Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ken Olson wrote: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?

How do mythicists address the problem of the adoptionist theology present in Mark’s gospel and Acts?

neilgodfrey wrote:Does not Ehrman's trajectory founder on the reef of Paul?

That has to be a relevant question.

So Ehrman states that in Acts we find an adoptionist theology with Jesus being exalted at resurrection. He states that in Mark we find an adoptionist theology at baptism and Michael Bird says why not find three (and I have no problem with that, even if Ehrman’s rebuttal does have some force).

Ehrman states that we can see the adoptionsit theology in Roms 1:3-4 and I agree.

Giuseppe wrote: 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.

I always saw Phil 2:6-8 as a pre-existent Jesus and not exaltation theology. I would be interested in how anyone can deny a pre-existent Jesus here and see Jesus as just exalted at resurrection.

Christ Jesus,
[6] who, being in the image of God, being inherently not seizing equality with God,
[7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being in the likeness of men.
[8] And being found fashioned as human he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

Perhaps Giuseppe means Phil 2:9-11

[9] Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which 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 confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This pre-existent Jesus can only be removed if verses 6, 7 and 8ab are seen as an interpolation, and we are left with:

Christ Jesus,
[6] who
humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
[9] Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which 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 confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I don’t know of any scholar who suggests this.

John Ziesler in Pauline Christology suggests that verses 6-8 are a contrast with Adam (I suppose like 1 Cor 15:21-23, 45); “Christ like Adam was in the image ( …) of God, unlike Adam he did not regard [himself] equal with God (… see Gen. 3:5) … Indeed unlike Adam (v 7) he voluntary accepted servanthood and mortality even to the point of a humiliating death on the cross (v 8). He obeyed God, in contract to Adam who vaingloriously disobeyed” (p 45).

Bernard Muller wrote: However Paul adopted the pre-existence earlier, as in 1 Cor 8:6 & 10:4.

1 Cor 8:6

yet for us (there is) one God, the Father, from whom are all (things) and we in him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all (things) and we through him.

Paul often talks of us being “in Christ”, which has been seen as meaning that Christ is now the centre of the divine power (John Ziesler p 64) and it is possible that this is why Paul can say God works through Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 10:1-5

[1] I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
[2] and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
[3] and all ate the same supernatural food
[4] and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
[5] Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

It has been suggested that the Rock as the Messiah is only a reference to royalty as “a demonstration of God’s royal, life-giving care for his people. As such, the rock foreshadowed Jesus, the final life-giving covenant King.” The rock was God the provider and it might be possible that Paul is saying that like God on the rock in Exodus, Jesus is now the provider. It should be recognised that there was no baptism in the desert, with the manna and the drink Paul is making a link to the Lord’s Supper.

Bernard Muller wrote: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.

It is possible that the earliest Christians did have an exalted Jesus at resurrection, but different communities moved this exaltation to different times during Jesus’ life including at his birth. While other Christians more heavily influenced by the pre-existent Wisdom tradition equalled Jesus with this pre-existent Wisdom tradition. This Wisdom link would be much easier for early Christians to make if Jesus’ did see himself in the Wisdom tradition as seen in Q and sometimes seen as influences on Mark or his tradition.

I am still interested in how mythicist explain these early adoptionist traditions if Jesus Christ started as a heavenly being and then the historical man developed from this. The current incarnation theology makes sense as the logical development from a heavenly only Jesus Christ. You could argue that his birth with a human mother and a divine father also makes sense, but why would Christians create a theology that had Jesus as fully man at birth and then adopted at either baptism (or transfiguration) or resurrection? For me the evidence of this adoptionist theology is evidence for a historical Jesus.

Ehrman states that we can see the adoptionsit theology in Roms 1:3-4 and I agree.

Vridar's recent posts put in discussion the authenticity of Rom 1:3-4 as anti-marcionite interpolation.

I agree that the Hymn to Philippians talks both of pre-existence (as mere angel) and adoptionism (as archangel).

Jesus is an angel, just like Satan (or Adam).

Satan fails the test and becomes a fallen angel.

Jesus obeys the divine command and becomes adopted after death.

but why would Christians create a theology that had Jesus as fully man at birth and then adopted at either baptism (or transfiguration) or resurrection?

According to Adamczewski, the pre-adopted Jesus was midrash from Paul the zealot Jew and persecutor. This may be a possibility: just as Paul became apostle of God at his conversion, as well Jesus was adopted by God at his baptism.

In my opinion, this theology was necessary as first timide reaction to Marcion's docetism. A human vessel for the Spirit of Christ is necessary insofar you need an apology for the body, for the matter, for this creation, this world (and his creator god): ''it's not to condemn at all, the body still has its own dignity, after all, if it has a partial role to play for the salvation of humanity''.
And that particular human being had to come from Nazaret to emphasize his Jewish origins (Nezer = Branch of David) against someone who denied any link between Jesus and Judaism.

Adoptionism (but it's more correct to talk about separationism, see for example Mark 1:12 or Mark 15:37) in Mark betrayes therefore marcionite influence. The separationism, at contrary of adoptionism, betrayes still a bit of hate and contempt against the material body.

to Michael BG,
Other clues that Paul adopted pre-existence during his ministry:
Rom 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Gal 4:4
But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

I still think that at the beginning of his preaching, Paul did not have any pre-existence (as for any other Christian preachers then). But evidence is lacking, even in Paul's earliest epistles. Most likely that pre-existence was added to Christ by initially Apollos of Alexandria (as I regard as the author of 'Hebrews', written 54 AD).

Cordially, Bernard

@Bernard

I still think that at the beginning of his preaching, Paul did not have any pre-existence

To say that Paul changed his view in itinere seems a harmonization in order to justify the presence of different Christologies in Paul without resorting to the hypothesis interpolation.

Ulan wrote:

Giuseppe wrote:My problem with Jesus agnosticism is that I am tired of waiting.

That's what I said about human psychology up there. When humans don't have an answer, they just invent one, because not getting an answer becomes unbearable. That's also as good an explanation for religion as any.

I can postpone (with a lot of patience) the answer at a problem when I know that there is at least possibility to have in the future new evidence conclusive of the question.
But in our case, why should I assume the existence of evidence unknown to us and able to confirm the historicity of Jesus (once discovered), when those who had vital necessity of that evidence had not in turn preserved and shown it?

in other words: if Q existed, why has not Q come down to us in his original form?

To say that Paul changed his view in itinere seems a harmonization in order to justify the presence of different Christologies in Paul without resorting to the hypothesis interpolation.

I do not think Paul's Christology and preaching were static. Actually, they show some significant evolution & enhancement, from 1 Thessalonians to Galatians & Romans. I found that about the Law (can be kept, then to ignore) and "Son of God" (which appears rather late in his epistles, outside the few interpolations in the earliest ones). Also adoption of the Sacrifice for atonement of sins took time to be fully accepted by Paul.
Evolution in Christian claims from Paul should not be surprising, in views of the competing preaching of other apostles, about a religion which was starting to take form.

Cordially, Bernard

in other words: if Q existed, why has not Q come down to us in his original form?

I do not think the original form of a complete Q (circa 80 AD) would confirm the historicity of Jesus. Actually, I am certain a lot of Q was made up after Mark's gospel was known. However Q has some sayings of Jesus which seems to be coming from an admirer of John the Baptist (which goes against the grain: John being declared inferior to Christ in the gospels) and someone preaching to poor Jews in the wake of John's "departure" and message (the Kingdom is coming) (against an all encompassing Christian preaching of a Son of God, with use of the LXX).
See http://historical-jesus.info/86.html

Cordially, Bernard

neilgodfrey wrote:

maryhelena wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote: Read the post where I quote Ehrman at one time making a judgement based upon the assumption that we should expect Luke to be consistent and another time arguing the opposite based on the claim that we should NOT expect Luke to be consistent. Whatever suits. I quoted his contradictory arguments.

.......
''......I had a look at Ehrman's arguments for Acts citing very early Christological tradition and found Ehrman presenting the very opposite arguments he set out in his 1993 Orthodox Corruption .....

Ehrman's argument in both books is that a 'low' christology was earlier than a 'high' christology. Whether Ehrman considered the Lukan writer to be consistent or inconsistent does not change Ehrman's position that there was a pre-Pauline adoptionist/exaluation christology. That's the argument that needs to be addressed ......

You seem to have missed the point of the post and the contradictioyn at the heart of his claim that there is pre-Pauline evidence to support his view of the earliest christology being low. Or you just want to find a way to disagree with me on something.

Why would I want to find a way to disagree with you? Surely, it's ideas that we address not who presented them.....

Whatever the 'contradiction' that you find between Ehrman's two books his conclusion in both books stands i.e. early pre-Pauline adoptionist/exaltation christology. Two books over twenty years apart, two books that uphold the same idea re earlier than Paul adoptionist/exaltation christology, and you want to pick fault with Ehrman's approach to the Lukan writer? All for what? An attempt to uphold the Carrier/Doherty mythicist theory....Ehrman's point stands - your blog posts not withstanding. They have not pulled the rug from under Ehrman's arguments re early pre-Paul adoptionist/exaltation christology.

And no, a pre-Paul adoptionist/exaltation christology does not require a historical Jesus. A pre-Paul adoptionist/exaltation christology is part of the NT story - that is all. How that NT story is interpreted will, of course, impact upon how to understand an adoptionist/exaltation christology. One can just as well take a philosophical view as a historical view. Man in the abstract rather than a historical man. 'Man' is elevated, exalted, re Genesis, when he eats from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - he then becomes like god. It is his intellect that elevates man to be god-like over other forms of life. That is basic human nature - a human nature that the NT writers sought, with their gospel story, to celebrate.

There are two christologies in the NT. Neither should be denied relevance. Ehrman can accommodate both christologies - the 'low' and the 'high'. The Carrier mythicist theory denies the 'low' christology, seemingly, in fear of that phantom historical Jesus....

Giuseppe wrote:

Ulan wrote:

Giuseppe wrote:My problem with Jesus agnosticism is that I am tired of waiting.

That's what I said about human psychology up there. When humans don't have an answer, they just invent one, because not getting an answer becomes unbearable. That's also as good an explanation for religion as any.

I can postpone (with a lot of patience) the answer at a problem when I know that there is at least possibility to have in the future new evidence conclusive of the question.
But in our case, why should I assume the existence of evidence unknown to us and able to confirm the historicity of Jesus (once discovered), when those who had vital necessity of that evidence had not in turn preserved and shown it?

in other words: if Q existed, why has not Q come down to us in his original form?

This is going in circles. A motive alone is not sufficient for a verdict. Yes, your scenario is fully possible. You can probably even use statistics to convince yourself that it's likely. This still does not mean that this is what actually happened.

It's exactly the dearth of information that we have that allows for hundreds of different scenarios to fit. You don't need to "assume the existence of evidence", there isn't any, one way or the other, at least none of it strong. On a blank canvas, you can paint pretty much whatever you want. That doesn't mean that your paintbrush wrote history.

This particularly applies to such an unimportant, ancillary detail as whether Jesus was a historical person or not. As most serious scholarship, even on the historicist side, sees the gospels largely as mythical material, aside from a few basics, there isn't much left to test for as far as historicity is concerned.

Ulan wrote:It's exactly the dearth of information that we have that allows for hundreds of different scenarios to fit. You don't need to "assume the existence of evidence", there isn't any, one way or the other, at least none of it strong. On a blank canvas, you can paint pretty much whatever you want. That doesn't mean that your paintbrush wrote history.

There is anything but a dearth of information. The problem is that the plethora of information doesn't yield to a single source hypothesis; not even close. There's a 300 year gap from the epoch where the alleged events transpired to the manuscript evidence, and almost anything could have happened in those intervening centuries. The last two modern centuries have proven that the domain of source theories, historicity and/or mythicism is basically wasted enterprise. The field of NT criticism hasn't set foot on solid ground in a very long time. Any human effort expended on this subject going forward clearly needs to be archaeological in nature.