|
Post by sandwiches on Jul 1, 2012 20:46:01 GMT
Very informative post on Professor Larry Hurtado's blog titled: An “Early High Christologyâ€He emphasises how quickly such a "high Christology" developed and that it was not dependent on the growth of Christianity outside Galilee and Judea: larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/an-early-high-christology/A reader responding to an earlier posting of mine drew attention to a forthcoming book in which apparently the author asserts that the view of Jesus as somehow divine or partaking in divine honor arose sometime in the 40s and in places such as Antioch (where, supposedly, the influence of pagan religion with the frequency of divinized heroes would have helped to generate a divine Jesus). As I’ve invested some 25 years in the relevant questions and evidence, it’s always disappointing to find apparently senior scholars so much out of touch.....
Of course, earliest Christian discourse did not refer to Jesus and God in the terms that later became common, such as divine “essence†and divine “personsâ€. We can’t read the christological/theological discourse of the 3rd-4th centuries back into the first years. Indeed, it appears that the vocabulary and the questions of “ontology†weren’t a part of the discourse that earliest believers used. Note: It isn’t that they considered such language and rejected it; instead, it simply wasn’t a part of their discourse-world. So, they referred to Jesus as sharing and reflecting the glory of God, as bearing/sharing the divine name, etc., and this is pretty heady stuff. Most significantly, I have argued, they also included Jesus in their devotional practice in ways that were without precedent in Jewish tradition and that were otherwise reserved for God. Crucially, all indications are that this was not an issue between Paul and Jerusalem.
This helps to explain why people should not get too hung up on whether expressions such as "Son of God" etc are used in early Christian literature?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 2, 2012 7:34:14 GMT
Hurtado claims in his article that the views he is presenting are now fairly accepted in the mainstream of scholars, leading "most of those who have studied the subject to judge that there was in fact a very early eruption of devotion to Jesus as in some sense sharing divine glory."
Of course it isn't unusual for writers to claim the consensus is on their side, but Hurtado is fairly strong on this:
"I’ve analyzed in detail the data relevant to this question, and have concluded that by all accounts in fact the sort of Jesus-devotion reflected and affirmed in Paul’s letters seems to have characterized also Jewish-Christian circles of the very first years. Moreover, quite a number of other scholars have reached essentially the same conclusion over recent decades."
He makes the point that we have to distinguish the concepts from the words - the concepts could be there, at least in embryo, long before the words were developed and became standard.
I daresay the battle lines will be drawn when Bart Ehrman and Geza Vermes both publish on this topic, and Hurtado is staking out his territory in advance.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 2, 2012 9:05:09 GMT
Of course it isn't unusual for writers to claim the consensus is on their side, but Hurtado is fairly strong on this: "I’ve analyzed in detail the data relevant to this question, and have concluded that by all accounts in fact the sort of Jesus-devotion reflected and affirmed in Paul’s letters seems to have characterized also Jewish-Christian circles of the very first years. Moreover, quite a number of other scholars have reached essentially the same conclusion over recent decades."This begs the question: what is the nature of that Jesus-devotion, and is it unambiguously reflecting a belief in Jesus as the God of Israel? I argue that it is not. At the theological college where I am currently taking my BTh, one of the lecturers follows Hurtado in claiming that references to Jesus as 'Lord' in the NT are sufficient, of themselves alone, to prove that the earliest Christians worshipped him as God. To me this simply demonstrates that in order to substantiate their claims, Trinitarians find it necessary to reduce the burden of evidence until it is virtually non-existent. It's a classic case of special pleading. This begs the question: how do we determine that the concepts are there (even 'in embryo') if the words aren't? Using that approach you could extrapolate almost anything out of next to nothing.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 2, 2012 12:25:18 GMT
This begs the question: what is the nature of that Jesus-devotion, and is it unambiguously reflecting a belief in Jesus as the God of Israel? I argue that it is not. I don't think it begs any question, for Hurtado doesn't think that question was asked back then, and I don't think anyone is claiming anything "unambiguously". I have already said that I have long recognised, without having done any study or reading on the matter, but just from reading the Bible devotionally, that there was development in the early christians' understanding of Jesus. I don't think they would have come to the view that Jesus = Yahweh very easily, but it is quite possible that they worshipped him as divine without having a clear formulation of that practice and belief, and quite likely initially holding views on the subject which would not stand critical scrutiny. So Hurtado says: "Of course, earliest Christian discourse did not refer to Jesus and God in the terms that later became common, such as divine “essence” and divine “persons”. We can’t read the christological/theological discourse of the 3rd-4th centuries back into the first years. Indeed, it appears that the vocabulary and the questions of “ontology” weren’t a part of the discourse that earliest believers used. Note: It isn’t that they considered such language and rejected it; instead, it simply wasn’t a part of their discourse-world. So, they referred to Jesus as sharing and reflecting the glory of God, as bearing/sharing the divine name, etc., and this is pretty heady stuff. Most significantly, I have argued, they also included Jesus in their devotional practice in ways that were without precedent in Jewish tradition and that were otherwise reserved for God."This seems to me to make sense. It is between the view that Jesus claimed to be the second person of the Trinity and was worshipped as such right from the beginning, and the view that he never claimed anything about divinity and was only worshipped decades later. There is clear evidence of development on this and other matters, and one would expect that if (as christians believe) the incarnation and resurrection were real, it would take time to assimilate and reflect on such momentous and uniques events. It doesn't worry my faith exactly when the transition and clarity occurred, but Hurtado's view seems reasonable on the surface. I daresay other views are reasonable as well.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jul 2, 2012 20:31:29 GMT
I have already said that I have long recognised, without having done any study or reading on the matter, but just from reading the Bible devotionally, that there was development in the early christians' understanding of Jesus. You've just stopped short of accepting what that implies. Really? If he sat them down and told them "Look, I'm actually Yahweh. I am your God in human form, come to earth to redeem you through my death. In fact, I am the second person of a triune Godhead, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit ..." etc they wouldn't have "come to that view"? Why not? Or did he not tell them all this and just let their ideas about him "develop" in a way that just happens to look exactly like a Jewish preacher who came to be seen as the Messiah and then seen to have had a heavenly pre-existence and finally, after centuries of wrangling and various ecumenical councils, became the deity you now worship?
|
|
|
Post by drmirabilis on Jul 2, 2012 22:46:10 GMT
Or did he not tell them all this and just let their ideas about him "develop" in a way that just happens to look exactly like a Jewish preacher who came to be seen as the Messiah and then seen to have had a heavenly pre-existence and finally, after centuries of wrangling and various ecumenical councils, became the deity you now worship? Really? Well, according to your own website History vs The Da Vinci Code, Christians worshipped Jesus of Nazareth as a deity since, at least, the late First Century; long before any ecumenical council took place: historyversusthedavincicode.com/chapterfiftyfive.htm#jesusgodAccording to Brown, via Teabing and Langdon, this transition happened abruptly in 325 AD, when (by their account) the pagan Emperor Constantine co-opted Christianity for his own political ends and imposed various pagan elements on it which did not exist before. The most important of these, according to Brown's narrative, was turning Jesus from a mortal prophet into a God-Man. As Brown tells it, "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet... a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal."
This is contrary to the evidence in every possible respect.
We have no shortage of writings from Christians of the Second, Third and Fourth Centuries AD and they regularly tell of their perception of who and what Jesus was. If Teabing, Langdon (and Brown) are correct, we should see a sharp break around 325 AD, with earlier writers referring to Jesus only as a mortal prophet and later ones adopting this 'pagan' idea of him being a god in human form. But we do not see this at all.
The evidence from all Christian writings prior to 325 AD, right back to the late First Century and within a generation or two of Jesus' own time, indicates clearly that the overwhelming majority of Christians regarded Jesus as God long before 325 AD, before the Council of Nicea and centuries before Constantine was even born. Non-Christian historians agree that the process of turning the mortal Jewish preacher, Yeshua bar Yosef, into the divine being 'Jesus Christ' was well underway as early as 90 AD and was more or less complete by the middle of the Second Century.
A sample of the writings about the nature of Jesus from Christians from the late First Century to Constantine's time shows exactly how totally ridiculously wrong The Da Vinci Code's claims are in this respect:
Ignatius of Antioch (50 AD-117 AD)
"Ignatius ... to the Church which is at Ephesus, ... united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God." (Letter to the Ephesians, Prologue)
"There is one physician who is possessed of both flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in the flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord." (Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 7)
"Do everything as if he (Jesus) were dwelling in us. Thus we shall actually be his temples and he will be within us as our God - as he actually is .... For our God, Jesus Christ .... was born and baptised, that by his passion he might purify the water." (Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 15)
"Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time" (Letter to the Magnesians, Chapter 6)
"...I pray for your happiness for ever in our God, Jesus Christ, ..." (Letter to Polycarp, Chapter 8)
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which ... is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God." (Letter to the Romans, Prologue)
Aristides (123-4 or 129AD)
(Aristides was a non-Christian philosopher from Athens. In a letter to the Emperor Hadrian he describes what various religions believe about God and the gods):
"The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished." (Letter to Hadrian, Chapter 2)
Polycarp (110-130 AD)
"...to all under heaven who shall believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead." (Letter to the Phillipians, Chapter 12)
"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;' and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil." (Letter to the Phillipians, Chapter 7)
Justin Martyr (165 AD)
"The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is also God." (First Apology, Chapter 63)
"...which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts..." (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 36)
"And there are some who maintain that even Jesus Himself appeared only as spiritual, and not in flesh, but presented merely the appearance of flesh: these persons seek to rob the flesh of the promise." (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 2)
"For if you had understood what was written by the prophets, you would not have denied that he (Jesus) was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God." (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 126)
Melitio of Sardis (170 AD)
"Born as a son, led forth as a lamb, sacrificed as a sheep, buried as a man, he rose from the dead as a God, for he was by nature God and man. He is all things: he judges, and so he is Law; he teaches, and so he is Wisdom; he saves, and so he is Grace; he begets, and so he is Father; he is begotten, and so he is Son; he suffers, and so he is Sacrifice; he is buried, and so he is man; he rises again, and so he is God. This is Jesus Christ, to whom belongs glory for all ages." (Apology, 8-10)
"Being God and likewise perfect man, he (Jesus) gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity ... and of his humanity ..." (Apology, 13)
Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD)
"He (Jesus) alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things." (Exhortation to the Greeks, 1:7:1)
"(Jesus is) the expiator, the Saviour, the soother ... quite evidently true God." (Exhortation to the Greeks, 1:7:1)
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 3, 2012 0:00:15 GMT
Polycarp (110-130 AD) "...to all under heaven who shall believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead."(Letter to the Phillipians, Chapter 12) This is spurious. The text makes no mention of Jesus as God: ( Source).
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jul 3, 2012 0:24:15 GMT
You've just stopped short of accepting what that implies. Although the general tenor of your comments is quite clear to me Tim, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. It implies to me that there was gradual growth in understanding, as seems to commonly happen with people when we learn new facts. That seems perfectly normal to me. Like I said, I have understood this for decades now, long before I started to read NT historians more intensively. I think the evidence is quite clear. Coincidently, I was just looking last night at Mark 8, where the following sequence occurs: - Jesus discusses "the yeast of the Pharisees" and asks them don't they yet understand?
- He asks them who they think he is and Peter says "the Messiah".
- He tells them the Messiah won't be a conquering Messiah but a serving and dying Messiah.
- Peter rebukes him for saying such a stupid thing.
- Jesus corrects Peter and teaches that his followers need to be servants too.
They were Jewish and fiercely monotheistic. The idea of a divine and suffering Messiah was totally foreign to them. After a year (or whatever) on the road with Jesus, who was famed then and now as a charismatic teacher, they still didn't understand. It was an enormous step. The gospels show that many ceased following him because what he said was too radical for them. He didn't want to lose them all. He did what all good teachers (and parents ) do and led them gradually. Further, I am not a dogmatic Trinitarian. It is a doctrine worked out or affirmed by church councils that I don't necessarily have confidence in. I have studied theology and I don't have a lot of confidence in it the way it is commonly done, or put a lot of value in it. But I think the divinity of Jesus is quite clear, and I think the Trinitarian formula is as good an idea as anyone has had about how to explain the information we have, so I hold it loosely. So I think another reason why Jesus didn't teach it is because it isn't really all that important. You and I have discussed this before, so I don't suppose we will reach any more agreement this time, but for what it's worth, here's my views again. To me, Jesus looks quite unlike an ordinary Jewish preacher who was misunderstood. He looks much more like the divine son of God, son of man, suffering servant Messiah who established the kingdom of God on earth in a new way. Any misunderstanding has been to underestimate him, not overestimate. I base this on: - "Jesus [believed] he himself was inaugurating God's kingdom upon earth ..... The whole of Jesus' moral teaching was secondary and subordinate to this conviction." (Michael Grant)
- The titles son of man, son of God and Messiah can all mean less than divinity, but taken together in the way Jesus uses them, they seem clearly to have divine implications. This can be seen clearly in Jesus' response at his trial to the question: "Are you the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the Blessed?" He said: "I am; and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven."
- This interpretation is strengthened by Jesus' statements in Mark 12:1-9 (the parable of the vineyard) and Matthew 11:27 (the Son and the Father), and his use of "Abba" (the exact usage and meaning of which is much disputed, but on any interpretation adds to the picture).
- He acted with authority greater even that the OT scriptures, divine authority to forgive sins (Michael Grant: "Jesus introduced a very singular innovation. For he also claimed that he himself could forgive sins.") and heal (EP Sanders: "I think we can be fairly certain that initially Jesus' fame came as a result of healing, especially exorcism.") Both Jesus and his hearers saw his power to heal as a sign of divine authority: "But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." (Luke 11:20).
- Likewise his teachings on all people being judged by him, and his death being redemptive ((Michael Grant: "Jesus [believed] that his death was destined to save the human race." imply divine authority.
- Once we get to Paul (e.g. Philippians 2:6-11 and Colossians 1:15-20), the matter is even clearer. And I do not discount John, for I believe the evidence shows that it is strongly based on eyewitness accounts even though it seems to reflect a more developed theology.
I actually don't see myself worshiping Jesus as much as following him, but that is a minor point. As I have said, I don't care that much about the subsequent theological wrangling. I think God cares much more about how we live and follow the teachings of his son than how well we make precise formulations of doctrines we cannot fully understand anyway. But gradual development is the way the world and the Bible seem to work. Look at the process of human procreation and maturing, of evolution, of the big bang - all built on change and growth. The Bible is the same. The semi-mythical stories of the early OT give way to the sharp words of the prophets, which in turn give way to Jesus. Then we enter the 'day' of the Holy Spirit, who Jesus promised would lead us into 'all truth'. And we see that in Acts, regarding the inclusion of gentiles in the kingdom, and we see it to this day in the continual development and adaptation of christianity, so it remains a successful and growing kingdom. It all looks perfectly consistent to me, and nothing like one more failed Jewish prophet from the backwater of the empire, who somehow got more famous and exalted than the Beatles after he died. I think that is quite implausible, but I guess the only reasonable view available for someone who accepts that Jesus lived but doesn't accept what people wrote about him.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 3, 2012 0:35:53 GMT
Really? Well, according to your own website History vs The Da Vinci Code, Christians worshipped Jesus of Nazareth as a deity since, at least, the late First Century; long before any ecumenical council took place: With the exception of Ignatius (who in my view did not worship Jesus as God, nor believed in his pre-existence), these quotes are from ontological subordinationists, who did not worship Jesus as the God of Israel but saw him as a lesser divine being created by the Father. Their use of the word 'god' was therefore highly qualified and cannot be read in the same way that we use it today. This is from the short recension. The long recension reads as follows: This is from the Latin copy of the short recension. It is not found in the Greek, which reads as follows: There is no reference to Jesus' deity here. This is from the short recension. The long recension reads as follows: I believe both statements are spurious. At any rate, they are entirely consistent with ontological subordinationism (the second is blatantly Arian). This is from the short recension. The long recension reads as follows: As before, this is Arian language. Notice that the short recension fails to identify Jesus as God. I believe both statements are spurious. This is from the short recension. The long recension is identical. I believe both statements are spurious. This is from the short recension. The long recension uses the same phrase (which I believe to be spurious), but also also makes use of the apostolic expression 'our God and Saviour' which has a Biblical precedent in Titus 2:13, where its grammatical construction is the subject of endless debate. Though not without its problems, I personally feel that the long recension provides the more accurate gloss (note that 'Our God and Saviour' could be translated 'God and our Saviour'). *snip* No argument here. Aristides was a subordinationist. As mentioned in a previous post, this quote is spurious. The text simply does not refer to Jesus as God. There is no reference to Jesus' deity here. *snip* Justin was a subordinationist. He did not believe Jesus was God in an absolute sense. Boer ( A Short History of the Early Church, 1976) summarises Justin's Christology as follows: This is blatant Modalism. Perfectly consistent with subordinationism. [/i][/quote] Perfectly consistent with subordinationism. Clement was actually a closet Docetist, believing that Jesus' mortal body had no human needs.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 3, 2012 0:39:25 GMT
Needless to say, if it dies, it isn't God.
|
|
|
Post by drmirabilis on Jul 3, 2012 2:41:56 GMT
This is spurious. The text makes no mention of Jesus as God: Here is the original Greek text of Polycarp's Letter (with some portions in Latin): www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/polycarp-philippians.htmThe Chapter 12 only survives in Latin, which reads as follows: My translation: 1. I am confident that you are well versed in the Scriptures, and from you nothing is hid; but to me this is not granted. Only, as it is said in these Scriptures, "Be you angry and sin not," and "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath." Blessed is the man who remembers this, and I believe that it is so with you. 2. Now may God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the everlasting Priest himself, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, build you up in faith and truth, and in all gentleness, and without wrath, and in patience, and in longsuffering, and endurance, and purity, and may he give you lot and part with his saints, and to us with you, and to all under heaven who shall believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead. 3. Pray for all the saints. Pray also for the kings, and for the potentates, and princes, and for those who persecute you and hate you, and for the enemies of the cross that your fruit may be manifest among all men, that you may be perfected in Him. It seems clear to me that Polycarp regarded Jesus as divine.
|
|
|
Post by drmirabilis on Jul 3, 2012 2:51:24 GMT
Tomorrow, I'll take a look into Ignatius' letters and then I'll answer.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 3, 2012 3:12:27 GMT
Here is the original Greek text of Polycarp's Letter (with some portions in Latin): www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/polycarp-philippians.htm... My translation: ... 2. Now may God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the everlasting Priest himself, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, build you up in faith and truth, and in all gentleness, and without wrath, and in patience, and in longsuffering, and endurance, and purity, and may he give you lot and part with his saints, and to us with you, and to all under heaven who shall believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead. Thanks, but I'm happy with the Roberts-Donaldson translation. On the basis of a single reference in a patchy Greek & Latin text? Seriously?
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 3, 2012 3:17:34 GMT
This begs the question: what is the nature of that Jesus-devotion, and is it unambiguously reflecting a belief in Jesus as the God of Israel? I argue that it is not. I don't think it begs any question, for Hurtado doesn't think that question was asked back then, and I don't think anyone is claiming anything "unambiguously". Of course it begs a question, and necessarily so. The nature of devotion to Jesus needs to be interpreted before we can draw any conclusions from it. This is not about when the question was asked, but why we should be asking it in the first place. Hurtado claims Jesus received devotion previously reserved for the God of Israel alone, but I just don't see that anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jul 3, 2012 3:47:01 GMT
Their use of the word 'god' was therefore highly qualified and cannot be read in the same way that we use it today. I am interested in this Sankari, but just what did they mean by attributing the word "god" to Jesus? Or are there diverse meanings due to the diversity of the writers who refer to Jesus by this term? Can you suggest any follow up literature? I have often seen claims that the word "theos" should be translated "a god" and not "God" or "Deity" but what do they mean by "a god"? It is something that is never explained.
|
|