Indeed, Protestant scholars tried to make exactly this sort of argument as they struggled to dislodge Greek thought from their form of Christianity (which is quite difficult given its influence is all over the NT and clearly in some OT books, such as the Wisdom of Solomon). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Can you provide some examples of that?

Martin Luther emphasized a direct witnessing of the words of scripture in place of the middlemen of Orthodoxy. That began a tradition of questioning the history of the text which led to scholars in Germany looking into the denouncement of heresies by the earliest voices of 'established canon' as not being the last word on the matter. In the 18nth century, Johann Salomo Semler is an important figure in that field of textual study. His work began the attempt to understand Marcion in the context of the Hellenistic matrix of his time. Church Fathers, such as Tertullian, wanted to appropriate the narrative of Judaism where Marcion wanted to separate the 'cruelty of the older testimony' from the 'purely good' message of the new. This meme has been repeated since then without need of a specific canon.

I don't want to pit my generalization against yours. This topic is a ground of sharp contention amongst scholars today. I put my request forward to understand what you have in mind when speaking of dislodging 'Greek thought from their form of Christianity."

That's right, and therefore claiming to be the messiah is not blasphemy. — Leontiskos

:up: There have been plenty of messianic claimants in Judaism, including some very colorful ones.

The view that Yahweh can be man is shared by no Jewish sect ever but I grant you that it is possible that his followers believed it.

Wouldn't Christianity be a prime example to the contrary? Jesus and all of the initial Apostles were Jews. Unless we're going to claim that all the earliest sources are not credible, in which case there is nothing to be said on the issue one way or the other. There were also Jewish Christians who nonetheless followed Jewish law into the fifth century. And there is Messianic Judaism today

The question then is whether the term 'divine' as it is used by Paul when preaching to the Gentiles and by the Greek speaking authors of the Gospels are claiming that Jesus is God or a god or rather of God.

St. Paul states in unambiguous terms that Christ existed from before the foundations of the cosmos and that Christ is the active agent in the creation and sustainment of the entire cosmos (e.g. Colossians 1). This is clearly different from being something like a Greek demigod/god or angel.

Likewise, the Gospel of John's opening lines include: "And the Logos (Christ) was God," when discussing the creation of the cosmos, and claims that all beings are created through Christ. Revelation is equally explicit.

Later arguments about subordinationism, modalism, filioque etc. rest on ambiguities in what would become the Christian canon, or at times on rejecting some of those texts and/or holding to rejected texts. But clearly the type of divinity is quite different from the deification of Roman Emperors. Roman Emperors were not the creators and sustainers of the cosmos.

As for the "Greek authors," the entire New Testament is in Greek.

To be clear, Ehrman's thesis is that only certain parts of the NT give us a view of what the "real earliest beliefs of the Church were," and that he has reconstructed them. He doesn't apply his thesis to the NT as a whole because this would be ridiculous. It also rests on claims that the texts in question were later edited. So it's a claim about the "original" texts as recovered by scholars, and about which texts represent "earlier views" (as opposed to merely different views). It also relies on contesting the authorship of the Epistles, which has always been a point of interest/contention, even going back to folks like Origen. It doesn't make any sense to apply this thesis to the NT as a whole.

And certain contentions like "the NT authors made Christ God specifically because they were upset that Roman pagans ranked their emperors higher than Jesus," represent arguments from psychoanalysis made about authors we know virtually nothing about.

He himself in interviews and proponents of his view conflate the fact that some of his premises have "scholarly consensus," and that he is indeed a "respected scholar," with the idea that his speculative claims to have accurately reconstructed the views of the Apostles for a certain date range (a date range for which we have absolutely no sources) are also "scholarly consensus." But per his own reckoning, not one single word written by a Disciple has come down to us. But no one wants to buy a book that says "it's impossible to know," or one that says "this is speculation that is highly unlikely to be correct in all its details..."



John M. Frame's "A History of Western Philosophy and Theology," is a fine example of such a view. Frame is "unapologetically Reformed," as positive reviews put it. And this shows in things like him dismissing the whole of the Christian mystical tradition and the idea of divine union or theosis as "unbiblical" a term he uses even for writers who quote Scripture virtually every line. Obviously, the idea isn't that folks like St. Bernard of Clairvaux don't use the Bible. It's that they lost the original (correct) understanding of the Bible under the influence of Platonism, Stoicism, etc.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying if you think this is "controversial" because this isn't an accusation from the outside (although Catholics do bring it up, e.g. the Regensburg Address), but something Protestant authors are happy to put forth as a worthwhile goal: the recovery of the Christianity of the "early Church" (where this specifically means the Church of the first century or so, not necessarily the Church Fathers of the first five centuries, since the Patristics are very heavily influenced by classical philosophy).

Any treatment of the Reformation will include the anti-rationalism/anti-metaphysical trends and the reaction against classical metaphysics and its further evolution in scholasticism I imagine. They aren't small threads.

MacCulloch's "The Reformation" is one of my favorite surveys of the era. Durant's "The Reformation," isn't the best history, but since he focuses on ideas he has some pretty good coverage of stuff like the letters exchanged between Luther and Erasmus (which touch directly on this issue. Erasmus claims that predestination would cause us to suppose that God is evil, Luther counters with the claim that human reason is too corrupted to know true goodness, setting up an equivocity between the goodness of God and goodness as known and experienced by man that will become very pronounced in wholly voluntarist theology along the lines of "whatever is good is good simply in virtue of the fact that God wills it.")

Or, if you've spent any time in American Evangelical churches, you could just consider the view of first century Jews common there, something like universal literacy, memorization of the Scriptures, and obviously knowing them in Hebrew (which of course meant they spoke Hebrew). It's an image of the focus on the individual study of Scripture so important in these churches today, and it comes across in media depictions, e.g. in the Chosen the Apostles are literate, have memorized large sections of Scripture, etc. What is to be "recovered" as an ideal has to fit the ideal.

There are even helpful memes to poke fun at this https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fp0XQtsWcAMRJK1.jpg

St. Paul states in unambiguous terms that Christ existed from before the foundations of the cosmos — Count Timothy von Icarus

To be more precise, he is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation. This is hardly unambiguous. As the image of God he is not God. If he is first-born he is not the creator. Through him and in him differs from 1 Corinthians 8:6 where a distinction is made between God from whom all things came and Christ through whom all things came. The NIV translation has "firstborn over all creation". Young's Literal Translation has of all creation. RSV also has of all creation. If he is "of creation" he is created. If he is "over all creation" he is still firstborn, that is, created.

The Gospel of John is markedly different from the synoptic gospels and the writings of Paul. Nowhere in those gospels does Jesus call himself God. In addition, John begins:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

How is it that the word could both be with God and be God?

With "in the beginning" what John says would have sounded familiar to Jesus and his disciples, but in the Genesis account God the creator stands apart from His creation. If John was aware of this difference he presents a brilliant rhetorical piece of writing. The word of God as opposed to the Word shifts the voice of authority.

In John Jesus defends himself by saying:

Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are ‘gods’’
(10:34-36)

He is most likely referring to Psalms 82:6-7:

‘I said, ‘You are ‘gods’; you are all sons of the Most High.’ But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.’

John leaves out the second part. If Jesus understood himself to be a son of God in this sense then he is not the one unique Son". And, of course, those who die like mere mortals are mere mortals. Jesus goes on to say, according to John, that he does the work of his father. (10:37-38) Does he do the work of his father or is he his father?

He goes on:

"I and the father are one"
(10:30)

this expression of unity can be taken to mean united together or one and the same. But the latter is at the expense of ignoring the distinctions between him and the father that he repeatedly makes. It is only when his words are heard with foreign ears that his words come to take on a very different meaning. A pagan meaning where the distinction between man and God is obliterated.

As for the "Greek authors," the entire New Testament is in Greek. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. That is the point. They are not Jesus' Jewish disciples. If any of them were Jewish they still spoke to a gentile audience with gentile ears, that is, with gentile and/or pagan beliefs and understanding.

But per his own reckoning, not one single word written by a Disciple has come down to us. But no one wants to buy a book that says "it's impossible to know," — Count Timothy von Icarus

Do you agree that it is impossible to know? If so, then it is true that whatever might have been written or told by a disciple has not come down to us because we cannot know that this or that was said or written by one of his disciples.

We do not know what Jesus said or taught. Between Jesus and the Gospels stand many voices. The voice of Paul stands out not only in his own writings but that of other Gospels. But Paul never saw or heard Jesus speak. He relies first and foremost on his own vision. A pious view of this is that he was witnessing the indwelling of spirit. That he was inspired. One problem with this is that the Church Fathers sought to destroy the writings of others with similar experiences. There were other voices that were silenced by the Church Fathers. Voices that if they were heard might give us a very different understanding of Christianity. We might ask: by what authority did they take this upon themselves?

To be more precise, he is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation.

Yes, and I assume in copying that line you actually finished the sentence, which continues: "for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also the head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything."

These are not statements that apply to angles or even Zeus. Christ is God "manifest in flesh," (1 Timothy 3:16), etc.

John leaves out the second part. If Jesus understood himself to be a son of God in this sense then he is not the one unique Son"

It is readily apparent that the "Son" is not one son among many in John.

For example, the prayer in John 17: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son so he can give glory back to you. For you have given him authority over everyone. He gives eternal life to each one you have given him. And this is the way to have eternal life—to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth. I brought glory to you here on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, bring me into the glory we shared before the world began."

There is a distinction between the sheep and the Good Shepherd, e.g. John 10 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me,[a] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.”

You are confirming my suspicion that you jump around texts looking for whatever lines support your fancy without actually reading them.

Yes. That is the point. They are not Jesus' Jewish disciples. If any of them were Jewish they still spoke to a gentile audience with gentile ears, that is, with gentile and/or pagan beliefs and understanding.

It really isn't. Jews spoke Greek and wrote in Greek. The Septuagint was motivated by the fact that they increasingly only wrote and read Greek. That the NT is in Greek says very little about the authorship of its contents.

But you can consult scholarship on this point to see that the claim that the entire NT (including, say James) was written by gentiles for gentiles, that Paul was a gentle, etc. is not even a fringe position. Nor is it in any sense definitive that none of the epistles attributed to Jesus disciples were written by them. I have no idea where you are getting this certitude.

We do not know what Jesus said or taught. Between Jesus and the Gospels stand many voices

Well no, this is also overreaching. You keep using the lack of definitive evidence as an excuse to make definitive claims. If Peter wrote either First or Second Peter then we have a direct account from someone who lived with Jesus for years, etc. Likewise for the quotations of Jesus. It is entirely plausible that they are direct citations of Jesus himself or direct quotes of people who knew Jesus (indeed, this is at least scholarly consensus on the origin of the quotes in the Synoptic Gospels). It's impossible to confirm either way however, you could just as well claim Jesus, Peter, etc. all never existed (indeed, this is a popular thesis to sell books).

These are not statements that apply to angles or even Zeus. — Count Timothy von Icarus

When was John written? Does it reflect the beliefs found in the synoptic gospels? We cannot say what Jesus would have said, but can this be squared with Jesus recitation of the Shema and calling it the first of our commandments? (Mark 12:29)

1 Timothy 3:16) — Count Timothy von Icarus

The authorship is in dispute. I think the emphasis on false doctrines and trustworthy saying is significant . It seems likely that whenever it was written there were different teachings vying for authenticity. Is the fact this this one made the canonical cut and others did not indicative of more than the preferences of the collectors?

What does it mean to manifest? This too is open to dispute. To manifest is to show, appear, or be seen. This is not the same as for God to be in the flesh.

It is readily apparent that the "Son" is not one son among many in John. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree. John appropriates the passage from Psalms for for own ends. It is readily apparent that in Psalms there is not just one son. This raises the question of authority. Is Psalms authoritative or John? It seems far more likely that Jesus would come down on the side of Psalms.

There is a distinction between the sheep and the Good Shepherd — Count Timothy von Icarus

There is also the distinction between father and son in this passage.

The Septuagint was motivated by the fact that they increasingly only wrote and read Greek. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is true, but:

There exists a consensus among scholars that the language of Jesus and his disciples was Aramaic.

(Language of Jesus)

and provides references. In addition to the question of language there is the question of culture. An audience not familiar with Jewish Law and teachings may not hear a term such as 'son' in the way it is used in the Hebrew Bible even if they are reading in Greek translation.

,,, that Paul was a gentle, — Count Timothy von Icarus

I did not say that Paul was a gentile, but that he spoke to a gentile audience. Paul himself, as you probably know, confirms this.

Nor is it in any sense definitive that none of the epistles attributed to Jesus disciples were written by them. I have no idea where you are getting this certitude. — Count Timothy von Icarus

My certitude is not so great that it will hold in the face of evidence to the contrary. Do you have such evidence? Which Gospel or which part of the Gospel? Do you reject the source theory such as Q source?

Well no, this is also overreaching. You keep using the lack of definitive evidence as an excuse to make definitive claims. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If we cannot distinguish between what Jesus actually said and what is attributed to him that is because of the stories and claims that stands between them. Or do you have a way of making that distinction?

Can you provide some examples of that? — Paine

The basis is referred to as the Hellenization Thesis, often traced to Adolf von Harnack, but it also has earlier antecedents in many anti-philosophical approaches to Christianity. You could think of three camps: Christianity was strongly Hellenized, and it was bad; Christianity was strongly Hellenized, and it was good; Christianity was not strongly Hellenized.

These are not statements that apply to angles or even Zeus. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up:

Paul literally has the Son creating the spiritual powers here in Colossians 1, namely the other "divinities" that some in this thread are identifying with Jesus.

There were also Jewish Christians who nonetheless followed Jewish law into the fifth century. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Of which Jerome wrote "Desiring to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither the one nor the other."

When asking you my question, I was focusing upon the conflicts amongst Jesus followers about what had or had not happened. What we can establish through surviving texts is, as you have noted yourself, limited. The reference made to one of the founders of textual analysis was not meant tot authorize him as a theological spokesperson.

I need to ponder the matter before addressing the theology expressed there to speak to the issues that concern you.

John M. Frame's "A History of Western Philosophy and Theology," is a fine example of such a view. Frame is "unapologetically Reformed," as positive reviews put it. And this shows in things like him dismissing the whole of the Christian mystical tradition and the idea of divine union or theosis as "unbiblical" a term he uses even for writers who quote Scripture virtually every line. Obviously, the idea isn't that folks like St. Bernard of Clairvaux don't use the Bible. It's that they lost the original (correct) understanding of the Bible under the influence of Platonism, Stoicism, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That’s an interesting point. I’ve read a little of Father Andrew Louth’s ‘Christian Mysticism: An Introduction to the Tradition*. Father Louth addresses the tension between the Greek philosophical tradition ('Athens') and Hebrew scripture ('Jerusalem'). He discusses how this tension was historically expressed, particularly in how Greek philosophy influenced early Christian theological development, especially in medieval (and later) mysticism. He discusses how certain strands of Christianity, especially within the Reformed tradition, were more skeptical or even hostile towards mysticism, often because of its perceived connection to Platonic or Neoplatonic ideas, which were seen as too speculative or incompatible with a more scripture-centered faith. ‘What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?’, as Tertullian put it. He was a forerunner to the ‘sola scriptura’ polemics. Likewise I recall that Luther expressed antagonism towards aspects of Aquinas’ theology on account of the latter’s advocacy of Aristotle’s philosophy, which Luther saw as pagan.

Myself, I’ve always felt that, on the contrary, the mystical facets of Christianity were those most relevant in our (or any) day and age. Hence I feel much more drawn to some elements of Catholic and Orthodox faiths as far as their philosophy is concerned. And many of the more recent Christian philosophers I admire, such as David Bentley Hart, Evelyn Underhill, Dean Inge, et al, are nearer in spirit to the Greeks and the mystics than to the fire and brimstone Protestants.

The matter of whether and to what degree the Jewish world was Hellenized before Jesus does not bear upon the different expectations of what the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven would bring about. The centrality of Zion expressed in Isaiah, the purification of the temple emphasized by the Essenes, point to an end of oppression and a punishment of sinners. The following language expresses the change:

Enoch 45:1 Parable the second, respecting these who deny the name of the habitation of the holy ones, and of the Lord of spirits.

Enoch 45:2 Heaven they shall not ascend, nor shall they come on the earth. This shall be the portion of sinners, who deny the name of the Lord of spirits, and who are thus reserved for the day of punishment and of affliction.

Enoch 45:3 In that day shall the Elect One sit upon a throne of glory; and shall choose their conditions and countless habitations, while their spirits within them shall be strengthened, when they behold my Elect One, for those who have fled for protection to my holy and glorious name.

Enoch 45:4 In that day I will cause my Elect One to dwell in the midst of them; will change the face of heaven; will bless it and illuminate it forever.

Enoch 45:5 I will also change the face of the earth, will bless it; and cause those whom I have elected to dwell upon it. But those who have committed sin and iniquity shall not inhabit it, for I have marked their proceedings. My righteous ones will I satisfy with peace, placing them before me; but the condemnation of sinners shall draw near, that I may destroy them from the face of the earth. — Book of Enoch, translated by Laurence

Whatever status Jesus might have as a divinity, his death did not bring about the expectations of many. How to respond to this obviously led different groups to think about the tradition in different ways. Some of Paul's writing speak of the imminent arrival of the new world. He also gives an explanation of how the tradition needed to be replaced by the new life.

It is in that context that I am interested in Marcion who wanted to separate the creator of tradition from the gentle lord of the Savior. It can be noted that Maricon was clearly more 'Hellenized' than the followers of the Torah in Jerusalem. One does not have to purge all traces of 'Greekness' from those followers for the difference to be significant.

A similar condition applies to the earliest gnostic materials. Some are drawn from Greek ideas, some from other sources. There still is a tension between traditional life and visions of apocalypse. The desire to change a world of brutal power such as the Romans deployed remained a goal for Gnostics centuries later.

My impression of Marcion is pretty negative and I'm glad his ideas were declared heretical.

Severing the God of the OT from Jesus seems to me both anti-Jewish and historically/theologically dishonest. It's anti-Jewish for obvious reasons: It makes out the Jews to be worshipping a deficient God. It's historically/theologically dishonest because who was the Jewish Jesus praying to in the gospels? Whose words/commandments is he quoting in the gospels to espouse his theology to his followers? From a Christian perspective, I don't know how Christians are to understand their own spiritual history or understand who Jesus was without the guidance of the God of the OT and his prophets. The idea of the messiah is spoken by the Old Testament God to David on David's deathbed.

I share your view of negativity. There is a measure of his message in the anti-Semitic fury of Martin Luther.

The path of Marcion is murky and mostly told by his enemies. The narrative of Jesus being condemned by other Jews is one of the themes strongly developed by the Church Fathers and development of the Gospels. I wish that more light could be thrown on the first groups. The Fathers clearly had something to do with that darkness and the impending reign of intolerance.

If we cannot distinguish between what Jesus actually said and what is attributed to him that is because of the stories and claims that stands between them

This is simply an invalid inference. That there is not evidence available to confirm that a message has been transmitted faithfully is not evidence that a message hasn't been transmitted faithfully.

There is a difference between being unable to distinguish between what he actually said and what has been attributed to him and the claim that a message has or has not been transmitted faithfully.

Sure, no "true Jew" has ever thought God became man in the very same sense that no "true Scotsman" has ever told a lie.



Right, that was exactly my point. The answer to question one does not entail any specific answer to question two.

Do you mean the question of whether Peter wrote First or Second Peter and your answer that if he did then we have a direct account from someone who lived with Jesus for years, etc? If he did then the rest follows, but we do not know if he did.If we cannot answer the question then we do not know if what is said in those writings is what Jesus or Peter said. We do not know what Jesus said or taught.

Most scholars today conclude that Peter the Apostle was the author of neither of the two epistles that are attributed to him.

(Wikipedia, "Authorship of the Petrine epistles", with note to twelve different scholars).

At best, suggestive, but certainly not reliable evidence of what Jesus and/or Peter or his other disciples believed and taught.

There have been messianic movements in Judaism. Amy-Jill Levine speculates that Jews may have been praying to or through Jesus. I don't think we'll ever know for sure. I can't even fully determine whether he kept kosher. For Paul it all hangs on the resurrection.

Luther said some nasty things about Jews and Catholics but he did use the Hebrew Bible as the basis for his translations and clearly had some knowledge of Judaism that he used to demarcate from Christianity. Within the nastiness emerges some truth. I noticed some theological overlap with Jewish tradition in his writings. He makes some sharp inferences. I am of a very split mind about him.

Yes, the anti-Judaism in the gospels is something all Christians must wrestle with.

Yes, the anti-Judaism in the gospels is something all Christians must wrestle with. — BitconnectCarlos

Anti Judaism? Where?

Maybe the better term for the purposes of studying early text is 'supersessionism'. Documents like the Epistle to the Hebrews emphasize that the new message has gone beyond the old. That has stirred a lot of controversy over whether that means the covenant has changed from one "people" to another. That became a set doctrine later but it is difficult to confine the full purpose of the initial writing to that interpretation because the views being objected to by the writer were not held by all observant followers of the Torah. The original arguments between different witnesses (before the death) seem to have carried on after the death of Jesus in different ways. The more I find out about that side of it makes me more curious and less certain of what went down.

When the 'Christians' began to talk about themselves as a "people", that is when others could become others. Not a process unique to any time, as far as I can reckon.

It is in that context that I am interested in Marcion who wanted to separate the creator of tradition from the gentle lord of the Savior. It can be noted that Maricon was clearly more 'Hellenized' than the followers of the Torah in Jerusalem. One does not have to purge all traces of 'Greekness' from those followers for the difference to be significant.

A similar condition applies to the earliest gnostic materials. Some are drawn from Greek ideas, some from other sources. There still is a tension between traditional life and visions of apocalypse. The desire to change a world of brutal power such as the Romans deployed remained a goal for Gnostics centuries later. — Paine

Ah, so your response to Count Timothy had to do with Marcionism or Gnosticism? I think this could make for an interesting thread.

You're like the fish who asks: "water? what water?"

You're like the fish who asks: "water? what water?" — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Consider reading your bible again but this time pretend that you're a Jew.

Consider reading your bible again but this time pretend that you're a Jew. — BitconnectCarlos

I'll say it again. You don't know what you're talking about.

No need to get mad.

I don't think Marcion was involved in the vivid imagination of different agents of creation as drawn out by many Gnostics. Both, however, have an inheritance from Greek tradition. Hesiod's Theogony is a genealogy of the gods. The world changes as a result of their generation. Timaeus tells a story about the Demiurge. Scholarship points in many directions as to how this Builder could be seen as demonic. The emphasis on self-knowledge is woven from many sources beyond the instruction given at Delphi. Adding an -ism to the term makes it more unitary than evidence permits.

In terms of the contrast I am making in my post, both of these points of views are pushed to the side in Mark 12:29:

And one of the scholars approached when he heard them arguing, and because he saw how skillfully Jesus answered them, he asked: of all the Commandments, which is the most important?"

Jesus answered: "The first is, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord, and you are to love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and with all your energy.' The second is this: 'You are to love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." — The Complete Gospels, edited by Robert Miller

Sure, no "true Jew" has ever thought God became man in the very same sense that no "true Scotsman" has ever told a lie. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, Jews have the word of their Scriptures.

I will not carry out my fierce anger,
nor will I devastate Ephraim again.
For I am God, and not a man—
the Holy One among you.

Hosea 11:9