Bart & Bird

[Scrawly]

Discussing: "How Did Jesus Become God"?

Enjoy and comment.

[seanD]

I think Ehrman had a pretty decent rebuttal of Bird, something I wasn't expecting, especially what Bird argued at 1:42:12 about Mark's supposed adoptionism theology at the baptism. But Ehrman completely danced around the question at 2:12 about buried crucified victims probably because he knew he was wrong.

[Scrawly]

The concerning point for me is this notion that Jews fiercely reserved worship for Yahweh alone. I'm sure there were zealous patriotic Jews who felt this way, however, what of the Hellenistic Jews? Wouldn't they have been more receptive to the "Roman notion" of ascribing divinity to human beings - since they were influenced by Greek and Roman ideas? After hundreds of years of Greek and then Roman occupation of Jerusalem, there would have been many Hellenized Jews there..

Furthermore, there are texts in the Bible that speak of presumably Jewish believers involved in angel worship (Col. 2:18). Moreover, Why do we read on page after page in the OT the condemnation of syncretistic worship on the part of the Israelite's? The biblical writers constantly drive home the point of ridding the land of idols and false places of worship - because everyone was doing it. So why is there this insentience that Jews would never do such-and-such?

[seanD]

I think the argument that Jews never did such things is used to counter skeptical arguments that Judeo-Christians were easily influenced by Greco-Roman practices. Hence, from here, there is a dnager that this opens the door to potential arguments supposing that Christian theology was spawned by such ideas. But we know this to not be the case based on the sheer contention both Jesus and his followers afterward faced in their communities by their own countrymen. It's interesting that Ehrman argues, or at least implies from the debate, that Paul used theology to trump adoptionist beliefs. He apparently argues that Mark's gospel holds to an adoptist view about Jesus, but wouldn't Paul's theology be the earliest views about Jesus in regards to his divinity? If he believes that Mark's gospel came well after Paul, then this doesn't show a progressive evolution of this belief -- from adoptionist to apotheosis. At best, it shows that Mark (which I personally don't believe held to an adoptist view about Jesus -- and Bird did a firm job arguing against that) and Paul's belief were perhaps in contention. From here, I would argue this shows the struggles the early Judeo-Christians had in trying to narrow down who Jesus was from an actual and genuine miraculous event that surrounded Jesus.

[Scrawly]

I think the argument that Jews never did such things is used to counter skeptical arguments that Judeo-Christians were easily influenced by Greco-Roman practices. Hence, from here, there is a dnager that this opens the door to potential arguments supposing that Christian theology was spawned by such ideas. But we know this to not be the case based on the sheer contention both Jesus and his followers afterward faced in their communities by their own countrymen. It's interesting that Ehrman argues, or at least implies from the debate, that Paul used theology to trump adoptionist beliefs. He apparently argues that Mark's gospel holds to an adoptist view about Jesus, but wouldn't Paul's theology be the earliest views about Jesus in regards to his divinity? If he believes that Mark's gospel came well after Paul, then this doesn't show a progressive evolution of this belief -- from adoptionist to apotheosis. At best, it shows that Mark (which I personally don't believe held to an adoptist view about Jesus -- and Bird did a firm job arguing against that) and Paul's belief were perhaps in contention. From here, I would argue this shows the struggles the early Judeo-Christians had in trying to narrow down who Jesus was from an actual and genuine miraculous event that surrounded Jesus.

Good points. Yet we should take into account the fact that first century Judaism was diverse. There were a number of groups with different ways of being Jewish within the context of Roman rule. I think it's also true that a majority of Jews were not part of any notable sects within Judaism, but rather lived their understanding of Judaism as they knew it. There was of course a common core which included certain fundamental beliefs that Jews believed in and practiced, yet I'm sure there were variations and differing interpretations even within the shared common core of Judaism and as pointed out before, the Jews didn't exactly have a spotless history of adhering to strict monotheism.

The NT documents were written against the backdrop of Roman imperial theology and much of the language of imperial theology was applied to Jesus. For example, Octavian became "Augustus", meaning "he who is to be worshiped". Augustus was was revered as "Son of God" and "Lord". He was also called "Savior of the world" who ushered in "peace on earth". His birth was referred to as the "gospel" or "good news", and there were even stories told of his divine conception, being the son of the god Apollo.

[seanD]

Good points. Yet we should take into account the fact that first century Judaism was diverse. There were a number of groups with different ways of being Jewish within the context of Roman rule. I think it's also true that a majority of Jews were not part of any notable sects within Judaism, but rather lived their understanding of Judaism as they knew it. There was of course a common core which included certain fundamental beliefs that Jews believed in and practiced, yet I'm sure there were variations and differing interpretations even within the shared common core of Judaism and as pointed out before, the Jews didn't exactly have a spotless history of adhering to strict monotheism.

The NT documents were written against the backdrop of Roman imperial theology and much of the language of imperial theology was applied to Jesus. For example, Octavian became "Augustus", meaning "he who is to be worshiped". Augustus was was revered as "Son of God" and "Lord". He was also called "Savior of the world" who ushered in "peace on earth". His birth was referred to as the "gospel" or "good news", and there were even stories told of his divine conception, being the son of the god Apollo.

I think the gospel' theology reflects Judaism more than it does anything Greco-Roman, and this became especially evident with the discovery of the Qumran scrolls. In fact, the only thing Greco-Roman about the gospels is the fact they were written in Greek (or supposedly so). Not going to get into it in depth, but if you'd like, here's a paper by Craig Evans about the subject.

As far as the idea Judaism was diverse, I think that's way overplayed. There are quite a few Islamic sects that differ in their doctrine, but there's also a line you don't cross without facing severe repercussions regardless of the muslim sect. Yes, there were sectarian Jewish sects, there were also Hellenized Jews (though I don't see any difference in their rigid fundamentalism than Hebrew Jews -- i.e. Acts 9:29) but, as you stated, there were fundamental tenets that Jews adhered to, and if one were to cross that line, one would face undesirable consequences. It seems that doctrines associated with messianism brought the most attention because it was an exceptionally sensitive subject, evident by the contention and hostility Jesus faced and the apostles continued to face.

[Scrawly]

I think the gospel' theology reflects Judaism more than it does anything Greco-Roman, and this became especially evident with the discovery of the Qumran scrolls. In fact, the only thing Greco-Roman about the gospels is the fact they were written in Greek (or supposedly so). Not going to get into it in depth, but if you'd like, here's a paper by Craig Evans about the subject.

As far as the idea Judaism was diverse, I think that's way overplayed. There are quite a few Islamic sects that differ in their doctrine, but there's also a line you don't cross without facing severe repercussions regardless of the muslim sect. Yes, there were sectarian Jewish sects, there were also Hellenized Jews (though I don't see any difference in their rigid fundamentalism than Hebrew Jews -- i.e. Acts 9:29) but, as you stated, there were fundamental tenets that Jews adhered to, and if one were to cross that line, one would face undesirable consequences. It seems that doctrines associated with messianism brought the most attention because it was an exceptionally sensitive subject, evident by the contention and hostility Jesus faced and the apostles continued to face.

There seems to be a fair bit of evidence that there was no strict distinctive ontological line between God, the gods in the council of the Most High, divine heavenly agents and humans within the context of early Judaism but rather a divine hierarchy of beings that shared in the divine nature and were likewise ascribed a level of divinity. There are numerous examples in second temple literature of Jews who adopted monotheistic beliefs yet held to views that are incompatible with metaphysical monotheism. They adopted a "monarchical monotheism" rather than a "metaphysical monotheism". This article details some examples, which can likewise be found in Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God": https://rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2..._hierarchy.pdf

[seanD]

There seems to be a fair bit of evidence that there was no strict distinctive ontological line between God, the gods in the council of the Most High, divine heavenly agents and humans within the context of early Judaism but rather a divine hierarchy of beings that shared in the divine nature and were likewise ascribed a level of divinity. There are numerous examples in second temple literature of Jews who adopted monotheistic beliefs yet held to views that are incompatible with metaphysical monotheism. They adopted a "monarchical monotheism" rather than a "metaphysical monotheism". This article details some examples, which can likewise be found in Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God": https://rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2..._hierarchy.pdf

So, I'm a bit confused. From this and what you stated in post #5 with the subtle references to the virgin birth, what exactly is your point?

[Scrawly]

So, I'm a bit confused. From this and what you stated in post #5 with the subtle references to the virgin birth, what exactly is your point?

My point is that it is utterly absurd to be so cocksure of what ancient Israelite's would and would not do. Appealing to the Jewishness of the gospels or what have you is therefore a moot point in light of the fact of that the Jews were prone to worshiping idols/statues, ascribing levels of divinity left, right, and center, and were certainly influenced by Greco-Roman practices after having been under occupation for hundreds of years. This is quite obvious when we observe the language used to describe Augustus and then applied to Jesus. I think your average ancient Israelite was as detached and nonchalant as to official religious doctrine as many modern day American Christian's are to Christian doctrine.

[Scrawly]

I think the gospel' theology reflects Judaism more than it does anything Greco-Roman, and this became especially evident with the discovery of the Qumran scrolls. In fact, the only thing Greco-Roman about the gospels is the fact they were written in Greek

What about the miracle recorded by Suetonius of healing performed by Vespasian in which he spat upon blind eyes or touched a lame leg. Do you think there is any relation to Jesus' miracle (Mk. 1:41; 6:56; 7:33)?

[seanD]

My point is that it is utterly absurd to be so cocksure of what ancient Israelite's would and would not do. Appealing to the Jewishness of the gospels or what have you is therefore a moot point in light of the fact of that the Jews were prone to worshiping idols/statues, ascribing levels of divinity left, right, and center, and were certainly influenced by Greco-Roman practices after having been under occupation for hundreds of years. This is quite obvious when we observe the language used to describe Augustus and then applied to Jesus. I think your average ancient Israelite was as detached and nonchalant as to official religious doctrine as many modern day American Christian's are to Christian doctrine.

Assuming you are correct, from this, you would conclude what?

What about the miracle recorded by Suetonius of healing performed by Vespasian in which he spat upon blind eyes or touched a lame leg. Do you think there is any relation to Jesus' miracle (Mk. 1:41; 6:56; 7:33)?

Do you believe they copied the story?

[Scrawly]

Assuming you are correct, from this, you would conclude what?

I would conclude that it is foolish to be so cocksure of what ancient Israelite's would and would not do, for example, stating that the Jews were "allergic to deification" as Ehrman puts it, and goes on to dismantle that sweeping statement beginning at the 2:03:34 mark. He provides example after example (just scratching the surface) to demonstrate that the Jews were really not all that different from your average ancient individual, in many ways.

Do you believe they copied the story?

I believe the author of Mark was writing in oppositional context to Roman imperial theology, beyond that one has to incorporate more data and draw their own conclusions.

[seanD]

I would conclude that it is foolish to be so cocksure of what ancient Israelite's would and would not do, for example, stating that the Jews were "allergic to deification" as Ehrman puts it, and goes on to dismantle that sweeping statement beginning at the 2:03:34 mark. He provides example after example (just scratching the surface) to demonstrate that the Jews were really not all that different from your average ancient individual, in many ways.



I believe the author of Mark was writing in oppositional context to Roman imperial theology, beyond that one has to incorporate more data and draw their own conclusions.

I'm still not clear what your point is though. The implication I get, especially from post #5 is that the stories about Jesus were influenced by pagan ideas of apotheosis because Jews believed in angelic hierarchies? Otherwise, I'm just not seeing through the vagueness in your posts or its relevance to a deified Christ. Jews were nothing like your average individual and we get this indication from multiple written sources, including both Jewish and Greco-Roman writers and what they described of first century Jews. Again, we have a situation with Judeo-Christianity that can't be put into a general context because it's very specific. The fact that Judeo-Christianity was orientated around messianism would have raised the sociopolitical and religious stakes against it even higher -- i.e. they weren't just "worshiping statues" or glorified angles or past prophets but proclaiming and deifying a crucified Jewish contemporary the Messiah of Israel at a time this was an extremely religious and politically volatile topic -- hence the reason we see fierce contention between Jews throughout the works of the New testament in regards to the gospel of Christ and the teachings thereof.

As far as the miracles of Vespasian, you also implied that Mark was influenced by the miracle healing of Vespasian? Again, I can't read through the vagueness or your use of "related." The written story of Vespasian postdates the gospels by many years.

[Scrawly]

I'm still not clear what your point is though. The implication I get, especially from post #5 is that the stories about Jesus were influenced by pagan ideas of apotheosis because Jews believed in angelic hierarchies? Otherwise, I'm just not seeing through the vagueness in your posts or its relevance to a deified Christ.

My point here was to emphasize with Ehrman that the Jews were not "allergic to deification". The Jews were no different than their non-Jewish contemporaries, in this regard. Do you think it is literally impossible that a group of Jews would never bend to syncretism to varying degrees with the surrounding culture? Just look at how the language of imperial theology in regards to Agustus was applied to Jesus, for example.

Jews were nothing like your average individual and we get this indication from multiple written sources, including both Jewish and Greco-Roman writers and what they described of first century Jews.

Sure, but when we speak of "the Jews" we must keep in mind the wide array of factions all with differing interpretations and even rejection of seemingly crucial doctrines - for example the Sadducee's rejection of resurrection.

Again, we have a situation with Judeo-Christianity that can't be put into a general context because it's very specific. The fact that Judeo-Christianity was orientated around messianism would have raised the sociopolitical and religious stakes against it even higher -- i.e. they weren't just "worshiping statues" or glorified angles or past prophets but proclaiming and deifying a crucified Jewish contemporary the Messiah of Israel at a time this was an extremely religious and politically volatile topic -- hence the reason we see fierce contention between Jews throughout the works of the New testament in regards to the gospel of Christ and the teachings thereof.

Right, yet can the stakes really be much higher than when ancient Israelite's chose to worship other deities, such as fertility goddess's that they carried around and worshipped in their home - the exact opposite of clear biblical injunctions by the miracle working Yahweh vis-ŕ-vis his prophets. Again my point is to refrain from this sort of argumentation that boils down to "That's impossible..they were Jewish!" or "That would never happen in this context!"

As far as the miracles of Vespasian, you also implied that Mark was influenced by the miracle healing of Vespasian? Again, I can't read through the vagueness or your use of "related." The written story of Vespasian postdates the gospels by many years.

Related in the sense of I'm trying to understand your rationale as to accepting the miracles of Jesus and dismissing the miracles of Vespasian (multiple attestation in historical writings), especially when we consider the oppositional context of the gospels - Christianity within Judaism within the Roman Empire.

PS: I believe in the miracles of Jesus, but as with all the miracles in the Bible I take it on faith (the non-apologetic definition).

[seanD]

My point here was to emphasize with Ehrman that the Jews were not "allergic to deification". The Jews were no different than their non-Jewish contemporaries, in this regard. Do you think it is literally impossible that a group of Jews would never bend to syncretism to varying degrees with the surrounding culture? Just look at how the language of imperial theology in regards to Agustus was applied to Jesus, for example.



Sure, but when we speak of "the Jews" we must keep in mind the wide array of factions all with differing interpretations and even rejection of seemingly crucial doctrines - for example the Sadducee's rejection of resurrection.



Right, yet can the stakes really be much higher than when ancient Israelite's chose to worship other deities, such as fertility goddess's that they carried around and worshipped in their home - the exact opposite of clear biblical injunctions by the miracle working Yahweh vis-ŕ-vis his prophets. Again my point is to refrain from this sort of argumentation that boils down to "That's impossible..they were Jewish!" or "That would never happen in this context!"



Related in the sense of I'm trying to understand your rationale as to accepting the miracles of Jesus and dismissing the miracles of Vespasian (multiple attestation in historical writings), especially when we consider the oppositional context of the gospels - Christianity within Judaism within the Roman Empire.

PS: I believe in the miracles of Jesus, but as with all the miracles in the Bible I take it on faith (the non-apologetic definition).

Being "allergic to deification" is a false dichotomy. What does that mean and how does that correlate with Judeo-Christianity exactly? They obviously weren't allergic to it since they deified Christ and made him kyrios. I'm a bit surprised you keep appealing to Ehrman. Ehrman's view is that Jesus was not divine, and that Christians wholly stole pagan concepts to create a divinity of Christ that wasn't true. So, naturally Ehrman is going to overstate anything that would support that view. It's possible that second temple Jews allowed themselves to be engulfed with the pagan religions around them, but why should I accept that when all the records about the Jews describe the absolute contrary. As I said before, appealing to different periods Jews fell into idolatry is much too broad and general. The biggest complaint among Greco-Romans was that second temple Jews were annoyingly staunch adherents to their religion and refused to assimilate. In other words, there's no evidence but conjecture for first century Jewish syncretism. Why should I disregard the records and accept conjecture? And, btw, much of Judaic theology that echoed Greco-Roman theology, such as Son of God, was derived from Hebraic concepts that predated Greco-Roman culture (but I'm sure you know this, at least I would hope).

As far as an "array" of factions of Jews; what factions do you speak of? Give me citations. Josephus described four basic groups of Jews and for the most part, shared the same fundamental tenets of Judaism -- devotion to one God and his law in the Torah. Jews worshiping a crucified contemporary as Messiah doesn't logically follow what we know about Jewish diversity, sorry. It's analogous to saying the sheer diversity of fundamentalist Christianity is logically followed by the possibility Christians would worship Charles Manson as messiah. This falls so far out of the scope of Christian fundamentalism that it's an absurd deduction in spite of the diversity.

Moreover, I'm still not following your reference to Vespasian and the relevancy to this discussion. Oppositional context? As far as miracles outside the gospels; when did I ever say they weren't possible? Being that I believe in the supernatural and its ability to interact with the natural, they're indeed possible. Of course, being that they postdate biblical sources, a more natural explanation is that they were influenced by these sources.