There were yet earlier traditions about Jesus that did not speak of him as the son of God from eternity past or from his miraculous birth or from the time he began his ministry. In these, probably the oldest, Christian traditions, Jesus became the Son of God when God raised him from dead. It was then that God showered special favor on the man Jesus, calling him the son, the messiah, the Lord. Even though this view is not precisely that of Paul, it is found in an ancient creed (that is, a preliterary tradition) that Paul quotes a the beginning of his letter to the Romans, where he speaks of Christ as God's "son who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness at his resurrection. . . . It is, in other words, a very ancient tradition that predates Paul's writings. (p.111)Ehrman raises this point as part of an argument assigning an early date to the traditions underlying Acts, but it seems to me that its mythicist implications are fairly obvious and might have been addressed.
Why would the earliest Christians, presumably the ones that Paul persecuted before his conversion, believe that Jesus became the messiah only upon his resurrection if they understood him to have been anything like the wonder working messianic claimant that we find in the gospels? Had their been any known traditions concerning a Galilean teacher and healer, wouldn't the early Christians have believed that Jesus was the messiah and the Son of God throughout his entire earthly ministry? Doesn't the fact that the earliest Christians thought of Jesus as becoming the anointed one only upon his resurrection at least suggest that the stories about the activities of the earthly Jesus were added sometime later.
Posts
Of course, on page 238 of Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman writes '"Even if it predates Paul it does not represent the earliest Christian understanding of Christ."'
ReplyDeleteHe is talking about Philippians 2.
That does not fit the story he is trying to sell, so he claims that if something predates Paul, it does not represent the earliest Christian understanding of Christ.
While Ehrman can write elsewhere 'It is, in other words, a very ancient tradition that predates Paul's writings.'
How does Ehrman date all these things, knowing what came before what?
The guy must have astonishing insight into the evolution of beliefs of the very earliest Christians.
I'm having a bit of trouble following the issues involved here, but this is probably attributable to my sub-sub-amateur level of understanding of the topic.
DeleteWhat's wrong with saying there was a cynic-sage character by the name of Jesus who acquired a small following that was retroactively elevated to messiah status following a "glorious defeat" event?
Heiro5ant,
DeleteI don't think that there is anything wrong with saying that at all. I just don't think that the evidence points conclusively in that direction. Our earliest source is Paul and he doesn't seem to know anything about the cynic-sage Jesus. All he seems to know is the exalted heavenly being who makes himself known through appearances and revelation. I don't think we can rule out the possibility that the visions came first and the cynic-sage character developed later.
"Why would the earliest Christians, presumably the ones that Paul persecuted before his conversion, believe that Jesus became the messiah only upon his resurrection if they understood him to have been anything like the wonder working messianic claimant that we find in the gospels?"
ReplyDeleteEither Ehrman has misspoken or you have misunderstood him on this point. Jesus was not made Messiah only upon his resurrection in the eyes of the earliest Christians. He was Messiah prior to his death, but this identity was only proclaimed by the apostles upon his resurrection and ascension.
"Had their been any known traditions concerning a Galilean teacher and healer, wouldn't the early Christians have believed that Jesus was the messiah and the Son of God throughout his entire earthly ministry?"
While there was some speculation about his being the messiah and while he confided in his closest disciples that he was the messiah, he was primarily known to the people of Israel during his earthly life as a man of God, a prophet of Israel, in the likeness of Israel's prophets of old.
"Doesn't the fact that the earliest Christians thought of Jesus as becoming the anointed one only upon his resurrection at least suggest that the stories about the activities of the earthly Jesus were added sometime later."
As explained above, this question is based on a false assumption.
Either Ehrman has misspoken or you have misunderstood him on this point.
ReplyDeleteThose are of course possibilities Mike, but maybe he simply disagrees with you on this point. Have you read what he has to say on the topic?
I'm merely reporting to you what anyone reading the New Testament documents can see for himself.
ReplyDeleteIf you want me to react specifically to something Ehrman has written, tell me where in DJE he says it.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI expect that your reaction would amount to little more than asserting your own interpretation as unassailable fact, so I leave it up to you. However, you might have noticed that I quote Ehrman in my post and cite the page.
Vinny, in the Ehrman passage that you quote here, I think you're pushing it too far to say that either Ehrman or the earliest Christians were stating that Jesus was not the Son of God before His resurrection, any more than announcing He was the Son of God at the commencement of His ministry was a declaration that He had not been the Son of God before that.
ReplyDeleteIf I announce to the world today that you are Vinny it doesn't mean I'm announcing that you weren't Vinny yesterday.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you that I have correctly understood a book that you have not read.
Why do you assume I have not read the book? I have. I even wrote a review of it on my blog.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Ehrman believes what you say he believes on this point, but that's not obvious from the paragraph you quoted, for the reasons I showed.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI assumed you haven't read it because if you read the section from which I am quoting you would know that Ehrman is talking about the belief that Jesus had been adopted at a particular point in time. An adoption is not simply an announcement of a condition that has existed all along. It is a pronouncement that changes the status or condition of the person being adopted, like when the minister pronounces a couple "husband and wife." They were not husband and wife before, but they become so by virtue of the pronouncement. By the same token, one doesn't adopt someone who is already his son. The adoption changes a person who was not a son into one who is.
BTW, I'm not going to waste my time typing up large sections of Ehrman's book just so it will be obvious to you that I have understood his point correctly.
It would appear from the quoted material, Ehrman utilizes the basic analysis that the simpler doctrine about Jesus is earlier. As Jesus becomes Son of God at Resurrection is less theologically complex than Jesus being pre-existent Son of God, it is earlier.
ReplyDeleteThis make sense, considering Ehrman is a textual critic, and a very common methodology employed by textual critics is “simpler is earlier”—Ehrman is utilizing a methodology he is most familiar with. Further, this is supported by the commonly dated documents surrounding Jesus: Mark starts Jesus ministry at baptism, the later Matthew and Luke move the ministry back to Jesus’ birth, and John moves it back to pre-existence (all but eliminating the import of Mark’s baptism.)
And Ehrman also supports his argument with Romans 1.
The question does logically follow: If Jesus doctrine modified and enhanced over time, isn’t very likely Jesus biography modified and enhanced over time? Again, this is supported by our documents; Jesus claims to not provide any signs in Mark; Matthew & Luke increase this to one (1) sign; John claims he makes multiple signs.
The question then for the mythical Jesus folks, is what is the simplest Jesus? (If we employ this methodology consistently.) And is a mythical Jesus MORE simple (and it would have to be, in order to be earlier) than a traveling rabbi who got too uppity for his own good and was whacked off by the Romans?
Vinny, I think you raise good questions regarding the Miraculous Jesus (especially the one portrayed in John—why would they think such a person only become Son of God at Resurrection?), yet I see the harder question as to how mythical Jesus is “simpler” than travelling-sage-later-legend Jesus.
Mike Gantt,
Unless you post some quote from Ehrman showing otherwise, your argument this quoted portion was about what people were saying as compared to what they were believing is…well…unsupported. It seems pretty clear on its face to me, Vinny has it correctly interpreted.
Dagoods,
DeleteI don't follow at all your distinction between what people were saying and what they were believing. Which people do you think were saying something without believing it...or vice versa?
I see the harder question as to how mythical Jesus is “simpler” than travelling-sage-later-legend Jesus.
DeleteI think that's an excellent point. My thinking lately has been that one of the better arguments for a historical Jesus is the progression we see of a Jesus becoming more supernatural with each gospel that is written. I was hoping that would be one of Ehrman's arguments.
I went back and re-read the surrounding material to what you quoted. Ehrman is positing layers of traditions, with varying emphases. I don't think he is necessarily making the point you say he is. Nevertheless, let's assume for discussion's sake that your reading of him is the correct one. Help me understand what the "obvious mythicist implications" are and in what way he should have addressed them. If he is positing a fully human Jesus only regarded as divine after his resurrection, why does he have to talk about the miracles of Jesus? A Jesus without miracles is standard fare in historical Jesus scholarship. All such scholars would agree that the miracles were added later.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteEhrman argues that Paul should be understood to be referring to remembered teachings of the earthly Jesus in 1 Cor. 9:13-14 and 1 Cor 7:10-12 rather than revelations given by the risen Christ. However, these commands are attributed to "the Lord" rather than to "Jesus." If the community didn't understand the earthly Jesus to have been the messiah yet, I think it might be at least as natural to think that Paul is referring to a revelation rather than a remembered teaching when he attributes a command to "the Lord."
By the same token, if the flesh and blood Jesus was not thought to have been the messiah yet, it might make somewhat less sense to assume that Paul is thinking of a biological relationship when he calls James "the brother of the Lord" in Gal. 1:19.
Ah, that's helpful. Thanks.
DeleteBut I thought that on mythicism, the earthly Jesus was added after Paul preached the celestial Jesus. Since Ehrman is positing an actual earthly Jesus who precedes the celestial (risen) Lord, how would his suggestion give oxygen to these two mythicist interpretations of Paul and thereby require Ehrman to deal with them?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteIf Paul thought that Jesus only became the anointed one upon his resurrection, then it might logically be argued that any reference to "the Lord" or "the Lord Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" should be interpreted as a reference to some post-resurrection aspect of the risen Christ rather than the pre-resurrection Jesus regardless of whether the pre-resurrection Jesus was thought to be earthly or celestial. If that it the case, it undercuts the argument that Paul is referring to a historical Jesus since that Jesus would have been pre-resurrection.
So mythicism posits that Paul preached a celestial pre-resurrection Jesus, a celestial crucifixion, followed by a celestial resurrection, and that subsequent followers modified this view to make the pre-crucifixion Jesus an earthly instead of a celestial one (and therefore a historical rather than a mythical one)?
ReplyDeleteThat does seem to be the hypothesis to which the label "mythicism" is most frequently applied.
DeleteThen I don't understand your frustration with Ehrman on this point. You're quoting from Part I where he is laying out his positive case for the historical Jesus. He doesn't present his refutation of the mythicist case until Part II. Why do you want him to address "mythicist implications" at this point?
ReplyDeleteWhere do you come up with this stuff Mike? I never said I wanted him to address it at any particular point. My complaint is that he didn't address it anywhere.
DeleteLater in the chapter, he argues that "[w]hen Paul claims that the Lord said something, and we have a record of Jesus saying exactly that, it is surely most reasonable to conclude that Paul is referring to something that he believed Jesus actually said." (p.129) That might have been a logical point to address the question of whether Paul would have thought of the pre-resurrection Jesus as "the Lord" or not.
I think you're being too hard on Ehrman. If he addresses the fundamental case of mythicism and refutes it, then "whether Paul would have thought of the pre-resurrection Jesus as 'the Lord' or not" would have been a moot point.
ReplyDeleteThat's a big "if" Mike. How can Paul's understanding of "the Lord" be a moot point when Ehrman cites his use of the term as proof that Paul was thinking of a historical Jesus?
DeleteEhrman's point on p. 129 does not turn on Paul's use of the term "the Lord." Ehrman is using "the Lord" and "Jesus" interchangeably in that passage.
ReplyDeleteDing ding ding ding! Exactly Mike. Ehrman is using the words interchangeably and I'm not sure whether that's justified in light of what he earlier said about the earthly Jesus not yet being the Son of God.
DeleteI don't think it's fair of you to expect a rigid bifurcation in terminology from Ehrman because of "what he earlier said about the earthly Jesus not being the Son of God."
ReplyDeleteSomeone can say to a new congregant at the synagogue, "Let me introduce you to our rabbi whom I've known since he was five years old" without meaning that there are five-year old rabbis.
I'm not asking for a rigid bifurcation. I'm asking for a clearer explanation for why it's "surely more reasonable" to treat the terms interchangeably.
Delete"Because Paul did" is insufficient?
ReplyDeleteNo. Because those of us who can't magically read Paul's mind don't know that he did.
ReplyDeleteI'm not claiming to read his mind. I'm just noticing the way he writes.
ReplyDeleteMike Gantt,
ReplyDeleteFYI--I didn’t answer your question because:
1) I don’t really care to debate the question “what Ehrman meant;”
2) Apparently I did not understand what you were claiming; and
3) I completely lost interest.
DagoodS,
DeleteFair enough. Thanks for closing the loop.