This article is a continuation of the previous one here.
Binatary Worship?
Divine but not God?
The views of the New Testament writers do actually come from very different perspectives. Why does John, for instance, explicitly say that Jesus is the same as God, yet the synoptics do not, at least not explicitly? For a deeper study of such phenomena, I actually highly recommend Bart Ehrman’s book How Jesus Became God, which is accessible to the average lay reader. In fact, he does such a thorough job of explaining both what the New Testament writers say and what ancient people believed about the continuum between gods and men that I truly think that this book could be used in a Bible class, if the readers can get past the fact that they are reading an unbeliever. Ehrman does not go into some of the theological points that I mention above, but he does an otherwise very thorough analysis of the different New Testament voices, even though I disagree with some of his conclusions. And his book, I believe, advances modern scholarship: as I noted above, secular scholarship is beginning to see that viewing John as a “higher” Christology is not an accurate or productive paradigm, and Ehrman agrees. In fact, he even argues that many of the earliest Christians also believed Jesus to be God. The rub for most modern Christians is that he argues that calling Jesus God does not mean that they are necessarily the same person, and some of the premises of his argument are not wrong. (E.g., the angel of God at the burning bush is spoken of as YHVH.) Ehrman’s analysis is not just a secular or skeptic’s view of the New Testament voices, but also accepted by believing theologians, such as Raymond Brown.[1]
Exaltation versus Incarnation
One of the most foundational ideas found in the New Testament, as expounded by Ehrman and Brown, are two ways of looking at the nature of Jesus as the Christ. The first is an exaltation Christology, where Christ is raised to be equal with the Father, and the other is an incarnation Christology, where Jesus comes down from the Father. Both of these views picture Christ as divine, but are nonetheless very different views; at least so the scholars claim.
Exaltation Christology is found in Paul and Acts, believed to contain some of the earliest teachings regarding Jesus Christ.[2] Paul’s Jesus was appointed Son of God by his resurrection from the dead; and this statement is made in the important introduction to Paul’s theme in Romans, one of the earliest statements of the Christian faith.[3] Luke even goes so far as to portray Paul as saying one of the most radical statements regarding the nature of the Christ in Acts 13: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you,” a quote from Psalm 2 that fits neatly into the soteriological motif of the Davidic promises of the Hebrew Bible. But the question that arises from this passage, for people who had the book of John, is how Jesus could be “begotten” of God at the resurrection, as his father, if he was eternal and present at the beginning of creation, as John depicts him, or even one with the Father. Peter makes similar comments as Paul in Acts 2 and 5, saying that God had exalted Jesus to the right hand of God, this time quoting from another Davidic Psalm, 110; God had made him both Lord and Christ.
Interestingly, although the Acts 13 interpretation of Psalm 2 above places Jesus’ exaltation at his resurrection as being when God “begot” him, Mark first depicts Jesus as declared as Son of God at Jesus’ baptism.[4]
As noted already, John is the only gospel that gives us some of the most explicit incarnation Christology, as opposed to exaltation. In other words, Jesus was already and always had been God, but came down and inhabited flesh, then later returned to Heaven. I’ll consider below if John was the only book of the New Testament that in fact felt this way.
Are so-called exaltation and incarnation Christologies mutually exclusive? The author of Hebrews for one did not think so. Elements of both are found there.[5] However, I would argue that our previously examined sources are not completely on one side or the other, either. John arguably uses exaltation terminology just by calling Jesus the Son of God, and I’ve already cited many examples from the synoptic writers and Paul making very powerful early statements regarding Jesus’ god-like status, such as permitting people to worship him; perhaps the most powerful examples of this is when Paul speaks of Jesus already existing during Israel’s wandering in the wilderness under the guidance of Moses. John was not the only one who spoke of Jesus’ pre-existence. Although I think it’s useful to read carefully for exaltation and incarnation beliefs of the biblical authors, I believe that Ehrman’s argument falls apart: none of the authors can really be said to be in a particular camp that only sees Jesus from one perspective and not the other. Once again though, this is not to say that the authors do not give very different perspectives.
Before we continue exploring in what sense Jesus could have been divine under a monotheistic paradigm, I’d like to pause for a moment and review a few salient points. Until only the last few decades, prevailing scholarship clung to the paradigm that only pagan influence could have caused early Christians to decide that Jesus could be worshiped, and only outside of Palestine. Modern scholarship has finally warmed to the clear evidence that Christ-worship occurred very early, among Jews, and in a thoroughly Jewish context. And even believers have a hard time seeing the evidence that the Hebrew Bible itself already contained concepts that seem to allow for just such a development, 1) in having a view of hierarchy of divine beings into which some men could somehow become exalted and 2) in even calling the son of David God, and placing him both in the clouds and on a throne with YHVH himself. Clearly the New Testament writers were not always being inventive when they showed that the Jews’ own Scriptures had to be opened to them in order for them to accept Jesus as the divine Messiah.
Preliterary Traditions?
In the New Testament, the earliest writings have an extremely high view of Christ’s divinity. In fact, Paul’s own Christology includes both exaltation and incarnation![6] We’ll come back to how such a Christology is explained by the new historical school of scholars below. But that is not the only surprising thing about what Paul teaches. Scholars have noted compelling reasons that suggest that Paul may have actually been citing earlier sources. Note that Paul was writing roughly one to three decades after the crucifixion itself. Therefore, if he cites an earlier tradition, this is strong evidence that he could have very well given us a tradition held by actual original followers of Jesus himself. Regardless of whether this is the case, if he is citing an earlier expression of faith in a very high Christology, it’s highly suggestive that the divinity of Christ was a very early belief indeed, even earlier than Paul’s conversion.
I will not dogmatically claim that the following criteria are proof positive that Paul was citing earlier sources, but these are certainly compelling evidence. I would imagine that most fundamentalists would love to hear some of the earliest creedal statements, which is what these appear to be. However, for the tiny minority of fundamentalists who think like those with whom I was raised, I would like to point out that a creedal statement is not necessarily a bad thing from a fundamentalist perspective, even when written by a man; how much less when contained in the canon?[7] In previous chapters, I also dispensed with the misconception that divine inspiration meant that biblical writers could not have used other sources besides directly from God himself. They most definitely did, and often told us that that was exactly what they were doing. Sometimes they did not even tell us who their sources were, only that they relied on others who were witnesses.[8]
I should also point out that scholars often call passages that appear to come from an earlier source “pre-literary” traditions based on the assumption that they were oral first. We need not here speculate about whether they were written earlier or not. Although I think it is interesting that these could have very well been recited in some of the earliest liturgies[9] of Christ-followers. I will continue to call them pre-literary traditions for simplicity’s sake. But if you need a good argument consistent with fundamentalist views of inspiration, everything Jesus said was a pre-literary tradition, as the gospels themselves testify that everything he ever taught was first orally delivered. I would also like to point out something many scholars have finally begun to recognize: shifts between oral and written tradition were never one-way, and have always been fluid. Let us dispense with this ridiculous paradigm that there is some sort of “advancement” in religious teachings that necessitates the beginning being oral and the end being written. Oral and written traditions for teachers and learners have been employed together for millennia. Going back to the example of Jesus, he was often orally expounding on ancient writings! If you’re thinking that I protest too much, then I’d encourage you to try to read the incredibly prolific scholarly literature on the orality of biblical sources. Never has so much speculation been made about a single topic, and for what? Because of modern Protestant misconceptions about what inspiration must entail? Though there are some useful insights in such scholarship, most of it is not only beyond exhaustive, but also quite exhausting.[10] Often the Bible speaks of both oral and written traditions, even interchangeably. The second letter to the Thessalonians (2:15) exhorted the people to stand firm and hold to the tradition that they were taught, whether by “our spoken word or by our letter!” Perhaps more importantly, the more advanced view of revelation found in the Bible represents it as something that should be written on the heart to bring life, not with dead letters that kill. This is the more spiritually advanced concept of what their living oracles[11] were.
Thus I will be using the expression “pre-literary tradition” to refer to a certain kind of reference to an earlier source. Apart from facilitating communication (i.e., using an existing scholarly term), my intent in using the expression “pre-literary tradition” is for it to mean only possible existence before it was written by the present author who’s quoting it, not that it was not necessarily written before. I will also apply it to a very specific kind of citation, not just any type of quote, as described below.
Scholars use a few criteria to try to determine if a portion of a text might have come from an earlier source. Sometimes context in the message itself will indicate that the author is quoting, as in Acts 17:28, but there can still be other indicators if there is no such context. Sometimes sources shared by more than one author is an indication it was earlier than the author’s own work, such as the accounts found in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark, which some scholars call the “Q” source.[12] [13]
But the type of pre-literary tradition that I want to focus on is sort of a special kind of quote, and has its own batch of criteria.[14] Often these passages seem to have a poetic or nearly poetic structure that sets them apart; in fact, certain translations will indent them as result of such obvious structure. Their series of often very concise expressions have their own internal completeness, and could stand alone, without the need for the rest of the author’s work to understand them. Often, these passages will also contain vocabulary or expressions not used anywhere else by the author. Some scholars have even argued that some of these potential pre-literary traditions even contain theological points that are at odds with the author’s own. I will not go into that here, as outside our scope, plus I have already mentioned examples of this kind of thing previously, such as Luke’s citing of Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7, which may (or may not) have had a different view of what had happened to the law of Moses for Jews than the author.
Naturally, if Paul is quoting earlier sources, you’d expect them to relate to fairly core Christian beliefs. And such seems to be the case. But not only are they central to Christianity, but they are essential for understanding Christianity’s arguably most fundamental teaching: the nature of Jesus Christ—hence the relevance to our current discussion of how Jesus came to be considered God. A couple of these have been called Christological hymns, as in Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20.
I will not repeat Ehrman and Dunn’s analyses of which expressions from the following passages are not found anywhere else in Paul. If secular scholars are conceding that these are earlier than Paul, then that is as far as my demonstration need go for now. Let us now delve into some examples.
One possibly appears in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, in the middle of Paul’s discussion of how the dead are raised. Paul pauses to state the following core beliefs about Christ’s greatest work on Earth, using Christ’s resurrection as an example to understand how people are raised. He even says this was something that he had received.[15] What follows are two sections of four expressions each which (mostly) parallel each other: A) Christ died B) for our sins C) in accordance with the Scriptures, and D) was buried; A’) Christ was raised B’) on the third day C’) in accordance with the Scriptures, and D’) was witnessed by Cephas (Peter).[16] So these lines “delivered” to Paul were one of the core beliefs of Christianity about the nature of the Messiah, and which would have seemed quite radical to the Jew of his day who were waiting on that Messiah. It was a hard line to sell, as evinced by success rates from the sermons in Acts, but it was what made Christianity unique. And it would ultimately be the paradigm that would win and overwhelm the Earth. Eventually…and mostly. So Paul gives us a creed of the gospel. Let’s now turn to another passage that seems to be a quote, but which digs down into the nature of Christ’s divinity, because that was the other question that Christianity’s new revelation begged.
Another possible “pre-literary tradition” in Paul is found in Romans 1:3-4. In the opening of the theme of his letter, Paul is teaching the key concepts of the gospel, which is the power of God to save the men’s souls, the mystery finally revealed after being kept secret for long ages. Again, we find parallelism. Christ Jesus was descended from David “according to the flesh,” and was declared Son of God with power “according to the spirit.” Jesus’ exaltation is thus confirmed by earthly (including Scripture) and heavenly realms.
Note that these last two “preliterary traditions” have no indication just from these passages of any incarnation theology or pre-existence of Christ, only exaltation.[17] But they do confirm that the belief in Christ being son of God and highly exalted was quite early just by being in Paul; and if they precede Paul, then they could have gone all the way back to the earliest followers. However, the Christ hymns of Philippians 2 (an undisputed Pauline letter) and Colossians 1 mentioned above do in fact seem to maintain that Christ was pre-existent before his birth, the subject to which we now turn.
What in the World did Paul Believe about Jesus?
As I’ve already mentioned, Paul has quite a high view of Christ. He even often appears to combine incarnation and exaltation Christologies. Scholars such as James Dunn[18] have argued that Paul’s apparent incarnational Christology is not as certain as it appears. I leave the reader to decide. We’ve already mentioned the so-called Christ hymns of Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20, where Jesus empties himself of his divinity and assumes the form of mere human, and in whom all things were created. I Corinthians 15 speaks of the man from Heaven, though it’s focus is on the resurrection. Is Paul actually saying that Christ was pre-existent? Dunn argues that we cannot assume so, but I would also argue that we cannot necessarily assume the opposite, that this is necessarily evidence of a continuing development in Christology: maybe the author indeed held a view of Christ as pre-existent. And, as I’ve illustrated, that was a view that existed at least a few generations before Christ, at least among some Jews. To argue that it had to happened as late as, say, John ignores such clear “possible” evidence.
Preliterary tradition in John?
The prologue of John is of particular interest. Not only does it bear characteristics of a pre-literary tradition, it uses Greek philosophical terminology to describe Christ. But most notable for the preset discussion, the prologue of John sounds incredibly like Philo, who we’ve already noticed interwove Greek philosophical expression with thoroughly Jewish concepts.
“And the Father who created the universe has given to his chief messenger and most ancient Logos a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separated the creature from the Creator. And this same Logos is continually a suppliant to the Immortal on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. And the Word rejoices in the gift, and, exulting in it, announces it and boasts of it, saying, “And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and you…”
— “Who is Heir of Divine Things” 42.205-206, Philo
Philo, naturally enough, would have penned these words before his death somewhere between 45 and 50 CE. He is using hypostasis to speak of an attribute of God’s cosmos or even of God himself, the Logos, as if it were a separate entity, just as John does. He is also tying in several concepts found in the soteriological motifs of Hebrew Bible to the Logos, just as the New Testament authors do for Jesus.[19] It is highly unlikely based on the timeline that he was copying a Christian conception of the Logos. It is not completely impossible, however, though you’d think it was based on reading modern scholarship.[20]
However, my purpose is not to argue that something so unlikely could be the case. I want to merely point out that the most likely case—that Philo wrote well before John or even before any Christian conceptions of Jesus would have reached Philo—points to an interesting conclusion: the groundwork for a thoroughly Johannine Christology was already well laid within a thoroughly Jewish context. This is yet one more piece of evidence that the concepts necessary for Christ devotion to arise in a monotheistic, Jewish context were already present. Not only that, but the key conceptions for John’s supposedly late and highest Christology are already found in one of the greatest Jewish minds in the time of Jesus’ earliest followers, and quite possibly even before the crucifixion.
I think we’ve pretty well illustrated the evidence for Christ being considered divine from earliest days of the movement, and that it almost certainly arose without pagan influence within a Judaism itself. We now turn to what is the most important question of all: in what sense was Jesus considered divine among the earliest followers? To read about that, check out my book here.
[1] E.g., see The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, pp. 29-32.
[2] This is not merely based on the estimated date of composition of these letters so much as the analysis of the texts within them. Ehrman spends a great deal explaining why he believes some if not all of these passages are much earlier traditions that were borrowed by the authors, even when some of the doctrines in them were different from their own views. See chapters 6 and 7 of Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God.
[3] 1:4
[4] 1:10. It seems odd to me that scholars often say that Luke and Matthew “time” the declaration of Jesus becoming son of God at conception, when no such explicit statements are made in those books. Mark’s divine declaration of sonship at Jesus’ baptism was not even explicitly about timing. And Ehrman’s argument that the textual evidence supports a variant in Luke 3:22 is quite weak. The manuscripts that say “today I have begotten you” instead of “with you I am well pleased” are few and confined mainly to western ones of poor quality. Ironically, Ehrman’s argument for the “begotten” variant seems to be the sort of special pleading that religious institutions make to support certain doctrines, including this one! For a well-written article on the earliest and best evidences for the earliest rendering of Luke 3:22, see “Did Early Christians Change the Worlds to Luke 3:22?”, by Luke Wayne, at carm.org.
[5] Compare statements in only the first few verses of the first chapter, where the main theme is announced. Jesus was both involved in Creation and the exact imprint of God’s nature and even upholding the whole universe by the word of his power as God, while still “having become” exalted to the right hand of God when he was begotten by him.
[6] E.g., Galatians 4:4; Philippians 2:6-11
[7] In that same “tradition” in which I grew up, even the word “tradition” was always given a negative connotation as manmade (e.g., Matthew 15:3), but the Bible itself even calls prophetic instructions “traditions”, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6.
[8] E.g., Luke 1:2.
[9] The idea of a liturgy should also not be a repugnant idea to fundamentalist Protestants, as any order of worship is itself a liturgy, even if very informal.
[10] David Carr, in The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, actually has quite a few useful things to say regarding orality that can assist source criticism, and he tempers this with arguments that source critics cannot possibly know as much as they often claim about how texts were combined by earliest redactors, despite many source critics’ propensity to claim that they can. Apart from this nugget, some of his most useful and interesting observations are how orality has resulted in variants between parallel texts.
[11] Acts 7:38
[12] Of course, they could have contained these accounts simply because they actually happened; but scholars look for evidence of copying just as college professors do with their student’s papers: sometimes verbatim correspondence in the narrative, not just quotes of what Jesus said, can be a giveaway that one or more of the biblical authors were in fact copying from another source.
[13] Some scholars refer to these as pre-literary traditions as well. However, I want to confine our focus here to certain apparent quotes in Paul, which are a special case.
[14] For an expansion of this study, see Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, by James Dunn, 2nd ed.; and Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God, chapters 4 and 6.
[15] It is unclear here, though, whether he is saying it came from God (as in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26) or from the accepted beliefs of the church. Or both?
[16] Ehrman suggests that if Paul had known about the tradition of Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus, that he would have included it here, as it would have completed the parallelism in the first “D” above, having it correspond to Peter’s witness in the second “D” above; and Paul fails to mention the women. Maybe those traditions were in fact later. But I’ve examined elsewhere that he appears to be doing from Peter on through the rest of the witness list, which may be why he chose the structure that he did.
[17] For further study on this, see Dunn’s Christology in the Making, and Werner Kramer’s Christ, Lord, Son of God, especially pp. 108-11.
[18] Christology in the Making, James Dunn, 2nd ed. See especially the second part of the foreward.
[19] E.g., the concept of one who stands in the breech and advocates.
[20] E.g., From Jesus to Christ, by Paula Fredriksen, ch. 2.