology and has nothing to do with pre-existence (which I find convincing). I haven't read anything by Allen so just my conjecture.

I am not convinced by these arguments.
We have Philippians but also other passages that imply the pre-existence of Jesus in the authentic epistles.

Then we have the Deutero-Pauline epistles which are also dated in the first century and which contain this idea of pre-existence and co-creation of the world by Jesus with YHWH.

We also have the Colossian hymn which is considered by many to be an early hymn inserted into Colossians, much like the hymn to the Philippians.
And there is no doubt that Jesus is pre-existent in this hymn.

To say that Jesus became divine after the second century implies that we must reject these verses or give them a meaning that is less logical than the original meaning of the text.

[GakuseiDon]

I'm guessing he means that "not considered to be a godman or in any way divine" while on earth "until at least the second century C.E.". Arguably Paul also thought that Jesus was just a man until raised by God at the resurrection. Some argue that the Phil passage involves Adam Christology and has nothing to do with pre-existence (which I find convincing). I haven't read anything by Allen so just my conjecture.

I am not convinced by these arguments.
We have Philippians but also other passages that imply the pre-existence of Jesus in the authentic epistles.

I'll start a new thread on that. It's an interesting topic.

Then we have the Deutero-Pauline epistles which are also dated in the first century and which contain this idea of pre-existence and co-creation of the world by Jesus with YHWH.

We also have the Colossian hymn which is considered by many to be an early hymn inserted into Colossians, much like the hymn to the Philippians.
And there is no doubt that Jesus is pre-existent in this hymn.

To say that Jesus became divine after the second century implies that we must reject these verses or give them a meaning that is less logical than the original meaning of the text.

Fair points. I don't know when Allen is dating those letters, but they are usually argued as First Century CE, so you are correct.

[Giuseppe]

I don't understand how we can say such things when our first sources on Jesus, the pauline epistles, make Jesus a celestial and pre-existent figure, co-agent of creation of the universe with YHWH.

I agree but probably Allen means that, even so, Jesus was not considered God himself. Also Richard Carrier remembers that an archangel is not eo ipso God. Isn'it the same Ehrman's point in How Jesus became God ?

So the high christology of the Fourth Gospel is not the same high christology of Paul.
The Gospel of John exalts the earthly man Jesus while Paul exalts the angel Jesus. The difference is great.

In addition, Ehrman agrees with Carrier about the angelomorphic christology in Paul: Jesus is an angel, ie. a humanoid, not really a man.

[schillingklaus]

There is no such thing as authentic epistles except in the fantasy of apologistic scholars like Boccaccini, Ehrman, and their ilk.

[schillingklaus]

Jesus was of course wholly divine, even at lower rank (Adonai Sabaoth as opposed to The Father) before being Judaized and Euhemerized even more into the Messiah, a human figure fulfilling Scripture, for the abstruse purpose of being able to identify the Father with the Jewish god.